User talk:DiggyG

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:


 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use  ~  (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type  (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the test area.
 * You can get help at the Help Desk
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Five pillars, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not, How to write a great article

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at New user log.

-- utcursch | talk 05:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Invincible
Hey thanx very much for your contribution on the invincible section of the michael jackson page. You have drown my attention to a very important matter indeed. That part was added by me and i used the wrong addition of the book, i dont have the 1991 edition i have the 2004 edition! When I sourced it all i did was to scan and past the source from the "further reading" section without realising it was the old edition. I have resourced it with the updated book and have added the new edition to the "further reading" section with its new isnb code. thanx again. Realist2 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Hi. I saw your question at the EAR page and decided to answer you on your talk page. I looked over the Michael Jackson article and I can tell you one thing, your edits have already been reverted. You did remove some things that shouldn't be there (the POV statements), but you also need to be careful to not remove sourced items. With a controversial figure such a Jackson, you can bet that the smallest details have already been hashed out, so it's always a good idea to check the article's talk page before removing any sourced content. If you can, reword the content instead of removing it. That being said, your edits should not have been completely reverted. You have the right to warn the other editor for attempting to own the article. It seems that an open dialog might not work in this situation, but attempt to open one again anyhow. Explain the reasoning behind your edits and ask the other editor to work with you, not against you (and vice versa). If you're still having trouble, let me know and I'll be more than happy to give you a hand. I know it's frustrating when you're attempting to make an article better and your work gets reverted. Just keep your cool and resist the urge to start an edit war. Good luck! Pinkadelica (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm...looking at how they answered you in a recent edit summary, it's safe to say that this person probably isn't going to want to compromise. I'll go have a better look at the article in a bit and change up some stuff. I can tell you that just glancing at it, some of the references they have included are unreliable by Wikipedia standards (such as IMDb) so, those can be tagged. There's also quite a bit of POV there that needs to be removed. I'll edit it a bit later and if they revert it, there are other steps that can be taken. No one owns any articles on here and we're all allowed to edit an article as long as it is constructive. Some of the changes you made were valid and should be included. Sometimes you run into people who are just unwilling to meet you halfway and have a tendency to be rude. That's ok, there are ways around that. :) Pinkadelica (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * lol No problem. I've dealt with MUCH worse and lived to tell the tale. I'm actually the one who tagged the article for all those issues. After going back and reading it, I found that your edits were constructive and they shouldn't have been completely reverted. Needless to say, that same user got a bit snippy with me when I tagged the article and left a note on the talk page as to why I left the tags. They quickly changed their tune once I got snippy right back. I also left a note on their talk page about their attitude toward others changing the page and for cussing on the talk page. Stepping away from the situation might be a good idea if you're just tired of it. It will still be there later and by then, that user will probably be fighting with someone else about something else. In my opinion, some of their actions are unfair and appear to be motivated by their admiration for Jackson. It's fine to have an affinity for something or someone, but that can't interfere with writing an article. As far as them removing anything from the Jackson talk page, that's a big no-no. Unless it's something inappropriate or straight up vandalism, they can only archive the article talk page. If you have proof that they're doing that, you can report them. As far as their personal talk page, they are allowed to remove a warning or anything else from it. It's assumed that if they removed it, they read it, so that's acceptable. Personally, I would continue to work on the page because it does need work, but like I said, taking time off from it won't hurt anything. If you decide to start up again and they start reverting all the things you change for no real reason, don't bother warning them, just report them. It looks like you tried to reach a middle ground with them and they're seeing that as a threat, which it's obviously not. No one wants their edits reverted just because someone thinks they own a page and no one else should touch it. Who knows, maybe a friendly warning from an administrator will change their attitude. At this point, I think that's your best option if you want to continue working on that particular article. Odds are, they'll back down once they are warned and if they don't, they'll eventually get blocked or banned if they don't want to play ball. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to self: Don't say anything provocative before you get sent to the emergency room
Wasn't in the plan. I expected to catch crap from you for using over-bold language. I didn't expect to be away from keyboard for 36 hours. I owe you explanation and specifics as it regards my statements, and I apologize for the delay. If you don't mind, please take no definitive action until tomorrow, when my brain gets back. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I could blame the situation for what might have been more heat than necessary in my comments, but with wikipedian collegiality and candor in mind, I believe I spoke from the heart, and so I would like the chance to express myself better than I did. I believe I've adequately disclosed personal bias as someone who's been with the Iseman page since the first minutes and through an evolving POV over 4 deletion processes. As always I defend the page on its merits. We may disagree on the merits themselves, but I sense that we share significant agreement as wikipedians (a day or two after heated disagreement, we're both backpedaling on our bold language, but still discussing the situation like we actually and sincerely care about an equitable solution). So that's a very nice thing to learn in this process. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. ''You removed a statement that was in fact in the citation provided. Please read any citations before stating that material is not contained in the citation. If you think the citation is not factual, challenge the verifiability, but do not remove content.'' Toddst1 (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Response here DiggyG (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

TALK: John Edwards
Diggy,

I noticed you redacted my entry in talk:John Edwards. Please don't. Per BLP they were removed. BLP comments cannot exist in a article nor on a talk page, and if found need to be removed. His comments were in violation of WP:BLP, and they were redacted. I understand what you were getting at with your edit note, and you're correct, under normal circumstances, removing other people's comments in considered incivil, however, in the case of WP:BLP that actually can be done without violationg WP:CIVIL or any other guildeine dealingw with talk pages. Thanks  KoshVorlon  > rm -r WP:F.U.R     11:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Diggy,

I got your note on my page. I'll be more careful when I'm removing one person's comments not to remove someone else's! Thanks!  KoshVorlon  > rm -r WP:F.U.R     19:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD which might be of interest to you
You contributed to the article so I'm letting you know: Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 Borock (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)