Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== January 2011 == |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please do not [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|attack]] other editors, as you did at [[:Wikipedia:Help desk]]. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> [[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Leivick]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Leivick|talk]]) 15:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Calling other editors idiots is a very good way to get your ideas dismissed. If you continue to be uncivil you will be blocked. --[[User:Daniel J. Leivick|Leivick]] ([[User talk:Daniel J. Leivick|talk]]) 15:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Help_desk#Editing_system_is_extremely_poorly_thought-out]] == |
== [[Wikipedia:Help_desk#Editing_system_is_extremely_poorly_thought-out]] == |
||
Revision as of 11:55, 5 October 2011
Having nothing better to do for the past fifteen minutes, I read the whole discussion and must say that I am impressed with the calm and mature attitude that Py0alb has displayed. I would say, however, that (1) this place is probably not the forum for his subject and (2) he has as much chance of changing WP policies and the attitude of obtuse editors as an ice cube on a hot griddle. Sometimes a WP:Wikibreak is helpful. This discussion was closed before I had a chance to post this. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Pending changes
I see that you were referring to Spin bowling, and that your requested edits were being disallowed through pending changes. There was quite a lengthy discussion about this on your IP talk page, so there's hardly any call to claim that you were being reverted without discussion. You were asked to provide a reference if you intended to redo the edit; why not simply comply? As was discussed in WP:HD, information needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. When a form of protection is in place on the article, a reference for any additions is necessary: when requesting any such edit, including semi- or fully-protected article edits, you must provide a source. In the amount of time you've spent arguing that everyone else must be wrong and that you're an expert, you could have simply found and provided a source for your information. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Py0alb, when you are not logged in and click edit at Spin bowling, this is displayed at top of the edit page in a blue box:
- Note: Edits to this page are subject to review (help).
- If you click the linked "help" then you get a page starting:
- "Pending-changes protection" (PC protection) is a tool that is being tested on a limited number of articles during a two-month trial.
- Special:ValidationStatistics currently shows that it only applies to 899 out of 3,555,545 article space pages (0.03%). It appears your whole experience and subsequent suggestion for a fundamental change of how Wikipedia should operate on all articles was based on a system only applying to 0.03% of articles, but your post gave us no way to determine this. You kept claiming that the specific page didn't matter but it would have been really helpful if you had revealed the page when people kept asking you for it. Your initial claim in [1] and apparently the premise for your suggestion was: "Currently every single change that is made to improve a page requires completely unnecessarily rigorous referencing before that change is allowed". But this is false for more than 99% of Wikipedia articles (some unsourced edits may be reverted on other articles but certainly not always). Another time, please reveal what you are basing your claims and suggestions on, and don't assume a single experience has taught you everything relevant about a complex site with millions of pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I've undone your edit to spin bowling... Text like "one of the greatest" or "considered to be" is editorializing. We report on verifiable facts, not opinion. I love that you're editing and know the rules can be comp,ex. Have you considered the adoption program so that there's someone to help you navigate them? Philippe Beaudette (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- as one example, text like "considered one of the greatest bowlers of all time" would be editorializing. No source is cited. Considered by whom? Philippe Beaudette (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is a case where it's really important that anything that's posted to the page be corrected referenced. How is someone who comes in later to know that those words go with your reference? There's a referencing style that needs to be followed. I'd be happy to set you up with a user who can help you do that, but I'm unwilling to reintroduce that edit until the it's properly referenced, because it creates confusion for the reader. Also, please note, I'm copying the talk on my Foundation account over to this personal account. I was logged in on the wrong one. Sorry about that! - Philippe 14:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- as one example, text like "considered one of the greatest bowlers of all time" would be editorializing. No source is cited. Considered by whom? Philippe Beaudette (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I've undone your edit to spin bowling... Text like "one of the greatest" or "considered to be" is editorializing. We report on verifiable facts, not opinion. I love that you're editing and know the rules can be comp,ex. Have you considered the adoption program so that there's someone to help you navigate them? Philippe Beaudette (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I had a quick look at the reference provided with some of the recent changes, and I've removed the statements which included weasel words, and moved the reference to the references section since it was not laid out as an inline citation. However, the page the URL directed to doesn't specifically give much relevant information that I can see, and it certainly doesn't seem to verify most of whta was added. The article is going to need some strong sources to support the added material (and in fact the existing material as well), since as it stands it's more or less completely unreferenced. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I have asked on the cricket portal talk page for someone with more editing knowledge than me to assist in the renovation of this page. Py0alb (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Reply
You have deleted all the things which were not able to delete. So I done it, please be cool and its policy.--—just feel it (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Belated welcome
It seems no-one's yet extended you a proper welcome, neither before nor since you registered an account. So apologies for the delay, and here goes:
|
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)