Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Betty Logan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) that didn't seem very
civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Betty Logan (
talk)
22:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I found my edit had been rudely reverted without any edit summary to explain why. Reverting unnecessarily isn't very respectful, reverting without an edit summary is not respectful either. It was strange to see the dead link tag had been removed before the dead link was fixed. The link was later fixed with an archive url (again no edit summary) but the fix did not include url-status=dead so the same dead link was presented in front of the archive link. By adding url-status=dead the working archive link is presented first, so readers are less likely to click on the dead link, like I did, again. It seems strange to revert a legitimate tagging of a dead link, even if that dead link was later fixed. This might have made more sense, and minor mistakes might be more understandable if there had been any edit summaries to explain any of these reverts and changes.
Betty Logan didn't specify which comment of mine exactly she objected to, my edit summaries may have been seen as direct but they weren't personal. Betty Logan comment "Get your facts straight! I have not altered the budget figure. I simply replaced a dead URL with an archived version because you were too lazy to do it." was not a model of civility either. There's no need to call someone lazy for not fixing one of the millions of broken things in Wikipedia. I was not expecting Betty Logan or anyone else except a robot to fix the dead link with an archive URL.
The budget figure was altered in these edits [1] [2] It was not clear what happened or why. Again there was no edit summary so I can only guess. It initially looked like an editor was removing the budget range, which Template:Infobox film says not to do, but that was a guess because there was no edit summary. On closer inspection it looked like it had been removed because it wasn't properly sourced, so I restored the remove. User:Facu-el_Millo provided a proper reference for the figure and improved the article.
I hope there is no need to discuss this confusion further and we can get on with trying to improve articles. -- 109.77.214.139 ( talk) 22:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
.Before considering whether to use the dead link template it is often useful to make a search for an archive copy of the dead link and thereby avoid using the tag altogether
Append this template directly after the link (after the link code's terminating ] if you are using wikitext), or, if you are using a {{cite}} template, directly after the {{cite}} transclusion (not inside it), but inside the reference, if any, i.e. before the </ref>
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with
this edit to
Edge of Heaven, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
Wretchskull (
talk)
00:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 21:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Betty Logan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) that didn't seem very
civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Betty Logan (
talk)
22:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I found my edit had been rudely reverted without any edit summary to explain why. Reverting unnecessarily isn't very respectful, reverting without an edit summary is not respectful either. It was strange to see the dead link tag had been removed before the dead link was fixed. The link was later fixed with an archive url (again no edit summary) but the fix did not include url-status=dead so the same dead link was presented in front of the archive link. By adding url-status=dead the working archive link is presented first, so readers are less likely to click on the dead link, like I did, again. It seems strange to revert a legitimate tagging of a dead link, even if that dead link was later fixed. This might have made more sense, and minor mistakes might be more understandable if there had been any edit summaries to explain any of these reverts and changes.
Betty Logan didn't specify which comment of mine exactly she objected to, my edit summaries may have been seen as direct but they weren't personal. Betty Logan comment "Get your facts straight! I have not altered the budget figure. I simply replaced a dead URL with an archived version because you were too lazy to do it." was not a model of civility either. There's no need to call someone lazy for not fixing one of the millions of broken things in Wikipedia. I was not expecting Betty Logan or anyone else except a robot to fix the dead link with an archive URL.
The budget figure was altered in these edits [1] [2] It was not clear what happened or why. Again there was no edit summary so I can only guess. It initially looked like an editor was removing the budget range, which Template:Infobox film says not to do, but that was a guess because there was no edit summary. On closer inspection it looked like it had been removed because it wasn't properly sourced, so I restored the remove. User:Facu-el_Millo provided a proper reference for the figure and improved the article.
I hope there is no need to discuss this confusion further and we can get on with trying to improve articles. -- 109.77.214.139 ( talk) 22:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
.Before considering whether to use the dead link template it is often useful to make a search for an archive copy of the dead link and thereby avoid using the tag altogether
Append this template directly after the link (after the link code's terminating ] if you are using wikitext), or, if you are using a {{cite}} template, directly after the {{cite}} transclusion (not inside it), but inside the reference, if any, i.e. before the </ref>
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with
this edit to
Edge of Heaven, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
Wretchskull (
talk)
00:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |