Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:19, 16 July 2010

Leave messages below!

November 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to American Indian Public Charter School. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit and is especially useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but time limited. Trying to make the article a winner Richmondian (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not an excuse. Please take the time to use edit summaries so that other editors can see quickly what you are doing. – ukexpat (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, just short on time right now and would rather spend it making the article top-notch. Richmondian (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You won't make the article "a winner" on your own; Misplaced Pages is a group effort. If you're in such a hurry that you can't possibly use an edit summary as a courtesy to others, maybe you should slow down a bit. It doesn't need to be long; just a brief note to quickly sum up what each edit accomplished. Kafziel 01:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the section headers are probably sufficient, no? If there were some editors that wanted to contribute I could shift time to edit summaries and away from improving content, but so far its been a one-man show over there. Richmondian (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. Edit summaries help other users (and automated bots), many of whom you will never interact with, follow changes made to the article. It's not a one-man show by any means.

I also want to warn you about what seems to be a slow edit war in which you continuously replace this content. Please don't repeatedly undo other editors' changes; if they've removed unsourced content, either find a source or leave it out. The Three Reverts Rule prohibits making the same change (either whole or in part) more than three times in a 24-hour period, and you should take time to discuss the changes in depth instead of reverting. Kafziel 01:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'd really rather not spend time on this discussion either, its not what I hope to do on wikipedia. But I'm trying to keep things cordial so I'll play the kettle/pot here: the edit summary I just got from you was "re". Not informative at all.

As for the diff of mine you pasted above, didn't you notice there's an edit summary there, "(→Demographics: give it time. no BLP damage here.)". And it's exactly my point, people shouldn't be removing plausible info that has no BLP concerns on such short notice. I've seen things that have had those little tags on them for months. Editors need to either give things a little time, or if they're really all that concerned they can go and look things up on their own. I'd appreciate your help with this as you're a more senior editor here. Richmondian (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Re" means "reply". It's a common abbreviation, and it's useful to the average Wikipedian (such as the aforementioned ones behind the scenes). As I said - it doesn't have to be long. There's a list of some common Wiki abbreviations here.

As for your reintroducing unsourced information, no - nobody has to give it any time at all. BLP has its own set of rules, but everything has to have a source or it can be removed on sight. Misplaced Pages has very few strict policies, but that's one of them. When you find a source, you can put it back in. If the content is that important to you, make finding a source your priority. Misplaced Pages is way past the days where we were concerned with increasing the size and number of our articles; our big concern now is quality of information, and that means a high demand for good sources. It may take longer, but in the long run it makes the whole encyclopedia stronger. Kafziel 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"re" may mean "reply" but is not informative, it doesn't tell me at all what's here. Even less informative than subject headers.

I think we'll just have to change the citation model for that article. I am not going to put separate inline references after every sentence fragment to appease the wikihounds, because wikihounds will never be appeased. Fill in one and five others will pop up.

I would hope you would ask other editors to do a little constructive work instead of disrupting the article. I have spent hours on the thing already compared to zero for any of the placers. Incidentally, I've looked at the contributions of the placers and many have not contributed in a meaningful way in quite some time.

This is now officially a pointless time sink, if you want to help out I would be grateful but otherwise I am done with this thread. Richmondian (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You've been here nine days. I've been here five years. How 'bout trusting that maybe, just maybe, I know about a few things you don't? I'm not going to sit here and explain every reason why it's important to use edit summaries, and I'm not going to explain why saying "re" is sufficient. It just is. If you copyedit something, put "c/e". If you add a cite, put "+cite". It's not as hard as you're making it out to be.

It's quite common for new users to feel as though they're doing very important work. Work that's simply too important to get bogged down with silly rules about formatting or citations or courtesy. But don't kid yourself - if you don't do it, someone else will. That's the nature of a wiki. You haven't been here long enough to understand how other users are helping, but they are. Again, take my word for it. So just slow down and try to cooperate with the rest of the community. If you stick around long enough, you'll see what I mean. Kafziel 06:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know you just wanted +cite and c/e. I figured you wanted something longer. e.g. "added citation for such-and-such",etc Richmondian (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, just something to a) give everyone an accurate idea of what kind of edit it was, b) let the bots and watchers see at a glance that it was made by a Wikipedian in good faith, and c) make it a little easier to search for certain edits in the page history. The abbreviations on the page I linked to are usually all you need. Kafziel 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just my views

I like what you wrote about that rape article. Unfortunately it is true that PC has skewed NPOV of some articles. Your best bet though is not to start problems with editors/admins, but to work within the system by building up a network of editors/admins who like you and support you. For people to take you seriously, write a few articles about serious topics about a historical event or figure and not a videogame or pop singer. Otherwise articles like that rape case will never represent what really happen. I got a 1/2 dozen original articles under my belt and probably close to 1000 edits, and i got reverted with a slap in face referencing LA Times. Need a large team. It is much more difficult for the PC forces to rewrite history when a large team with proven track record opposes it. u need allies who are admins, unless u plan on getting banned, the way u talk. my point is, stop beefing, and start meeting people. but most important write original content. Meishern (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I: Edit warring on 2009 Richmond High School gang rape

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See WP:AN/I#Edit warring on 2009 Richmond High School gang rape. Bielle (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)