User talk:Pbl1998/Archive 3-January 2011

Further editing
After a fair bit of lobbying on my part your block has been reversed, as part of which I agreed to keep an eye on your future edits and offer some mentoring and advice. As my reputation is now involved, I would appreciate if you could try to stay out of trouble. Moving forward, please feel free to ask me any questions you have, I'll be happy to try and assist and help improve your contributions to wikipedia. The same offer goes out to Willrocks10, but dependent on that would be him being willing to listen to consensus and try to follow policy, which at the moment he most definitely doesn't.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

A great deal of thanks go out to you for helping me get unblocked. Thank You. Also, Thank You to HelloAnnyong for unblocking me. I know I got into trouble but I did not do anything wrong. I will not break the rules though. I don't do things like that. IIt's good Wilrocks10 is behaving himself now!!!!! I'll say that to him when I see him next! Thank You for your help.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, first piece of advice. Having just been exonerated as a sock, jumping into the edit war that Willrocks is undertaking on Christmas is not the smartest move you could make, as it's exactly the kind of thing a sock would do. To be honest, I'd stay well away from that one, he's once again opposing existing consensus on the page (look at the previous discussions on the talk page) and if he carries on while ignoring the other editors, it's likely to go south again. You really don't want to appear on the admins radar again any time soon.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Yeah-I'll stay out of that for a bit. I've been using my new found tool-The Random Article one. I've pressed it once today and edited James Alger Fee!!!!! He's probably sutible for me because he died on my birthday!!! Fate!! I've also put a bit on about Joanna Yeates and Ecuador. I've also done some other minor edits!!

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I wanted to let you know that I've reverted your edit to the James Alger Fee page on the basis of poor quality. It doesn't tell readers more about him than they already know from the article. To make constructive edits, you need to add new information into the article that you found in the book in which he is mentioned. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, random article is unlikely to be a good way for you to proceed. Try to find a subject you have knowledge of. The articles you made for the stuff in Woking weren't bad, they just wern't notable. But popping into a random article and doing a google search is an unlikely way to make good additions. Instead try to find improve tags on subjects you know about and help to fix those problems. e.g. if there is a citation missing, go try and find it rather than adding in whole new material.

Secondly, when someone reverts an edit you have made, don't just jump in and revert them back again. That is edit warring and will get you into trouble very quickly. Specifically, there is a wikipedia policy called the three revert rule, which say you must not make the same revert more than three times in 24 hours, ignoring that is a quick way to get blocked. Both you and Carl have already exceeded that, so stay well away now. It also really hacks off other editors and will rapidly create a general consensus against you as an editor. You've already seen that happen to Willrocks and you don't want to go there. This kind of thing is exactly why he gets up so many people's nose and to date you've mostly avoided that.

If you have added something and it's been reverted, go to the talk page of the article and post asking why. You can then engage in a debate with the other editors on the page about why you think it should be in, and why they don't. Listen to the points made and go along with the consensus. The biggest lesson you (and Willrocks) need to learn about wikipedia is to listen to other editors more, most of them have vastly more experience on here than you, and you should try to learn from them rather than fighting them all the time. From a purely practical point of view, you don't know the policies and procedures well enough to argue effectively. Trying to do so is just going to get you blocked.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Do you reckon I'm going to get blocked.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now it's technically possible as you've already broken WP:3RR on that page. I think that would be harsh, as you obviously didn't know about the rule, but it would also be correct as you are editing in a disruptive manner and not listening to others. However, I think it unlikely, quite appart from anything else, Carl has also broken 3RR so personally I'd call it a wash. But DONT DO IT AGAIN! By which I don't mean don't edit wikipedia, but if you make an edit and it gets reverted, leave it alone and go to the talk page to find out why. Or drop a note on my talk page and I'll take a look and point you in the right direction. Your enthusiasm is to be commended, but enthusiasm without the knowledge to apply it effectively is wasted. As I recommended way back on the AfD, start slower with wikipedia until you find your way around. Charging around like a bull in a chinashop is not going to work.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

You are being a great help. You have my greatest respect.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, have you noticed that when other editors are making posts like this, some parts are wikilinked? e.g. in my longer post above I wikilinked edit warring. Those links will take you directly to the policies or guidelines the other editors is suggesting you are breaking. Every time you see one, go read it and try to understand why they think you are breaking that rule. Or conversely to see if they are incorrect, e.g. Carl wrongly described your posts as vandalism, which they aren't. Vandalism is stuff like page blanking or obviously offensive or graffiti posts, which this isn't. That doesn't mean it should stay, but the wrong policy is being quoted. Whenever you get into any dispute on wikipedia, you will always go a lot further if you can quote policy to back up your point of view. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Yes I do. If you can someone's undone my revisions of Fon Pelser. Check that out if you want.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, May you explain what is wrong with that edit. It is not unconstructive. Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What did you not understand about what I wrote above? Listing the books that a a person appears in is not helpful. Read an article from a real encyclopedia, and write in that style. One of the last things we need on WP is for each article to have a list of books that the subject is mentioned in. Just write down the information that your book says about Fee, and reference it to the book. That's how you write a WP article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Cease adding that contribution to the page. You have not been here long enough, and your English is too poor, to judge a good edit from a poor one. When experienced editors try to explain to you what you're doing wrong, don't be tendentious, or you'll get yourself blocked again. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Ok, Bare with me please.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to. Is there anything you haven't understood about what I've told you here? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm going to put it up again-But look for the reference please. If your not happy with it just tell me.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you put up that same text again, I will take it down. There is no useful information there. How do you not understand this? Do you understand why your edit is a poor one? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm going to leave it for now. I will be back-With better infomation aswell. I do find your comments quite rude though.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(Copied here from my talk page to keep the conversation in one place)

