User talk:Lane99: Difference between revisions

Lane99 (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Welcome!

Hello, Lane99, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This said I could type this "helpme" on this(?) page, and someone will answer. I noticed the Debra Milke article was, to say the least, not neutral. I have tried to make some edits to it to make it moreso, but I don't know anything about formatting pages here, and I expect I haven't done a proper job of that. (when I figure out how to get the tilde (which is in blue on my keyboard) to type out, I will sign my name properly)lane99

Hi lane99, welcome to Wikipedia. Your edits to Debra Milke definitely improved the article, and I don't see any formatting issues. Also, at the bottom of the edit window on this page, above the edit summary field, there should be a little thing that says Sign your posts on talk pages, followed by four tildes. Click the four tildes, and it should insert a signature. Hope this helps! Howicus (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Howicus. Got it.Lane99 (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP Discretionary Sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your most recent statement that the Murder of Anni Dewani must have been arranged by a particular living person who was tried and acquitted on those charges is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Be aware that sanctions are available for violations of the policy on biographies of living persons (even if the mention is in an article that is primarily about a dead person). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert said don't hesitate to contact me, but I'm not sure how. If I just reply here, does Robert see it? Well, I'll take my chances that he does:

1. I didn't exact say it "must have". Nevertheless, I won't quibble with your basic interpretation.

2. I was only answering a question put to me by an editor much more experienced than me. Perhaps he was baiting me, since he knew full :well what my answer would be before he asked. Or perhaps even very experienced editors arent' familiar with this policy.

3. I've now read your comments on "BLP" on the "Murder of Anni Dewani" talk page and see the rule. If I had read it previously, I :still would have been confused. Because, to me, with the reference to "legal status", it reads as if to say something like: you can't :say someone was found guilty in court, if they weren't found guilty in court. Further, I would have assumed that just referred to the ARTICLE, not the "talk page". And I'm kind of surprised that there is this sort of censoring of opinion and free speech. Nevertheless, in the meantime: Your Football, Your Rules.

4. Is there anything further I need to do about this matter. Lane99 (talk) 17:57, 25 August :2015 (UTC)