User talk:Piercetp

==Welcome== Hello Piercetp and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to be civil by following simple guidelines and signing your talk comments with ~~~~ but never forget that one of our central tenets is to ignore all rules.

If you want to learn more, Wikipedia:Tutorial is the place to go, but eventually the following links might also come in handy:
Help
FAQ
Glossary
Manual of Style

Float around until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. Additionally, the Community Portal offers a more structured way to become acquainted with the many great committees and groups that focus on specific tasks. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Wikipedia:Translation into English as well as the cleanup, welcoming, and counter-vandalism committees. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 02:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Draeco

Don't mind if I do look around.

I have been having lots of fun here already. I appreciate the fact that people are so civil here.

Piercetp

Tracking User Contributions

Yes, there are several ways to track the contributions of individual users. One is to navigate to their user page, whih is written with "User:" before their name (User:Draeco in my case). From there, you can click on the "User contributions" link in the second menu on the right-hand side of the page. This shows you all of the user's contributions in chronological order. You can also see a breakdown of users' editing behavior by going to interiot's or kate's tool and typing in a username; here is your breakdown for instance. Thanks for the question. - Draeco 02:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. And If I may ask, is there a way to report vandals and trolls?Piercetp

You bet, see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Vandalism for details. Arbusto 10:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Western

Hi, I noticed your involvement with KWU in academic life and editing on wikipedia. Wikipedia actually discourages users from editting articles they are personally invovled with.

Your recent changes, such as the adding/reverting to include "erroneously" [1] is POV. Wikipedia is not in a position to say it is not or it is a diploma mill. Thus, say what the school is according to critics and the school.

Also on the talk page you incorrectly said sources don't go in the body of the article. Yet, they do because they work as citations to back up a particular fact in a sentence. However, if you do not want a link in the body you can use the footnote template and put the link at the bottom with the corresponding footnote number in the sentence.

As for my recent changes there is a particular template for unaccredited schools and I modified the article accordingly.

Lastly, if you use four tildas in signing your name you will include the date with your signature, which makes it easier to tell who said what and when.

I just wanted to bring these to your attention. Happy editting. Arbusto 10:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your evenhandedness in this matter.

I will avoid editing the article but if you do not mind, I would like to contact you if I see any attempts by any parties to try to sabotage this article. That way a completely neutral party, which is what I presume you are, can determine if the change is worthy of edit.

I understand your points that you made. I do have one criticism though. The statement The Seattle Times noted in article that included Kennedy-Western that some believe Wyoming has "become a haven for diploma mills." is in the seceond paragraph. Wouldn't it be better to put this under the section "Controversy and criticism"? Just my own, admittedly biased opinion.Piercetp 16:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thought I would drop by and ask if you if you have seen the wiki article on WNU. Lots going on over there. I wondered why you stopped editing the article, but I guess you stopped because of the reasons that I encountered. Well, thought I would say hello and see what you were up to.Taylor W. 23:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I did look at it now and then. I guess I got too tired of editing and reediting it. Sometimes its necessary for one's sanity to give it a rest. Anyway, it seems like someone has stepped in and helped keep the article fair and ballanced. Piercetp 22:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifying

Hi Piercetp! Wikifying means making articles conform to the Wikipedia:Guide to layout and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It's things like providing links (like that) and bolding the person's name and putting their dates in the right way (1901-1910). All that kinda stuff! The tag isn't in anyway a warning or an insult to you - it's a suggestion that you might like to make the changes required, but if not the team who do clean-up will do it - the "wikify" tag adds the article to a list where someone will see it and get to work on it.

Take a look at the Wikipedia:Guide to layout and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style if you'd like: they're long documents but very interesting and there's always something good to be found in them. Hope this helps! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 20:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will do my best to fix the article. Format style is not my forte but somebody has to do it, right?

Increase the peace! Piercetp 20:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:conventions

Please be careful when naming new articles, especially in relation to Lowercase second and subsequent words. For example, your user page shows several breaches.
Please be aware of NPOV issues and country specific bias. For example, your article on Predatory mortgage lending is a clear breach of NPOV and is very US specific.

