Benbullen
Welcome edit
|
Wokingham railway station edit
Hi, I see that you are wondering why this edit was reverted. The answer is given in the edit summary of my revert. It reads: "rv per WP:ELNO items 5 & 13". WP:ELNO is the guideline on which external links are not acceptable; here, item 5 reads "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services"; and item 13 reads "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. ... If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.".
Considering item 13 first; if you follow the link that you added - http://www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html - you will see that it does not lead to a page which relates to Wokingham railway station, let alone its layout - you need to navigate through the website to get anywhere even remotely relevant. In relation to item 5: if I enter, say, "Wokingham" into the search box, I'm then presented with a page containing links like "Add to Cart", "Your Cart" and "Proceed to Checkout", which suggest a sales site. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Reading Source edit
Regarding this edit - does the first word "Reading" mean the town of Reading, or something to be read? Please see Referencing for Beginners to see how a reference is normally laid out.
Unfortunately, the reference that you have given does not back up the statement to which it has been attached, viz. "In 1860 a new station building, in Bath Stone and incorporating a tower and clock, was constructed for the Great Western Railway." - not one of those facts is given on the web page that you have linked. For this reason, I have reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see that you have replied to the above in the edit summary of this edit. When creating an inline reference, there is no need to use the word "Reading sources" in that ref, it just clutters up the References section.
- I also see that you have re-added the link with this edit. Since it's not being used to support a specific statement in the text, it's not really a Reference, but an External link. Accordingly, I have moved it to the "External links" section, and formatted it per WP:EL#External links section. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Aggressive Christianity Missionary Training Corps appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Aggressive Christianity Missionary Training Corps. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Yworo. Although this edit may look like it is not neutral, I was correcting other aspects of the entry that look like they were from the original article and appear to violate the rules for Wikipedia articles, in terms of neutral point of view. Much of the original article that still appears was either unsourced, questionably sourced ,or the sources have disappeared. Although your comments appear to carry a non-neutral point of view, perhaps the reason is that you did not look back to earlier entries in the Revision history. Thanks for your interest. Benbullen (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC).
Gospel Outreach (Mendocino) edit
Hi Ben, thanks for working on Gospel Outreach (Mendocino)! I performed the page move for you; for more information on how you can do this yourself, check out Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again Melchoir for doing that and the link to the page. I have also had a difficult time uploading photographs. They appear briefly and then disappear: they are non controversial images so this is puzzling to me .(Benbullen (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)).
Moved your Edit edit
Hiya! Wanted to let you know I added citations to your edit on Loleta, California and moved it to Table Bluff, California because the Lighthouse Ranch is/was located in Table Bluff not Loleta. It's an interesting story, thank you for adding it.Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification edit
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Daniel Mannix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link to Rally
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Gospel Outreach edit
I have seen your recent changes at Gospel Outreach (Humboldt). Thank you for adding new citations to that page. I didn't have time this morning to fix the citation format, but you did a great job of providing enough information for someone to fix them later, good job!!
However, the paragraph about Radiance Ministries had to be removed again because it is not notable enough for a section in the article. Describing what they do to musical material for sale is more like an advertisement for their products and since it already had an External Link to them at the bottom, that paragraph was removed entirely in December 2011. (Please see the article's Talk page, Talk:Gospel Outreach (Humboldt)
Repeatedly re-adding material which has been removed previously is considered vandalism of the project. I am fairly certain that's not your intent, but I am also sure that you are in some way connected with the Radiance Project or the ministry formerly on the Bluff, which would mean you are editing without regard for one of the major principles of Wikipedia which is Wiki maintains a Neutral Point of View. Follow any of the links provided here for more information on this and other Wiki policies.
Might I suggest editing things that you are not connected with and joining the community for a while? As you can see from my previous edits to this page, while I have no connection at all to the Table Bluff Ministry, I am interested in editing it. This non-involvement leads to automatic "neutral point of view" because I can have no axes to grind or products to pump. If you do the same on other articles and meet more editors, you will have more editor-friends to help out on this page, instead of falling into the unfortunate category (and it is a well-populated one) of people who join Wiki only to push their own agenda. Don't they say that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions?" Do please help out on stuff like butterflies, parks, music, history and other topics!! Enthusiasm for the project is excellent, please don't follow the devil of self into bad places!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Replying to the note you left on my talk page... Thank you for understanding the non-commercial aspects of the project. I am sorry you feel my words are in any way not the same as addressed to others, or that my editing was more heavy-handed on this article than on others. I have left explanation for all edits on the talk page for the article, which really would be the best place to talk about material issues.
