Quail Armor
|
|
Hello! Teahouse invitation,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!
|
Welcome!
editHello, Quail Armor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
March 2019
editAt Alan Johnson (political theorist) you repeated editing previously repeatedly made by an edit-warring editor, which had been reverted by three different editors, each of whom gave a reason in an edit summary. For some reason you chose not to give any explanation for restoring the edit-warrior's editing. Can you please explain now what reason you have that you think is so obviously good enough to over-rule the reasons given by three different editors that no explanation was needed? 213.205.241.117 (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@213.205.241.117:
Possibly a mistake accidentally made. Sorry. I've reverted to your edit already. Quail Armor (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Looking at your edits I see almost all of them are clearly good, but you are editing at a very high speed, which is bound to run the risk of hasty mistakes from time to time. Perhaps you should spend just a few more seconds checking before each edit. 213.205.241.117 (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @213.205.241.117: Thanks for the reminder. Cheers. Quail Armor (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hello both, you have been removing my additions to the page I am editing Alan Johnson (political theorist). I have left messages detailing why I had undone your amends both times, however they were ignored. As i mentioned, the article section is necessary for Professor Alan Johnson's page, as simply a books section alone does not reflect the diversity of his work and his work in more recent years. Additionally, the majority of the section you have removed was comprised of chapters in books. I have looked at many other pages, which include much more extensive lists of publications. I would like to find a resolution to this, as it has used up a lot of time, which could be better placed. --Fjournal (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry didn't tag you there in the above message Quail Armor 213.205.241.117 --Fjournal (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Fjournal:
Your edits violate this policy which states that "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed", this is also explained by User:Drmies in his edit summary. However if you strongly feel that those inputs should be there, get a consensus on the talk page and editors will give their thoughts and comments too. Your edits are great is just that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, that's all. There are a few other ways to add those infomation but I am unsure of which, so I'll just provide the link to the page (Wikipedia:Alternative outlets). Cheers and happy editing. Quail Armor (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC) - @Fjournal:, who is "we"? The IP is correct: we are not a site for resumes. We don't do "reflective of his work"--we do things that are important. Articles and chapters are not, unless secondary sources make them so. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies: @21.205.241.117: @Quail Armor: Wiki itself defines Johnson as a political theorist, so it is not logical or reasonable to stop wiki readers from knowing what his political theorising consists of. I do not agree that the posting violates policy. I have not posted 'all that exists' about Johnson, but only a small sample of the most important examples of his political theory. The equivalant would be to post the major albums of a musician, or the most important paintings of an artist. Other political theorists on wiki have some of their most important essays, chapters and articles, listed. This is no exception. I have cut the list back to just X items, but it seems to me that wiki is fulfilling its function exactly by allowing readers to know a little about what the main works of a political theorist are, having defined him as a political theorist. To give one example, when the world-famous philosopher Slavoj Zizek replied to his critics he included Johnson among them. It helps wiki readers who come across that response by Zixk to then use wiki to know where Johnson's critique of Zizek can be found. --Fjournal (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Fjournal:
- Quail Armor 213.205.241.117 Drmies don't know what your thoughts are on the above? --Fjournal (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Reminder
edit- Do please slow down the speed of your edits. This is bound to lead to mistakes. Always make sure you inform/warn users with the Templates for Warning Users. -- Alexf(talk) 15:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Alexf: I will try to slow down as much as possible but it still depends on what the vandalism content is about (I will be fast on vandalisms that are made on sensitive topics or to defame someone else). However, do let me know if I made any mistakes so far so that I can learn from them. Cheers. Quail Armor 16:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)