| Revision as of 08:42, 6 January 2013 editTal1962 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,946 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:53, 7 January 2013 edit undoTal1962 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,946 edits →Joan Crawford: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| Re: Joan Crawford - The usual method of asking for sources is not to undo an edit, but to ask for sources to be added in order to back up the addition to the article. As such, I undid your revision and rewrote what I added to include sources for the comments relating to her birth. Likewise with her boxoffice receipts for films leading up to the so-called box office poison label, I have researched this subject VERY thoroughly and all box office stats are in my possession from the Eddie Mannix Ledger, which is in print and can also be accessed in its original form at the NY Library for the Performing Arts as well as at the Academy of Arts and Sciences Library in LA. | Re: Joan Crawford - The usual method of asking for sources is not to undo an edit, but to ask for sources to be added in order to back up the addition to the article. As such, I undid your revision and rewrote what I added to include sources for the comments relating to her birth. Likewise with her boxoffice receipts for films leading up to the so-called box office poison label, I have researched this subject VERY thoroughly and all box office stats are in my possession from the Eddie Mannix Ledger, which is in print and can also be accessed in its original form at the NY Library for the Performing Arts as well as at the Academy of Arts and Sciences Library in LA. | ||
| == Joan Crawford == | |||
| §Thanks for the reply. However, I AM conversant with how one is supposed to question unsourced information and, no offense intended at all, you are not following those guidelines when you simply UNDO what I have added. | |||
| Once again I have reversed your undo as, according to Wiki it was unjustly done, nor did you follow their STRONG suggestion to use talk page before you do such a thing, thereby avoiding the situation we are in, namely, an edit war. What you are strongly encouraged to do is as for a citation or further details. | |||
| Among other things, wiki says: ''Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".'' | |||
| ''Furthermore: experienced editors avoid being becoming involved in edit wars This section in a nutshell: Communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Shortcut: WP:AVOIDEDITWAR'' | |||
| ''In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. It may help to remember that there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.'' | |||
| ''Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse. They revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, and as a result edit warring is more frequent.'' | |||
| ''The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.'' | |||
| You are, by virtue of continual undoing of my edits without discussing them first, bringing about this edit war. I believe you have no reason other than wanting to improve the article, but your method is in question as per Wiki's guidelines. Please follow the appropriate guidelines and ASK for more clarity or better sources or page numbers as need be. This can easily be done using "who said?" or requests for "citation" etc. | |||
| As for links to websites, I did not provide a link to a fan website. I DID provide one to an archive for a valid newspaper article. There is nothing in wiki rules to suggest one cannot use such links because they "might eventually go dead." | |||
| Basically you are saying that some of my sources are questionable - according to Wiki, they are not: ''Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.'' The link for the news article, which is in itself verifiable by virtue of the link, is not questionable. Therefore it cannot be challenged simply by UNDOING everything. | |||
| As to page numbers, I am wrong to have not included them and will remedy that immediately. However, again, according to wiki, this is not a valid reason to undo an edit. | |||
| Hopefully we can work together for the benefit of the article within the guidelines set up for us. | |||
Revision as of 02:53, 7 January 2013
Welcome to Firsfron's talk page
on Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit
|
Messages here
YGM ;^)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. jp×g 22:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Messages here
Happy New Year!
|
Best wishes for the New Year! | |
| Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! |
WP:DWG
I've updated WP:DWG. Please see what you think. Should deceased users' Ë-mail this user" feature be deactivated? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 03:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 
C 03:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Re: Joan Crawford - The usual method of asking for sources is not to undo an edit, but to ask for sources to be added in order to back up the addition to the article. As such, I undid your revision and rewrote what I added to include sources for the comments relating to her birth. Likewise with her boxoffice receipts for films leading up to the so-called box office poison label, I have researched this subject VERY thoroughly and all box office stats are in my possession from the Eddie Mannix Ledger, which is in print and can also be accessed in its original form at the NY Library for the Performing Arts as well as at the Academy of Arts and Sciences Library in LA.
Joan Crawford
§Thanks for the reply. However, I AM conversant with how one is supposed to question unsourced information and, no offense intended at all, you are not following those guidelines when you simply UNDO what I have added.
Once again I have reversed your undo as, according to Wiki it was unjustly done, nor did you follow their STRONG suggestion to use talk page before you do such a thing, thereby avoiding the situation we are in, namely, an edit war. What you are strongly encouraged to do is as for a citation or further details.
Among other things, wiki says: Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".
Furthermore: experienced editors avoid being becoming involved in edit wars This section in a nutshell: Communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Shortcut: WP:AVOIDEDITWAR
In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. It may help to remember that there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.
Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse. They revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, and as a result edit warring is more frequent.
The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.
You are, by virtue of continual undoing of my edits without discussing them first, bringing about this edit war. I believe you have no reason other than wanting to improve the article, but your method is in question as per Wiki's guidelines. Please follow the appropriate guidelines and ASK for more clarity or better sources or page numbers as need be. This can easily be done using "who said?" or requests for "citation" etc.
As for links to websites, I did not provide a link to a fan website. I DID provide one to an archive for a valid newspaper article. There is nothing in wiki rules to suggest one cannot use such links because they "might eventually go dead."
Basically you are saying that some of my sources are questionable - according to Wiki, they are not: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. The link for the news article, which is in itself verifiable by virtue of the link, is not questionable. Therefore it cannot be challenged simply by UNDOING everything.
As to page numbers, I am wrong to have not included them and will remedy that immediately. However, again, according to wiki, this is not a valid reason to undo an edit.
Hopefully we can work together for the benefit of the article within the guidelines set up for us.