User talk:Jwept
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.
→ Edits made without filling in an edit summary, or, alternatively, opening up a discussion on the article’s Talk page — especially when you are reverting another editor’s edits — have the appearance of vandalism. Such behavior could cause vandalism warnings to be placed on your talk page, which could lead to having one’s access to Wikipedia blocked. Your recent edits to Harper’s Island were made thusly. Although, I am sure that they were made in good faith. Had you just filled in the edit summaries, however, this edit summary notification would not now be appearing on your talk page.
→ I knew when I made the collapsible boxes that someone might revert them. But, I expected that such person would have a better way of presenting the information than a long list that makes the infobox longer than is standard for Wikipedia television infoboxes. I expected that such person would improve upon the collapsible box, not merely eliminate it. And, if not, I expected that such person would provide an explanation as to why they were reverting an edit that cleans up information, instead of merely reverting it back to an unusually long list. That’s that value of an edit summary.
→ By the way, I like the list of actors in the infobox, but I fear that, because it is so unusually long and differs from the wikistandard, some other editor will come along and eliminate the entire list. That was my motivation in trying to present it more compactly while still presenting all the information. Do you have any other ideas how we might improve upon it? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Since writing the above, I came across a collapsible list template that can be used inside of an infobox. It might present the data better than my collapsible box. However, using the template is a little too complex for me. Did you want to have a go at it? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: Hi Jwept! You might want to have a look at the discussion that has been opened up at Harper’s Island regarding this issue. With your participation, a consensus of wikieditors of the Harper’s Island article might be arrived at on this matter. (You might also want to take a peek at a note left for 24.144.241.23 on his/her Talk page.) Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The article Mr. Jingles (Film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The article Mr. Jingles (Film) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Blowback (FlashForward) for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blowback (FlashForward) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.