User talk:Diariser
Welcome
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Mr. Stradivarius
Diariser, good luck, and have fun. --— Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
October 2017
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Steve Davis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Betty Logan (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Message from Diariser:
Thanks for the info. I don't even know how to reply to these messages, or sign my reply. Apologies for this but frankly I have better things to do than spend hours learning how to have arguments on Wikipedia. I did not start this "edit war". I work in archive television and am an acknowledged expert in the field. I understand that you weren't to know that, since I do not have a history of arguments or edit wars on Wiki, I'm not entirely clear Betty chose to take issue with a fact that is impossible to verify online without uploading the match on Youtube, which it isn't particularly my place to do. I regularly come across old domestic video recordings, and came across a recording of the match in question recently. I thought the information was notable as it came from Davis' golden period.
Edit: I have now put a screen grab on your page, showing Davis needing a snooker in the frame in question. Hopefully that will satisfy you! Probably should have thought of that earlier TBF.
Steve Davis match dispute
[edit]If the match is available online or on home video, you can cite that verifiable copy, with {{Cite video}}. If you videotaped or DVRed the original broadcast and have sufficient details about the broadcast, you can also cite the original broadcast, with the same template; the latter will likely be considered weak sourcing, since it cannot be verified except by someone else who also recorded it, but it's better than nothing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
June 2020
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at BBC Two '1991–2001' idents, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 11:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, apologies that I'm not familiar with wiki editing argument protocols and frankly have no desire to become so! If you really want the article to be removed then I have got better things to do than keep coming back to argue with you. But it's a terrible shame. The first time I have seen this discussion is today, because I needed to look at the BBC2 idents page again, and I see you have again removed it. It was happily there for several years, providing a useful resource for me and others. As I say, a shame. Almost none of the information on the page was created by me. It existed due to the excellent, diligent and accurate work of other archivists. I was not adding content, I was simply restoring content which existed for many years, which should still exist. It was accurate, and was removed only because someone decided it was "too much detail" (it being unsourced was not cited as a reason if memory serves, but is now being used as an excuse, which funnily enough I think was also the case on the Steve Davis page way back when). It is unsourced because there is no verifiable source. You might be surprised to hear that there is no official history of BBC idents, nor does the BBC employ anyone to categorize the history of BBC idents. So this, like a million other articles which happily exist on wiki, can never be properly sourced in the way you require. Wikipedia would be a useless resource if such proof was required for every entry. I'm currently working a BBC archive consultant and occasionally have need to refer to the list of "special idents" which appeared over the 1991-2001 period. No other record of this exists online. Do I really have to bookmark the old version of this page, in order to have a reliable resource? It's so sad and unnecessary. Please accept my apologies if this message is not signed correctly. I have no idea how to do so. Diariser (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Diariser, I see you were cautioned for inserting unsourced material (and edit warring) years ago already, long before SuperMarioMan and I came by, and your edits still exhibit the same problems (you were duking it out with SMcCandlish over Steve Davis? I can't believe he's 62 already, by the way). That "ident" material is mostly unsourced, and if there is no reliable secondary sourcing for it, it is probably not encyclopedic material. Rodney Baggins and Tpdwkouaa have pointed this out to you as well, and this edit summary, "how would you like this to be verified?". Well, the answer is, with reliable, preferably printed, secondary material, and if you can't do that, don't be surprised if the material gets cut. And in the case of that ident stuff, that detailed information over these minutia, that's really for Wikia. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, the fact that there's even an article page about this stuff is pretty silly. I'm hard-pressed to think of any other articles we have on specific companies' logos, slogans, and other marketing. See also quotation no. 14 at User:SMcCandlish#Smartest things I've seen on Wikipedia. If we shouldn't have logo galleries in articles, we shouldn't have entire articles erected in a gallery section's place, for the same trivial subject matter. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Most "company logos" are not broadcast to millions of people every day for years, nor are they still in evidence on thousands of YouTube pages. This is not the same thing at all. Diariser (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |