User talk:90.199.109.173

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your recent edit to May Day (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 09:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Book of shadows

Hello there, I reverted your recent edit as there were quite a lot of typing errors, and some of the other material was a bit debatable. Before making edits to articles like this (which have grown over a long period) it's usually good form to discuss them on the talk page first. This can lead to a better edit and more harmonious working together! If you have any queries about this, please click the 'talk to me' link by my signature and add a comment at the bottom of the page.

And while I'm at it: Welcome!

Hello, 90.199.109.173, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 16:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Be specific.

OK, will do so in a while when I have some time to give detailed feedback. Typo examples include 'High Pries' when you meant 'High Priest', however. You're quite at liberty to re-insert your edits (I won't revert them) and see if any other editors object as I did. By the way, if you sign your posts with ~~~~ your signature will magically appear after your post - like this: Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi again - I'm really not on a vendetta against you! But the link you placed was to a Yahoo! group which people reading the article would be unable to access. (Also I have doubts about anyone calling himself 'Britain's premier witch...' Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, here's some feedback from my point of view. You can look again at your edit here.
  • The first thing is that you deleted the link to the disambiguation page here, which is a useful link to retain.
  • Then you deleted the reference to the BoS as used by Eclectic Wiccans: I think it's useful to indicate that different groups understand slightly different things by the BoS.
  • I think 'lineaged' as an adjective is the right way of qualifying 'lineaged Wicca'.
  • You removed a useful paragraph about the Long Island Line and a reference from Fred Lamond which I think should have stayed in (and made no explanation as to why you'd removed it.)
I haven't gone to the hind end of every bit of the edit, which might seem nitpicky if I did! As I said in the original edit history, I do believe you were making the edits in good faith, but you cut out some big chunks of the article. It would be much better if you either explained the remnoval in your edit history or (better) discussed major edits like this on the talk page before making them. However, all this is just my opinion! You're free to disagree and I'll ask other editors' opinions too. Blessed Be! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to amplify what Kim Dent Brown said, there was good reason for reverting your edits. You introduced lots and lots of typos. You changed wording so that the article made controversial and unsupportable claims. You removed important statements without explaining why. The typos aren't quite so problematic, although you'll find other editors more readily revert your work if you don't show any care with your edits. The other two issues however would require some careful explanation of what you were attempting to do and why. No explanation was given; so — it all gets reverted. I hope that's specific enough for you. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)