Hello, Alwpoe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --ShelfSkewedTalk20:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for working to improve the biographies of authors of children's and young-adult literature. But before you continue, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, in particular the style guidelines for biographies at MoS:BIO. Many of your changes, such as those to Sharon Creech, have undone information presented according the Manual of Style and have removed existing Wikilinks. I hope you stay and continue to make those biographies better--many of those articles are in need of a great deal of improvement. Regards --ShelfSkewedTalk19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Jean Thesman. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. The templates exist for a reason. They need to remain until the problems they address are resolved. Valrith03:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Jean Thesman, you will be blocked from editing. Valrith19:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Valrith14:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - a report was filed to Administrator Intervention against Vandalism today, regarding your removal of maintenance tags from Jean Thesman. I declined to issue a block against you in this case today, but wanted you to know that I strongly encourage you to discuss on the article talk page prior to removal of maintenance tags again. They're there for a reason - to draw user attention to problems with the articles, so that we can have the best possible article. When you remove them, you could be hindering that process.
Funny you should mention the this, because that's the one I had the most trouble with--and you're right: I got it wrong. For some reason, I thought it was an article, but it's actually an adjective, adverb, or pronoun. As for the rest: The first and last words are always capitalized, and so is everything in betweeen except for articles (a, an, the), prepositions (in, on, of, from, etc.), and conjunctions (and, but, if, etc.). The Wikipedia guidelines are even more specific, stating that only prepositions and conjunctions with fewer than five letters should be lowercase (so above, for example, would be capitalized). Anyway, thanks for catching that mistake. Off to fix it now... --ShelfSkewedTalk03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Plot" vs. "Plot Summary" and "Notes" vs. "Footnotes"
Thanks for your comments. The Novels WikiProject standard article format is to have a "Plot introduction" i.e. one that is "spoiler" free, leaving a "Plot summary" for a more (slightly more) comprehensive treatment of the plot which may contain spoilers. The notion behind this is to enable a causal reader to taste the flavour of the plot without spoiling the possible experience. Otherwise I would totally agree with you. On the "Notes" front, whilst I see the point, numbers of editors write "Notes" which are clearly just that and are comments unassociated directly with points in the main text of the article. As you say footnotes are a more formal notational form which forward and back-reference to points in the text, which is what they do. I personally believe they are also a more scholarly term for something like an encyclopedia. Just my two penny worth. Cheers :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk)07:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Elizabeth and Mary I are half sisters. Anne Boleyn never commited incest or adultery. That was simply a tanact used by Henry so he could marry someone else. You probably should do more research on the subject. Warriormartin (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, come on. Stop your childish behaviour on this article. There is a consensus on initials in people's names. That's why the D. H. Lawrence article is named the way it is. You may also have noticed that there is a three-revert rule. You can answer here, I'm watching.LarRan (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through the Manual of Style and not found any rule about this. As far as "consensus", that seems only anecdotal on your part. If you Google this issue in manuals of style, you will find that different ones come down on different sides. I think literary tradition is on the side of no space. As far as "childish", it is childish to make these changes without clear motivation. Thank your for your input though.
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by edit-warring at Beware, Princess Elizabeth, for a period of 24 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. DrKiernan (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
My reversions were to reinstate valuable information that was removed by biased editors. The statement on the page for Beware, Princess Elizabeth presents the crucial plot point to the novels concerning the question of Elizabeth's parentage. I was not nor was the novelist making an argument one way or the other, only that there was a difference of views and that the novels use this in their plots. Removing that information was done solely on the dogmatic basis that there can be no dispute or discussion of Elizabeth's parentage; it was made by at least one editor who admitted not having read the novels. And on what legitimate basis can someone object to a statement "depending on whose account is valid" concerning any point of 500-year-old history? This close-minded attitude is, I think, contrary to the open and fair nature of Wikipedia.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
My reverts were made to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. However, in the future, I will make appeals to administrators against those I feel are vandalising valid information. Thank you.
Decline reason:
This is not a case of vandalism by the other editors; it is a content dispute. You are expected to try to persuade the other editors, and if you don't succeed in changing their minds, leave it be. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
So, you've got some good reading to do for the next 24hrs, ensuring that you actually can find the help when you need it. Be happy it's only a day. (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Beware, Princess Elizabeth. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beware, Princess Elizabeth. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Beware, Princess Elizabeth. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --DiannaaTALK05:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm glad you're participating in the discussions now, I know that wikipedia can be trying at times, but keeping a cool head always helps.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with how AFD works (and forgive me if you are and already know this), so I'll point out that if you'd like the Beware, Princess Elizabeth to stay as an article, rather than be merged into the series, you should vote Keep. It not really a vote, since the goal is consensus and conformance to wikipedia guidelines. It is also, I think, a good idea to stick entirely to the narrow points, especially in the afd but also in general discussion, rather than letting the discussion widen to questions of the accuracy of history in general. I'm not sure if this work is notable in its own right, but I have found a few decent if short reviews, so we'll see. Do please check my work, as I've not read the book. I hope this all helps, --Nuujinn (talk)10:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Danny Meadow Mouse until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Jean Thesman. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. The templates exist for a reason. They need to remain until the problems they address are resolved. Valrith 03:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jean Thesman. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Valrith 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Jean Thesman, you will be blocked from editing. Valrith 19:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Beware, Princess Elizabeth. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Diannaa TALK 05:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
