User talk:Gsociology

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in articles will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Graham :) | Talk 07:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adding links to one's own site is generally prohibited, as they are very often spam. If your site is deserving of being linked I am sure that someone else will add them. - SimonP 22:29, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Edits to Social change article

Hi Gsociology. Thank you for your edits to Social change. Unfortunately they violated a couple of our policies and guidelines and I have had to revert them.

The text you copied you marked as having been "copied with permission". This does not satisfy our licensing requirements. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more on the how to use text copyrighted by others. Even if this concern is met (and it's possible it could be covered by fair use), the quote itself is not from a respected peer reviewed journal or book on the subject (at least that's the impression I get from reading the link you provided). As such it is inappropriate for us to use it in the article as our major definition of social change.

You also added several links to gsociology.icaap.org. I see that someone has already mentioned to you that adding your own site is considered inappropriate. Such self promotion (as you did here) violates our external links guidelines. Please suggest your site on the talk pages of other articles you believe it is useful for. Other editors can add the site if they agree with your assessment.

Although there is more latitude when adding links as references, your use of them in several cases (here and here) did not actually provide good verification of the facts being cited. You might read our conflict of interest guideline, as well as this article, which while not policy itself, does a reasonable job of explaining our verification and reliable sources requirements.

Good content in this subject area is very important, and your expertise in the area could be a great boon to Wikipedia. I hope this doesn't put you off editing. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I was writing the above when you left your message on my talk page. I hope the above answers questions about removal of your link. If not, please feel free to ask again. The edit summary of mine that you quote was not in relation to your site. In that edit I removed a different link that was to a directory of websites of organizations that consider themselves social change orgs. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You need to make your case on the article talk page.

A little bit of detail about talk pages - At the top of every article or user page you'll see a tab marked Discussion. This take you to what is known as the "talk page" for that article. When starting a new subject you should add a header to separate the subject you want to discuss from other comments on the page at the bottom (so subject are added chronologically from top to bottom - if pages get too long an experienced editor will archive old stuff). You create your header by putting two equals signs on either side of your discussion subject title. Like this:

== Recommend external resource http://gsociology.icaap.org ==

This gives a large bolded header like the one I added at the top of this page. Directly under that you write your message and sign (as you did on my talk page.

When responding you write below the message you are responding to without adding in a header. It helps if you indent your message by using a colon, :, at the start of each paragraph. More colons indents further. Take a look at what I've typed here to see this in practice. Hope this is useful. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to talk page post

Hi. You left this message on my talk page. I believe since our conversation above, the only change I made to the social change article was to fix the link to your site added by some one else. Are you referring to previous edits (and if so how is your point different from our previous conversation?)? I've been intermittently on WP over the past few days and may have missed things I'm normally aware of, or have forgotten something something I ought to have remembered, so if this is me being obtuse about something, please spell it our for me. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About social change

Have you tried citing the sources you used to create your own article in the Wikipedia article? That would avoid avoid the whole conflict of interest thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art and Social Change

The new section to the article on Art is a fine addition, however the article is about what used to be called the fine arts, and fashion design is not one of them. I have reverted the line about trashion, with a note that environmental issues need to be addressed with reverence to the many gallery and museum shows featuring recycled materials. There is one near me called Trash Talk that opens in April [1]. FigureArtist (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

5 Gyres, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

-- Wywin (talk | contribs) 15:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Please read WP:OVERLINKING, and avoid linking major geographical locations like London and the United States. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okay, no more countries, cities. I put an internal link to the United Nations. Is that okay?gsociology (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the United Nations sits more on a gray line. If the reference was to the FAO of the United Nations, then personally I'd link FAO but not the United Nations. If the reference was directly to the main assembly of the United Nations, I might link it. But this is borderline stuff where my opinion is no better than yours :) --Epipelagic (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to stick to linking to less well known organizations. gsociology (talk) 22:26, 26 March 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) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]