User talk:CutOffTies: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by Zilla1126 - "Trying to learn the process - thanks for any help" |
Whoops! Forgot to sign! |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
:::I'm eager to learn more about this process; I'm new to this and the process is fascinating. For instance, in my perusal of [[WP:LP]] I notice that it is encouraged to remove contentious information about living persons immediately if there is no valid source given. That seems very reasonable. Having it specifically spelled out that it is *encouraged* that editors should fix rather than revert where possible *also* seems very reasonable. I notice that this is specifically mentioned in many of the articles designed to provide guidance to editors. Of course, in this case it seems that the edit was properly sourced. |
:::I'm eager to learn more about this process; I'm new to this and the process is fascinating. For instance, in my perusal of [[WP:LP]] I notice that it is encouraged to remove contentious information about living persons immediately if there is no valid source given. That seems very reasonable. Having it specifically spelled out that it is *encouraged* that editors should fix rather than revert where possible *also* seems very reasonable. I notice that this is specifically mentioned in many of the articles designed to provide guidance to editors. Of course, in this case it seems that the edit was properly sourced. |
||
:::Please help us newbies out, we all want the same thing: To make Wikipedia better! |
:::Please help us newbies out, we all want the same thing: To make Wikipedia better! |
||
:::I'll be sure to watch this page (as well as those other offending articles) to see the magic happen. |
:::I'll be sure to watch this page (as well as those other offending articles) to see the magic happen. [[User:Zilla1126|Zilla1126]] ([[User talk:Zilla1126|talk]]) 22:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:21, 7 July 2010
| This is CutOffTies's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
 |
|
|
Archive 1 (2008-Oct 2009) |
| Edit this box |
I thought that edit was legit. I guess I was wrong. Woops Zonafan39 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. It's nice to see an editor actually not freak out about a revert for a change. Happy editing --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Before reverting this user's contribution, I imagine that your exhaustive research uncovered the 11 other wikipedia articles citing that an individual was awarded the "Ronald Reagan Media Award". Since it seems that in these examples no one saw fit to immediately revert any mention of this award, that there is a contradiction here. Are you able to explain why Zonafan39's contribution needed to be immediately removed? If you feel it was correct of you to slap his wrist this way; will you follow up by fixing these other flawed articles? Here is the google search that will show you the other instances: "Ronald Reagan Media Award" site:en.wikipedia.org
- No problem. It's nice to see an editor actually not freak out about a revert for a change. Happy editing --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if giving you that link seems to assume that you did not do your due diligence; that is not my intent at all. It is just that you may have lost that information and I'm saving you the trouble of what would doubtless be a duplication of your original work.
- I'm eager to learn more about this process; I'm new to this and the process is fascinating. For instance, in my perusal of WP:LP I notice that it is encouraged to remove contentious information about living persons immediately if there is no valid source given. That seems very reasonable. Having it specifically spelled out that it is *encouraged* that editors should fix rather than revert where possible *also* seems very reasonable. I notice that this is specifically mentioned in many of the articles designed to provide guidance to editors. Of course, in this case it seems that the edit was properly sourced.
- Please help us newbies out, we all want the same thing: To make Wikipedia better!
- I'll be sure to watch this page (as well as those other offending articles) to see the magic happen. Zilla1126 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)