| Revision as of 11:06, 28 September 2011 editJustlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators120,798 edits welcome | Revision as of 11:31, 28 September 2011 edit undoJustlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators120,798 edits →Andalusian horse: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{help me}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome -->] (]) 11:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC) | I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{help me}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome -->] (]) 11:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == Andalusian horse == | |||
| Hi! You obviously put in a lot of work on the ] article, and, I imagine, may have been surprised or even displeased to see your edits instantly reverted with a cursory explanation. I in turn am surprised to find that no longer explanation has been posted here. So I thought I'd try quickly to explain the situation. That article is a ], which means, on the good side, that it has been brought to a certain level and subjected to a kind of peer review in order to achieve this status; unfortunately, it also means that the editors who got it there tend to defend the existing text, sometimes almost unthinkingly. It also means – rightly, in my view – that any change or addition to the article, even apparently minor, needs to be supported with proper and reliable references. It is my guess that you have professional or expert knowledge of this breed (am I right?), and thus may also have access to many valuable relevant sources. If you would like to make additions to the article, I'd be pleased to offer what inexpert help I can. One way of approaching it would be to propose changes on the talkpage of the article; another is to make successive small changes, each accompanied by appropriate references. Any large-scale rewrite is likely to trigger another defence reaction. This project desperately needs expert editors; I hope you will decide to stay. ] (]) 11:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:31, 28 September 2011
Welcome!
Hello, Klvankampen, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Andalusian horse. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Andalusian horse
Hi! You obviously put in a lot of work on the Andalusian horse article, and, I imagine, may have been surprised or even displeased to see your edits instantly reverted with a cursory explanation. I in turn am surprised to find that no longer explanation has been posted here. So I thought I'd try quickly to explain the situation. That article is a featured article, which means, on the good side, that it has been brought to a certain level and subjected to a kind of peer review in order to achieve this status; unfortunately, it also means that the editors who got it there tend to defend the existing text, sometimes almost unthinkingly. It also means – rightly, in my view – that any change or addition to the article, even apparently minor, needs to be supported with proper and reliable references. It is my guess that you have professional or expert knowledge of this breed (am I right?), and thus may also have access to many valuable relevant sources. If you would like to make additions to the article, I'd be pleased to offer what inexpert help I can. One way of approaching it would be to propose changes on the talkpage of the article; another is to make successive small changes, each accompanied by appropriate references. Any large-scale rewrite is likely to trigger another defence reaction. This project desperately needs expert editors; I hope you will decide to stay. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)