User talk:Artrobinson

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Oregon Petition, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Oregon Petition was changed by Artrobinson (c) (t) deleting 7979 characters on 2007-10-02T19:51:15+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot 19:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Artrobinson

A tag has been placed on Artrobinson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD g2.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Phgao 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Artrobinson, 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! William M. Connolley 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon petition

Hi. Re the oregon petition. Your edits got auto-reverted: this will usually happen if you delete large blocks of text. More: you should be aware of WP:AUTO, which you are likely to fall foul of. Your edits to OP didn't appear to me to be justified. But I was interested by In 2007, the article was revised and again published after peer review. You don't say where it was published - could you do that here? William M. Connolley 21:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I followed a link and found that the article was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 2007, Fall edition[1]. Sbowers3 20:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it may have been PR'd then, but if the peers were doctors, I can't see how that counts William M. Connolley 21:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a bit strange and that would be a valid criticism. I suspect it counts for something in that any review would at least check the article's references. Sbowers3 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To amplify on William M. Connolley's first remark: Wikipedia is vandalized thousands of times each day. There are vandals who delete entire articles or add thousands of characters of gibberish. To fight such vandals, a program known as a "bot" (or robot) searches for deletions or additions of more than one thousand characters. It then reverts such changes to the previous version. This fixes a lot of vandalism but sometimes reverts legitimate changes.

I recommend that you do several things:

Edit one section at a time. Your changes will be smaller and will not be reverted automatically.
If you add any material, be sure to include a citation to a reliable source.
If you delete substantial material, explain on Talk:Oregon Petition your reasons.

I glanced through the article and checked some of the references. I quickly found a statement that was not supported by its reference and I tagged that statement. There may be other statements that are not verifiable through their references. Such statements are subject to quick deletion but it is better practice to make note of such statements and give other editors time to improve the statement or the reference. Statements that are well-referenced generally should not be removed without discussion on the talk page.

The organization of the article I found a little confusing as to what was a factual description of the petition and what was opinion about the petition. I would favor adding a new section, Criticism of the petition, and moving material from the existing sections to that new section. In keeping with Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) you should not delete criticism but you could move it to the new section.

If you have any questions I would be glad to help. I may make some small edits along the way. Sbowers3 22:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]