User talk:DannyRogers800

Welcome!
  Hello, DannyRogers800!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, paul2520 💬 18:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Paul, I appreciate it! DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
Hi DannyRogers800! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Alexeyevitch (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I understand, thank you very much for the clarification Alexeyevitch. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I am yet to fully familiarise myself with the rules, so thank you for guiding me. DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Editing issues at Henry Clay Work
Hey, I've noticed you've expanded Henry Clay Work a lot which is great, however please note that no editor gets to decide how an article appears (see WP:OWN). You've been reverting two editors and forcing your own style which includes errors. This type of behavior can quickly escalate into a block so I would advise to slow down and be more cautious with your actions. Additionally, I've noticed you completely replaced the existing citation style on the page. See WP:CITEVAR. Gonnym (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Gonnym! Yes, I take the blame for being stubborn and neglecting the editors' changes... I won't touch them again. On your second point, I'm not quite convinced, as the previous article versions lacked one fixed citation style—it hardly had any citations at all. As per the regulations, I don't think consensus is required for my alterations as I did not necessarily change the citation style, rather, I settled on one. If you don't agree, kindly respond so that we can discuss the issue on the article's talk page and let other users decide. Thank you for interacting! DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The version before you started editing (here) had six standard (non Harvard) citations. Some were used with citation templates others were manually written in the same style. Notice non used the short style (Harvard). Gonnym (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, but is there necessarily any opposition to this article adopting the Harvard style? The previous versions, which were roughly the same from 2018 onward, had no one chief editor, nor any noteworthy detail; they even lacked a bibliography. The Consenus guidelines state that: "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted," so is there any need to consult anyone before this issue is resolved, and is there even really an issue? If this was a more significant article with an established style and prose and, let's face it, far more work put into it, I would not have adjusted the citation style, but seeing how paltry and inadequate the previous versions were, I don't think this should really be an issue. Nonetheless, I stand to be corrected. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you look at a lot of previous discussions (not on that article) you'll notice there is large opposition to changes one style to another. I personally find Harvard awful in digital. We don't use paper, why make it harder for readers to understand the reference? Gonnym (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, but there is no opposition to this article; if anyone disagrees with the change, they can freely voice their concerns themselves. Besides, many editors have changed citation style without any hassle, such as in Battle of Malvern Hill (which appears on the home page today). On another note, Harvard style being "awful" is not a unanimous view—many featured articles adopt that style, and it is also my preferred method of citation due to its compactness and elegance. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I know it's a preference, which is why WP:CITEVAR exists, so an editor does not change an article to their style. Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I refer you to the clause stating that consensus is presumed in the absence of apparent opposition. Once other users start disapproving, I will take great pains to revert all citations to the non-Harvard style you find preferable, but for the time being, I see no reason to. DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)