User talk:Lcdrovers: Difference between revisions
MrDemeanour (talk | contribs) |
MrDemeanour (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
:::Hi, I appreciate your reflective response. |
:::Hi, I appreciate your reflective response. |
||
:::Regarding Wiipedia's structures: I seem to have been editing WP a bit longer than you. I don't like the admin system, although the are some terrific admins. But the system works fine, in the end, if you are patient, and if you understand "fine" to mean the same as "improving the encyclopaedia". |
:::Regarding Wiipedia's structures: I seem to have been editing WP a bit longer than you. I don't like the admin system, although the are some terrific admins. But the system works fine, in the end, if you are patient, and if you understand "fine" to mean the same as "improving the encyclopaedia". |
||
:::You don't really need "WP structures" to combat vandalism, you can just revert it. If what you're objecting to is "unsourced assertions/weasel words", that isn't vandalism. My custom is to tag unsourced assertions; and if I stumble on <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tags that are more than a year old, I might do a bit of research, before deleting the unsourced material. That still doesn't involve "WP structures", as far as I can see. It's just drive-by housekeeping. With "weasel words", you're into judgement-land, and perhaps {{WP: |
:::You don't really need "WP structures" to combat vandalism, you can just revert it. If what you're objecting to is "unsourced assertions/weasel words", that isn't vandalism. My custom is to tag unsourced assertions; and if I stumble on <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tags that are more than a year old, I might do a bit of research, before deleting the unsourced material. That still doesn't involve "WP structures", as far as I can see. It's just drive-by housekeeping. With "weasel words", you're into judgement-land, and perhaps {{WP:Bold}} is where you end up. [[User:MrDemeanour|MrDemeanour]] ([[User talk:MrDemeanour|talk]]) 21:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 21:29, 24 February 2024
Welcome!
|
Activism for Internet privacy moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Activism for Internet privacy, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 16:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I will observe these standards and resubmit when I can meet them! I appreciate your help! Lcdrovers (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Activism for Internet privacy
Hello, Lcdrovers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Activism for Internet privacy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Activism for Internet privacy
Hello, Lcdrovers. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Activism for Internet privacy".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Slide rule
Hi,
You removed a passage about Werner von Braun, with this comment:
"section about wernher von braun is linked with an inline reference that clearly does not provide a source for the content and the bit about von braun being responsible for the apollo missions is unfortunately also nazi propaganda. caution should be used if deciding to revert this change".
[Edit] It crosses my mind that your "nazi propaganda" remark is not because the passage promoted nazism, but because it discussed a man famous for his achievements, who happened to be a nazi. If that was part of your motivation for deleting, it makes no sense; taken to its conclusion, we wouldn't be able to discuss any notable people who were nazis, making it hard to make sense of things like WWII. [/Edit]
The article on Werner von Braun is clear that he was director of the Marshall Space Flight Center, and Chief Architect of the Saturn V. Is that also Nazi propaganda? And is that intimidating warning really necessary? Why should caution be used?
I'm not proposing to revert your change; I'm not sure that von Braun's preference in slide rules is particularly pertinent to the "Modern form" section in the Slide rule article, so I haven't bothered to check the reference. But your edit comment alarmed me. I don't think there was anything particularly objectionable about the stuff you deleted.
MrDemeanour (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- @MrDemeanour i think you're probably right. i was afraid to check your response until now. i really appreciate your careful effort to parse my edit comment, because i agree it was extremely unnecessarily intimidating and unprofessional especially on a subject i emphatically know nothing about (slide rules and their history). i think the correct thing for me to have done here would simply have been to leave a citation needed marker. i felt very strongly at the time that it was important to remove this precise information, because i was under the impression it was actively incorrect for some reason (and i really wanted to "protect" wikipedia from perceived misinfo). that emotional response clouded my judgement at the time.
- i completely agree that my edit comment here was misinformed and extremely non-constructive. in the future if i have this kind of concern (especially on a subject i absolutely don't know!), i'll make a talk page section. i know wikipedia has structures for ensuring NPOV (really my only concern with my very aggressive comment was just about wanting to ensure NPOV and not having the vocab to explain it) and i'll make use of them next time.
- thanks a lot for taking the time to help me understand this. i'll see what the article looks like now after so many months, but if it's not been added back since then, i'm going to revert my change and add a citation request (or fill out the citation myself if i have the time). i know everyone here wants to build this beautiful encyclopedia together and i will work harder to communicate better. Lcdrovers (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- for the record, i personally once had to leave an online community (the scala programming language) because it has a vocal nazi contingent (among other serious issues), and upon further reflection i believe i may have accidentally misapplied the editing standards/scrutiny from that very adversarial environment, which didn't have discussion/escalation mechanisms like wikipedia.
- separately, i have also noticed extremely subtle vandalism of articles like Privacy (i've spent so much time on this one; i RARELY delete anything without replacing it/moving into a new section because privacy is so subjective) and Tom Hayes (trader), where unsourced assertions/weasel words are added to disparage the subject (sometimes with invalid citations or sources that directly contradict the claim). as a side note to myself, those two pages (an abstract concept with many interpretations across time, and a living person whose unjust sentence was recently reversed) should probably be moderated differently than technology like the slide rule. but even there, talk pages are the mature and correct way to address ambiguity.
- so even though i want to defend against vandalism (like we all do!), i need to put in the effort to use wikipedia's structures for that. i have no reason to believe at this point that this will fail. Lcdrovers (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I appreciate your reflective response.