PaintedOne, He clearly does not respond to instruction. I'm unclear about why you lobbied on his behalf. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I lobbied on his behalf because he was incorrectly indef blocked as a sock in an SPI I instigated, which was wrong. His editing history is not great and he has a lot to learn, but it's hardly normal practice to indef block new editors making common new editor mistakes. We were all new once. As a point of order, what he is adding is not vandalism, he is adding in material in good faith. I agree with you that it's not of sufficient quality to be included, you're right to undo it, and his repeated reversions is tendentious, which I will speak to him about, but lets also try to not bite the newcomers. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In my defence, I did not at first revert it as vandalism, just as a poor edit. I clearly explained on this page why I reverted it. Once he started undoing my edits, then I started to consider it vandalism. I explained what was wrong, and asked if he understood. I can't see how that is BITE-y. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, hence I raised it more as a 'point of order' for his clarrity than anything else. I think his main crime here is the tendentious editing, not the quality of the original edit, so it's more practical to focus on that. I think there is hope for PBL, he has enthusiasm and is capable of listening, he just needs to slow down a bit!--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm going to stay out of this for obvious reasons.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fons Pelser
Because the information was unreferenced; please include a reliable source whenever you add information. Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 23:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What it says on the tin, you didn't provide a reference as to where you got that information from. Have a look at the reliable sources policy to see the kind of ref you need to provide. Personally I would have put in a citation request tag rather than a revert, as the person concerned is dead (standards for citations are much stricter for living people to avoid possible legal issues). But an undo is not unreasonable if the info added was questionable or unlikely to ever be referenced (I have no idea about this particular person though). The info you added was fairly specific, where did you get it from?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I got the infomation from the Ajax Football Club Website.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a URL link? GiantSnowman 23:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Yeah i can get one-It's in Dutch though!!!

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, we can translate! GiantSnowman 23:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

This is the link: http://leden.ajax.nl/web/show/id=63450

I translated it fairly easily!

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Woo hoo, collaborative editing in action (*does a happy dance*). I think I may go to bed now.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, perfect, I've translated and added relevant information to the article. Good work everyone! GiantSnowman 23:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Woo Hoo x2

pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Warburton edit was duplicate information and de-linking; the Joop Pelser information was trivia. Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 14:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits to Fons Pelser are contrary to the manual of style and include (again!) unreferenced information. That is why I reverted. Regards, GiantSnowman 13:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Linking
Small point, I've noticed a few times that you're overdoing the wikilinks in some places. e.g. you wikilinked the word 'playing' in 'playing football' or 'birdstop' to Bird. You only need to add links to subjects that a reader might reasonably want to follow through for clarity or further research. To look at the examples above, someone reading an article on a footballer isn't going to need to be taken to a definition of the word 'playing'. In a similar vein, there is no use when talking about a place called 'birdstop' to link it to the article on birds, as there is no real relevence. WP:LINK describes this in some details.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I must admit I do a bit. I'll try to cut down!!!

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how many people have looked at a page
Hi,

I was wondering if anybody knew wheather or not you could see, or see how many, people have viewed a certain page. This counting for a 'mark' once you've been on a Wikipedia page. For example I went onto the Wikipedia Homepage once-Than again, and again, and again. That wouldn't be four it would be one. It would be a bit different on some pages. Could we do that? I don't think we can, but it's worth asking!

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Try searching help for stuff like this. However, having just searched for 'page hits' in there it came back with this FAQ entry.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you click on History on any page, you can find numbers of page views, contributors by number of edits, number of people watching the page, and other statistics. Look for "External tools: Revision history statistics · Contributors · Revision history search · Number of watchers · Page view statistics" above the listing of each page revision, and click on "Page view statistics" to see a chart of how many people have viewed the page on any day in any given month - and you can change the month displayed. Hope this helps. Tvoz / talk 09:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Glenwood Park, Atlanta
(1) It's not important whether or not a dentist lives in this neighborhood; (2) any assertion, even this one, needs to be supported by reliable independent sources. Your own knowledge isn't enough. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

If you would please look at the 2nd references you will find that it says there is a dentist on the site. This is notable. This is expanding a page-A sentence.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking
I've removed a few of the links you put in the Sutton Green, Surrey and Mayford articles. I don't think you can have looked at the destinations of Mayfair, tees and greens, as these deal with completely different subjects than the ones you intended. It would be easiest not to overlink, as discussed earlier. I've also been hacking away at capital letters, changing "the Village is mainly centred around the Roundabout in the middle of the village" to "the village is mainly centred around the roundabout in the middle of the village". Now I look at it, that sentence seems a bit repetitive! Also remember the difference between "its" (belonging to it) and "it's" (it is). Happy editing! - Ttwaring (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Userpage
Hi,

There's some features I like on my user page but I want it to look good. Can somebody help please!!!

Thanks, pbl1998