| Revision as of 17:28, 21 February 2013 editGiantSnowman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators597,664 edits Undid revision 539465478 by You Can Act Like A Man (talk) - and again ;)← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:42, 22 February 2013 edit undoKim Dent-Brown (talk | contribs)10,634 edits →Please...: +1Next edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| read some of the advice provided. For example, you do not sign edits to article pages. You sign edits to talk pages. The rules and guidelines are many, and confusing, but exist for a reason. You will be cut slack as a new editor, but over time, you will be expected to learn how to edit properly.--]] 15:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | read some of the advice provided. For example, you do not sign edits to article pages. You sign edits to talk pages. The rules and guidelines are many, and confusing, but exist for a reason. You will be cut slack as a new editor, but over time, you will be expected to learn how to edit properly.--]] 15:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Hello there, can I gently reinforce the suggestions that have been made above by editors who are uninvolved in the ] article. It's great that you have been to some hand-on training about how to contribute to Misplaced Pages, but that on its own does not constitute the top of the learning curve! Indeed a day or so training can only scratch the surface, especially about some of the social norms (as opposed to the technical features) of Misplaced Pages. One thing you will have learned on your training is the need for ] which must be ] when new material is added. Your own knowledge, however expert and extensive, is not enough to support an edit and Deb was right to revert the addition. I do understand that it's frustrating when your work is reverted, but the right thing to do is to implement the ] cycle. Your initial edit was bold, Deb's revert was reasonable, now the thing to do is discuss it at the ]. Both you and Deb, along with other editors to the article, need to work collaboratively to improve it - appealing to your own authority and is not the way to persuade others to value your contributions. Please go to the article talk page, discuss the additions you'd like to make, find some reliable sources to cite and let us have the benefit of your knowledge! I will ask Deb to turn the heat down as well, and I'm going to close the discussion about you at the ] to give you a fresh start. Please reply here if you need any help, I'll keep your page on my watchlist. All the best, ] ] 11:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:42, 22 February 2013
Welcome!
Hi Promotor Veritatis! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing!
Please could you add a reference to your amendments to the Elizabeth Woodville article? Deb (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2013
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Elizabeth Woodville was changed by Promotor Veritatis (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.897448 on 2013-02-14T22:08:56+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Elizabeth Woodville with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eyesnore (pending changes) 23:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Elizabeth Woodville
Please do not assume that your edits which have not been challenged are acceptable.
"Purveyors" of Popes—ha ha ha ha ha . . . .
"Recent research has revealed . . . " — exactly the same reaction (ha ha ha ha ha . . . .)
Now there's a whole box of dots over the index.
Dear oh dear. 02:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I apologise for not signing. Eddaido (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Would you care to explain what you mean by ’vandalism’ and the various levels? This was barely touched on during a recent Wiki workshop and signing in not at all. What’s the point of attending such a workshop if you only get half the message? As it is I take umbrage at being lumbered with vandalism because the instructor fell down on the job. That was the whole point of attending the workshop, getting to learn the proper procedure.
And isn’t editing texts to impose a partisan point of view also vandalism? The Elizabeth Woodville page is full of it as are other history pages. What protection are you guys providing so as to ensure your readers are not gulled by misleading and mendacious statements? None at all by the looks of it. I’ve picked upon some 50 already so you should be grateful that somebody is prepared to amend where necessary and not gripe about the style; your readers deserve better.
I also take the greatest possible objection to recent comments. If your computer can’t deal with the Queen’s English you’d better upgrade it. And what’s wrong with the comment ’recent research’ since it happens to be a fact? For the record I’M the historical researcher that picked up on that information so perhaps you can understand why I feel particularly aggrieved. The whole point was to make it clear to readers that this was something that has only happened recently so what’s the problem? For the record I don’t care for malicious jokes either. A little less of the ha ha ha before I go for the brouhaha.
As it is I never commit anything to the Internet without using Word first so again what’s the problem?
So if you’re not prepared to allow me to correct the afore-mentioned inaccuracies would you have any objection if I were to ask the media to do it for me? How dare you accuse me of vandalism when others are getting away with it scot-free.
If you don’t like the comment beginning ‘recent research’ tough luck. At least I’m prepared to maintain accuracy if some of your contributors are not. Your webpage is only as good as the information contained within is accurate. Would that it were.
