User talk:Kurgbe

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Kurgbe! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button

located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- LittleOldMe 16:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

October 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from SESAR Joint Undertaking. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. [1] See WP:SECONDARY and WP:GNG Widefox; talk 09:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "broken" refs

Hi, I just checked, and http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2007/10/18/bali-safe-haven-orangutans.html does exactly what I said it did. I'm not sure how you found it "broken", but if you do find a dead link or a broken ref, removing it isn't correct: you may tag it, or discuss it on an article's or a user's talk page. Further, a ref to a newspaper is valid even without a URL, since newspapers are printed and are accessible by microfiche in libraries, etc. It's also quite unhelpful to find things being removed while an article is being worked on. Many thanks for your understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring about self-published tag

Hi, look, this isn't really acceptable. I had already started a discussion on the talk page, and already (twice) invited you to join it. We KNOW there are self-published materials in the article; we know they are being disputed, as I said on the talk page and in edit comments, and we have documented in the article and on the talk page what needs to take place as the French carry out their public debate. Meanwhile, the article is, frankly, correctly and fully cited. It is normal, no, absolutely required, to document most notable people's life details, especially their early life, from their own accounts, because their history is very rarely talked about much by other authors until long after their deaths. Neago's CV is quite publicly described and widely quoted in the media, and whatever the current debate says, most of her life history is pretty well attested, and very unlikely all to be wrong. If she did indeed make up something, that will be a most striking fact to add to the article, but we don't know that yet. I really don't think that slapping a self-published tag on the article is justified, and your edit-warring about it without joining the discussion is not right. I'd be very glad if you stopped it, and started talking. I'll thank you in advance for your co-operation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CV removed; what else are you arguing about?

I have commented out the "early life" claims sourced only to her CV, awaiting verification of her story which we agree is being disputed. The rest of the biography is sourced to many other places (the CV having been removed as a source). Rather than claiming sweepingly that "many" sources or facts are doubtful, please state which ones, if any, you believe have this status, and explain why. You can do that here, or on the article's talk page, but it is simply no good making vague generalisations in edit comments. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mystified

I confess I am somewhat mystified both by your resurrecting your old arguments, none of which I think apply any longer. I am also bemused by the fact that you reverted my edit to the lead, which did nothing more than summarize the body of the article which is now reliably cited. We do not in general cite the lead when it does this, for the sufficient reason that the citations in the body demonstrate that the lead is verifiable. You have indeed restored a claim with which you actually disagree, namely that she was a professional conservationist - one that I don't think is true, did not claim in the revised lead, and don't wish to maintain.

So, why should we not summarize the lead here? - No reason at all, I suggest. Let's put the improved lead back. I'll even cite it, per exceptionem. If you want to change the article, please propose your changes on the talk page: do not, please, insert material that is not agreed, or material about French Wikipedia (it's not notable), or slap on tags that are not justified, or remove material that is already correctly cited. Thank you for your understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before undoing my changes please discuss it before here Kurgbe (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

You have plainly been notified above not to make changes without discussion, and you have ignored it, edit-warring your changes straight into the article. This is not acceptable and can get you blocked from editing.

However, in response to your "please discuss it here": sorry, but that isn't the procedure.

From here on, any changes can be discussed on the article's talk page. (That does not apply to vandalism, if there is any, nor to removal of cited text or citations themselves, which can be reverted without notice.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]