74.14.6.207

March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Children's rights 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. doug@dougstech.com - DougsTech.com (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Children's rights

Thanks for your contributions to the children's rights articles. I sense from the tone of your comments on the talk page that you might be frustrated. There are a few basic guidelines about having a neutral point of view and being civil that you may want to familiarize yourself with. The long and short of it is that a person who has exposed their self-interest in a reliable source should not use that source on Wikipedia, primarily because it looks like they are trying to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their publication or their organization - and Wikipedia editors are sensitive to that type of self-promotion. Namely, that means that if a leader of a national nonprofit organization removes a citation from an article and replaces it with a publication they wrote and/or their organization published, it will not be acceptable to other editors on Wikipedia. I hope this is helpful, and I hope you see the comments I wrote here. • Freechild'sup? 00:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and be civil. Your recent edits appear biased towards one organization's perspective and completely dismissive of another's, and lack reliable sources. As I tried to explain to you in the section above, there are appropriate ways to edit Wikipedia and inappropriate, and accusing me of vandalism as you did here is not appropriate. • Freechild'sup? 11:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that I expanded the definition of children's rights and cited your organization's perspective. Name-calling me an American is not apt: I am Canadian. However, I am also a Wikipedia editor who follows the guidelines; maybe you should familiarize yourself with them before continuing. • Freechild'sup? 11:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This evening I was able to go through your edits and re-insert the majority of the information you added to the article. As an unaffiliated third party this does not violate Wikipedia guidelines, as your editing to the article did. You may consider creating an article on the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is sorely needed, along with an expansion of the article on CRIN. Best wishes. • Freechild'sup? 05:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

February 2012

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with LeapZip. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. This applies even when you have logged off. Singularity42 (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/667dave for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Singularity42 (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

---