Promotor Veritatis (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I realise that it can be difficult for a newcomer to get up to speed on the various guidelines that operate within wikipedia. Regardless of whether you have been mistaught, your edits won't stand if you persist in ignoring these basics. I would recommend reading some of the instructions again, including the ones I referred you to in the welcome message at the top of this page. Deb (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Incidentally, if you check the page history, you will see that most of the earlier comments you objected to did not originate from User:Eyesnore. Deb (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
In my time Deb I’ve written longer letters than my comment in more than one language to people all over the world so if they didn’t have a problem what’s yours? Given other edits have gone through unchallenged I don’t buy your comment about improper edits so what’s your real beef, improper editing or the content?
If you’ve chosen to ignore my earlier warnings including something I would have thought obvious that if one uses Word first one saves it on Word and the file is entitled EW1437, you do so at your peril. What’s more if you can delete so can I as I.don’t care much for inaccuracies particularly those of a partisan bent and you Deb have stuck me as being particularly partisan If you delete my next edit then I trust you will be in a satisfactory position to explain to Arlene Okerlund -f was she who aksed me to do the update Promotor Veritatis (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Deb (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Elizabeth Woodville. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. However, three reverts is not necessarily a right; and continued "slow-motion" edit-warring can also be considered disruptive and lead to blocking as well. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 11:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Some advice
Hi. I've been alerted to this talk page by some discussions referred to above on WP:ANI, and I'd like to offer some advice, the most important of which is just to slow down, take a deep breath, and take your hand off the "Save page" button for just a minute.
Misplaced Pages has a way of working that has developed over the last 10+ years, and regardless of how experienced you are in history or writing elsewhere, you really can't charge in here and make changes based on your authority without expecting some blowback from other editors. When other editors talk about reliable sources, they simply mean that everything we write has backed up somewhere else, in this case probably a set of published books. You can't just cite your own opinion or authority on things, because anyone can claim to be an expert in anything, and we've got no way of telling the real experts from the charlatans.
Let's take your first edit to Elizabeth Woodville here, where you suggest there is no evidence of her being involved in witchcraft. However, this specific paragraph is relating to somebody's portrayal of Woodville in a book. Now, you could blank the entire paragraph with an edit summary like "rm content not backed up with a reliable source", though in this instance we'd probably prefer you to tag the paragraph with {{citation needed}} as a compromise. As it stands, the paragraph has been cited to the Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1467-77, so the issue has been resolved. What you should definitely not have done here, is keep re-adding additional unsourced content after that's removed, as that is seen as disruptive and may (note, not will) get you blocked for edit warring.
All in all, I'd suggest slowing down a bit, and having a look at the teahouse, which is a place for new editors to ask questions about how Misplaced Pages works. Something to think about, perhaps? Ritchie333 12:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Please...
read some of the advice provided. For example, you do not sign edits to article pages. You sign edits to talk pages. The rules and guidelines are many, and confusing, but exist for a reason. You will be cut slack as a new editor, but over time, you will be expected to learn how to edit properly.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello there, can I gently reinforce the suggestions that have been made above by editors who are uninvolved in the Elizabeth Woodville article. It's great that you have been to some hand-on training about how to contribute to Misplaced Pages, but that on its own does not constitute the top of the learning curve! Indeed a day or so training can only scratch the surface, especially about some of the social norms (as opposed to the technical features) of Misplaced Pages. One thing you will have learned on your training is the need for reliable sources which must be cited when new material is added. Your own knowledge, however expert and extensive, is not enough to support an edit and Deb was right to revert the addition. I do understand that it's frustrating when your work is reverted, but the right thing to do is to implement the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Your initial edit was bold, Deb's revert was reasonable, now the thing to do is discuss it at the talk page for the article. Both you and Deb, along with other editors to the article, need to work collaboratively to improve it - appealing to your own authority and demeaning others is not the way to persuade others to value your contributions. Please go to the article talk page, discuss the additions you'd like to make, find some reliable sources to cite and let us have the benefit of your knowledge! I will ask Deb to turn the heat down as well, and I'm going to close the discussion about you at the admin noticeboard to give you a fresh start. Please reply here if you need any help, I'll keep your page on my watchlist. All the best, Kim Dent-Brown 11:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)