Beesee11
Seriously... Jeanne "Boleyn" whoever you are, my addition is really important. I have done a lot of study of Anne Boleyn and do not like how inaccuratley she is portrayed in pop culture so I want interested persons to read about the inaccuracy if they happen to puruse the main page. So please let it be.
- Wikipedia already has an article Anne Boleyn in popular culture, and the main article does not need this superfluous section which is badly-written and detracts from the entire article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Beesee11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Daicaregos (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Give me a real, justified reason that people should read about all your stuff and not mine. I study crowd-sourcing and the whole point of crowd-sourcing is multiple people's opinons. Not just yours. The article is long. One paragraph hardly makes it superfluous. Get another hobby.
YES IT DOES NEED IT. I'm sorry but what makes you the authority on this. Wikipedia is crowd-sourcing not you personal website. If you want to have your own website, make one and stop being a jerk. --Beesee11 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you feel that adamantly about the section go discuss it on the Anne Boleyn talk page and see if you can gain consensus to keep it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit War edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anne Boleyn. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mo ainm~Talk 20:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Get consensus with who? You and your friends who seem to be the only ones editing this page??? Look up the definition of crowd-sourcing please. And read Denny's book. I think this is lame and I am only still participating to make a point. I do not care it I violate the 3RR.--Beesee11 (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours edit
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Please take this opportunity to become familiar with the Wikipedia editing process, and especially that which is commented upon under Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Edit war. As noted, even if it turns out that you are right upon the point of a dispute there are processes in place where the case for the point should be made and recognition gained (that is the consensus part), that removing content that has not yet got consensus is simply part of a resolution process (the Bold, revert, and discuss cycle bit) and that simply reverting others reversions are not permited (because that is an edit war). Don't worry about the block, it is just a means by which your attention may be gained and directed toward resolving the issues you are currently experiencing. Many good editors have a block early - some even later - in their editing history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Jeanne Boleyn and her friends seem to think that the Anne Boleyn page is her own personal website and that she has veto power. I disagree. The point of crowd-sourcing is multiple opnions. Look at the edits for the page. She has done them all. And seems to undo anyone else's contributions. My editing privileges should be un-blocked.
- There are processes to be used. This website is edited on any one day in numbers that are counted in tens of thousands or more even, and thus using established procedures is the only way that it can be administered. You are one editor, and you have the right to make any edit that you think improves the encyclopedia; I am also one editor, but one with a few extra abilities, who also has the right to make any action that benefits the project, and I have removed your editing privileges for a short while so you may take the time to learn how to properly address a situation you feel needs to be considered (including how to properly appeal your block, by using the links in the template that are indicated by the blue coloured text). Unless you use the correct processes you will continue to be not allowed to edit because your actions, even though they may be based on a correct viewpoint, are more disruptive than the issues you are concerned with. I would comment that an apparent refusal to learn or use the built in processes usually is taken to mean that the editor is less concerned with the encyclopedia and its accuracy than with the editors own sense of worth or righteousness, and that does not help in resolving issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)