This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carlstak (talk | contribs) at 20:13, 27 November 2024 (reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:13, 27 November 2024 by Carlstak (talk | contribs) (reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
Hi Wk472! 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! :Jay8g 07:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
November 2024
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at User:Carlstak. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Donald Albury 19:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Donald Albury Excuse me? he reversed an important Ergine edit and I was trying to communicate to him that the edit was correct. Wk472 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- The proper way to respond was to ask User:Carlstak about his edits on his talk page, or, better, on the article talk page (with a note on his talk page), which is where discussions about article content should take place, unless it becomes apparent that a wide venue is appropriate. With very limited exceptions, you should not be editng a user's user page. You placed a second copy of all of Carlstak's userboxes under the existing userboxes, and then dumped a lot of text without context below many blank lines. I saw it as vandanalism, and I still see it as vandalism. Donald Albury 20:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- All that text was unnecessary anyway to get your point across, Wk472. I've changed Ipomoea violacea back to the proper Ipomoea tricolor. The change was inadvertent, as I was referring to the outdated nomenclature used in the 1961 paper by R. Gordon Wasson. Carlstak (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)