- 1 New messages
- 2 Disambiguation link notifications
- 3 Black locust link
- 4 huh?
- 5 A barnstar for you!
- 6 Characters in Romeo and Juliet
- 7 CUSACK ancestry
- 8 Linocut
- 9 William Burges
- 10 Er.. huh... VANDALISM?
- 11 The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)
- 12 Battle of the Utus
- 13 Winfield Scott's "Peacetime Activities"
- 14 Reverting vandalism
- 15 The Wikipedia Library Survey
Wikipedia policies, guidelines; twitter, facebook; what Wikipedia is not; avoiding common mistakes
References to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, instructions, include:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Wikipedia guidelines on twitter, facebook: Wikipedia:Twitter. Wikipedia guidelines, policies on external links: Wikipedia:External links. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which includes not a dictionary, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or means of promotion, a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, a directory, a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, a crystal ball, a newspaper, or an indiscriminate collection of information. • Wikipedia:Verifiability. • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. • Wikipedia:No original research. • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. • Wikipedia:Citing sources. • Wikipedia:Notability. • Wikipedia:Image use policy. • Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. • Wikipedia:Vandalism. • Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles.
User Talk page guidelines
Excerpts Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.
Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users.
There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details.
User talk pages are subject to the general userpage guidelines on handling inappropriate content—see Wikipedia:User pages#Handling inappropriate content.
- Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving.
From the section Editing comments, Other's comments in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:
- Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using
<nowiki>and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation.
- Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
- Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than sub-sectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g.,
:. Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments. very long discussions may also be divided into sub-sections.
<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.
Note that it is proper to use
<nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples.
- im not so sure how to highlight something in blue to make a link appear- the invasiveness of the black locust tree is disputed, since it is native. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- If there is an article you wish to link to put two brackets <no wiki>[[</no wiki> before the title of the article and two close brackets <no wiki>]]</no wiki> (without the no wiki signs) after the title of the article. Be sure you have the title exactly correct including capitalization. Donner60 (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
You reverted and section blanked a sourced, cited section on the Battle of the Bulge with little explanation and no suggestion on improvement. Why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- This section was stated in the form of personal commentary and conclusions, not entirely facts. Wikipedia standards require that facts be stated in neutral language. You can try it again with that in mind. If you really want suggestions, I can see if I can suggest some language. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see the changes in the revision history, which is very unusual. I don't think I can do anything unless you make the edit again. Donner60 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Cool. I was more perplexed than anything, normally when a section gets added, the initial language is modified to improve it. Blanking, I understand, is only utilized in patent vandalism, especially if it is sourced. I can put it back in the article and you can alter lanuage you find objectionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I have to admit that I misread this in two respects. One was the reliance placed on a you tube video, which normally is not considered a good source. The other was a misreading of the sequence of the second paragraph in which I thought the Nazi actions were being attributed to the actions of the white officers. This is not what it says. I am glad I did not leave a vandalism message (although that is not what I thought was an issue here). I apologize for my misinterpretation and the inconvenience. I left the article as it was except for making a few minor spacing changes. I did that in order to put an edit of mine last which I believe will tip off the bot that the prior edit was good. Otherwise, I think the bot could come along and revert the edit as identical to the one already reverted. Donner60 (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. though when you made the spacing changes, the section still got deleted. Can you put it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|For reverting the vandalism done to Mummy (and just being generally awesome)! -- Saint Soren (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)|
Characters in Romeo and Juliet
- Prior text is restored. If you were simply testing to see how editing works, it was successful. Please be more careful with future edits and explain them in the edit summary. If you had a good reason to remove this character, you should also explain that in the edit summary and if a longer explanation is needed, on the talk page. You are certainly welcome to make constructive edits in the future. Donner60 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) You can't remove your IP address. When you edit without an account, it's saved permanently in the page history, and users' requests to hide their own IP address are specifically listed as insufficient reason to hide them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I know of nothing that can be done but I don't think that one unconstructive edit should make any difference. If you edit again, that will be added to the edit history under this IP address. IPs can be tracked, at least to a general location, but I don't know why anyone would want to do it except maybe to confirm persistent vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Donner60, firstly thank you for your previous advice and corrections. There is a list of ‘Notables Moderns’ at the end of CUSACK and I thought that I would give the readers of those pages an insight into the ancestry of those of that surname so I went and added – ‘Norman-Irish Cusack ancestry’ however ‘SummerPhd’ has come back to say that I was incorrect and has removed these references. Did I do wrong in trying to give those ‘names’ readers an opportunity to extend their knowledge? If not acceptable should I have done/worded the inclusion differently? Your advice will, as always, be gratefully received. C.Cleeve — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Cleeve (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Putting the information in a full sentence or perhaps as a clause at the end of a sentence would have been better form. This is a minor issue, of course. The main problem here is that there is no reference to the person(s) being "Norman-Irish." They are listed in the Notable Modern Cusacks section but I don't think the article establishes that all Cusacks were or are of "Norman-Irish" ancestry. Without citing a source that definitely links a modern person to a "Norman-Irish" lineage, it is technically correct to challenge the addition of that fact. If there is no definite source among those cited in the Cusack article or otherwise, I think another approach, or perhaps compromise, would be to find a stand-alone word "Cusack" in an article on an individual person and link it to the "Cusack" article. The reader could then see the information presented there and draw their own conclusion from it. Donner60 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Moved from above: Donner60, your deletion of my addition to the article concerning linocuts comes across as exceedingly arrogant and ignorant, as well as somewhat puzzling. Consider that the first entry in this list is an obscure artist who neither has his own Wikipedia article nor a "reliable, verifiable, neutral source" as far as I can tell. One has to type his name into a search engine to find any information about him, which is something it seems you were too lazy to do with my addition - thus, I have done it for you: here is a reference to Mark Mulfinger from an art gallery - http://hamptoniiigallery.com/mulfinger/ - as well as an art museum in North Carolina - http://www.ashevilleart.org/artists/markmulfinger/ - plus, a news article - http://www.greenvilleonline.com/viewart/20130102/CITYPEOPLE/301020027/Mark-Mulfinger-captures-images-Westminster-Presbyterian - and his personal website - http://markmulfinger.com - If you take the time to look into these, you will see that this artist is more than qualified to be recognized in this list, and, I hope, cause you to kindly "allow" my addition to remain. Perhaps you can also refrain from making hasty edits in the future. Thank you,
-Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your ad hominem argument was not necessary to make your point and neither advances your position nor this collaborative and volunteer venture. Nonetheless, you have come up with a source for your addition so your substantive point could have been, and has been, made in any event. You did not put the reference in the article but I will not revert it on that technicality. Instead, I will insert the reference. You are correct about the first entry, it too should be deleted for the same reason. My ignorance and arrogance, as you put it, simply was an implementation of Wikipedia guidelines on notability. I suggest you consult Wikipedia:Citing Sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability for reference. Donner60 (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently so. Not the first time I have seen a featured article vandalized. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Er.. huh... VANDALISM?
(This revert of Very Large Array.) Could you explain in greater detail? I was about to combine the footnote I added with the pre-existing reference to the NRAO "Overview" page, and noticed it had been reverted. It sure didn't seem "nonconstructive" to me or I wouldn't have bothered. Clarification, please?
- Oh, oops! There's a bit of cut & paste spam copied from the original web site lower down than the intentional infobox edits. My bad! Is that what tripped your spam detector? Mind if I re-do it without that crap? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, please go ahead; these things can happen when someone like me sees a partial change before the entire change is made and takes it as a complete change. Luckily, it does not happen often but it can happen without ill purpose from either the writer or editor. My message on your page: My mistake. I jumped the gun. Go ahead and complete the work, which will undoubtedly fix what I thought I saw in the partial change. I apologize for the inconvenience and delete the warning. Donner60 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, it was an outright error on my part, and intended to be a complete edit. I understand now what you were thinking, I was just very confused at first, because the deliberate part (which was described by the edit summary) seemed obviously non-vandalism. You might disagree, but I'd expect a little more detail. Thus my request for clarification, without too much accusation. I was trying to WP:AGF on your part. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Donner! The anonymous troll is entirely uncommunicative and particularly insistent. Could you please assist me in watching this article? Just in case you have not added it to your watchlist. Best regards.--Dipa1965 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's almost sure that the same user comes from 2-3 different ip's (always based around Cleveland, US). I would assume good-faith from him had he responded to our attempts to communicate. But he didn't. I always wonder what kind of people are persons like him, in their normal lives.--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Winfield Scott's "Peacetime Activities"
Thanks for reverting a vandalism edit to Body composition but note that vandals often make consecutive edits. I have now reverted the first edit. Rollback can revert consecutive edits with one click. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. A problem can be that two separate users vandalize an article. One must be vigilant about that. Either way, thanks, because I missed one here. Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)