User talk:Hoping To Help

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hoping To Help! I am Sallicio and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 04:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Hoping To Help! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check outGetting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember tosign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Kingturtle (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page •upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions •Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view •No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not •Biographies of living persons Manual of Style •Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam• Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest •Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith •Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks •No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article •Manual of style Stubs • Categories •Disambiguation Pages needing attention •Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject •Translation Useful templates •Tools • User scripts

[Nuggets of Wisdom]

Hi, my name is Michael Parks and I am a student at FIU in Miami, Florida. My current college project involves me, and those who i find to help me, redo the "Bert Oliva" page. I was hoping that you could help because i see that you have helped out with Tony Robbins, and Bert Oliva is like the 'Latin' Tony Robbins...

Well I barely get all these wikipedia rules so if you could somehow help that would be greatly appreciated! The page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva

Thank you very much for all of your help! --Michaelparks (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your neutrality and patience at Proposition 8. I support your efforts for equality.  EJNOGARB  21:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to, I found the sources on a specific website, and I'll try to find them again shortly and bring it over. Zombieisland09 (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Civil Liberty vs. Civil Rights requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 20:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are planning to make an article, please tag it as "inuse" or add it ASAP. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The page has not been deleted, but moved to User:Hoping To Help/Civil Liberty vs. Civil Rights to allow you to continue working on it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that that's a normal slash, not a backslash. User:Hoping To Help\Civil Liberty vs. Civil Rights would be the main page for a user named "Hoping To Help\Civil Liberty vs. Civil Rights":) I copied the changes you made there to the proper-named page R'n'B mentioned and deleted the mis-named one. DMacks (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you have been one of a number of regular editors at the above article. I was its Good Article reviewer a few months back. In response to a recent proposal to split the article, I suggested it be edited down to a more manageable size and better readability rather than focussing on the split. I suggested the article was not particularly readable in its current form, and suffered from recentism amongst other things. I have just undertaken an edit attempting to implement my suggestion, in the hope that others might have a look and decide it is now in better shape. I hope you will agree. I am happy to discuss on the talk page obviously. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#User:Hoping_To_Help.2FRoman_Polanski. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hoping To Help/Roman Polanski, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hoping To Help/Roman Polanski and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Hoping To Help/Roman Polanski during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you make a comment questioning whether I have ownership issues with the article in question here. I have responded to you about this so I would appreciate it if you would read what I say and then strike your assuming bad faith against me. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that you were an editor of any particular article -- but merely that your reasoning went against the intent of WP policy. My contention is that stopping a rewrite of an article from happening because of concerns that "there are active editors there who will probably not be too happy to have all their work redone in this fashion" -- is a violation of the intent behind WP:OWN. Hoping To Help (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw your response and I responded. You haven't edited much here to the site so I recommend you reread own and stop your personal attacks against me. I have absolutely no dog in this fight. I made a suggestion and gave my reasons. For you to claim ownership against me is ridiculous. I repeat, strike your claims please. I would like to add that I am not preventing any rewrite or anything of this sort. I am suggesting you go to the article and talk to the editors there about what you want to do instead of having a copy of the article in your sandbox. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hows it going; I wanted to stop by and offer some encouragement over recent events. I realise you probably feel a bit put out by the way quite a few people descended on your userfied page (ultimately leading to a MFD nomination). For most of us it's just a standard part of wiki activities and sometimes it's hard to remember that for new users it can look sudden and drammatic and negative.

The main reason you had so much input on the material in question was twofold; firstly it is about a living person. BLP articles usually need a hawk eye on them because it is easy for content that is unfair or incorrect to creep into them. Hence BLP editors are usually pretty forceful in removing even marginal content before explaining themselves (and then often even more forceful in keeping content out till a really good consensus is established). The second issue is that what you are trying to contribute to is a very serious matter; both legally, morally and socially. Content added to that page is always going to be contentious.

The user page you created I see was entirely in good faith; the only issue was that the links added were problematic and a BLP violation - which still applies to user space (just in case!). But I know that was explained to you and you understood that :)

In terms of what happened after, well, that was probably just mixed signals. You see neither myself, Chronie or the other BLP editors would dream of stopping you from improving an article! But because the article is contentious and has potential to violate BLP policy if not done right the approach you suggested (edit in user space and copy into article space) raises some issues - our advice was simply to consider incrementally improving the article directly (which is the generally suggested policy anyway). The reasoning is twofold:

• Firstly if you majorly rewrite portions of the article that might break wording and sourcing consensus that was previously agreed upon amongst other editors. With a major rewrite it is hard to revert or replace small sections that have wording agreed by consensus - which often leads to editors simply reverting all of your material
• Secondly the article is contentious; there has been extensive discussion over it's content in the past and a major rewording of large parts would almost definitely spark off another big discussion.

In terms of your comments about WP:OWN on User:Crohnie; I'm sure you didn't meant to be rude - but it is generally advised policy here on WP to try and avoid talking about editors directly unless they are definitely and deliberately breaking policy. It can be upsetting to have these accusations made to you when you are giving advice in good faith. I'm sure you meant no offence at all! Just so you know why Crohnie was upset by what you said.

As it stands she wasn't WP:OWNing the article - that is only where you discourage someone from editing an article full stop. As it stands I fully agree with her that your proposed idea of massively rewriting portions of the article in userspace would probably lead to some form of editwar and massive discussion :)

I realise that is a bit of an essay - welcome to BLP editing :)

I also hope that we haven't put you off from contributing - that would suck. I hope, most of all, you will take a shot at editing that article. I look forward to seeing what you have to add :) Drop me a message any time if you need help/advice etc. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. You are currently in violation of this rule, having made four reverts in under twenty-four hours at Jamie Lee Jones. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in certifying an RFC on Roscelese‎? ZHurlihee (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is totally not important, but you've been mentioning me by name a lot, so...it's spelled "Roscelese," not "Roscelene." :/ –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into Amanda Marcotte. Per your suggestion, I will research a few more non-criticism references and see if I can add them. Thanks again for your time and expertise! Jim1138 (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I see you are particularly interested in this sort of false claim - User:Hoping To Help/ListFalseRape - I saw your addition and I thought it excessive coverage in the article - ten percent of the article seems excessive imo - so I removed it for a bit of discussion - perhaps others will disagree with me on the talkpage. If you were to trim perhaps to a half it might be imo more balanced. I am not objecting to the content per se - just that in the article in its current state I thought it excessive coverage, I also though it funny to be repeating the same five citations three times and would suggest a bit more specific supporting of details. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For evenhanded work on contentious articles. LegrisKe (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hoping To Help. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dr. Luke page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hoping To Help. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hoping To Help. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]