User talk:Clark42

Hi Clark42. I've replied to your post at Talk:Blood libel against Jews#Adding a link - thanks for bringing it up. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! Here are a few links that might be useful - if you have any questions feel free to drop by my talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Clark42, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Olaf Davis (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clark. I just got your message on my talk page, rather late I'm afraid. But not as late as you saw my message to you so, er, I win?
Anyway, WereSpielChequers has answered it perfectly so there's nothing for me to add, but I thought I'd just drop by and say happy editing. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Usmanov, etc

Thanks for your note on my talk page.

1. Re e-mail, the link is under "toolbox" which appears on the left side when looking at a user: or user talk: page. But, bear in mind that I mean what I say at the top of my talk page. Discussions about Wikipedia are much better held in the open (a particular problem in the Israel-Palestine area), and you have to have a very good reason for using e-mail: copyright is one; another might be where revealing someone's identity would result in violent retaliation against that individual or his/her family. Apart from such compelling exceptions, keep discussion open!

2. You can request page protection at WP:RFPP. Do read carefully the instructions at the top. However, I doubt whether this is the best approach at this stage, as it's basically intended for persistent vandalism, or for putting a stop to an edit war. If you can show that IP editors are persistently violating wiki rules, then your request has more chance of success.

3. To get anywhere on Wikipedia, you need to be very familiar with rules on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and verification WP:V. In particular, blogs are not considered reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of their authors (with only a few exceptions). The best sources are academic books and peer-reviewd journals. They also, of course, have the advantage of being less influenced by the anti-antiwar bias that infests the mainstream media, which are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia.

4. If you are having problems on an article, it is generally best to discuss it first on the article talk page.

I think it is in order to report what CM says on his blog, that he says he's invited xxx to sue him for libel and that no one has done so, as long as it's correctly attributed. Note, though: the fact he hasn't been sued does not make his blog ipso facto a reliable source for Wikipedia. Sources such as Amnesty International and HRW reports are good, as long as they're attributed. It always pays to know your sources thoroughly, and never misrepresent what a source says.

--NSH001 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and the advice; I did intend to abide by those principles. I did take seriously your warning about the use of e-mail; I was only going to draw your attention to the note on your talk page, in case your talk page wasn't set to notify you automatically Clark42 (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your query on the BLP board, if you want to tag an article for neutrality, see {{POV}}, but read the instructions there very carefully. Note especially the need to explain on the article talk page the reason why the article is not neutral. In my view, you should do this before posting such a tag on the article. (Come to think of it, I can't recall a recent instance where I've added such a tag). --NSH001 (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the material is already there, in older versions. Look at the NPOV Noticeboard to see some examples diffs of properly sourced material that has been removed. Is "revert" an easy way to restore it, or does that undo +all+ subsequent changes? Sorry, I'm confused as to how Wikipedia works! Clark42 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" - so if you see something wrong with an article, fix it yourself! That's basically how wiki is meant to work. If someone reverses or alters your work in a way you disagree with, then the first step is to discuss it on the article talk page. If that doesn't resolve the matter, then there are the various noticeboards to get outside help, some of which you've already been using. It helps to distinguish between the admin boards, which are there to deal with problematic editor behaviour, and the others which are there to deal with disputes, or to advise on, article content.
"revert" is just a generic term meaning to reverse another editor's work (and there are many ways of doing this). At the top of a diff page, or opposite each diff on a history page, you will see an "(undo)" link - clicking that will reverse that diff (and only that diff). If there have been many changes since that diff, this may not be possible, in which case the system will tell you so. There is a tool you can use called Twinkle to help perform reverts or to restore a previous version (and many other things) - see the link for how to use it. There is also a feature called rollback, which I like, as it's fast and computationally very efficient, but you need to satisfy certain conditions before being allowed to use it. Twinkle is quite good once you get used to it, but it's not very intuitive. Not to everybody's taste, but it's the easiest way of restoring a particular version (more than one edit old - "undo" is easier if there's only one diff involved).
--NSH001 (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should choose either my talk page or yours for discussion, to prevent fragmentation. You choose... Clark42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Generally I choose what I think is the most appropriate place for the particular case. So, for example, I posted basic advice here, where it's easily available for your reference. But if you prefer me to choose a single place, then here is better. --NSH001 (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NSH001, thanks; here, then. User Demiurge1000 has applied NPOV to the Alisher Usmanov article. Clark42 (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear accidents

Thank you for the note. I don't have the time to check, so it would be better if you went directly to a source from this article rather than through another. Going through another article leaves the current one in danger of being left unsourced if the donor article is removed, and leaves you open to queries about using Wikipedia as its own source. Britmax (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]