Jump to content

User talk:Dijcks: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Bin Laden: comment/answer to comments
Line 30: Line 30:


::There are 2 separate areas of that one article that I cited to support the text that was inserted. It's not right to tell me not to include them, AND then say I'm not properly sourcing the content. There is nothing in those edits that is not substantiated or supported in these other refs in the article. If there is, correct it, rather than wholesale removing of the original effort.[[User:Dijcks| <span style="color:blue">Dij</span><span style="color:red">cks</span>]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Dijcks |<span style="color:green">''<sup>In</sup><small>Out</small>''</span>]] 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
::There are 2 separate areas of that one article that I cited to support the text that was inserted. It's not right to tell me not to include them, AND then say I'm not properly sourcing the content. There is nothing in those edits that is not substantiated or supported in these other refs in the article. If there is, correct it, rather than wholesale removing of the original effort.[[User:Dijcks| <span style="color:blue">Dij</span><span style="color:red">cks</span>]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Dijcks |<span style="color:green">''<sup>In</sup><small>Out</small>''</span>]] 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

::Wayne, the part about the SEALs is covered in other reporting. It's been surmised by several outlets that concern for safety led them to shoot-first", erring on the side of safety. That said, my concern is that the complete set of edits were reverted. That's not right. If a part needs to be adjusted, or in your opinion removed, do that rather than wipe everything out? Thanks![[User:Dijcks| <span style="color:blue">Dij</span><span style="color:red">cks</span>]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Dijcks |<span style="color:green">''<sup>In</sup><small>Out</small>''</span>]] 17:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


==Talkback==
==Talkback==

Revision as of 17:44, 18 May 2011

Comment

The Original Barnstar
for this most excellent edit, which I just recently found. - Philippe 01:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the acknowledgement! I'm learning every day, how to be a better contributor! Dijcks | InOut 17:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Laden

Hi Dijcks. I think it would be sensible if you were to await a third opinion (WP:3), regarding your edits to the article on Osama bin Laden. Meph. 15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meph, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not aware of any WP:3O regarding that one sentence you changed.
By the way, some editors might consider some of your edit summaries insulting, for example:
  • "Reintroducing spelling mistakes; possible original research (it is assumed, to the best of my knowledge, that he was at the compound the enti"
OR:
  • "Tweaks following some messy editing".
..especially when they were not my mistakes. There were intermediate/conflicting edits that made it impossible to quickly change some of the syntax at the time you came in.
I'm personally developing a "thick skin" here, but others might take these comments personally. Best wishes, Dijcks | InOut 17:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dijcks, I intended no malice; I apologise if any was perceived. I was motivated by the sentence: 'Bin Laden spent several years in hidingat a private compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan', when something more concise and less ambiguous was needed. Best, Meph. 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all! I saw that spelling mistake (from another user actually!) but could not get it corrected right away. I think you came in right at a time when a few edits were mixing in at the same time. It simply took a few edits to get it where it is. I have a feeling that the article in question will be much-changed over the next few weeks given the attention it's getting! Thanks for the message :) Dijcks | InOut 17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits. Please read WP:OR. You can not add material that is not in the source even if it is likely to be true. In this case you cant say "taking care to avoid the possibility of any return-fire" because the source does not claim that and we can not know the intent until the Seals are interviewed personally. As the source has no personal knowledge of intent even if the source did say that, it would need to be attributed to the source not the subject ie: "according to x". If you follow what the source states you cant go wrong. Also note that when writing numbers in articles that you spell the number in full if ten (10) or less and numerically if more than ten, ie: 15. Cheers and good luck with your editing. Wayne (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed you had duplicated a reference. When you want to use the same reference multiple times you replace the <ref> in the first reference with <ref name="insert name">. For each additional use you only need to add <ref name="insert name"/> without the rest of the reference (but with a backslash) and it will refer the link to the original reference. This avoids cluttering the text which can make it harder to read when editing. Wayne (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 separate areas of that one article that I cited to support the text that was inserted. It's not right to tell me not to include them, AND then say I'm not properly sourcing the content. There is nothing in those edits that is not substantiated or supported in these other refs in the article. If there is, correct it, rather than wholesale removing of the original effort. Dijcks | InOut 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wayne, the part about the SEALs is covered in other reporting. It's been surmised by several outlets that concern for safety led them to shoot-first", erring on the side of safety. That said, my concern is that the complete set of edits were reverted. That's not right. If a part needs to be adjusted, or in your opinion removed, do that rather than wipe everything out? Thanks! Dijcks | InOut 17:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dijcks. You have new messages at WP:VPP.
Message added 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome template test

Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous