Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! I notice you seem to be going through adding "See also" links to David Ferguson in articles that don't appear to mention him. I think this is a confusing way to do it. Instead, why don't you try to work with the editors of those articles to see if there is relevant and notable information that can be worked into the body of the article? I think that would be more useful, as right now the links just seem a little odd. I may go through soon and take the links out; please don't be offended! I just think the way it is now is a little confusing.
Anyway, please look around and read about notability and other policies. I'm a new editor myself, so if you have any questions you might want to find someone more experienced to ask. Good luck! FCSundae ( talk) 22:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi FCSundae,
I'm not sure this is the way to write back.
I appreciate your kindness! I felt a bit weird in some of the adding work too. I was
trying to add reference to some other pages but didn't realize how I should go about the contents. One question - since Wiki is free editing, shouldn't I just write some things myself to fit David in those pages? (I'm still trying to learn how to find the editors too) Another is just out of curiosity; how did you know what editing I was doing?
Melrosechoc ( talk) 07:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Melrosechoc
I too spotted your edits, and in fact reverted one of them (to The Offs). I did this because I couldn't see how the link you added was connected to the article; however, looking harder at what you were doing, I do appreciate that this was good faith editing. Apologies, and feel free to re-add info if you feel it is relevant. You're right though - it would be better to incorporate a brief mention of David Ferguson into the text of the article(s) in question, indicating how he is relevant to them, rather than just putting a "see also" link at the bottom. You're quite entitled to do this, just as much as any other Wikipedia editor. I'll insert a "welcome" template below which contains a number of useful links to help you find your way around the editing process.
You asked about how FCSundae spotted your edits. S/He probably did so the same way I did - by watching the "recent changes" page, which shows every edit to Wikipedia as it is made, along with its edit summary. To have a look, go to the second box down in the left-hand margin of this page, and click on "Recent changes".
Good luck with your editing! -- Ka renjc 09:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
|
Hi Melrosechoc, Yes, this is a fine way to write back! Yeah, I spotted you in recent changes, which is where I mostly hang out here. Usually I just revert vandalism — you'd be amazed how much Wikipedia gets vandalized every minute. It was nice to see a new editor jumping right in to make things better by helping out an orphaned page! You're right, you can just add the information to the other articles yourself. I just suggested talking to the other people who've edited them (on the articles' talkpages would be a good place) so they can see what you're trying to do and maybe help you find a good way to work in the information. But it's up to you! Anyway, good luck, FCSundae ( talk) 17:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
David Fergusion (impresario)
Melrosechoc,
I have been adding the legal history section to the article. I have had a Third Party opinion and have made the appropriate suggestions. I would like your feedback as to why you have removed it
Cassandrar ( talk) 21:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You have been accused of
sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the
notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DrJamesX. Thank you.
Uwishiwazjohng (
talk)
06:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
David Ferguson (impresario), 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.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
==Proposed deletion of David Ferguson (impresario)==
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article David Ferguson (impresario), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- Legal Section author admits his contribution may violate WP:SYN, WP:V, and/or WP:OR and would like all history of Legal section expunged and the article to start over from current state
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! I notice you seem to be going through adding "See also" links to David Ferguson in articles that don't appear to mention him. I think this is a confusing way to do it. Instead, why don't you try to work with the editors of those articles to see if there is relevant and notable information that can be worked into the body of the article? I think that would be more useful, as right now the links just seem a little odd. I may go through soon and take the links out; please don't be offended! I just think the way it is now is a little confusing.
Anyway, please look around and read about notability and other policies. I'm a new editor myself, so if you have any questions you might want to find someone more experienced to ask. Good luck! FCSundae ( talk) 22:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi FCSundae,
I'm not sure this is the way to write back.
I appreciate your kindness! I felt a bit weird in some of the adding work too. I was
trying to add reference to some other pages but didn't realize how I should go about the contents. One question - since Wiki is free editing, shouldn't I just write some things myself to fit David in those pages? (I'm still trying to learn how to find the editors too) Another is just out of curiosity; how did you know what editing I was doing?
Melrosechoc ( talk) 07:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Melrosechoc
I too spotted your edits, and in fact reverted one of them (to The Offs). I did this because I couldn't see how the link you added was connected to the article; however, looking harder at what you were doing, I do appreciate that this was good faith editing. Apologies, and feel free to re-add info if you feel it is relevant. You're right though - it would be better to incorporate a brief mention of David Ferguson into the text of the article(s) in question, indicating how he is relevant to them, rather than just putting a "see also" link at the bottom. You're quite entitled to do this, just as much as any other Wikipedia editor. I'll insert a "welcome" template below which contains a number of useful links to help you find your way around the editing process.
You asked about how FCSundae spotted your edits. S/He probably did so the same way I did - by watching the "recent changes" page, which shows every edit to Wikipedia as it is made, along with its edit summary. To have a look, go to the second box down in the left-hand margin of this page, and click on "Recent changes".
Good luck with your editing! -- Ka renjc 09:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
|
Hi Melrosechoc, Yes, this is a fine way to write back! Yeah, I spotted you in recent changes, which is where I mostly hang out here. Usually I just revert vandalism — you'd be amazed how much Wikipedia gets vandalized every minute. It was nice to see a new editor jumping right in to make things better by helping out an orphaned page! You're right, you can just add the information to the other articles yourself. I just suggested talking to the other people who've edited them (on the articles' talkpages would be a good place) so they can see what you're trying to do and maybe help you find a good way to work in the information. But it's up to you! Anyway, good luck, FCSundae ( talk) 17:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
David Fergusion (impresario)
Melrosechoc,
I have been adding the legal history section to the article. I have had a Third Party opinion and have made the appropriate suggestions. I would like your feedback as to why you have removed it
Cassandrar ( talk) 21:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You have been accused of
sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the
notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DrJamesX. Thank you.
Uwishiwazjohng (
talk)
06:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
David Ferguson (impresario), 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.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
==Proposed deletion of David Ferguson (impresario)==
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article David Ferguson (impresario), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- Legal Section author admits his contribution may violate WP:SYN, WP:V, and/or WP:OR and would like all history of Legal section expunged and the article to start over from current state
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.