User talk:71.39.78.68

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome!

Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. -- Tyrenius 04:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xeni Jardin

Please note there has been a consensus agreed by editors on this article that there will not be an external link to the website xenisucks.com. There is a long debate preceding this in the talk page archives. Tyrenius 04:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please try to contribute to the encyclopaedia in a forthright and civil manner. Edits which include improper language, or which go into lurid details far beyond what is necessary for an encyclopaedic article are likely to be reverted. Mackensen (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

With regards to your comments on User talk:Buchanan-Hermit: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, go ahead and report me. You'll see that usernames with "POV" is specifically listed as an example of inappropriate usernames in the username policy, and that your soft block (which means that particular account's blocked from editing but you're welcome to create a more appropriate username or edit anonymously) was simply made to comply with that policy. I've created a section at the admins' noticeboard already, so feel free to make your case. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to stop your disruptive behaviour and make a new account. The block wasn't a punishment. We don't do punishments here. Your account-name was inappropriate. As for your disdain of rules... fine. But if you want to edit wikipedia you need to know the basic rules. (Ie, how do you play baseball without knowing witch end of the bat to hold?) I sugust reading Wikipedia:Welcome first. It explains all the basics. ---J.S (T/C) 08:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Michelle Malkin

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. - RJASE1 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my request to you to please use the edit summary and preview buttons - your practice of making multiple successive minor edits is clogging up the edit history, and your lack of edit summaries is making it difficult for editors to see the type of changes you are making. Also, your citations are in a style different from that used throughout the rest of the article - please see WP:CITE for instruction on using "cite news" and "cite web" ref templates.

I'll warn you up front that the changes your are making to the article are at high risk of reversion due to policy on biographies of living persons; I strongly advise you to be familiar with this policy and to be prepared to defend your edits. Since some of your edits can be considered controversial, you should probably discuss them on the article's talk page prior to inclusion. - RJASE1 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I will do a better job of using the edit summary. Is doing multiple edits really that bad? It's a holdover from the days that computers (and browsers) crashed every five minutes. My "problem" with discussing them on the talk page, is that I rarely see any process involved in that, or any real agreement or consensus reached. It usually just devolves into wars between the "editors"
I am doing my best to cite, to use only non-bloggers except when they are primary sources, and to quote. After that I have to leave it up to the Wikipedia's prime directive, I trust other editors will trust I am working in good faith, I will trust they are working in good faith, and that we will all edit and improve our contributions, and not just delete.
Thanks for replying so quickly...I assure you that I am assuming your edits are in good faith. I don't have any particular interest in Michelle Malkin per se, but I understand how reaching consensus on edits to biographies of controversial people can be tough. The people who keep a close eye on the page are usually either the person's most dedicated supporters or opponents, with neutral folks rarely visiting the page. As a result, as you said, talk page discussion frequently devolves into deadlocked argument. If that happens, I recommend following the dispute resolution process. If your argument is only with one other editor, you can get a third opinion, or if the disagreement is more general, use the request for comment process to draw in some neutral opinions.
The edit summary and 'preview' functions are really just courtesies to make it easier for editors to review the changes on a page. Couple of tips - if you're making a big edit to an article and don't want anyone else editing it while you're working with it, you can put the "in use" template at the top of the page while you are working with the article. Alternatively, you can make the edits in a sandbox in your userspace (you need to create an account to have your own sandbox) - just copy in the article or section you are editing, make and polish your edit, then paste it into the article in a single change (making sure you don't delete any other edits made since you copied out the text).
I really recommend you get a user account - the problem with making multiple edits from an anonymous account with no edit summaries is that it makes you look like a possible vandal in the first glance at the page history (since this is frequently what vandals do). This brings you under extra scrutiny as page watchers will closely check your edits to make sure you are not, in fact, a vandal.
As far as the refs go, there's nothing illegal about the style you're using, I'm just politely asking that you keep the style consistent with what was already on the page. Basically what you do is to utilize the <ref> and </ref> tags like you have been doing in most cases, but in between the tags utilize the cite web (for blogs/websites) and cite news (for online news sources) templates. This keeps everything consistent.
Hope this helps out - please don't hesitate to ask if you need any assistance with any of the features. I know it takes a while to learn all the info required to make every nitpicker happy, but you seem to be on the right track. Happy editing - RJASE1 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/1/2E/User_talk%7E71.39.78.68.html"