User talk:Springwalk

If...[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Here's what is going to happen: that section you added to Israel is going to get reverted (deleted). It has numerous problems. Having a source is insufficient. Much depends on how you use a source. You have a lot to learn - please go to the help section and start reading through the various policies and guidelines. The main issue to master is WP:NPOV. But there are many others as well.

If you simply restore the material once it gets deleted, it will be deleted again. If you carry on restoring it, you will violate the "3-revert rule", and if you carry on after that you will get blocked. If you don't want that to happen, then go slow, work with others, try to learn, and it's probably best to stay on the Talk pages for now, rather than making big controversial edits to controversial articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Hi there. I've proposed at Talk:Israel that some of the material removed in this edit be incorporated into the article in existing sections, rather than making a section entitled "Discrimination". The Israel article is, however, notoriously difficult to edit, and discussion on the talk page can go on for months before agreement is reached (if ever). I think some of the material you added would be useful in the article on Arab citizens of Israel, so you might try adding some of it there. (There is even a "Discrimination" section there which could use some work.)

Anyway, I thought I'd put in my two cents since I don't want to see you get discouraged. Just as an example, though I have over 12,000 edits here, nothing significant I have ever added to the Israel article has ever been retained. You might find editing at other articles on related subjects a more rewarding experience. If you ever need any help or advice, feel free to post at User talk:Tiamut. If I don't know the answer, I may be able to point you n the right direction.

Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy your time here. Tiamut^talk 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut -- Thank for coming and welcoming me. I appreciate the kind attitude and I'll use your advice. Springwalk (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, re Igorberger[edit]

Hello there, I saw your message at Igorberger's page requesting assistance. Please note that Igorberger is indefinitely blocked from editing at this time and will be unable to assist on the page in question. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 21:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universal suffrage[edit]

I guess you are new to Wikipedia, but is considered bad editing style to ignore ongoing discussions on talk pages and just change the article as you did with this edit [1]. Could I ask you to explain your edit on the talk page of the article? Thanks. Novidmarana (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to me. My edit was explained in the edit comment thus: "Undid revision 210988987 by Okedem because it suppressed information".

Thanks to your request I have now gone to the Talk page and proposed a way forward. Springwalk (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

UK/Britain[edit]

I think that you are mistaken. Nowhere in the MOS does it say that Britain should be used in place of UK. Why are you making such changes? Nouse4aname (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I read the MOS too fast. It states 'Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence'.Springwalk (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK-Britain[edit]

I notice you are going round articles changing UK to Britain. This is incorrect, as Britain is not the UK. The UK includes Northern Ireland, which as you know, is not part of the island. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that with this edit you also changed "UK" to "Britain" in the name of a referenced publication, when the title of the publication uses "UK". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'UK' is problematic since it is mainly of local use^[1]. Using Britain instead of UK is correct in the frame of political matters. And it does include Northern Ireland. Even Downing St. uses it this way and explains so on their website. There are two external manual of styles that explain the use ^[2]^[3].Springwalk (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and references[edit]

^ The standard 2-letter code for the United Kingdom is GB: "ISO 3166 code lists".
^ "Britain", Oxford English Dictionary (Online Edition): "Britain: 1a - The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain; now also used for the British state or empire as a whole."
^ The term Britain is more commonly used as a political term: an alternative name for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ref: Guardian Unlimited Style Guide, Guardian News and Media Limited, 2007

[ISO-1] The standard 2-letter code for the United Kingdom is GB: "ISO 3166 code lists".

[OED-2] "Britain", Oxford English Dictionary (Online Edition): "Britain: 1a - The proper name of the whole island containing England, Wales, and Scotland, with their dependencies; more fully called Great Britain; now also used for the British state or empire as a whole."

[GUSG-3] The term Britain is more commonly used as a political term: an alternative name for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ref: Guardian Unlimited Style Guide, Guardian News and Media Limited, 2007

[1]

[2]

[3]