Welcome to the Nativity Scene article. I just reverted one of your additions. WP:SELFREF talks about not using other WPs or WP itself as a reference. All you can do is link directly to other articles on the English wikipedia, but you can't even use the English Wikipedia as a reference. I have been giving you time to make your improvements, but one thing to remember is that article is considered a "good article" so edits need to be up to good article standards. You may want to put an under construction template on the section you are editing so that other people that tend to be more prone to biting don't get involved.Marauder40 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I did to the article was remove one link. I didn't undo all your recent changes. You are not supposed to link to WP in other languages and you are not supposed to ever use Wikipedia itself as a reference. In general everything you add to a good Wikipedia article should have a good reliable secondary source as defined in WP:RS. The only things that don't need sources are things that are obvious, otherwise people will contest the addition. As for amount of time I am giving you, I am not in charge of the page. Lots of people monitor the page so the amount of time will depend on how much patience people have. Usually people only give you a day or two.Marauder40 (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted one link in your article and you are complaining about breaking your will!! If that is the case then Wikipedia isn't the place for you, editing here requires a very thick skin. If you feel you have a thick enough skin feel free to continue. No I am not going to restore your edit. If you feel it should be there you can easily add back in your name when you continue editing. If you feel that Wikipedia doesn't cover a topic that you feel fondly for, then add the information, but you must provide valid reliable sources for your information. The edits also must meet notability guidelines. Believe me, I am being a very kind editor to you right now. You should definitely assume good faith. Most editors would be much harsher then I am being on you right now. Many editors prefer editing in their own sandboxes first to get a feel for editing and to flush out all the details and sources, then bring the edits to main article space when they are complete, especially when working on highly visible pages. It is one thing to experiment on pages that are only seen by a couple people, another to experiment on high volume pages.Marauder40 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the edit because the majority of the edit was wrong. That is the process of editing on Wikipedia, if a majority of what was added is incorrect you hit revert. It is up to the person adding the information to figure out what the problem is add it again correctly. If it is only minor changes that are needed then, people can do that. You last comments on my page didn't seem very collaborative to me. I will give you advice but you have to do the work, if you are unwilling then it gets reverted. On a page that is currently listed as a good article with over 20,000 hits over the last month, you need to make sure all the edits are valid with reliable sources and notable.Marauder40 (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statements like this: "Please let's spend time fixing and less in this, if you don't mind." do not help in a collaborative manner. I have been giving you a lot of string since you are new but you are quickly using up my patience. You ask for advice but it doesn't sound like you really want adivce. Addresing "rather than just attacking what others try to build", if you see what I have done so far as an attack, you are clearly not in the right place. One of the key aspects is to assume good faith, I have been doing it with you, you don't appear to be returning the favor. This article is on my watchlist so I monitor changes to the article for vandalism and other changes that break things, however I have no interest in actively editing the page. Based on your evaluation you do not know the different between a "good article" and a "featured article". All the complaints you have about the article are the difference between the two. This currently sits at good article status. It isn't a featured article. If you want to take it to featured article status by all means, go ahead. Don't be upset when people change your work, revert you or other things. It will happen. You are looking at reverts as if they are attacks, look at them more as a "something is wrong with this, try again". This isn't a battleground.Marauder40 (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow one revert on an article equals "and coming across an expert editor that has a history of deleting instead of fixing :-( " I think you used up your rope.Marauder40 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you really looked at my history you would see numerous edits to multiple pages. You would also see a majority of my edits have been in article space not talk space. I have been on WP for a long time and go through periods when I am actively editing article and other periods when I am only monitoring. Recently I am in a monitoring stage. In addition to that, in order to work collaboratively with others, you have to talk a lot on article talk pages. You will make mistakes, you will do things that others don't like. Part of WP is working together to create an Encyclopedia. Stop fretting over whether I deleted more then you think I should. I have already explained it. When a majority of an edit is incorrect most people hit revert. That is what I did. Instead of analyzing my recent history work on the article and don't try to tell me what I should or shouldn't be doing with my time on Wikipedia and whether that is important or not. Since you seem to be unable to take advice in the manner it was given this will be my last comment on your page. Marauder40 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my talk page for the latest responce. Since you are a new user I was responding here initially since I didn't know whether you knew about this, but it is usually cleaner to keep the conversation in one place.Marauder40 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
copied here for the record. If I have time I might rebuild the sequence. I believe in transparency. Also, I just learned about Wikipedia:ARCHIVENOTDELETE, so I was right :-)
When a ... particular subject is not discussed any more, do not delete the content—archive it.
