User talk:Brother Officer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
|
[edit] No kidding: Welcome!
But that doesn't mean that we won't revert everything you do. Just kidding now. I noticed you had made good faith changes to Fort Lafayette (I reverted) and to Battle of Cold Harbor (Hal reverted), but that doesn't mean we don't value your participation and contributions. In the case of Cold Harbor (as Hal told me when I was a new editor), when you choose to edit something that's a the top of a major page, expect others to be resistant to major change (he was more eloquent). If you're an ACW buff (like me) you may consider looking at and joining the ACW task force. No hurry, if you need any help, feel free to write in my talk page. Have fun and don't let reversion keep you from making bold changes. BusterD 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand. Why was the accurate information I contributed reverted? Will this happen to everything I write? Is it your "turf" so nobody else can add information you did not have? Could you not have simply placed the information in another position without removing it? La Fayette is correct over Lafayette as was shown in the rest of the text. I think ette in French indicates small.
What exactly is the ACW task force? Which side do you think was in the right? I understand we are supposed to be neutral but I believe few people ever are.
- Exactly why I posted this second welcome. No turf here, though some editors who've been working on a page might take unkindly to seemingly random changes (especially from unregistered or brand new editors, which as a class tend to be more inclined to vandalism). I can't speak for the Cold Harbor reversion (I think Hal did expalin his change in edit summaries), but in the case of the fort, the correct spelling for the marquis, La Fayette, was never used for the fort Lafayette. I explained this in my edit summary, and gave several sources for my position. An appropriate reply from someone who holds your position strongly, would be to provide contrary sources. Disagreement is kinda normal in Wikipedia, you gotta defend your position if at all controversial (and everything can be controversial).
- As to which side is in the right, I'm not sure that's the correct question. Instead, "which position is better supported by provided evidence?" seems to be the current wiki standard. Here's the link to the task force. BusterD 15:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Understood. As to which position is better supported by evidence I think that goes to the north. I got my information about Grant from reading "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson. Thank you for the welcome and other information. There's much to learn. What do you mean by "unregersted" and where as a person supposed to register? I'll go look for that now.
- Remember always sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ~~~~. Then you get the clever datestamp with your sig as below each of my posts here in talk space.
- I used inexact wording. I should have said "not logged on" or "ip user". Let this part wash right over you, and don't let any lack of understanding keep you from making valuable changes. Just be sure you swing big elbows (make clear edit summaries before posting anything) so that others at the table can gauge a distance. I always sit at the end. ;) The other user who reverted your edit is one of the nicest fellows you'll ever deal with on this site, so if you're clear with him, he'll be clear right back. He helped me through some of my first article edits, something like what I'm offering you.
- I would suggest you spend a short amount of time reading the very basic stuff (the first five to ten items on the welcome template), then try some things. Keep your first edits pretty simple so you can see how folks react. Click on everything, and look at talk pages and read some. Always use "Show Preview" button so you can see how things will look on page space before "saving page". Read my talk page and my archive as one example of what folks go through. I'm not controversial, but everybody gets into disputes. If you're about to enter a discussion that's ongoing, expect other users to take for granted what's already been said (meaning you need to read something about that before you write, if you want your comment to have standing in that discussion). Work on article stubs (folks mostly leave you alone, it's important work, and there's always something interesting to write) before creating your first article. Mostly keep it light and have fun. And call on me if I can help. I'm no special person, or admin or anything. I've just been there, and I'm jealous I can't be as new to this as you. I could tell you some tales... BusterD 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I do not know your exact position but you are wrong in not being special. I say this because you are so very helpful when I am sure you have a lot to do. I have looked at the information you posted under "Welcome" and I copied that to my personal page. I also have looked into your areas as you suggested and will continue to follow your advice as best as I can. If I post again I plan to go to the "stub" articles. I don't want to mess anything up and those stub articles are empty so there is nothing to harm.
Brother Officer 12:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding Fontaine Maury Maverick
Not bad at all. I took the liberty of removing the underscores in your reference, but other than that, just great. I'm not authority on the subject, but your additions seem encyclopedic and grammatically correct. Even if you weren't satisfied, you can come back to it later or finish you work when you're happy. No article is EVER finished here, so adding useful info to stub and start class articles gives you good experience while providing a valuable service to the community. I find it useful once I've read a small article I like, to click the edit button just so I can see how it's constructed. You can always click the back button on your browser before doing anything to the page, it's just interesting to see how the page is assembled. I strongly encourage you to look at Hal's style sheet. Even though it's not official or anything, many of us in the ACW cluster use his style sheet as a guide for uniformity. BusterD 21:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding James Luther Slayden
For a first page mostly by yourself? Very nice! Unfortunately if the page is originally saved under an incorrect title spelling (the spelling at the top of the page), the only solution is to movepage (which someone did since you wrote the message to me). The subject's name should be bold faced, but not ALL CAPS, so you need to change that. Also, we don't list the subject's last name first on article space (sometimes on a list and always in a category, but don't let detail get to you yet.)
Notice that the same friendly user who moved the article to the correct spelling location also dropped in a wikify tag. This is becasue your new article has few wikilinks. These can be added over time.
You have two or three methods of proceeding here. You could continue to improve the article over time (most likely course), you could ask others to help (add biography task force tag, or some such), or you could do NOTHING, and watch what the wiki community does with it. It might be interesting to watch what others decide need done to the article, but I never had the patience with my first few, wanting them to be "finished" before I stopped. Remember, no article's ever finished around here. Good job! BusterD 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Good job. I've removed the wikify tag; you've definitely passed that bar. Now perform a thorough "click through" of all your links to make sure they all work correctly. Click on San Antonio and Charlottesville. Notice that when you arrive at the page, there's tiny text underneath the title (click on the link to see what a redirect page looks like, then back on your browser to bring you to the page). This signifies what we call a "redirect" because the automatic change brings the reader to the correct page. This doesn't happen by accident; folks gradually put in pages that help users get to the right spot when folks accidentally type in misspelling and miscapitalized entries. We want to fix those. You fix them by using what we call a "stick". In edit mode, look at the link I put in for "Representative". Notice the link looks a bit more complicated than the regular wikilink. Inside of the double brackets, we have text before the | (the stick, a capitol "\", not an I or an L), and text after the |. The text after the stick is what the reader sees, the text before is the accurate article title. When I'm fixing such links, I often go to the desired page, and actually highlight and copy the title with my cursor and browser edit menu command, then click back to my edit and paste in the text before the stick, so that I can't accidentally messup misspelling, caps, etc that would force a redirect. (Using the stick, you can actually link white to black and war to peace, so be careful; such misleading links are considered vandalism).
- Deal with all the redirects you see, and then we'll talk about fixing red links. You're learning quickly, and showing initiative (can't survive without it here). Every once in a while, go back to reading some of the basic "how to..." stuff, and some of it will make more sense each time.
- Feel free to continue to ask me (and others you meet) questions. This all makes sense in a very short time. And keep your cool if you run into any wikibullies (they are fewer in the non-fiction clusters). Ask for help. Be clear in what you're tryinf to do, and most people will fall all over themselves with kindness. As someone recently reminded me, there's no body language or facial expression to guide us here. If you're meaning to be nice, be extra nice. If you're meaning to be regular, be nice. Be square and play nice (not too different from real life). BusterD 15:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] regarding deletion on discussion for Maury
Please explain why the record shows you deleted an entry for Talk:Matthew Fontaine Maury. Is this in error? Malangthon 03:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have remembered the situation. I was tired and thought the statements regarding a rewrite were on the ARTICLE page. I think I had removed "Charles Wilkes..." and then the TALK statements thinking they were all were on the article page. This is also because I keep looking at "Show preview" before saving and/or looking up something else before I saved. Therefore, that point in reply to your question was an error more than anything else.
Brother Officer 06:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
On a vague recall, at that time there were about four points.
- (1)" I removed this as explained below: "Charles Wilkes and United States Exploring Expedition (1838-1842)" "This expedition was of major importance to the growth of science in the United States."
The above has nothing to do with the article on "Matthew Fontaine Maury" It is also covered under it's own article. Too, M F Maury turned down going on that expedition. He was originally assigned to assist Admiral Jones who was to lead that expedition before Wilkes was placed in line before other officers and given the position of being in charge of the expedition. Wilkes was court martialed when he returned to the USA.
Brother Officer 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)--
- (2) I had been reading and saw several vandalisms including where someone wrote, "Your Mother", which on recall was on that article page, or elsewhere and noted vandalism.
- (3) The portion about rewriting I also thought was vandalism because the open statements did not follow Wikipedia guidelines of manners, &c., which could have been placed in Talk as opposed to placing the demeaning statements on the article itself and making the article look worse and the user feeling bad and looking worse.
- (4) I felt that if the article looked so very bad then the complainer should immediately write his version of the information, not simply complain and let the negative statements just sit there for a month or more.
Brother Officer 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