Regards, simonthebold 20:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inproper format perhaps. US Specific maybe, though it was not intentional. But how is that article not NPOV?Piercetp 00:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section in the main mortgage article in the apropriate position with a link to the article you started. Also, I've rewritten the first paragraph to adjust to NPOV. The article still needs work. If you compare the old and new version you will see change in style which I believe demonstrates a change to NPOV. simonthebold 08:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the revisions. You did do a good job of keeping the points intact while keeping NPOV. Good work. Piercetp 20:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subnational entities

Thank you, what a nice comment [2] -- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I know what it is like to have someone vandalize something you work hard to put together. Peace! Piercetp 22:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Personal Involvement

To the best of my knowledge, the "rule" against editing topics about which you are personally involved could only be found at WP:NPOV, under the Bias section here. There is no longer any mention of that rule; it must have been edited out some time ago. The WP:NPOV page is really dynamic, averaging several edits per day by a wide variety of users, and I don't have the time to search through the edit history to find it -- sorry, but I'm really busy right now.

In my opinion, that "rule" needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I think it originated from WP:AFD where counter-vandalism hawks were trying to curb endless non-notable articles written about bands/websites/individuals by their lead singers/webmasters/autobiographers. In practice, as long as you're a conscentious editor who practices NPOV, you should be able to edit any article, even perhaps your autobiography. To incriminate myself, I created and wrote most of the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce article even though I'm currently a student there, and I don't lose any sleep. - Draeco 15:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piercetp, your edits are in good faith and you have a good grasp on policy. Feel free to add to the Kennedy-Western and other articles. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Arbusto 06:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your confidence and kind words. Piercetp 06:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb template

Hi Piercetp. Saw your edits to Tetsuo. Did you know there is a template for IMDb titles? Jonathan F 19:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I guess I am a bit of a newby here. Thanks for telling me.Piercetp 06:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newbie too. Templates are here. Jonathan F 19:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie to Newbie

I have edited three of your articles today, to the extent that I added a category to them. You seem to have tried to do this in article Alexandr Hackenschmied but the syntax was wrong. Also your article spells his name differently than in the article Maya Deren, to which I have linked it. Hope this helps --Yendor1958 15:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see someone else interested in the subject. Thanks for the good work. Piercetp 00:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Chicago Bears

For your information, I speedy deleted the article 2005 Chicago Bears, which you created at about 09:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC), for the following reasons:

CSD A8: You directly copied and pasted a major portion of this article from http://www.bearshistory.com/seasons/1985chicagobears.aspx. Wikipedia regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites. Next time, please consider rewriting the paragraphs from that web page in your own words, and format the rosters and the salary data into a bulleted list or table using the wiki markup techniques listed on Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
CSD G3: On the surface, it seems like a joke or hoax article because you wrote, "The 2005 Chicago Bears were that years Super Bowl Champions for the NFL in the sport of American Football. Of course, the Bears did not win it all in 2005, but in 1985.

Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to be the 1985 Chicago Bears Piercetp 03:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Do not create articles after drinking. Piercetp 18:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Thirteen

Could you connect the Filthy Thirteen article to a certain war, like WWII perhaps? I'm not familiar with them, but as the article stands right now they sound like some perpetual part of the United States Army, and I don't think that's the meaning intended. - Draeco 00:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I will do what I can. Piercetp 04:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been flagged for a lack of inline citations. The only external link is to the book by Mr. Mcniece. I was curious if the book was the source of your interest in the subject or if you learned of the Filthy Thirteen through other sources? Thanks for whatever light you can shed on this interesting group. Tkech (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find other sources to add or edit the article with than please feel free. Piercetp (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V for Vendetta

Where did you read about the third party resolution? I'm very curious about this. --P-Chan 01:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Third opinion it was posted:

V for Vendetta page needs a third opinion regarding ambiguities in the V character's identity and, now, historical development outside the text. See Talk:V for Vendetta particularly under "The disclaimer" subsection. 01:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC). I decided I would check out what was going on here. Piercetp 02:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party

I can't locate the 2nd party in the dispute on Talk:Crimean War. Please read my message on the talk page. (Note: please keep all further messages on Talk:Crimean War. Eagle talk 05:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo

Ghirlandajo is already involved in a mediation. There have been numerous failed attempts to mediate with Ghirlandajo. There has already been an RFC filed against him at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo.

At this point I feel we have exhausted all our alternatives and I recommend you file a Request for Arbitration against him. I will be happy to assist you in this process should you choose to do so. (you can reply here, I'll watchlist you) Ideogram 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My disagreement with this user is not of a personal nature. Please understand that. But what I really want to have happen is to revise the article on the Crimean War. Since he/she is unwilling to come to an agreement than I have no choice but to bring a Request for Arbritation. If you can assist me in doing this, your support woule be most welcome. Thank you. Piercetp 01:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I did check Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-20 Crimean War It seems like User:Computerjoe is working on it. I think I will give this a day or so and if nothing comes out of it than I will bump it to a higher level. Anyway thanks for you support. Piercetp 01:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you only want to fix your article, you can try the mediation first (another mediator has already taken the case) and if that fails go to an article RfC and then if that fails (as it likely will) to an RFA focused on your article and only present evidence relevant to the editing of this article. If you want to take action against the user you can go directly to an RFA focused on the user due to the previous mediation attempts and RFC having failed to change his behaviour.