Hi! Please help me understand. You say no linking to WP, OK fine. What about leaving the text that was there, removing the link? what was the object of removing the text also? You seem more experienced, many barnstars. Please help me make sense of the action done. Also, you say you give me time. How much time was that? thank you, please help me make sense of this. I have pretty much given up editing wikipedia because expert people revert but do not improve. Can you add suitable information, not just erase mine? You say it is "good" article. As such, with one single reference to all the universe of Czech Nativities? Makes feel bad trying to improve utter lack of data. appreciate help, constructive. Thanks. YamaPlostalk03:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The intention was to link to the corresponding WP article. There is not such in English yet. How can one *get started*??? Nice were it to do stub, but, where? All those artists are notable. One I did find something about was the one you erased. I REALLY don't understand, sorry. Maybe WP requires too much expertise. oh well. Thank you. YamaPlostalk03:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So instead of editing, you reverted. I will assume good faith, BUT, you not only removed the link, you removed all mention to the artist in question. I will kindly request that you restore that, unless there is good reason not to (notability?) (that list is short still, you broke my will before I could even get going - likely will need a branched-off article, really). I understand you removing the link. Removing the mention itself, I do not understand. Please, fix or explain. Let me kindly suggest also to avoid simple reverts when what you intend is only a partial change. Reverts, such as what you did, are damaging beyond the purported intent. Thank you. BTW and for your information, an article on Nativities that fails to mention Czech nativities beyond one instance of a "Guinness record" can hardly be considered encyclopaedic and certainly not "good". Definitely this article fails in much of its attempt of a world-wide POV. Maybe a good start on the subject, maybe with good potential, as long as prospective non-expert editors are not chased away by well intentioned experts, but instead helped. hint hint. YamaPlostalk17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I say you both removed the link and the data. You say you only removed the link. If you say truth, please, pray show me where the data is? There was a mention to J.Wenig, linked to J.Wenig's article in the cz WP. If you speak truth, show me that the Nativity page still shows J.Wenig among the names of Czech Nativity authors (and please don't try to pretend J.Wenig is not notable. WP pretends to look beyond its local neighborhood). You wanted to remove the link? fine, but why remove the data? Sincerely, I was about to quit WP for good, but I have decided knowledge needs a bit more effort. And I am sorry for WP if things are SO bad that you need thick skin. It has lost its way, if it cannot be inviting and collaborative, and become judgemental and "experts only". I would appreciate your help. If you can't gather, please at least do not scatter. Thank you. BTW, when I was going for tiers-order Franciscan, we were told to fix what we broke. YamaPlostalk18:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'm sorry, if breaking something gains merit and fixing it well does not. Shame on us all. Also if it makes people say things that are not true. You are welcome to help, of course, if you don't break, even if the "rules" are on your side, there are principles above said "rules", I believe?. It's embarrassing this article is considered "good". Lacks citations all over, puts opinions instead of notable facts, picks a few examples that happen to appeal, rather than an encyclopaedic POV. If this article is that much visited, it needs people who will fix it rather than just attacking what others try to build. Please let's spend time fixing and less in this, if you don't mind. Thank you YamaPlostalk19:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in pax et bonum. Peace and Good come from building. I have had to look at your history, to try to understad what you do. You seem to have added very, very little to WP recently. I know, I know, cleaning spills and vandalism is part of keeping a home clean, but much more it is in closing holes, painting, etc. You may have good intentions, I have no doubt, but maybe less of the knife and a bit more of the salve? Now, I'd rather spend my little time to work on articles than on talk pages, though I can see you have the other opinion. Would you be SO kind to let me work? I do agree the Australia segment was off, but then, it is really barely better, needs editing, not just cutting off. Your threat is noted, I know I had to let you repeat yourself, my apologies. In my case, you could have removed the link, only. You removed link anddata, and denied the fact, repeatedly. Please, can we work? thank you YamaPlostalk20:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nativity scene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
chasing my edits around WP and reverting them, not cool
I do not know what it is called in WP (will have to learn), but I hope there are strong policies for who chase others to destroy their work. I am currently working on two articles, and, interestingly, you show up to revert my work in both of them. Please understand that what you call "policy" is not such. BTW, I learned that interlingual links are OK (there are even templates for such!), thus that older revert you did on my work and never fixed you had really absolutely no policy reason to. Please advice if you are aware of some arbitration that can intervene YamaPlostalk14:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Refrain from editing on my talk page anymore. I have disengaged from you and I am not following you. Humility and humbleness go real far. Marauder40 (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also noticing that you erase these Talk discussions. I am copying to my own Talk page to keep these situations visible and evident. I wish it were not necessary. BTW, I have no intention to "engage" with you except to build together a better Wikipedia. It is you who seems to be chasing me around to destroy my work. From what I see in the record, I am not the only one who has received your "engagements". AFAIAC, I'd rather "engage" with editors that build. I'm all for humbleness, I tried that with you, didn't work, now maybe I need to find other brothers that might explain things to you, in love and caring YamaPlostalk14:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:MomigamiGinaPage.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MomigamiGinaPage.jpg, which you've attributed to Gina Page. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
Will ask Gina, she did mention it was several years ago. Thank you for your help. Looking at my talk page, I got to remember why I had stayed away from WP for over 3 years, and there's a world of difference in your approach to helping, and what I had received from another... I feel encouraged to continue, the Papermaking environment of articles really needs some deep tlc, and I don't fully know my way around, and also I want to get others involved that know even less WP than I... - in this case getting someone else to donate an image of something that otherwise WP would have no access to (and I probably should archive that old issue, not good memories there ) YamaPlostalk20:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Farnsworth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Howard Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vigilius of Thapsus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheSandDoctorTalk05:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Vigilius of Thapsus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tutelary deity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zapotec (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
It is with sadness that we note the passing of Jim Howes. Throughout his life, Jim worked to make the world a better place. WikiProject Scouting now has no administrators listed as willing to help the WikiProject. If you are an administrator and are willing to help, please let us know here.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
