User talk:Wikiaway

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Wikiaway, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Sbacle 12:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Legendary song? stop. tommytalk2me 11:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Alicia Keys. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Chase wc ⁹¹ 19:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the statement into the 2009 section with the Boston Globe source. Please do not give WP:UNDUE weight to the subject by creating a subheading. Such emphasis on so little information would not be consistent with good article criteria or featured article criteria. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Your adding quotes to the word marriage in the Tiger Woods article may have been intended to be funny, but it's not. Biographies of living persons must meet high standards. Mean jokes like this, or whatever it was, have no place in them. Thank you.--Chaser (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you have moved the personal life section to the top of the article. This is contrary to page consensus found at Talk:Tiger Woods#Move personal information to the end of the article. I don't know why you feel it is important to be at the top but you need to come to the talk page and discuss these changes to avoid the appearance of disruptive editing. Thanks. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knox legal status

Here is a reliable source: Mirabella, Julia Grace, Scales of Justice: Assessing Italian Criminal Procedure Through the Amanda Knox Trial (January 5, 2012). Boston University International Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2012. A quote "In adopting features of the adversarial system, Italy did not simply transplant U.S. features into its legal system;169 rather, it translated such features into an entirely different legal language". So it is by no means true that Knox's legal position in Italy can be conveyed by the English word "convicted". And she has already had had three separate trials on the same charge, each with verdicts. If she had been found not guilty at the first trial the prosecution could have appealed, and have the verdict overturned which would not be possible in the US. Italy has a very different legal concept of trials and verdicts. If you think Sollecito has been convicted and sentenced in a way equivalent to conviction in the US or Britain, then why is he not in prison? In fact he is wandering around free. The legal process still has some way to run and the lede would be deceptive if the wording did not reflect that status, and used a wording which readers will associate with a different position that applies to a guilty verdict in Britain and the US.Overagainst (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Frazetta

You've been here for several years, so I'm surprised you refuse to cite your claim about Roger Sweet having been influenced by Frazetta. All the other mentions of people who say Frazetta influenced them are cited. I do see that when I thought I was removing the uncited claim I was only moving it. But an experienced editor, having read my edit summary "Then I'm sure you can cite it" would understand that it needed to be cited. If you cannot cite this claim, then I would ask, where did you get this information? --Tenebrae (talk)