User talk:Mpr001

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Mpr001. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Hwy43 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Hwy43. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Calgary seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hwy43 (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mpr001, and welcome to Wikipedia. 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 a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia: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.
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 without attribution. If you want to copy 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. Hwy43 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation.

pls also see....

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorse a particular point of view.

Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts

Don't sandwich text between two images or boxes.

Calgary edit warring[edit]

You have nothing to await. I've already posted on Calgary's talk page. Your reversion while we go through BRD is disruptive and I suggest you revert your revert until consensus is achieved. It is you that is attempting to add this content and multiple editors have found reasons that both items do not belong on this article. Hwy43 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already reverted it before seeing this. Mpr001 - Hwy43 is right. The Calgary Economic Development cite is promotional; it is meant to puff up the city's image. Please provide a neutral, reliable source to support the claim. That would clear this up in only a few moments. Thanks, Reso lute 20:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another citation was requested and I have provided one from the National Post. Also the CED data comes from Statistics Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpr001 (talk • contribs)

Please review Talk:Calgary#Largest city and economic leader for further previously expressed comments on the National Post source and the CED data. Further discussion on this should occur at Talk:Calgary#Largest city and economic leader rather than here to keep the discussion together for the benefit of all. Hwy43 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Edits[edit]

Please use the talk page and come to a consensus for major edits.

Please go over these pages for more information about Wikipedia and It's Guidelines.

Regards, Kyle1278 05:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mpr001, I just responded to your question at Talk:Calgary#Economic leader. Further I saw your edits at Edmonton and that they were reverted by kyle1278 and I tend to agree with him on some items reverted. Given our recent discussions, I know you are acting in good faith. In addition to reviewing the above links, may I also suggest you review MOS:LEAD, which will help you with understanding what is appropriate for the lead sections for both Calgary and Edmonton. For example, this one line describing Edmonton's historic growth is appropriate in the lead as it provides a concise overview and summary of its most important historical growth aspects (thinking of, this is something Calgary's lead is missing). More detail on this is then presented in a combination of the History section, the section's linked Timeline of Edmonton history article and the Template:Edmonton annexations at the bottom of the article (click "show" at the bottom next to "Links to related articles" between the geographic 8-way template and the article's category to reveal this template and others). Same applies with the Festival City content (summarizing Arts and culture section) and the Gateway to the North content (summarizing the Economy section). Feel free to continue to ask questions. Us Alberta WikiProject active participants are quite friendly and are here to help. Hwy43 (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to be cognizant of with respect to Edmonton is its article has attained good article (GA) status. It achieved its current status in 2009 and this status was reaffirmed a year ago. Any significant and mass changes should be discussed, as kyle1278 suggests, on the Edmonton talk page so that future efforts don't compromise the article's GA status.

Also regarding your recent Calgary section reorganization attempt, see Canadian communities structure guideline (not sure if you saw my link to WP:CCSG in my subsequent edit summary). I find this very useful for guiding my edits to Canadian community articles. Hwy43 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hwy43, thanks for offering to answer questions. I am trying to understand the rational behind some edits. There seems to be a lack of consistency in in what is acceptable. For example, as we discussed at Talk:Calgary#Economic leader, the consensus was that the Calgary Economic Development organization was an unbiased source and should not be used. However, the Edmonton Economic Development agency is allowed to be referenced in the Economy section. I don't have any issue with using the Edmonton Wiki page as a guide, but in good faith, there needs to be a consistent standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpr001 (talk • contribs)

Did you read my latest comment at ? One CED reference remains in the lead. I see there are five other CED references in the Calgary article, whereas there are three EEDC references in the Edmonton article. Please read my latest comment at Talk:Calgary#Economic leader and let me know if that clears this muddy water up a bit. In the meantime, I will look at the five CED and three EEDC references and their associated content tomorrow to see if any of them are inappropriate. Hwy43 (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Please read my comment at Talk:Calgary#Economic leader.Mpr001 (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary's "World city rankings" section[edit]

Hi Mpr001, a discussion has been initiated to determine if city rankings published by magazines, newspapers, etc. are appropriate/encyclopedic. The outcome may affect the current World city rankings section of the Calgary article (of which you were a significant contributor), and numerous other city articles across Canada. Please join the discussion. Hwy43 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]