 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I have added content 3 times and had it deleted 3 times. I have read the pages on wikipedia vandalism - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Vandalism and what wikipedia is not - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not the addition to the page added to the definition with a link to further reading which adds dictionary definitions and sources to the original content. I will try again, with additional content this time, as the present definition is limited and I am trying to expand on that definition. Did the people who deleted the additions read through to the cited link, as they would see the additional content.
Please help me with...
Davea123456456 ( talk) 17:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- As you can tell from the edit summaries, at least one of the persons removing the content did read through the cited link and found it problematic. I'd advise you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Repeatedly reverting will be considered edit warring and might see you blocked from editing. Huon ( talk) 18:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, i added more text, reference to the sources for the definition, dictionary quotes and it still get taken down. More sources than the original definition you have at the moment. All I can say is the page is governed by people not wanting to expand the information, but more their own limited knowledge of the definition, 2 sentences of for a definition and they want to leave it at that, terrible. Its no wonder Wikipedia is not known as a definite source of info. on the web as some people hold lock and key over knowledge without letting others expand on it. Look at the talk page for the muscle cars page, it has more text asking for clarification of items than the page itself. Maybe, different people are needed as governors of that page, as it seems at the moment, nothing can be added with external resources without getting deleted. I will not bother adding the information again and let users seek the information elsewhere. One quote from 1 book and a vague reference is not a definition as it stand at the moment.
- Firstly, the content I removed cited a single source, namely fastmusclecars.com. That's not a reliable source as I explained at the article talk page, which is the appropriate place for a discussion of the article's content. Secondly, for someone who "will not bother adding the information again" it didn't take you long to revert me. Huon ( talk) 15:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
That single source was cited as it had further reading to possible origins of the term, as added to the definition. Just like the quote to the single source that is the book in the present text. Why is it not reliable? Also, as the additional text was added, i thought i would try one last time. If it was not a reliable resource and it wasn't additional info. on the definition there would be no point in adding it. The point is to give the most information possible on the origins of the term to readers, not suppress information or say 2 sentence do sum up the origins of the term, which in itself has no one point of origin. A term with no one point of origin needs additional information. Do you wish to leave that out as that is what you are doing deleting the added text. Please say why a limited amount of text and only 2 sentences is better than further explanations of the origins of the term with further reading? If you wish to deleted the text again, please add your own and expand on the definition yourself as there is clearly much more information needed to explain the origins of the term.
- As you suggested, the article has an expand definition together with the historical use of the supercar term citing reputable sources - (with direct quotations, so please read the references carefully) - for what are now called " muscle cars" - Thank you! CZmarlin ( talk) 17:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Super cars are a separate term from muscle cars. Please can you read references carefully. That is why i added the text about the reference to language using the words 'muscle' not super cars. IF you want to quote super cars, you have to expand on that origin which was not in the updated text. You are purposefully deleting worthwhile information.
That is strange as that is what you did to the edits I did. Now the definition refers to 'supercars' as an origin of the term 'muscle cars' and is allowed to stay. The definition is 'muscle cars' and where that term originated, not which words it morphed from. 'Supercars' is a completely different term and is obviously a different term around the world. If you are to state in definitions where words or terms morphed from, please update every definition on Wikipedia to say where each word morphed from across each language as all language morphs from one word to another, a definition is of that word. Therfore, there has to be some definition of just the word or term itself, not the words it morphed from. I have now had to write more words to backup why I added the text in the first place, than the original text itself.
Therefore, it seems you have a 'closed house' to the information on that page. The edits I was trying to make outlined the origins of the term and where the words came from. Let people research elsewhere as you will not let references and better information be added. A total Shame.
|
| This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I have added content 3 times and had it deleted 3 times. I have read the pages on wikipedia vandalism - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Vandalism and what wikipedia is not - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not the addition to the page added to the definition with a link to further reading which adds dictionary definitions and sources to the original content. I will try again, with additional content this time, as the present definition is limited and I am trying to expand on that definition. Did the people who deleted the additions read through to the cited link, as they would see the additional content.
Please help me with...
Davea123456456 ( talk) 17:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- As you can tell from the edit summaries, at least one of the persons removing the content did read through the cited link and found it problematic. I'd advise you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Repeatedly reverting will be considered edit warring and might see you blocked from editing. Huon ( talk) 18:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, i added more text, reference to the sources for the definition, dictionary quotes and it still get taken down. More sources than the original definition you have at the moment. All I can say is the page is governed by people not wanting to expand the information, but more their own limited knowledge of the definition, 2 sentences of for a definition and they want to leave it at that, terrible. Its no wonder Wikipedia is not known as a definite source of info. on the web as some people hold lock and key over knowledge without letting others expand on it. Look at the talk page for the muscle cars page, it has more text asking for clarification of items than the page itself. Maybe, different people are needed as governors of that page, as it seems at the moment, nothing can be added with external resources without getting deleted. I will not bother adding the information again and let users seek the information elsewhere. One quote from 1 book and a vague reference is not a definition as it stand at the moment.
- Firstly, the content I removed cited a single source, namely fastmusclecars.com. That's not a reliable source as I explained at the article talk page, which is the appropriate place for a discussion of the article's content. Secondly, for someone who "will not bother adding the information again" it didn't take you long to revert me. Huon ( talk) 15:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
That single source was cited as it had further reading to possible origins of the term, as added to the definition. Just like the quote to the single source that is the book in the present text. Why is it not reliable? Also, as the additional text was added, i thought i would try one last time. If it was not a reliable resource and it wasn't additional info. on the definition there would be no point in adding it. The point is to give the most information possible on the origins of the term to readers, not suppress information or say 2 sentence do sum up the origins of the term, which in itself has no one point of origin. A term with no one point of origin needs additional information. Do you wish to leave that out as that is what you are doing deleting the added text. Please say why a limited amount of text and only 2 sentences is better than further explanations of the origins of the term with further reading? If you wish to deleted the text again, please add your own and expand on the definition yourself as there is clearly much more information needed to explain the origins of the term.
- As you suggested, the article has an expand definition together with the historical use of the supercar term citing reputable sources - (with direct quotations, so please read the references carefully) - for what are now called " muscle cars" - Thank you! CZmarlin ( talk) 17:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Super cars are a separate term from muscle cars. Please can you read references carefully. That is why i added the text about the reference to language using the words 'muscle' not super cars. IF you want to quote super cars, you have to expand on that origin which was not in the updated text. You are purposefully deleting worthwhile information.
That is strange as that is what you did to the edits I did. Now the definition refers to 'supercars' as an origin of the term 'muscle cars' and is allowed to stay. The definition is 'muscle cars' and where that term originated, not which words it morphed from. 'Supercars' is a completely different term and is obviously a different term around the world. If you are to state in definitions where words or terms morphed from, please update every definition on Wikipedia to say where each word morphed from across each language as all language morphs from one word to another, a definition is of that word. Therfore, there has to be some definition of just the word or term itself, not the words it morphed from. I have now had to write more words to backup why I added the text in the first place, than the original text itself.
Therefore, it seems you have a 'closed house' to the information on that page. The edits I was trying to make outlined the origins of the term and where the words came from. Let people research elsewhere as you will not let references and better information be added. A total Shame.