User talk:71.127.159.171

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Vandalism

My apologies for reverting your good faith edits. Let me point out that the edits were not necessarily reverted as vandalism, VP is a program that I was using to search through recent changes and its use does not necessarily indicate vandalism had occurred. Had I truly categorized it as vandalism, I would have placed a warning on your talk page. One issue is that your edits lack detail on the sources used, detail that would be helpful in determining the exact source. I won't revert your edits again, I'll let the regular editors of those pages decide on the relative notability of the content added. Dreadstar † 03:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response about the reversion of my edits on Protestantism and Episcopal Church in the United States of America. I am puzzled by your comment that there was an issue with the lack of source references in my edits. In fact, my edits on the ECUSA article contained four references with links to sources and my edits in Protestantism contained two references with links to sources. --71.127.159.171 05:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Generally when citing offline sources, it's best practice to not only name the publication but to put the date, page numbers, and even paragraph numbers. The main one I noticed was this one, which had only this: :<ref> Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia</ref>
I addition to that, I saw that you then reverted another editor who's edit summary clearly stated: "This is being discussed, consenus has not been reached yet"
  • WP:3RR, " Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it"
You should have discussed on the talk page instead of reverting back to your own version. That sort of revert warring and vague citation style by an anonymous editor is very suspicious looking and is likely to get reverted as pure vandalism.
Users can edit under an IP address without creating an account, but it is highly advisable to follow Wikipedia:Why create an account?, specifically reputation and privacy, which states:
"While we welcome anonymous contributions, logging in under a pseudonym lets you build trust and respect through a history of good edits. It is also easier to communicate and collaborate with an editor if we know who you are (at least, who you are on Wikipedia). It is also easier for veteran users to assume good faith from new users who take the effort to create an account (and you may well become a veteran user yourself some day!). You may well be afforded a great deal less leeway if you do not go to the trouble of making up a username."
As for details in adding offline sources:
  • WP:CITE#Full_citations, which includes: "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used. Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers."
  • Wikipedia:Citation templates for citation templates
I would suggest creating an account, but if you continue on under an anon ip address, I would strongly recommend that you provide clear and convincing citations for everything you add. Some of your edits were very well sourced, but one of the early ones I saw was the one I described above...which included edit warring:
When editors are on vandal patrol, they can sometimes be quick to pull the trigger, so just assume good faith and do what you did, ask nice questions!
Let me know if you need any further help or information. Dreadstar † 05:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Register & PECUSA

Greetings and please register, as it will lend authority to your additions. Right now it looks like you surf around Wikipedia looking for places to slam the controversial phrase "Protestant Episcopal Church" into articles:Special:Contributions/71.127.159.171 I am sure this isn't so. We seem to have found something we all can live with on Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church and I think we are quite close at Episcopal Church in the United States of America‎, however there are quite a few editors (myself included) who do not feel it is proper to name any one sect in the LEAD of Protestantism. Perhaps the move I have made is a compromise? Best wishes and please register to avoid accusations of vandalism or sock puppetry. -- SECisek 20:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican collaboration of the month

The current Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month is
Essays and Reviews
The next collaboration will be selected on 30 April 2008. (Vote here)

Wassupwestcoast 02:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)