Faarlvatar Veldtamid
Welcome! edit
Hi Drfjenkins! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Rod of Asclepius edit
You may notice that I changed your edit to Rod of Asclepius. This is because the text you added is arguably a personal assessment, which is not allowed in Wikipedia per policy WP:No original research. However, I thought it a helpful clarification so I have retained it as a footnote. So thank you for helping to improve Wikipedia, I'm sure that there are many more such ambiguities (and downright errors!) that may pique your interest. Any significant additions need to cite a wp:reliable source: there is a higher standard of citation required for medicine and related topics, see WP:MEDRS. Again, welcome! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- I recognise your wp:good faith so won't revert again but someone else may. The problem is that the cited source uses the word 'ambiguity' so if we are to contradict it we need another source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not replying sooner (silly as it may sound I wrongly assumed your message would not be so nice and honestly I just didn't think I could handle it at the time). I really appreciate your kindness, your correct assessment of my motivation, and most of all that you seem to care most about accuracy and Truth - which are two things I always hope beat me whenever I am in conflict with them.
Thank you again. Drfjenkins (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 edit
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Propaganda in the United States. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu: wp:please don't bite the newbies. You must know that the place to question Faarlvatar Veldtamid's edit is at the article talk page, by invoking the wp:Bold, revert, discuss process. An wp:edit war in main space is unproductive and brings nobody any credit.
- Faarlvatar Veldtamid: What tgeorgescu should have told you is that the style problem with your contribution is explained in Wikipedia:Embedded citations. This is a technical error: the essence of your edit may otherwise be valid (I don't know, "not my field") but you will need to debate it on the article talk page, not by reverting and counter-reverting. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @John Maynard Friedman: I guess if we remove such cruft, there is not much left of the edit. The edit seems made to bolster something, either for or against the organizations named therein. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu:, your reversion was certainly valid (I would have done the same). The only problem is the way you handled the fall-out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @John Maynard Friedman: Will you give me a clear advice on how to handle it in the future? tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu:, your first reversion was fine, you explained in your edit note what you were doing and why: an experienced editor would have known at that stage to take it to the talk page. (The clue was in the use of embedded links that you were not dealing with an experienced editor.) In your second reversion, you should have
- declared BRD in the edit note
- created a new discussion topic at the talk page, noting that it is a BRD discussion. [This case is unusual in that there are two issues: form and content. The 'form' issue is the use of embedded links; the content is the debate about psychologists. The first is just a foot-fault and should be dealt with speedily and put aside – don't let it distract you from the second, the main, debate.]
- invited Faarlvatar Veldtamid to participate (typically using {{ping}} or just {{u}} but maybe at their talk page too).
- use uw-templates sparingly, and start with level 1.
- Is this written down anywhere? I never seen it, it is just what I have observed to be effective. I hope it helps. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu:, your first reversion was fine, you explained in your edit note what you were doing and why: an experienced editor would have known at that stage to take it to the talk page. (The clue was in the use of embedded links that you were not dealing with an experienced editor.) In your second reversion, you should have
- @John Maynard Friedman: Will you give me a clear advice on how to handle it in the future? tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu:, your reversion was certainly valid (I would have done the same). The only problem is the way you handled the fall-out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @John Maynard Friedman: I guess if we remove such cruft, there is not much left of the edit. The edit seems made to bolster something, either for or against the organizations named therein. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)