User talk:Sleeper141

Wikipedia Policy

Hi there, I've noticed that you have made some substantial additions to the West Bergholt wikipage recently. I keep an active eye on this page because of my interest as webmaster for the parish council. Because of my knowledge of the village website I am conscious that the changes you have made are substantially a cut-and-paste of material from the village site which goes against Wikipedia policy - the advice of an Admin I requested is follows "Yes, although a couple of lines of salient information could be quoted (with appropriate speech marks, etc.) the bulk of a copy and paste should be substituted by a link to the website. The content might be rewritten, and a link provided, but it would be difficult to sidestep plagiarism." I assume you believe the material is relevant in which case would you please consider replacing it with a précis and a link back to the village website instead. Thanks DaveK@BTC (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my page. I had no issue with pictures although was concerned with the similarity of headings and content. Reading deeper now there remains a concern about original research which is not welcomed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is intended to be a repository of facts that are supported by authoritative external reference. Are you in touch with the village History Society? Many of the facts you quote (most notably the section on enclosure) has no citation to verify and it might be helpful to provide the details of original research on the village website (or some other reputable website or publicly available publication) through the History Society (or in some other reputable website or publicly available publication) and then summarised on Wiki referring to the external source as the citation. DaveK@BTC (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed pleased that somebody is taking an interest in WB being fully and accurately depicted on the internet and Wikipedia. I have an interest to help West Bergholt promote itself through the Internet and hence the more traffic passing through the village website where the viewer becomes exposed to other aspects of the village the better. I am also, in parallel, a keen advocate of Wikipedia becoming a trusted source for which reliable and authoritative sources are important. In an ideal world, reputable authors (as I take you to be), would publish their primary research somewhere that is trusted as being authoritative and can then be referenced for an encyclopoedic interpretation in Wikipedia. In this scenario there is a win-win where trusted author publishes on a trustable site and becomes referenced on Wikipedia. DaveK@BTC (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

The problem here [1] came from Template:Sv, which has now been fixed. The reference itself is fine. Would you be willing to restore it? I think I'm bordering on WP:3RR, so I didn't want to just undo your edit. Khazar2 (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Diamond Lights for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diamond Lights is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Lights until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]