Either way I will be happy to help. Ideogram 01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Being a patient user who tries to be respectful of the protocol and culture of Wikipedia I think it would be best to give this a day or so. If it does not get resolved I will file a RFA. Piercetp 01:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience is a virtue. Ideogram 01:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must withdraw my recommendation that you file an RFAR against him. Apparently the situation is highly politically charged; he is much loved by the Russians on this site and filing an RFAR is likely to ignite a prolonged, bloody conflict between them and the Polish, the Germans, the Ukrainians, and many other groups that have historical grievances against the Russians. (watchlisted you) Ideogram 05:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

Hey, I'm mediating Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-20 Crimean war. I'm contacting all parties, feel free to make a comprimise and/or provide diffs. Computerjoe 's talk 18:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe. I really want someone to mention in the article on the Crimean war that 1) there was a connection between the defeat of the Impreial Russan forces and the emancipation of Russian serfs and 2) the war resulted in the abolition of sale of commissions by the King's Army in Britian. I provided factual documentation on these points. So far this was deleted twice and I am unable to revise this a third time. I was willing to allow some sort of comprimise but User:Ghirlandajo ignored all attempts to discuss this. Piercetp 01:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on the MedCab page? Computerjoe 's talk 07:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to get a response from the other party. Computerjoe 's talk 15:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Lets see if this works out. Looks like User:Ideogram reverted my comments. Hopefully they will stay there. If not I will be in touch. THanks. Piercetp 23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures?

You have mentioned on talk page Talk:Velvet Revolution, that you have own pictures for the article. It would be nice if you could upload them to commons: --Li-sung 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://s138.photobucket.com/albums/q257/AttackFerret/Velvet%20Revolution/?sc=6

I will post them in the commons in a bit. Please be patient. Piercetp 09:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality links

You asked if there were a definition of the term "low quality links", regarding external links. I don't know if there's a precise definition, but this wikipedia guideline article talks about the topic: Wikipedia:External_links --Xyzzyplugh 14:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark completely rocks

Since this is my own user talk I though I would take the opportunity to say that. I am not joking either. Everyone should go there! Piercetp 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came to your talk page because I read that, in the Freetown Christiania discussion page, you mentioned that you'd be visiting Denmark this summer and were going to find out by yourself the truth about that place. Well, what can you tell us? Did you have a chance to take a look at it? I'm actually quite intrigued by this semi-autonomous "state" within such an industrialized country, and well, I guess I'd just like to hear about it from a fellow engineer! -SaulPerdomo 08:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Chrisiania was kind of cool, but to be bruatlly honest, I liked the concept of an Anarchist state within a modern city more than the actual reality of it.

Christiania is kind of nice and cozy and the locals are rather kind to visitors. But I did not really like it that much after dark. Being a libertarian with somewhat enlightened views, I have nothing against people using drugs as long as they don't bug other people. But I myself do not use the stuff and generally like to stay clear of drug users.

I find it unfortunate that the main thing that Danes know about Christiania is "Pusher" street and not the free way of life chosen by its residents. For instance, there is a day care center in Christiania, as well as shops, a bicycle factory and a number of homes and residences for 800 people.Piercetp 10:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volapük

Hi Piercetp. I found your name on the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians on Meta, and thought that you might care about the issue discussed on the page: m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia enough to help us fight it with a vote. Thanks! Smeira 11:20, 3 jan 2008.

OK then. I will do that.Piercetp (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Central University

Hi, I just undid your link-fixing edit on the ACU page. Confusing as it sounds, the link you added is to a fake fake university - its a different diploma mill, and all its forms are directed to yet-another diploma mill. I posted some more details a long while back, now archived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Central_University/Archive_June_2008 (look for the 'acuniversity' stuff at the bottom of the page).

It appears that the 'real' ACU is finally defunct, hence the broken link. They're no longer listed as licensed by WY. I'm off to update the page. Bazzargh (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I did not check the link I guess. And you are right, it is pretty strange. If you are going to put a link to a fradulant service pretending to be a University, you should at least make it one to University with a better reputation. Piercetp (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Piercetp! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Judith Appelbaum - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2010 (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) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of National Association of Mortgage Brokers

The article National Association of Mortgage Brokers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable organization; can't find any independent coverage

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]