User talk:Granada2000

Welcome!

Hello, Granada2000, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines 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 • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

July 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Suzanne Marie Olsson has been reverted.
Your edit here to Suzanne Marie Olsson was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9w-xJfSOyc&feature=share, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9w-xJfSOyc&feature=share, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbe3Bw72G-4) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granada2000, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Granada2000! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Suzanne Marie Olsson

The article Suzanne Marie Olsson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Purely promotional piece of a self-published author. No reliable references about her.

While all constructive 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. Bgwhite (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Suzanne Marie Olsson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suzanne Marie Olsson 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/Suzanne Marie Olsson 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. Bgwhite (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Marie Olsson, with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just started this page. I have to add more sources and other stuff yet. I am still working on it. Please do not delete this page. It will improve over time. Thank You.Granada2000 (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Granada2000Granada2000 (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an wp:administrator and can not delete articles. The decision will be made based on what happens here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Marie Olsson. Deleting that page will only serve to annoy. You could copy the article to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. That would be my recommendation. It will still need to pass wp:notability (biography). Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, Thank you for your help and suggestions. I did just move the article as you suggested. Let's see what happens next. I'm sure all will be fine. The article is still very new and under creation. Most people are cool with understanding that. Thank you for your helpGranada2000 (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have copied it yet. Anyway, even if it gets deleted, you can still ask an admin for it to be undeleted and moved to Articles for Creation, or to your own user space, for further work. – Fayenatic London 20:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space

Once an article is put up, it must meet some requirements. If it doesn't it can be deleted.

I don't know how the deletion process will end up. The article is not a sure fire bet to be deleted. You can do two things, let the deletion process run its course or move the article to draft space where it can be improved. While the article is a draft, you can have other people review it and give you suggestions. However, the article can be up for deletion review once returned. Your choice. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some pretty lame bio pages here on Wiki- every small town Mayor and activist has a page somewhere on Wiki. It appears that Olsson is more notable than that. Not many get to be in documentaries with the Dalai lama or a representative from the Vatican. I just added that link. I am never sure what should be a link, a reference, or a source...so please bare with me. Thanks for your help.Granada2000 (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Granada2000Granada2000 (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is on of the major purposes of Wikipedia:Articles for creation, to allow the creator time to develop the article before it is placed in the regular name space. It also allows other editors to make helpful suggestions if an article is deemed not quite ready for the regular name space. I highly recommend that you start future biographical and music articles there, as they seem to be the most prone to deletion upon creation. That is also a good place to learn how Wikipedia's guidelines and policies impact what needs to go into an article. --Bejnar (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to link, reference, or source:

A: "Link" has several meanings: (1) it refers to those terms in an article that are uncommon enough to need explanation, so they are placed in double brackets to "link" to other places in the Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking (2) "External links" should be kept to a minimum. These are web pages that are not used as references, but that provided additional information that is not in the article. In many ways they are like books and articles placed in a "Further reading" section. See Wikipedia:External links. If in doubt about an external link, leave it out. An article ought not to depend upon external links as if they were inline cited sources. (3) "linking" may refer in a citation to adding a url or doi that links to a web page where the document (source) can be found. Linking a source is not required, there are plenty of paper sources that have no web counterpart, but if a source document can be found on the web in a non-blacklisted form, it is appropriate to include the link.
B: The second part of your question seems to have to do with whether a citation should be placed in line using <ref>...</ref> tags or directly placed in a "References" section. The easy, simple and safe answer is, always use inline citation if possible. The Template:Reflist or equivalent will place them nicely in your "Notes" or "References" field. Avoid general reference sections. Sometimes you may wish to support more than one piece of information with the same source. See Help:Footnotes. A "source" refers to a document, a "reference" is an ambiguous term as it can be used to refer to the source or to the citation to the source. So you are not using "references", you have a source and you are placing a citation to that source in the article to support particular facts. I hope this helps. --Bejnar (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In mentioning Gardner's book, Genesis of the The Grail Kings, Joseph the Patriarch and Pindi Point you used single brackets and a url. This kind of inline link is strongly discouraged. Blue links in the body of the article should only be to Wikipedia project articles, Interwiki links. If you wish to support the fact that a book exists or provide additional information about a topic where there is no Wikipedia article, use a footnote using the <ref>...</ref> tags. As it says at WP:External links Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article. --Bejnar (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find the use of the various cite templates valuable, for example, Template:Cite book, Template:Cite news, Template:Cite web and Template:Cite journal. --Bejnar (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Much to learn! Thank you all for your help. Granada 2000.

Removing content from the Olsson article

Please look at our policies of verifiability and reliable sources. If sources say those things, then those policies and our neutral point of view, along with the fact wikipedia is not censored means they have to be presented to our readers to allow them to make their own judgements. Please stop removing the content. Dolescum (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dolesum- I will delete everything I know to be false. Here's a good reason why you must make an effort to protect Olsson and the Roza bal tomb- and be very careful what you choose to print here- http://news.yahoo.com/iraqs-mosul-radicals-unleash-vision-173740162.html If you "dont get it" then you should not be an editor here... I hope we can be friends- but I must do what I know is right...the world is in a terrible state of religious woes just now...Dont add religious fuel to the fires. Thank You. Granada2000 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Granada2000Granada2000 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and try to pay heed to Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:neutral point of view. Whether there is controversy, both sides need to be stated. Deleting sourced, but presumably contested facts seldom helps. --Bejnar (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest provisions on Wikipedia

Hello, Granada2000. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Suzanne Marie Olsson, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Bejnar (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Maybe Granada doesn't have a "conflict of Interest." Maybe Granada just simply read the book and got his facts straight. Just saying- maybe some wiki editors ought to use a little more common sense here. I dont see these kinds of contentious news articles being inserted on other pagesTrevorMcB

Suspected sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuzanneOlsson. Thank you. – Fayenatic London 11:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]