User talk:Iknowbrasizes

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Brassiere measurement, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Brassiere measurement was changed by Iknowbrasizes (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.885859 on 2011-02-11T15:58:45+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Brassiere. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Brassiere measurement, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your boldness in editing Brassiere measurement, but I'd strongly suggest you review WP:RS and WP:V. Everything that's put into an article needs to come from a reliable, verifiable source in order to conform with the core principles of Wikipedia. Cheers, Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment at WP:AIV...

Note: Edits are not vandalism. She has increased the page size, while also slimming down some useless tables (some data in them is incorrect!). The article was (I think) probably written from a US perspective, she has correctly added European sizing (all the ones I know), and has renamed some links to the correct page titles. Yes she has used some forum sites (2 out of 5 new links), but that's not enough to revert. I don't see why the page could not go back to her version. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do also agree with Alan the Roving Ambassador that please try to get good sources whenever possible - forums can be a useful extra, but one cannot rely on them. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is so difficult to find information on that subject elsewhere. The forum Busenfreundinnen is not called the German "Brapedia" without reason (I hope I do this right.)

Iknowbrasizes (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)::::[reply]

Please - No personal opinions - if there is a poor external link, and in this case there's more than enough external links, then just delete it (I have done it for you). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's been so busy with you, and they have not bothered to give you a welcome template - it has lots of useful links to our policies, which you might like to read. I will add one below this note. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)That was what I was trying to get through when I reported it as "disruptive"; you need sources, no opinions as I stated when I reverted the changes. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Thanks for the welcome thingie. It is just that I bought so many bras off ebay, that I practically learned all about the different sizing system by trial and error. It was so frustrating communicating with sellers about bra sizes and only getting the standard reply "Our product are manufactured according to international standards" and getting a link to the Brassiere wikipedia page. They never got that a H and J cups may come in various versions. Iknowbrasizes (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)'[reply]

I have to agree with Alan and Ron. While I generally applaud WP:BRD, it is essential to get references and to provide them at the same time as any new edits - this will avoid any reverts. I found the subject and its problems fascinating, but the talk was hard to follow in order to get the full picture. Kudpung (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Iknowbrasizes! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Citations

You have made some useful improvements to Brassiere and Brassiere measurement but you should be aware that the source you have supplied for a number of edits may not qualify as a reliable source or should be used with care.

First, per Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, posts on a forum as a source "are largely not acceptable" because they are a self-published source. This is because anyone can publish anything on a forum, meaning the poster does not have to demonstrate any expertise in the subject, allowing them to say whatever they want.

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."

If you can provide secondary sources or show that the forum owners who post the content you want to cite have demonstrated expertise (i.e., they work in the industry, have published, or have otherwise demonstrated expertise), then cite that.

Second, according to Wikipedia citation guidelines, a foreign-language source should only be used in certain circumstances:

"Because this is the English Wikiquote, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources of equal calibre. However, do give foreign-language references where appropriate. If quoting from a foreign-language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it."

For the forum to be evaluated as to whether it is an acceptable source, the translation would need to accompany a quote.

Third, some of your citations link to the home page for the source and thus fail to qualify because the citation does not support the content.

Please improve the citations and content you have included or it may be removed. Thanks for helping to continually improve Wikipedia! -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand graphics: Conversion British/Continental Europe

I wrote this also in the Brassieure measurement article and Büstenhalter article. British N roughly corresponds to continental-European cup Z. Continental manufacturers are always behind in keeping up with increasing bra sizes an do not produce a lot in the second half of the alphabet. However, if I want to have something tailored, me and my tailor measure in cm, not in inch, as Germans do. It would be helpful to be able to compare inch and cm measurements in this range. This is surely true for more women and tailors in Germany and all continental Europe. In the table there are sizes until British N listed. I would be grateful if also the graphics below, conversion British/Continental Europe, will be expanded until British N/Continental Z. This graphics serves as a standard in many communities in the web. Thank you so much for keeping up these helpful graphics. Don't let you ge frustrated by harsh mods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.26.173.127 (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion at Lace

Hi, what do you think ybout the conversion at http://www.lace.de/page/uk-eu-cup-sizes ? Could it be more accurate than the current graphics? Best regards -- Rainbow5489208 (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]