• Call me a pessimist if you must, but I rarely wonder why wikipedia does not have a Common Sense page. --West Horizon (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi West Horizon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there! HostBot (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thank you. 4 tildes not the 3 i was typing. Easier to use the shortcut button. --West Horizon (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Demonic (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy Metal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fixed link :) thx --West Horizon (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup on this article, The Gathering (Testament album). The major issue with it at the moment is that two of the refs are from the band's own record company (Prosthetic). If you can find multiple independent reliable sources that would help the article out a lot. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

replied user's talk page, links fixed, paragraph re-written, Demonic's album page layout changed to match The Gathering's new one --West Horizon (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo for the Fathers & Families Charitable Organization.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a logo for a running charity I was going to write first about using the pic before adding to the article, I didn't know it would get deleted if it wasn't used. I'll post it up into the article and hope it doesn't get flagged or that the charity writes back they don't want it used. --West Horizon (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paternity fraud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grey area (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• fixed :)--West Horizon (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paternity fraud page as it was October 26th before being deleted October 27th and a merge request posted October 28th. West Horizon (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Belchfire. Your recent edit to the page Paternity fraud appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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.

Supreme Court Opinons, Newspapers, Law Dictionaries and Television News Broadcasts aren't reliable sources? Incredible.

Every single thing I have said on user's talk page and the paternity fraud page is backed up with citations from one of the above sources. --West Horizon (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must ask you again to review the fact that WP does not include the original research of editors. You may be right that the father's rights movement in the US has its roots in the 19th century or in the UK, but that is not what the reliable secondary sources about the father's rights movement say. As I have mentioned before in another context, you cannot collect together sources -none of which (in this case) mention the fathers' rights or the fathers' rights movement - to make a novel argument about the history of the movement- one that is in fact contradicted by the writings of scholars on the subject ... material which you actually deleted!! If you feel you "know better" than the cited academic sources then you need to find equally high quality reliable sources about the history of the movement that make the point you wish to make. Please do not do primary research here on Wikipedia. Use your own website or book for that. Slp1 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research. Everything is sourced by scholar writings, biography or newspaper articles. --West Horizon (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]}

But there is. You are confusing the concept of verifiability with that of original research. Material can be verifiable but combined together can still be original research, as your text is. Here you have decided that these are the origins of the fathers' rights movement. You are collecting together original sources- the bulk from the 1910s-1930s and none of which mention fathers' rights- and combining them together to make the point that the fathers' rights movement originated in the 19th century (or whatever). This is the epitome of synthesis. It would be a great approach if you were a historian writing your own book or scholarly article but it is not what we do as writers of this encyclopedia. Here we summarize what scholars and other reliable sources have said about the subject - not delete their ideas and substitute your own as you are doing. Write up your ideas elsewhere. Get them published in a book or in a journal. Then come back and insert your ideas here. Slp1 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had a look at your sandbox [1] that you have recently edited and which in this, for example, shows that you are taking the data and conclusions of scholars and then reinterpreting them according to your particular opinion. This is a clear example of where your conclusions and (apparently) proposed contribution are directly contradictory to those of the original authors. You cannot do this here. This is not the spot to promote your own opinion on subjects.Slp1 (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges, your link is not even to edits for the movement page. Your opinion that fathers rights and the fathers rights movement is not connected is rather original. What ref's are you using to back that up with? --West Horizon (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted material as "original research" from State Laws, I put it back in pointing out it is a direct and sourced quote. No explanation or supporting refs you deleted it again as original research this time because you think there is no connection between "Fathers Rights" and "Fathers Rights Movement", absurd, and again no supporting refs for you opinion. We'll put it in again and see what excuse you come up with next. When you act this way it really does start looking like Policy Shopping.

There are already published books supporting the introduction and history text. That the Fathers Rights Movement traces its roots to the 1800s is supported by hundreds of refs through publications or news articles of the day. National Divorce Reform League 1885 is one example. The organization published annual reports from the 1800s through the 1920s. There's even a news article from the New York Times reporting on the 10th annual meeting of the group in 1890 NY Times 1890 which puts its creating in 1880 at the latest. That's a little earlier than the 1960 you are claiming.

