User talk:Stormy Rhodes

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Origin (novel), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: The Origin (novel) was changed by Stormy Rhodes (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.923771 on 2010-12-29T08:30:47+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geologist

Yes, he was. I've changed The Origin (novel) to give Darwin's area of study from 'anthropologist' to 'geologist and biologist' as being a better description. The edit you made was reverted by a bot, and they are, as can be expected, unable to detect subtle nuances. Welcome to Wikipedia, and keep editing. Peridon (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can redo the citation thing - I get mixed up with them sometimes. If you have problems with the bot let me know. (No, it's not mine - I'm not that advanced in whatever is used here for programming...) Peridon (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry so much about the vandalism thing - it's a message built into the bot. Most often, what the bot reverts IS vandalism - that's what it's there for. Give a reason briefly in the edit summary, and at more length on the talk page. There may be a discussion as a result, or not as the case may be. (Sometimes people just agree silently, other times they don't even visit the article. Sometimes there's a stormy debate until a consensus is reached. Don't judge Wikipedia on one bot's action. It saves a hell of a lot of editing time for the patrollers like me. I think it only works on new accounts, so after a while it should ignore you. I don't think I've ever been reverted by a bot yet. (I've been told off by people, and told people off myself too...) I've reverted bots, though. If you can give good reason for your citation change, go ahead. But remember, references should include independent sources. The article can't just be sourced to the book or a connected site. Might be as well to add yours above the other one, then find a better independent one to replace it later. Peridon (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have given it a bit of time, and added your ref again, leaving the SJG one in place. This is because it's an outside ref, and outside refs are needed. If anything better comes up, let me know. The book itself isn't a viable ref all alone as it's not independent. Peridon (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]