User talk:Platterseacatshome

Welcome!
Hello, Platterseacatshome, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! McGeddon (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Help me!
Please help me with... an edit I made to the page I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue. The edit was made to the first paragraph, in which it was stated that this BBC Radio 4 series rotated in its broadcast slot with other Monday night comedy staples, The Unbelievable Truth and Just A Minute. Being an archivist of BBC Radio programmes with complete sets of recordings going back to the late 70s, and therefore fully conversant with BBC Radio schedules, I was well aware that a programme was missing from that list - The Museum Of Curiosity. This series has now been running once a year for six episodes, for the last seven years in this slot. I am a very recent and so far minor contributor to Wikipedia, with little knowledge of how the system works, and it took me several time-consuming attempts to add this small piece of information to the list, ensuring that a link to the page for The Museum Of Curiosity appeared in the same way as those for the other two programmes, gradually puzzling it out by trial and error. I was very pleased to find that despite my inexperience, I had got it right. It is important to me that if I am going to continue to make edits in the future, that I get them right, which is what I had endeavoured to do here.

I revisited the page the next day, and was rather annoyed to find that not only had the small but useful addition been deleted, but that in fact the entire paragraph had been completely rejigged, to eliminate that list of programmes completely.

This makes no sense at all. The information I added was correct, and detracted in no way from the veracity of the article. Can I dispute the deletion, and have my information restored?

Similarly, I found that a minor edit I made to a spelling error - in the paragraph headed 'Awards' - had been reversed because, it is stated, it was spelled that way in the quote's source. This doesn't seem to make sense, either. Just because the original writer of the quote was unaware of the subtle difference between the words 'risky' and 'risqué' when the original article was written, doesn't mean that the error has to be copied blindly and perpetuated. Contextually, the word 'risqué' was clearly what was intended, and it should have been added that way, as if it had been dictated verbally. The word 'risky', although still making a little sense in the context, is within the wider context of the content of the programme incorrect, and 'risqué' is by far the more appropriate word.

Can this edit be added back, with perhaps a note - i.e. 'sic' - to show that the word has been corrected from what was originally written?

14:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Platterseacatshome (talk)


 * The edit to the lead is a matter of weight and emphasis. The lead should give a short summary of the article and give the reader a quick overview of what it's all about. The information on what other shows I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue rotated with is comparatively insignificant; it would give much less of an understanding of the show's premise than the version of the lead McGeddon wrote. Now arguably that information shouldn't have been removed altogether, but it's not important enough for the lead, even less so for the second sentence of the entire article. The "History" section may make a good place for that information, or maybe a new paragraph at the beginning of the "Broadcast list" section (a reliable source for the rotation also couldn't hurt).
 * Regarding the quote, while I agree with you that the source probably meant to say "risqué", we cannot correct the source's spelling when quoting them. I'll add a "[sic]" (Latin for "in this way") to the word "risky" to indicate that the source really uses this spelling while we doubt that's what it really meant to say, but that's the most we can do. If we changed the spelling and then added a "[sic]", in effect we'd claim that, yes, the source definitely uses the spelling "risqué" - and that's simply false. Huon (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for removing the rotation information, there - I assumed it was already in the main article somewhere (the lead section should always be a summary of the entire article) and forgot to check before cutting it. As Huon says, I was just cutting it from the lead for reasons of emphasis, as other Monday night R4 comedy shows didn't seem like the second most important thing the reader should know about Clue. I've added it back to the "Broadcast list" section.
 * I'd actually assumed the Sony Award panel's use of "risky" was intentional, given that wider quote is "risky, rude, brilliantly written". It seems redundant to describe something as being both risqué and rude, and the BBC have repeated the "risky" quote on some of the promotional material for the show. --McGeddon (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

March 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Chris Rainbow has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Chris Rainbow was changed by Platterseacatshome (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2015-03-18T02:56:15+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Chris Rainbow with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Amaury (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Editing and expanding Chris Rainbow discography
Please help me with...

I was simply trying to make some additions and amendments to the Chris Rainbow discography. As a collector and fan from his earliest days, I have virtually everything he released, and so I tried to log a greatly expanded discography. I also felt it was necessary to standardise the way the information about the releases was expressed (e.g. bracketed, commas, 'Japan' instead of 'Jap', etc.), so that it was fully consistent throughout. This required considerable re-editing, which took a lot of valuable time, as well as further time spent verifying every entry. When I thought I had completed the edit, I hit the 'save' button, but on checking the amended page, I realised that I had left out some details. I then tried to re-edit it, and this is where the problems started. I clicked on the 'back' button to try and find the edits and re-copy them to a new editing page - but when I did this, although they copied cleanly, they were in a different format. I have done nothing wrong, the information I have supplied is correct and verifiable - but I really do not want to go through the whole lot again, and spend more hours retracing my steps. I have the page showing the reformatted version of my edits still open, and I have copied this version to my e-mail draft folder. When I open a new Wikipedia window and enter Chris Rainbow in the search box, I only get the page as it was before I tried to edit it. Please can we get my information re-entered without having to go through the whole time-consuming process again. The very last thing I would ever have been intending was vandalism, and I'm quite affronted to think that I am being accused of such. I am just a very inexperienced contributor to Wikipedia, and I find it all a bit of a minefield. I have tried to post this message on the edit reversion page that came up, and at the end I was offered a box with numbers, which I was asked to reproduce in the box below. But each time I did, it simply either came back at me with 'Bad captcha', or presented me with another empty message box. I just seem to be going round and round in circles. Nothing is working. Please help. Thank you.

Platterseacatshome (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Try to use the show preview button when editing wikipedia, then your edits will seem constructive and your edits won't be reverted, it's just a notice to inform you to try to edit more constructively. The notice was valid (however should have been a softer notice, over a caution), as I see the list has been removed in your edit, before editing a page please use your sandbox before editing, as some wikipedians can be extremely picky when something isn't correct, so they revert it instead of fixing it - especially if they are using tools like huggle and STiki, although it seems the user did not assume good faith. --I am  Kethrus    Talk to me!   14:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)