User talk:Breaking sticks/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Somerset, Kentucky Article
Hi, I'm writing about an edit you made to that article. You removed the nickname I added. I should have known better. You were right to remove it. I'll try to track down a reliable source next time. However, one edit you added that caught my attention was something you referred to as a "drive by tag." I'm new to Wikipedia editing and not really sure what that means, but it sounded interesting. Could you clarify?--Dabblequeen (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Dabblequeen: It's a way of referring to someone who sees a problem with an article, and rather than doing anything to improve it just puts a tag there saying there's a problem. They then just move on to other things and forget about it, like just dropping a tag as they drive by without stopping. To be fair, there are times when just placing a tag is reasonable, but very often it's completely pointless, and seems to be done just to make the editor who does it feel they have "done their bit" and needn't bother to do anything more constructive about whatever problem there is. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
October 2017
Hello, I'm DrStrauss. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to The Great Irish Bake Off— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DrStrauss talk 22:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@DrStrauss: You did read my edit summary before reverting, didn't you? Didn't it occur to you that the part referred to in the edit summary might be what I meant to do, and the rest a mistake? Never mind: I've reverted the damage you inadvertently did.Breaking sticks (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Have a welcome template while I'm at it
|
Far Away from the Sun
Hello Breaking Sticks -- why is the legacy section here promotional? Seems like honest reviews to me. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 09:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- @My name is not dave: I didn't say it was dishonest, I said it was promotional. If you don't think the practice of picking out sentences and phrases full of praise from reviews and quoting them one after another is promotional then I wonder what you would see as promotional. (And by the way,my name isn't dave, either. Isn't that a coincidence?) Breaking sticks (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Well, what would be promotional is some primary source discussing how great the band's album was, or something that was uncited doing the same. It's certainly not dishonest, no, that isn't promotion to me. If you think it's a bit WP:UNDUE, then maybe that, yes. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ammarpad (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Breaking sticks. By the way, thanks for that, I'm new around here and I guess I might need need your help on my articles but if you're willing to help me, be my guest. Okay Gontle Galefite (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Gontle Galefite (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
BARNET FC
Mark McGhee HAS JUST BEEN APPOINTED AT BARNET. Give it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy boots (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jimmy boots: If that is true then you should have no difficulty in providing a reliable source that days so. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: User:Samdags14
Hello Breaking sticks, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Samdags14, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. – Joe (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
New Account Replies
1. had parts of my real name so wanted to make an anonymous user
2. wanted a fresh start to edit more accurately
Any particular reason you would like to know my previous account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticitizen 98 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Robert Naorem disruptive editing
Can you please help me to point out where I am doing wrong. It will helps me a lot. Thank you. Vergill-Dmc(talk)
- @Vergill-Dmc: You must be referring to my message letting you know that continuing your editing for promotion is likely to lead to an administrator blocking you from editing. I didn't specifically mention the draft you mention, although my message came just after another one that did. If so, it is difficult to know what I can say to "point out where you are going wrong" without just telling you things you must already know. For example, I can't imagine you could possibly have written Internet of skills without intending it to be promotion of its subject. If you really can't see that that page would hit anyone reading it right in the face as marketing copy then I can't imagine what I could possibly say that would make it any clearer to you.The best suggestion I can think of is that you read that page trying to imagine how it would look to someone who had never heard of the subject before. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
AK Husky
Hello,
For my first article AK Husky I wrote about a man who I have not done enough research on so I wanted it down. It got taken down but before that I was deleting the tags put by other users. I did that because they put the wrong tag in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pongd1000 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
JJakeN Scientology Article
Hi,
I recently had an article that I posted on Scientology deleted for being an "attack page". However, the article was never intended to be an attack article, and was very carefully worded to ensure that it was not attacking anybody or providing personal opinions that could be interpreted as attacks. All of the information in the article was factual and was provided by outside sources - I was simply compiling those opinions into a Wikipedia article. I was wondering if you could let me know why you deleted this article, and what it was that led you to the conclusion that it was an an attack article? The article was entitled "Abusive and Controversial Practices in Scientology". Thank you.
I should also mention that I am new to the Wikipedia editing community, so if there are guidelines that I am missing regarding what is considered to be an attack article, I would appreciate it if you let me know what these are. Additionally, if you have any recommendations as to how to include this information in a Wikipedia article without it being considered an "attack article" in order to avoid future deletion, please let me know. Thank you. JJakeN (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @JJakeN: Well, Breaking sticks didn't delete it - they're not an administrator. The user who deleted the article was Writ Keeper, who deleted it under CSD A10. That's not WP:CSD G10, which was the nomination of Breaking sticks - it was deleted due to it duplicating an existing topic, namely Scientology controversies. You may wish to contribute there instead. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Bellezzasolo: Thank you very much for your help. I had originally considered doing this - However, I felt that that the topics that I discussed in my article were more specific and sufficiently different in nature than the topics discussed in the "Scientology Controversies" page, specifically in that many of the controversies discussed on that page are focused around monetary exploitation, rather than physical or mental abuse or exploitation of its members. Given this information, would you still recommend contributing to the "Scientology Controversies" page, or would you recommend adjusting my title or the contents of my article to properly distinguish my article from the already existing article? As I said, I feel that the contents of my article are sufficiently different in nature from the "Scientology Controversies" article that it could warrant the creation of its own page. Please let me know what you think. I appreciate your help. JJakeN (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @JJakeN:, Writ Keeper deleted it for a reason. This is generally known as content forking, and is often done to make a point of view version of an article - hence the label as an attack page. Of course, with a topic like Scientology, it is actually warranted, as otherwise it would be a huge section of the overall article - see Scientology#Controversies. As the controversies page is linked from the main article, it's more likely to be legitimate. A title Abusive and Controversial Practices in Scientology is somewhat POV already, as it asserts "Abusive". In normal cases, this looks like an attack page, but again, Scientology doesn't exactly fit the mold. As it is, I'd say it falls entirely within the scope of the Scientology controversies page. Just because a page currently doesn't cover something doesn't mean that it shouldn't - indeed, one of the criteria for a featured article is that the article is comprehensive. Regarding editing, the most important policy is be bold. You make a change, then somebody will either revert it, or it will stay. Then, follow the WP:BRD cycle - this way, you'll learn policies in due course. BRD prevents edit warring, which is the easiest way to get yourself blocked - even if you're right. Stay within that (and being CIVIL), and you'll be absolutely fine. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Fenggang Yang
Can you help on that page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fenggang_Yang
The user Phoenixhill, who I am 100% sure is the author himself, continues to add to the page the allegation that all academic critics who have written against him are "Communists", which is completely false. Some of them are Western and others are Chinese Confucians.
The most disturbing thing, however, is that he accuses me to be an agent paid by the Chinese Communist Party.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Focurc
Hello, I full-heartedly object to the deletion of the page. Focurc is a language in its own right. It's too different to be considered a dialect of Scots or of English despite its origins lie in the Northumbrian dialect of Old English. I'd say have the page on so at least people can know about it and hopefully do something to help preserve it. Without the page, how would other people know about it? Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)