User talk:Baconfry
| This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UC_Berkeley/IB35_AC_(Summer_2017). Student assignments should always be carried out using a course page set up by the instructor. It is usually best to develop assignments in your sandbox. After evaluation, the additions may go on to become a Wikipedia article or be published in an existing article. |
Welcome Baconfry!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.July 2014
[edit]
Hello, I'm Winkelvi. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Causes of autism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Even unreferenced material generally gets left in articles unless someone suspects that it is false. Just curious to think if that's the case (I stink to hell at citing things, and so far I've only done grammatical/common sense edits), and what's worse is that I forgot the name of the book this information came from (though I do remember that it was about human fallibility and was illustrated with some guy on a cliff on the front cover). I doubt that would pass as a reference. Anyways, I'm just a little surprised that a statement that could be derived from common sense would be removed on the grounds of not having a citation. If you want me to explain to you how the refusal of parents to vaccinate their children removes herd immunity (the benefit gained from having all or almost all members of a community vaccinated against a disease), I'll explain it, but usually I see reverts like these done on edits that introduce statistics or new discoveries. In the meantime, I'll randomly Google search to try to find that stupid book. -Baconfry (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's true that unreferenced content does get left in articles. That is no reason to keep unreferenced content in an article when something is challenged in regard to its encyclopedic value and/or reputable verifiability. The content you added ("a parent's refusal to vaccinate a child compromises herd immunity and can place other children at risk of contracting diseases") falls under what everyone sees at the top of the screen when editing, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Further, as stated in the Wikipedia article on citing sources, "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article." You can read up more on this at WP:WHYCITE. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- So you did say sources are required for material that is "likely to be challenged"; should I interpret this as a challenge to the material, or should I put it on the talk page and see if the dissenting opinion exists? (The easy way out is to find the damned book, but I don't have it with me T_T) EDIT: I found it... it's Donald Prothero's Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future. If it's not too much trouble, can you help me figure out how to cite it? Wikipedia isn't the most user-friendly, and all I ever use is EasyBib. Baconfry (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not really challenging it, per se, but it's something that's being stated as fact. In order for encyclopedias to remain encyclopedic, there needs to be verifiable and reliable sources supporting content (especially content that is being presented as fact). I could tell you how to cite it, but it's really not that hard and if you go to the article I referenced above (WP:CITE), you will find how to reference it. When it comes to books, oft times you can even find pages to books if you do a search for the book, chapter, etc. online. If that works, you can put the weblink in the reference itself. Good luck. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Ernesto Kreplak
[edit]I have opened a discussion about the article Ernesto Kreplak at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Ernesto Kreplak. As you have been involved with the discussion about the article, I suggest that you check that discussion and comment your ideas about it. Cambalachero (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
No biting, please
[edit]In the case of User:Dnewell011235, how about remembering not to bite the newbie, okay? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry. I needed a nap. I'm not myself when I'm tired and my advice is being ignored. Baconfry (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Webhouse7.com
[edit]I agree, one speedy delete tag is enough...Pretty sure yours wasn't there when I hit the Twinkle button!TheLongTone (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Your edits on Pokemon articles
[edit]Hi, I appreciate your interest in editing articles on Pokemon. However, some of your edits are off-base, and go against guidelines. Please read such guidelines like WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability, WP:Identifying reliable sources(a list of approved video-game related reliable sources can be found at WP:VG/RS). Also see guidelines like WP:GAMECRUFT, and more generally, the whole of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. However, Pokemon are not exclusively video game characters, so see WP:MOSFICT for more general rules on writing about fiction from the correct perspective, and how to not use WP:Original Research. Sorry if this seems excessive, so if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me anything. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- In reference to this edit your summary asks "Can I say Full Incense, or is that too much detail?". Yes. That would be too much detail. In general we try to write Wikipedia not for the fans of the subject, but for those who wish to learn about it, and thus, know little. For this reason, we omit gaming jargon, and stuff like item names or locations, and don't list the level things evolve. If people want to know specifics, they can visit Bulbapedia, or some fansite with guides.
- For example, we might say "Rattata is commonly found in the first area" instead of "Rattata is found in Route 1". However, we do not currently describe the locations you can find Pokemon anyways, so that is strictly an example. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, Blake. You kindly provided me the guidelines on editing video game articles, so don't act so surprised when I follow them. I knew Full Incense was too much detail, but I was feeling a bit more cautious at the time, so I decided to ask. But it's okay, you can 'Lax, I've read the guidelines. Baconfry (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
July 2014
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to List of Pokémon (441–493), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Thank you. Bewbslova (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that my edit was not vandalism would be obvious to anyone except for you, so please, if you aren't ready to recognize the difference between constructive edits and vandalism, you might want to consider leaving the project for good. Thank you. Baconfry (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Baconfry. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Warning is in reference to this [1] edit. You've been warned before just a few weeks ago. Please stop biting newbies. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ouch. This newbie turned out to be a vandalism-only account, and I think I did give him the benefit of the doubt when he reverted me the first time. He's blocked forever now, of course. That's no excuse for talking harshly to him, I know. But keep in mind that Bewbslova's goal from the start was to mess with constructive editors, so when you templated me, he got his wish. Baconfry (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
February 2016
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in High-pressure area, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Baconfry. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Baconfry. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Baconfry. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)