Hello, I've reverted your edits that you made as ACLG Lawyers, once again. They're just way too detailed for Wikipedia and not helpful here. I might redo the Mick Doohan edit... but not the other one. Graham 87 02:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Could you please provide the guideline that you are using to decide that my edit is too detailed. I am unaware of what constitutes an edit that is too detailed. It was my understanding that Wikipedia is an online free encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's require details. Furthermore, each point that was made was sufficiently referenced, and seeks to answer (and provide references) to many questions raised on Mercedes Benz forums. (
NRoss427 (
talk) 02:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC))
- The summary style guideline and frankly, common sense. Wikipedia doesn't care what random forum members may or may not want to know. Graham 87 15:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- I see. Thank you for the explanation. It is not easy being new. Clearly you have been doing this for sometime and are across the nuances. I will try again, please feel free to wave the hand of guidance again - it is the only way we learn. Thank you again ( NRoss427 ( talk) 21:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC))
- Actually, encyclopedias strive for the minimum of details to get their general-knowledge points across. Your inclusion of a large section of material concerning one car in a Tasmanian rally is considered UNDUE emphasis. It is clear that many Wikipedia editors are eager to share their knowledge with the world, but we must exercise restraint, lest others do so for us.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 23:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments Quisqualis - in this particular circumstance, would it have been more appropriate for me to start a main article on this car, while providing just a brief comment on the mercedes clk page? You further comments would be greatly appreciated. ( NRoss427 ( talk) 23:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC))
- Many editors have been hit with a lot of reverts early in their efforts to edit Wikipedia, lessening as the rules come to be understood. Citing reliable sources is essential. Key is that what you know to be true is not sufficient. It's all about truth and verification. As to whether a particular editor (not an administrator) is on your case, I am also guilty of looking at new editors' edits when I see one that is wrong, just to see if the new editor is making the same type of error elsewhere. Latest is a new editor who is prolifically copying tables from books into articles - a copyright violation. David notMD ( talk) 01:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you David notMD - every comment helps to educate :) In this particular article I had 10 references (one for each main point).
- Yes, I should have remembered to mention undue weight. Honestly, unless somebody has written a full-length book or substantial series of magazine articles entirely about this car and gotten them published by a well-respected mainstream publisher , which doesn't appear to be the case at all, there's no point in trying to create an article about it. It was a minor footnote in both the career of Mick Doohan (who isn't even known for car-racing) and the Mercedes Benz CLK Class. You can feel free to start your own Mercedes wiki if you like. Graham 87 02:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you David notMD - every comment helps to educate :) In this particular article I had 10 references (one for each main point).
- Graham87 - I thought you may be an honourable man, and would help me with the wiki world. However, it would appear that you are not. You delete my post (two sentences) based on your own view as to relevance - this speaks only of your view as to totally self serving. My edit relates to information which others are seeking answers for. Just because you are not - does not make my edit irrelevant. You are nothing more than a troll with a smidgen of power. My advice is to use it while you can, because it will evaporate. UNSUBSCRIBED! (
NRoss427 (
talk) 11:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC))
- NRoss427, you are welcome to try to develop an article about this car, noting that it may or may not be accepted for inclusion in Wikipedia. Keep in mind that quality, rather than sheer quantity of sources is the best way to demonstrate notability of a subject.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 19:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Graham87 - I thought you may be an honourable man, and would help me with the wiki world. However, it would appear that you are not. You delete my post (two sentences) based on your own view as to relevance - this speaks only of your view as to totally self serving. My edit relates to information which others are seeking answers for. Just because you are not - does not make my edit irrelevant. You are nothing more than a troll with a smidgen of power. My advice is to use it while you can, because it will evaporate. UNSUBSCRIBED! (
NRoss427 (
talk) 11:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC))
|
Hi NRoss427! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
