→Assume Good Faith: new section |
m →Why?: new section |
||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] while interacting with other editors{{#if:Princess Irina of Romania|, which you did not on [[:Princess Irina of Romania]]}}. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-agf1 --> P.S. I'm not in the mood to argue and will take the article off my watchlist. Happy editing. [[User:Katr67|Katr67]] ([[User talk:Katr67|talk]]) 14:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] while interacting with other editors{{#if:Princess Irina of Romania|, which you did not on [[:Princess Irina of Romania]]}}. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-agf1 --> P.S. I'm not in the mood to argue and will take the article off my watchlist. Happy editing. [[User:Katr67|Katr67]] ([[User talk:Katr67|talk]]) 14:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Why? == |
|||
I don't know why you must fight me over every change to every article. I really don't. I don't make these edits to make you mad. I have better things to do with my time. I don't make them just to give myself something to do. Again, I have better things to do with my time. Since you ignore everything that I put in edit summaries, especially when I'm telling you exactly which guidelines I'm following when I make those edits, I'll spell it out for you.... |
|||
Lists of works, such as filmographies, should go in chronological order with the earliest work first. I've pointed out the guideline that says that several times to you now and it seems you have not read it. Read [[WP:LOW|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (list of works)]] (WP:LOW) and you'll see that it specifically says: |
|||
:''Items should be listed in chronological order of production, earliest first.'' |
|||
And no, this is not the way things are listed on the Internet Movie Database. I know that. You can't simply copy and paste their entire filmography and put it here because the list needs to be in reverse order of the way that they show it. |
|||
Second, as for episode titles, they should be in "double quotes". I've pointed this out to you in my edit summaries and I haven't been the only one. If you need me to find where another editor has also pointed this out, let me know and I'll find the edit where they did so. The reason for the double quotes can be found in two guidelines [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia:Manual of Style]] and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)]]. First, from WP:MOS: |
|||
:''Italics are used for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, paintings and musical albums. The titles of articles, chapters, songs and other short works are not italicized, but are enclosed in double quotation marks.'' (That "short works" list, although it isn't specifically stated, includes episode titles) |
|||
Secondly, from WP:MOS (titles): |
|||
:''Italics are generally used for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works (particularly those that exist as a smaller part of a larger work), such as the following, should be enclosed in double quotation marks:'' |
|||
* ''Articles, essays or papers '' |
|||
* ''Chapters of a longer work '' |
|||
* ''Singular episodes of a television series'' |
|||
* ''Short poems'' |
|||
* ''Short stories'' |
|||
* ''Songs and singles'' |
|||
Why do you ignore the guidelines that I point out in my edit summaries? I put links to the guidelines so that you can read them and understand why I'm making those edits. As I said, I don't do this simply to waste my time and yours. Every time someone makes a change that you disagree with, you change it back to your way without reading the guidelines that are pointed out. Why do you do this? |
|||
Now, I'm going to go back through each of the articles where you have undone the work that I did and change it back. What I would like you to do is to read the rest of the guidelines that I have pointed out here, as well as answer my question as to why you keep ignoring people when they point out the guidelines by which they are making their edits. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:45, 8 October 2008
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, G.-M. Cupertino, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! Alekjds talk 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Administrator for emergencies
EyeSerenetalk G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Nogueira Ferrão
You may be interested in cleaning up the article Nogueira Ferrão. Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have been able to work out the issue with the ancestry template for Karl Albrecht. Please let me know if you require any more assistance--I'm always happy to help! --Caponer (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, now I see what you mean (I thought you were saying that the Karl Albrecht template was not working properly). After playing with the article's code for a half an hour, I'm still unable to ascertain why the templates aren't showing up correctly. I even modified the succession boxes at the bottom to see if that was causing a problem, but it isn't. I'll continue to inquire with the template powers that be. --Caponer (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Royal articles
I am an inclusionist, but I usually only create articles for princesses who marry sovereign rulers or other major European royals, especially when they have produced issue who are notable individuals. In order to have articles, princesses have to have some measure of notability or else administrators tend to delete them. --Caponer (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Barnstars
Anyone can give Barnstars for any reason! --Caponer (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The Ting Tings
Thanks for your well-worded response, that certainly clears a few things up. I apologise if I appeared abrupt or rude in my message, it was just that my edits were being undone without any explanation, and some of which I had spent some time doing, such as painstakingly researching and adding the specific dates of performances, as well as removing other vandalism.
However, I still feel that dates are just that, dates, not titles of episodes, some programmes such as chat shows do not technically have episode titles, so a simple date stating when they appeared on that particular show is more suited to the list. Furthermore, episodes are not italicised anyway, if you check any proper Wikipedia article on TV series, you will see that episodes are merely wrapped in quote marks like "this". Once again though, thanks for your reply. Feudonym (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Would you please read WP:MOS. It states that episode titles are not to be in italics. Double quotes such as "this" are to be used for episode titles, songs, and short stories. Whereas italics are to be used for film titles, television show titles, and titles of plays. Dismas|(talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Contributions
You asked how to find out what articles a particular editor has edited. That can be found by looking at their contributions. To do that, go to either the User's page or their talk page and click on the "User contributions" link in the toolbox on the left hand side of the page. Dismas|(talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries
I'm curious about something. You never seem to leave an edit summary and often times when I leave reasons for my edits in my summary, you don't seem to be reading them. So I just wanted to make sure that you knew they were there. You can also see all the summaries if you go to the history of an article. So, were you aware of them? Dismas|(talk) 02:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- They aren't meant as arguments. They're meant to point out the guidelines that I'm following when I'm making my edits. Partially, so that others can learn why those edits should be made. So when you ignore them, it leads to a lot of frustration. It would do you a lot of good to read the guidelines and policies that are linked in those summaries. Dismas|(talk) 13:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Clarification re wikilinks
I think I need to clarify some of the statements I've made about wikilinking dates, since I've noticed that you seem to be taking my comments out of context and using them to justify edit-warring with other editors.
As a general rule, the only wikilinks that should be present in an article are those that add depth to that article. We do not link common words, dates etc unless there is a very good reason to do so. Practically, this means that we would only add such wikilinks in exceptional circumstances - the vast majority of articles should not include low-value links. There is, as I said previously, some room for discretion... but not very much. Your insistence on adding inappropriate links, especially where other editors have agreed they should be removed, is becoming disruptive, and edit-warring to keep such links in an article - even if you were right - is specifically against Wikipedia policy. Please take a moment to reconsider next time you find yourself getting into one of these essentially trivial, and easily avoidable, disputes; further disruption may result in this account being blocked. EyeSerenetalk 13:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. The problem is that these, too, are seen as 'minor' links because they add little extra value to an article. Personally I think they have some value, but current guidelines and consensus seem to be pretty strongly against them... and that's what we all have to abide by, whether we agree or not. Anyone who has been here a while has been on the wrong side of a consensus, but that's just Wikipedia; the best course is to give in with as good grace as possible, drop it, and move on ;) EyeSerenetalk 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I take your point. As it happens I agree with most of the recent MoS changes regarding linking in articles, but I also think that, as often happens in these cases, enforcing compliance has caused as many problems as it's solved. By letting it go, you're doing the wisest thing - you've made many valuable edits in other areas, and life's too short to spend arguing policy! EyeSerenetalk 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Assume Good Faith
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Princess Irina of Romania. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. P.S. I'm not in the mood to argue and will take the article off my watchlist. Happy editing. Katr67 (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Why?
I don't know why you must fight me over every change to every article. I really don't. I don't make these edits to make you mad. I have better things to do with my time. I don't make them just to give myself something to do. Again, I have better things to do with my time. Since you ignore everything that I put in edit summaries, especially when I'm telling you exactly which guidelines I'm following when I make those edits, I'll spell it out for you....
Lists of works, such as filmographies, should go in chronological order with the earliest work first. I've pointed out the guideline that says that several times to you now and it seems you have not read it. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (list of works) (WP:LOW) and you'll see that it specifically says:
- Items should be listed in chronological order of production, earliest first.
And no, this is not the way things are listed on the Internet Movie Database. I know that. You can't simply copy and paste their entire filmography and put it here because the list needs to be in reverse order of the way that they show it.
Second, as for episode titles, they should be in "double quotes". I've pointed this out to you in my edit summaries and I haven't been the only one. If you need me to find where another editor has also pointed this out, let me know and I'll find the edit where they did so. The reason for the double quotes can be found in two guidelines Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). First, from WP:MOS:
- Italics are used for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, paintings and musical albums. The titles of articles, chapters, songs and other short works are not italicized, but are enclosed in double quotation marks. (That "short works" list, although it isn't specifically stated, includes episode titles)
Secondly, from WP:MOS (titles):
- Italics are generally used for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works (particularly those that exist as a smaller part of a larger work), such as the following, should be enclosed in double quotation marks:
- Articles, essays or papers
- Chapters of a longer work
- Singular episodes of a television series
- Short poems
- Short stories
- Songs and singles
Why do you ignore the guidelines that I point out in my edit summaries? I put links to the guidelines so that you can read them and understand why I'm making those edits. As I said, I don't do this simply to waste my time and yours. Every time someone makes a change that you disagree with, you change it back to your way without reading the guidelines that are pointed out. Why do you do this?
Now, I'm going to go back through each of the articles where you have undone the work that I did and change it back. What I would like you to do is to read the rest of the guidelines that I have pointed out here, as well as answer my question as to why you keep ignoring people when they point out the guidelines by which they are making their edits. Dismas|(talk) 18:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)