- Regarding Wiipedia's structures: I seem to have been editing WP a bit longer than you. I don't like the admin system, although the are some terrific admins. But the system works fine, in the end, if you are patient, and if you understand "fine" to mean the same as "improving the encyclopaedia".
- You don't really need "WP structures" to combat vandalism, you can just revert it. If what you're objecting to is "unsourced assertions/weasel words", that isn't vandalism. My custom is to tag unsourced assertions; and if I stumble on {{cn}} tags that are more than a year old, I might do a bit of research, before deleting the unsourced material. That still doesn't involve "WP structures", as far as I can see. It's just drive-by housekeeping. With "weasel words", you're into judgement-land, and perhaps
 | This page in a nutshell: Go for it. |
We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought—Why doesn't this page have correct spelling, proper grammar, or a better layout? Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc.
Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles: it wants you to do it.
Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be. Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a "mute spectator"; be bold and drop your opinion there; see the official policy on talking and editing for more! On some of the less-prominent articles on Wikipedia that have a lower editing rate, your bold edit might not be responded to immediately. Think about it this way: if you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough.
Be careful
Although the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly. Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted easily, usually painlessly, and it is important not to feel insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. However, some significant changes can be long-lasting and harder to fix. If you're unsure of anything, just ask for advice.
Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.
Being bold is not an excuse to, even temporarily, violate the policy on material about living persons.
Often it is easier to see that something is not right rather than to know exactly what would be right. We do not require anyone to be bold; after all, commenting that something is incorrect can be the first step to getting it fixed. It is true, though, that problems are more certain to be fixed, and will probably be fixed faster, if you are bold and do it yourself.
Non-article namespaces
Although editors are encouraged to be bold in updating articles, more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces. Such pages are identified by a namespace prefix. For example, this page, Wikipedia:Be bold, has the "Wikipedia:" prefix; if it were called simply Be bold (with no prefix) it would be an article.
Problems may arise for a variety of reasons in different contexts in non-article namespaces. These problems should be taken into account in deciding whether to be bold, and how bold to be.
Wikipedia namespace
Wikipedia does not "enshrine" old practices: bold changes to its policies and guidelines are sometimes the best way to adapt and improve the encyclopedia. In this case, "bold" refers to boldness of idea; such ideas are most commonly raised and discussed first to best formulate their implementation.
The admonition "be careful" is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won compromise—which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to discuss potential changes first. However, spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed.
Discussing changes to other Wikipedia-space pages on the talk page is also a good idea. If nothing else, it will provide an explanation of the changes for later editors. Most such pages are collections of arguments placed in Wikipedia space for later reference, so the same arguments don't need to be made over and over again.
Template namespace
One must be especially careful when being bold with templates: updating them can have far-reaching consequences because one change can affect lots of pages at once. Moreover, some templates are part of a wide-ranging, uniform system of templates across Wikipedia, e.g. infoboxes and stubs. Remember, all source code is easily broken by untested changes (but always quite fixable).
Because of these concerns, many heavily used templates are indefinitely protected from editing. Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects. Templates often have associated sandbox and testcases pages; respectively these are a place for the proposed modified template, and a place where the proposal may be trialed in comparison with the existing version.
Category namespace
Creating new categories or reorganizing the category structure may come to affect many pages. Consider the guidelines on categorization and overcategorization, and if what you're doing might be considered controversial (especially if it concerns categories for living people), propose changes at Categories for discussion, also mentioning them on pages of appropriate WikiProjects.
File namespace
Be bold in adding information to the description of an existing image. However, new images should be uploaded with new names rather than overwriting old ones. Doing otherwise risks having the old image confused with the new one. Therefore, you must always be careful.
User namespace
It is generally recommended that you do not edit another Wikipedian's user page or comments left on talk pages (other than your own, and even then do not be reckless). Fixing vandalism is nearly always welcome, even on user pages. Specific users will let you know if they find your changes inappropriate or if you have given incorrect information.
Portal namespace
Regarding changes to graphical layout? See the next section. Note that the color scheme used for portals is not necessarily arbitrary. For example, most portals related to countries use the colors of the nation's flag. It is a good idea to propose design changes on the talk page first.
Graphical layout changes
Making major changes to the graphical layout of certain pages that are not articles requires caution (examples below). It is often best to test changes first (in a sandbox page in your userspace, or a subpage of the page in question), and to discuss the proposed change with other editors before making it live. When many users edit pages for layout, different plans can conflict, and the page may get worse rather than better.
This is particularly true of highly visible pages, such as those linked from the navigation boxes on the left of the screen. These often use intricate formatting to convey their information, and a lot of work has gone into making them as user-friendly as possible. Moreover, some pages form groups whose formatting is intended to be uniform. You should establish consensus before making design edits to these types of pages. Examples include the Main Page (which in any case is permanently protected), the Community Portal, the Featured content group of pages, and the group consisting of Wikipedia:Contents and its subpages, as well as Portal:Current events. This does not apply to articles or normal portals.
See also
- BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (essay)
- Can't break it (essay)
- Introduction to contributing (tutorial)
- Edit this proposal (essay)
- Editing policy (policy)
- Ignore all rules (policy)
- Old dogs and new tricks (essay)
- {{Sofixit}} (template message encouraging bold editing)
- User:NotMe (humorous essay)
is where you end up. MrDemeanour (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)