- In reviewing everything I ever wrote on this topic, I don't see anything out of order or out of line. At first I was dealing with an anonymous editor (account was all numbers). Not the same person, I am sure, but I had a situation earlier this year where a self-described fundamentalist Christian was changing "same-sex household" and "opposite-sex household" on Census records to "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals." This happened dozens of times on multiple pages, and I treaded as lightly as I know how, attempting to work with this person to understand that we have to use the words the U.S. Census Bureau uses. Finally, someone else banned him/her from the project because they wouldn't stop and it was simply irrational. There have been other strange situations with anonymous and pseudonymous editors in the past few years. One common habit is to go back and keep reverting edits, despite explanation of why the change is needed to honor the wiki principles. As a religious person, I find perversion of reality ascribed to religious belief distressing as we are all judged by the fringe of our groups. So please forgive me for walking on the side of over-explanation and leaving too much discussion in my wake on this issue. I think what you are seeing is my attempt to be over-careful. And I still fail, even with the attempt to not fail. When I referred to "peacock" words, that's not being snarky or rude - it's an actual wiki term for the kind of writing which I removed from the page in December and again the other day. I don't think it's out of line to suggest a new editor read the 5 pillars of Wiki, especially WP:NPV, since it is well documented that a large proportion of new editors sign up merely edit pages in which they have a personal - often financial - interest. The trigger for the personal note was the restoration of advertising material to a story about a non-commercial Christian movement. As stated above, "reverting" edits to prior without explanation is one of the signs of a wiki-vandal. You are not one, but it certainly looks like it. Hence I cautioned you.
- If we can find an outside source that says "music is deeply bound up with the History of Gospel Outreach," then that can go in the article. We ourselves, no matter how well we "know" it, cannot add it, because that would be Original Research. Yes that can be frustrating at times, but it's a standard kept across the entire project and one to which we must honor to participate.
- I had no intention of anything other than improving the project, as you pointed out, I am not usually an unmindful or attacking type of person.
- I do not think your "Benbullen" account is anonymous, it has a name and a persona. The anonymous editor (perhaps it was you) had all numbers for a name since they didn't get an account. My account has my name because when I joined the project we were doing so as part of an University project and our real names were necessary. I have never thought of getting a pseudonymous account because I don't see any reason for it in Wiki, personally. Your reason for anonymous is interesting, however the guidelines of the project exist to protect from that which you listed. The only times I have read an editor's page to see if what they added was viable are in cases where it is possible/probable that vandalism is involved. For factual changes and bot changes, I do not filter what people put on their home page versus what they write in articles. That is a very interesting perspective and one I had not thought of before. But then I also do not categorize people into those kinds of boxes you listed, assume that only one perspective comes from people no matter their ideology or assume that their ideology will prevent them from making good edits in wiki - as long as they have a neutral point of view.
- To answer your question about the page, no don't leave something wrong if you have a new citation, get the new fact up with its citation. And I can help you out there, too. On my User Page , scroll down a bit and you'll come to a section with all the various citation forms for news, journal, book, web and so on.
- To use them in an article, cut copy paste, to lift the entire citation framework you need. Here's one filled out as a sample:
<ref name="JUNK">{{cite web
| last = Smith
| first = Mary
| authorlink = [[Mary Smith]] <<< only use this if the author has their own Wiki page !! and then don't put their name above in "last & first" >>>
| coauthors =
| title =History of Nothing
| work =Comprehensive History of Nothing
| publisher = Erewhon
| date = 2012
| url =http://put.web.address.here.html
| doi =
| accessdate = 26 March 2012 }}</ref>
- And now I'll put it in non-preformatted text, as it would really be used in the article and you will see how it appears in my mini "reflist" down below.[1]
- To reference "thanks for changing me from red to blue," I apologize, that was an accident. I mistakenly left you a message on your user page... when I should have left it on the talk page. This did however change your status from "nothing on user page" to "some edit has been made on user page," which turns the color.
- ^ "History of Nothing". Comprehensive History of Nothing. Erewhon. 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2012.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help)
- I hope you will forgive and forget any problems that may have appeared to exist to this point, nothing was intended and I'll be happy to help you learn more about Wiki. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit
Hello, Benbullen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message edit
| | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Disambiguation link notification for January 26 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bert Tracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Midland Hotel (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.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message edit
| | 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |