User talk:Flitterby

Welcome!

Hello, Flitterby, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

In response to your feedback

Then be bold and help us fix the problems.

Lectonar (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

That seems to me a matter of taste...if your heart is really into it, engage discussion about changing the article at Talk:Dylan Thomas.

Lectonar (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Thomas. Lots of us are interested in making the article better. Please don't be put off by reverts - they happen, especially at the start. It's good to be bold and also good to keep going if things seem rough. It takes a while to learn the ropes. Hang in there! The Thomas article has existed for eight years and been worked on by many editors. If you need a hand or have any questions, please drop me a line. Best wishes Span (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I'll bother if the regular editors are so attached to it. Flitterby (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just style, you edited out aspects such as the nature of the school. Use the talk page, I put the welcome notice up as no one had done it so far. You will find other editors very willing to talk to you. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was very careful not to change the meaning, I changed "single-sex" to "for boys" if you read carefully. I put a lot of effort into removing the unnecessary words and making it clearer, you just reverted the lot. The whole article needs editing. I didn't come here to talk, just improve. Not my loss, what a welcome. Flitterby (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)|}[reply]

Hi, talking is usually how it works when we first rock up. Any editor can challenge or change any edit and often this does happen, especially if we make bold, early edits. You made a lot of bold syntax changes, altering the tone of the sentences. It's good to give things a go and see how it goes down, there is always the possibility here that consensus isn't with you. We work as a cohort of editors. Maybe have a read of this article on editing. I recommend sticking around and asking questions about how things work. You are welcome. Best wishes Span (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look I am sorry if you were offended, but I thought you moved the style to a more colloquial, less encyclopaedic one. Boys instead of Single Sex being one example. Now other editors might disagree, which is why the talk page is there. That is way Wikipedia works. You may think you are improving and article, others disagree, we talk the whole thing moves forward. If you stay (and I hope you will) then it will get a lot more robust, especially if you stray onto the more controversial articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read what you write? Your last sentence makes as much sense to me as the article. I realise now why this article will remain so unreadable.Flitterby (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I can think of few things more tedious and time wasting than someone edit warring to try to impose wholly stylistic and in some cases actually incorrect changes such as:

changing "As of 2012, the university has around" to "As of 2012, the it has around"

changing "The University of Manchester was officially launched" to "The University of Manchester was launched" , which removes a useful point of clarification

changing "The EPSRC announced the formation of a National Institute for Graphene Research in Feb 2012." to "The EPSRC announced in Feb 2012 the formation of a National Institute for Graphene Research"

changing "In August 2012, it was announced that the University of Manchester's Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences had been chosen to be the 'hub' location for a new BP International Centre for Advanced Materials" to "In August 2012, it was announced that its Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences had been chosen to be the 'hub' location for a BP International Centre for Advanced Materials"

If you wish to make these pointless changes then please start a thread on the article talk page. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being careful

Flitterby, please be more careful in your copy edits. As with Dylan Thomas, many of the edits you are making to simplify language are change the meaning and sense of the sentences you edit, as in the case of Brown's Hotel (Laugharne). You changed the sentence

"Following in Dylan Thomas' footsteps, other visitors include President Jimmy Carter, Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, Elizabeth Taylor, Patti Smith, Pierce Brosnan and Mick Jagger; the latter two competed to buy a steel bed that Thomas had once slept in when it was owned by landlord Tommy Watts."

to

"Following in Dylan Thomas' footsteps, other visitors include President Jimmy Carter, Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, Elizabeth Taylor, Patti Smith and Pierce Brosnan and Mick Jagger who competed to buy a steel bed that Thomas had once slept in when it was owned by landlord Tommy Watts."

You removed two words but the whole sense of the sentence has changed. You move from two people competing to seven. This is no small or pedantic difference.

You changed

"In the United States, the terms American Craftsman or Craftsman style are often used to denote the style of architecture, interior design, and decorative arts that prevailed between the dominant eras of Art Nouveau and Art Deco, or approximately the period from 1910 to 1925."

to

"In the United States, the terms American Craftsman or Craftsman style are used to denote the style of architecture, interior design, and decorative arts that prevailed between the eras of Art Nouveau and Art Deco from 1910 to 1925."

The difference between "approximately 1910 to 1925" and "1910 to 1925", a 'dominant era' to an 'era' is significant. Art Nouveau and Art Deco extended beyond 1910 to 1925.

You argue that articles have too many words, but they are often chosen with care, for a specific reason, holding nuance, inflection or chronology, helping the reader navigate the material. Specific words, perhaps not the obvious word, are often chosen to avoid copyright infringement. More words, longer or more precise words often help to clarify and specify meaning. So please go carefully considering the good faith and competence of your fellow editors. Thank you Span (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flitterby seems to be applying Orwell's maxim of "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out" in a rather too enthusiastic manner. It is a good maxim but requires skillful application. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I very carefully removed things that made the article hard to read, added wikilinks and tried to make sure university wasn't unneccessarily capitalised. You undid it all arbitrarily. It took me an hour, it took you one click. That's vandalism. Flitterby (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flitterby - although much of your copy editing is in my view useful and improving, you have to recognise that (i) writing styles are subjective; and (ii) it is simply unacceptable to edit war to try to impose mere stylistic changes, as you have been doing at the Manchester University article. You accuse Spanglej of vandalism for reverting your changes but seem unable to grasp that your own editing at that article has involved edit warring and you have failed to engage with the comments about the article made on your talk page which makes your attitude here even harder to sympathise with. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with your accusations of vandalism. You appear not to be listening to other editors or taking on board what we are advising. You are removing qualifiers without regard to changes of syntax and sense of the sentences. You need to demonstrate competency in editing. If you remove needed qualifiers because you think this makes an article easier to read you can expect your edits to be reverted. Span (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that (looking at a different set of articles) a great number of Flitterby's edits seem to just reword things with no extra benefit of clarity, "plainness", or anything else. There are plenty of appallingly written articles on WP, but these were all already better than the average, often much better. Some typos were introduced, and the sense made less clear or accurate in some places, since I think Flitterby lacks technical knowkledge in the area of art anyway. Overall net benefit ranged from marginal to zero; I'd have just reverted many sets of changes myself. If you want things to edit try Pages that link to "Template:Copy edit" or [1] etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk about me here as if it weren't my talk page, and if you wish to refer to my typos please check for your own, you may make whatever assumptions about me you like but you are far from correct. For your information I will copyedit what I am interested in, if you feel your "suggestions" are in need of a copyedit you know what you can do with them. I wouldn't bother bothering me any more. Assuming all good faith. Flitterby (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Sell Cotman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Greta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Thank you for your restrained and intelligent editing of Paul Nash (artist). I am rather sensitive about this article, which has suffered some unpleasant vandalism in recent years. I was born and raised at Langley Marish and my parents are buried in the churchyard there, not far from Nash's grave. LynwoodF (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do try. :-) Flitterby (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Southwell Minster may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

date=May 2010}} but it has not been granted [[city status in the United Kingdom|city status]]).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elmton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Flitterby. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]