| Revision as of 06:27, 26 December 2007 editPerspicacite (talk | contribs)6,334 edits We've definitely had this conversation before Alice. If you want to copy and paste spam, you have to do it on user talkpages.← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:31, 26 December 2007 edit undoAlice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,878 edits restored my own comments to their correct chronologicla position; gernerally it is a breach of policy to remove other editor's comments on article discussion pagesNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| I have reverted the page to its 15 December version to preserve the changes that I made, inadvertently not signed in, on that day] (]) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | I have reverted the page to its 15 December version to preserve the changes that I made, inadvertently not signed in, on that day] (]) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks are due to all editors who work conscientiously and ] to improve this article using cited sources and prose that conforms to our ]. | |||
| :It is very dispiriting to editors to have their work simply ] without adequate explanation and dialogue and this is a breach of ] for which editors may be ] (even without technically breaching ]): | |||
| * Reverting is '''a decision which should be taken seriously'''. | |||
| * Reverting is used primarily for fighting ], or anything very similar to the effects of ]. | |||
| * If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. | |||
| * If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it. | |||
| * Do '''not''' simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view. | |||
| * Do '''not''' revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also ]. | |||
| * Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. '''Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.''' | |||
| * There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also ] | |||
| * Do '''not''' revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. '''Improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''. ]] 23:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Beepsie, I reverted you because you reverted my edits... all of them. I know you ''reverted'' me because you removed all of the references I had added. Perhaps this was an accident? The organization in your version of the article is not the problem. The problem is that your changes violate a number of stylist rules - improperly capitalizing subsection titles, repeating references with ref names, etc. A number of your references have 20 pages listed for one fact. Is this because they are from JSTOR? In that case, please login and find the specific page you are looking at before inserting the reference. Either that or just use the book without the page number. Another repeated problem is the use of ] which should be avoided whenever possible. ] (]) 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC) | :Beepsie, I reverted you because you reverted my edits... all of them. I know you ''reverted'' me because you removed all of the references I had added. Perhaps this was an accident? The organization in your version of the article is not the problem. The problem is that your changes violate a number of stylist rules - improperly capitalizing subsection titles, repeating references with ref names, etc. A number of your references have 20 pages listed for one fact. Is this because they are from JSTOR? In that case, please login and find the specific page you are looking at before inserting the reference. Either that or just use the book without the page number. Another repeated problem is the use of ] which should be avoided whenever possible. ] (]) 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:31, 26 December 2007
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kingdom of Kongo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Portugal B‑class | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | Former countries B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Africa B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
Games in Kongo.
Hi!
I had a question on the Misplaced Pages reference desk about the section of this article that talks about games played in Kongo - and specifically the game: 'nclaca'. I did a lot of searching around and I can find NO references to this game in books or on the Internet. Since the information was added by an anonymous editor who has never added anything else to Misplaced Pages - I'm deeply suspicious of this information. Notably, the William Holman Bentley book which supposedly talks about games played in the Kongo makes no mention (according to my search on Google Books) of a game by this name.
I think it's nonsense - so it's gone!
SteveBaker 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a reasonable action to me.Scott Free 19:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought...we might need to put that section back after all. The following section in googlebooks (which I found in all of 30 seconds) seems to back up some parts of the game section. Check it out...http://books.google.com/books?id=N65pbr2hC4wC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=bakongo+games&source=web&ots=2HGd7AtRnR&sig=N3ptl4z6oQanWTFJIJ3Byvq2Wjc#PPA102,M1
Scott Free 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
An Expansion
A note to all those who love and modify this article. I've made a lot of changes in it, some reorganization, particularly to take the general description out of the pre-fifteenth century part and put it in the seventeenth century part, since it is really based on that material. I've also added a few references, but I need to do more (help welcome). I've also expanded a lot the later years, and made smaller changes here and there. Beepsie (not signed in for now)
All the work done on this section was reverted about two hours afer I finished. I would like to reverse this revert, but will wait a few days before doing soBeepsie (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the page to its 15 December version to preserve the changes that I made, inadvertently not signed in, on that dayBeepsie (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks are due to all editors who work conscientiously and collegially to improve this article using cited sources and prose that conforms to our Manual of Style.
- It is very dispiriting to editors to have their work simply reverted without adequate explanation and dialogue and this is a breach of civility for which editors may be blocked (even without technically breaching WP:3RR):
- Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
- Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
- If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
- If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
- Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
- Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith.
- Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
- There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ
- Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Alice 23:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Beepsie, I reverted you because you reverted my edits... all of them. I know you reverted me because you removed all of the references I had added. Perhaps this was an accident? The organization in your version of the article is not the problem. The problem is that your changes violate a number of stylist rules - improperly capitalizing subsection titles, repeating references with ref names, etc. A number of your references have 20 pages listed for one fact. Is this because they are from JSTOR? In that case, please login and find the specific page you are looking at before inserting the reference. Either that or just use the book without the page number. Another repeated problem is the use of passive voice which should be avoided whenever possible. Jose João (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)