User talk:Conner5553
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] Image tagging for Image:ACFFCAZmaW8i.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ACFFCAZmaW8i.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:America's Cup
Hi again, by convention, we normally post new talk sections at the bottom of the page rather than the top. Following the convention will ensure people see your posting. —Moondyne 06:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NZL-92
I think you are going to make great contributions here, but, this needs some rewording as we are not a crystal ball and cannot speculate - refer WP:CRYSTAL for our policies on this. Articles must be written in a neutral, encyclopaedic tone. —Moondyne 06:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Communication
Posting as you did is fine. I'll look at the succession box now. —Moondyne 07:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done for NZL 32. Let me know if that's not OK. —Moondyne 07:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, here's a tip: If you want, you can use the "move" button at the top to move the article to NZL-32 (with hyphen). The additional effect of this is to automatically create a "redirect" page at NZL 32 so that the reader can the use either of the article names and still end up at the article. —Moondyne 07:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Referencing
You can't do this [1]. Its been reverted already (by someone else) and any such edits will always be removed. As I said above, everything at Wikipedia must be neutral (see WP:NPOV). Also, everything must be verifiable and be attributable to a published refence (see WP:ATT). I strongly suggest reading those two policies before editing much more. —Moondyne 07:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- As Moondyne said, welcome it's good to have you here. I did revert your edit at Australia II and I've added 'citation needed' at 12-metre class. See WP:VERIFY. The readers of the encyclopaedia need to be able to check where the information has come from - so any new additions really have to come from reliable sources - Ctbolt 08:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images and licensing
Re: Image:Deam.JPG. Wikipedia runs a very strict policy of not allowing a copyright images to be use in tne encyclopaedia. All content is "free", but we cannot do that if copyright material is uploaded. Note that use of copyright images is theft. When you upload an image you must indicate its source and its correct copyright status. If you don't do that, or if the image is found to be under copyright, it will be deleted in due course. If you've mistakenly uploaded a copyright image, just remove any links to the image from articles and then tag the image page with something like: {{speedy|non-free image uploaded by me in error - please delete. ~~~~}} (with the curly brackets).
I feel that you may be getting sick of me by now telling you all the things you can't do at Wikipedia. Don't worry though, the main thing is that you stay civil and listen to advice that's given in good faith. And keep editing. Let me know if you need any more info. —Moondyne 08:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR Warning
Conner. Although I'm sure you feel strongly that Alinghi is not a "notable" yacht, most of the editors on the IACC Yacht page disagree with you. You are running the risk of violating Wikipedia's 3RR rule, which could result in your suspension. Please reconsider everyone elses' opinions before acting again. Thank you. Madmaxmarchhare 13:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lodging a Complaint
Conner: I apologize that I'm not sure where the best place is for you to lodge a complaint. It appears that you have been working with Moondyne, who might be an administrator. He/She might know of the appropriate forum.
If I could offer some advice: you appear to be somewhat new here. You may want to consider your point of view--just because you've justified something in your mind doesn't make it reality. On Wikipedia, editors, in good faith, try to strive for consensus when they edit. Part of the problem is how one quibbles with terms. "Notable" to you might take into considerations many factors that another editor might not take into account. Again, just because you can justify something in your mind doesn't make it reality--we all have a tendency to justify our realities based on our own perceptions, but this is a good forum for you to practice consensus, compromise, and understanding. Just my $.02. Madmaxmarchhare 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well said Madmaxmarchhare. Wikipedia works on a consensus model. "Therefore not awarded status, status denied" is not consensus building language. Nor is calling people who revert your changes "vandals" [2]. If you have an opinion about something in opposition to the article or the majority view of other editors, raise the issue in a polite and courteous way on the talk page of the article and invite discussion after presenting your point of view. If you are still in the minority then you should consider looking at the issue from the other editors' points of view rather than just your own. If you feel strongly that you are not being heard you can always post the issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Third opinion, but frankly, this is a storm in a teacup and should be able to be resolved by discussion. Wikipedia:Consensus explains how consensus building and dispute resolution works. Reversion wars are not clever and only make you look silly. Reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours earns you an automatic block. —Moondyne 00:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
A positive way to handle this might be to create a "Winning yachts" section and populate it with some more winning yachts to flesh it out. Then, you can create an "Other notable yachts" list that details some of the yachts you consider "notable" but haven't won the race. That way, you'll have a more specific set of lists that might satisfy your need to distinguish between winning and notable yachts. Also, it helps flesh the page out. Really, a win-win for everyone here, you and the "vandals" included ;-). Madmaxmarchhare 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for the barnstar
Cheers. —Moondyne 03:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