We use a leading colon to indent our replies on discussion pages. This improves readability. The first reply has one leading colon. Subsequent replies add one more colon.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 19:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- For example, this line is indented.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 19:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I've reverted your edits that you made as ACLG Lawyers, once again. They're just way too detailed for Wikipedia and not helpful here. I might redo the Mick Doohan edit... but not the other one. Graham 87 02:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Could you please provide the guideline that you are using to decide that my edit is too detailed. I am unaware of what constitutes an edit that is too detailed. It was my understanding that Wikipedia is an online free encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's require details. Furthermore, each point that was made was sufficiently referenced, and seeks to answer (and provide references) to many questions raised on Mercedes Benz forums. (
NRoss427 (
talk) 02:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC))
- The summary style guideline and frankly, common sense. Wikipedia doesn't care what random forum members may or may not want to know. Graham 87 15:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- I see. Thank you for the explanation. It is not easy being new. Clearly you have been doing this for sometime and are across the nuances. I will try again, please feel free to wave the hand of guidance again - it is the only way we learn. Thank you again ( NRoss427 ( talk) 21:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC))
- Actually, encyclopedias strive for the minimum of details to get their general-knowledge points across. Your inclusion of a large section of material concerning one car in a Tasmanian rally is considered UNDUE emphasis. It is clear that many Wikipedia editors are eager to share their knowledge with the world, but we must exercise restraint, lest others do so for us.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 23:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments Quisqualis - in this particular circumstance, would it have been more appropriate for me to start a main article on this car, while providing just a brief comment on the mercedes clk page? You further comments would be greatly appreciated. ( NRoss427 ( talk) 23:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC))
- Many editors have been hit with a lot of reverts early in their efforts to edit Wikipedia, lessening as the rules come to be understood. Citing reliable sources is essential. Key is that what you know to be true is not sufficient. It's all about truth and verification. As to whether a particular editor (not an administrator) is on your case, I am also guilty of looking at new editors' edits when I see one that is wrong, just to see if the new editor is making the same type of error elsewhere. Latest is a new editor who is prolifically copying tables from books into articles - a copyright violation. David notMD ( talk) 01:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you David notMD - every comment helps to educate :) In this particular article I had 10 references (one for each main point).
- Yes, I should have remembered to mention undue weight. Honestly, unless somebody has written a full-length book or substantial series of magazine articles entirely about this car and gotten them published by a well-respected mainstream publisher , which doesn't appear to be the case at all, there's no point in trying to create an article about it. It was a minor footnote in both the career of Mick Doohan (who isn't even known for car-racing) and the Mercedes Benz CLK Class. You can feel free to start your own Mercedes wiki if you like. Graham 87 02:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you David notMD - every comment helps to educate :) In this particular article I had 10 references (one for each main point).
- Graham87 - I thought you may be an honourable man, and would help me with the wiki world. However, it would appear that you are not. You delete my post (two sentences) based on your own view as to relevance - this speaks only of your view as to totally self serving. My edit relates to information which others are seeking answers for. Just because you are not - does not make my edit irrelevant. You are nothing more than a troll with a smidgen of power. My advice is to use it while you can, because it will evaporate. UNSUBSCRIBED! (
NRoss427 (
talk) 11:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC))
- NRoss427, you are welcome to try to develop an article about this car, noting that it may or may not be accepted for inclusion in Wikipedia. Keep in mind that quality, rather than sheer quantity of sources is the best way to demonstrate notability of a subject.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 19:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Graham87 - I thought you may be an honourable man, and would help me with the wiki world. However, it would appear that you are not. You delete my post (two sentences) based on your own view as to relevance - this speaks only of your view as to totally self serving. My edit relates to information which others are seeking answers for. Just because you are not - does not make my edit irrelevant. You are nothing more than a troll with a smidgen of power. My advice is to use it while you can, because it will evaporate. UNSUBSCRIBED! (
NRoss427 (
talk) 11:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC))
|
|
Hi NRoss427! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
We use a leading colon to indent our replies on discussion pages. This improves readability. The first reply has one leading colon. Subsequent replies add one more colon.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 19:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- For example, this line is indented.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 19:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)