User talk:Knowledge Examiner

Useful edits on teleology are always welcome, especially concerning the biological section. I hope you will put it on your watchlist! Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I will do.

The article Software Construction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dicdef, and a term too vague to be used for expanding into an article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DDG,

I would like first to thank you for your concern about Wikipedia standards and for your patience to discuss before deletion. When I created the article I was motivated by two concerns about the software engineering material on Wikipedia. First, the lack of peer-reviewed secondary sources and second, the lack of standardization of the expressions, definitions, and topics which may create a state of confusion, conflict, and redundancy about the modifying the existing material. I thought that the best solution for this to standardize the expressions, definitions, and topics using a peer-reviewed widely accepted references like IEEE Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. This should provide an organized hierarchical topical access to all topics of software engineering thus eliminates any confusion, conflict, or redundancy in the topics and encourages the use of peer-reviewed sources by providing one and only one relevant places for each piece of peer-reviewed material. The Software Construction article was intended to be a start for this approach, and in the next weeks I will try to enhance the article with other sources.

Great to see your good work on computer topics. Dick has pointed out a few formatting fiddlies that about WP's guidelines. Thanks. Tony (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2011 (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) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Knowledge Examiner. All or some of your addition(s) to Software construction has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]