Hey there, welcome to my talk page!
Hi Philotimo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Philotimo! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! CommanderWaterford ( talk) 08:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Lou Boudreau is not jewish. cut the original research crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.220.38 ( talk) 17:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. If I may ask, how exactly does this edit summary leave anything “unexplained”? I thought I’d adequately explained the edit, but I’d appreciate any suggestions on making it more clear. Thanks. — 96.8.24.95 ( talk) 03:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
In the future, it's always preferable to save references ….Yes, which is why they were copied to the article’s talk page. I’m not sure why the ARG wasn’t discussed in the article, but if anyone wanted to add it, those refs seemed like they would be useful. I’m still trying to understand what you meant about the archived vs original links; it sounded as if you expected the archive would have been updated with information about the game itself after release despite the sources themselves predating the game. — 151.132.206.250 ( talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 15:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, regarding your five undos on Humanistische Omroep - it's possible to undo multiple issues in one edit by opening the revision to revert back to and clicking edit+publish. Not that what you are doing is a major problem, just hope that this will help you Naleksuh ( talk) 07:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I just received a message about an edit that seemed like a test and has been reverted. I have no idea what that might be. Any insight you can share? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:427F:2840:D9B1:2472:1513:9BBE ( talk) 07:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey man, I'm still not sure what this "test-like" thing means, and not sure I have much use for the "sandbox" thing. Here is what I have to say: I actually wrote the entire summary about his professional career several years ago, and just tonight saw that people had made some crappy changes that resulted in poor syntax and not capitalizing proper nouns, etc. Those changed segments were crappy. So I fixed them back to the original (and IMO, much better written) content. And looking at it again, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. If you can identify any specific problems, I would be happy to chat about them. Otherwise, I would suggest we re-revert the summary back to the better version. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:427F:2840:D9B1:2472:1513:9BBE ( talk) 07:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. A couple points from me: (1) I know how to properly cite things in Wikipedia, but I'm a bit confused because I don't remember adding any sources or citations to this article tonight. (2) As far as "fluff" and "rambling", everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the tone of the article is entirely consistent with print sports journalism, including professionally published sports encyclopedias. Sports encyclopedia entries are indeed written differently than Encyclopedia Britannica and the like. This isn't debatable. I don't intend this to be rude, but the fact that I have to explain this makes me suspect that you might not be the best person to be making these edits. The tone of my edits tonight is consistent with the rest of the section - I know, because I wrote it ALL - and moreover, it is consistent with the rest of the article. If you can write a better summary of Maravich's professional career - beginning to end, like I did - then you are welcome to do it. Otherwise, I suggest we go with my version, "fluff" and "rambling" and all. (I hope this comes across as forceful, but not intended to be rude. Thanks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:427F:2840:D9B1:2472:1513:9BBE ( talk) 08:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The good times did not last for long), we don’t tell people what they should think or what they should find interesting. We don’t dress up the facts or make them exciting; we just report them. That’s what Wikipedia is for. That’s my two cents that no one wanted. — 151.132.206.250 ( talk) 21:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
You have been mentioned here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buzzards-Watch_Me_Work Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 02:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey there, welcome to my talk page!
Hi Philotimo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Philotimo! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! CommanderWaterford ( talk) 08:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Lou Boudreau is not jewish. cut the original research crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.220.38 ( talk) 17:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. If I may ask, how exactly does this edit summary leave anything “unexplained”? I thought I’d adequately explained the edit, but I’d appreciate any suggestions on making it more clear. Thanks. — 96.8.24.95 ( talk) 03:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
In the future, it's always preferable to save references ….Yes, which is why they were copied to the article’s talk page. I’m not sure why the ARG wasn’t discussed in the article, but if anyone wanted to add it, those refs seemed like they would be useful. I’m still trying to understand what you meant about the archived vs original links; it sounded as if you expected the archive would have been updated with information about the game itself after release despite the sources themselves predating the game. — 151.132.206.250 ( talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 15:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, regarding your five undos on Humanistische Omroep - it's possible to undo multiple issues in one edit by opening the revision to revert back to and clicking edit+publish. Not that what you are doing is a major problem, just hope that this will help you Naleksuh ( talk) 07:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I just received a message about an edit that seemed like a test and has been reverted. I have no idea what that might be. Any insight you can share? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:427F:2840:D9B1:2472:1513:9BBE ( talk) 07:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey man, I'm still not sure what this "test-like" thing means, and not sure I have much use for the "sandbox" thing. Here is what I have to say: I actually wrote the entire summary about his professional career several years ago, and just tonight saw that people had made some crappy changes that resulted in poor syntax and not capitalizing proper nouns, etc. Those changed segments were crappy. So I fixed them back to the original (and IMO, much better written) content. And looking at it again, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. If you can identify any specific problems, I would be happy to chat about them. Otherwise, I would suggest we re-revert the summary back to the better version. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:427F:2840:D9B1:2472:1513:9BBE ( talk) 07:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. A couple points from me: (1) I know how to properly cite things in Wikipedia, but I'm a bit confused because I don't remember adding any sources or citations to this article tonight. (2) As far as "fluff" and "rambling", everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the tone of the article is entirely consistent with print sports journalism, including professionally published sports encyclopedias. Sports encyclopedia entries are indeed written differently than Encyclopedia Britannica and the like. This isn't debatable. I don't intend this to be rude, but the fact that I have to explain this makes me suspect that you might not be the best person to be making these edits. The tone of my edits tonight is consistent with the rest of the section - I know, because I wrote it ALL - and moreover, it is consistent with the rest of the article. If you can write a better summary of Maravich's professional career - beginning to end, like I did - then you are welcome to do it. Otherwise, I suggest we go with my version, "fluff" and "rambling" and all. (I hope this comes across as forceful, but not intended to be rude. Thanks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:427F:2840:D9B1:2472:1513:9BBE ( talk) 08:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The good times did not last for long), we don’t tell people what they should think or what they should find interesting. We don’t dress up the facts or make them exciting; we just report them. That’s what Wikipedia is for. That’s my two cents that no one wanted. — 151.132.206.250 ( talk) 21:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
You have been mentioned here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buzzards-Watch_Me_Work Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 02:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)