But that's not a one stop shopping book, which is another excuse you use to delete material, citing it as not being scholarly. Again, absurd, in books considered scholarly any statement of fact that only have one reference is considered unverified. But, even ignoring that there are numerous publications on the subject. Here's one The Good Men Project, unfortunately it actually sells so isn't a free e-book, fortunately it is a living document that gets added to and republished and is available online. Also considered credible and scholarly enough that a documentary was made about it. Fathers Rights traces its roots to the 1800s, with organized divorce reform emerging in the 1920s. All in one spot. Fathers Rights Emerged 1920s

What you have posted on the Fathers Rights Movement page is original research, your ref supporting the material you placed there says "Often associated with 1960" it does not say emerged or began in 1960. It does not say "traces its roots to 1960" anywhere in it. You are taking a ref out of context and using it to support this crazy view you have that a couple of domestic terrorists in 1960 invented the fathers rights movement. Interesting opinion but it is not supported by your ref nor by the thousands of news stories or publications showing otherwise. --West Horizon (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try one last time, since it seems that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of several policies and guidelines here.

• First, the good news. Sources do not need to be free to be used as sources. Quite the contrary in fact. Sometimes a trip to the library is required to get the best sources.
• Thanks for providing the link to the article by St-Estephe on the Good Man Project about the History of the Men's Rights Movement.[2]. This is good because it shows that somebody other that you (unless you are St-Estephe) has traced the origins of the FRM as far back as you have been doing. Unfortunately, articles posted on websites such as the Good Man Project are very unlikely to be considered a reliable source for WP, because they are to all intents and purposes self-published, without the editorial oversight required by our policies. See WP:USERG for more information. Has St Estephe's work in the field "been published by reliable third-party publications"? If so, he might qualify as an "established expert" and the article could be used. I've done a quick check on googlebook, googlescholar and googlenews and don't find evidence to show that he has, but maybe you know more than me. If you want to argue that this Good Man Project article is a reliable source, I suggest you get independent opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard, but I think it is highly unlikely that it would be considered a reliable source to trump the accounts of scholars and academics.
• Back to the question of Original Research. Your statement that your addition "is supported by hundreds of refs through publications or news articles of the day" from 1885, 1890 etc, actually clearly shows that what you are doing is the epitome of WP:SYNTHESIS. You are taking primary sources (newspaper articles from over a 100 years ago) to make a novel point about the history of the fathers' rights movement. WP vastly prefers secondary sources, and especially scholarly sources, all of which, to date, support the notion that the FRM emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. In addition to the citation already in the articles, there is this book published by Cornell University Press this encyclopedia about American Masculinities] and this article from a scholarly journal, all of which make the same point. Surely you can see that we cannot substitute scholarly opinion on the subject with your unpublished original research about the matter.

Looking back over our conversations, I really don't know whether the problem is with my explanations of WP's policies or your comprehension of them. I am going to ask another experienced editor to get involved here to see if they can help. Slp1 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon some further investigation it seems that the Good Man Project does have some named editorial staff [3]. It might indeed be worth asking if it is a considered a reliable source, likely not to replace the academic viewpoints, but as an alternative view. I will make a post at RSN myself. Slp1 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the post for comments here [4]Slp1 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have scanned through this talk page discussion and I concur that the editing work prepared by West Horizon is not acceptable by Wikipedia because of the WP:SYNTH guideline. Secondary sources will have to be found which discuss the history of the men's rights movement. Slp1 has patiently and accurately explained the problems. Note that there is no way around the SYNTH guideline—it is part of the WP:NOR guideline which states the "core content policy" of Wikipedia, a foundational pillar against "original research". College professors, newspaper reporters, and authors can (and should) engage in original research, but Wikipedia holds that encyclopedia writers may not. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vague yet unhelpful. Slip1 deletes material off the paternity fraud page because the ref "isn't about paternity fraud". The ref you have posted up on the Father's Rights Movement page isn't about the Father's Rights Movement. You apply policy one way on one page and different on another.

As Slip1's posts says, there is no National Organization, there are a few hundred. All of which can be used as a primary source and can say anything they want about their own movement. Everything on the National Organization for Women page is self reference and you have not deleted that page. Or conversly I can make a couple hundred pages each covering a fathers rights organization, each of those would backup what I have typed and does not need to be a secondary source.

You are policy shopping. --West Horizon (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo for the Fathers & Families Charitable Organization.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paternity fraud 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/Paternity fraud 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. Warm Worm (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]