Jump to content

User talk:JF1982

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, JF1982, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The three-revert rule

Many people know that if someone reverts an article more than three times in 24 hours (3RR), they may be blocked to prevent edit warring. But did you know that:

  • Although reverts on different articles do not count towards the limit, different reverts on the same article do count. So if you revert Paragraph A twice and Paragraph B twice in 24 hours, you have made four reverts and may be blocked.
  • If you revert three times, wait for 24 hours and start reverting again, you may be blocked for 'gaming' the rule. The three-revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement.
  • Although you cannot be blocked for repeatedly reverting vandalism, many Wikipedians mistake edits for vandalism when they are not. For example, edits that do not respect the neutral point of view policy are not vandalism.

The easiest way to avoid being blocked for reverting is to revert as little as possible and discuss with your fellow editors instead. Some editors limit themselves to one or no reverts a day. Select categories on Wikipedia are limited to 1RR (one revert rule). Those articles will have an edit notice to apprise you of their special status. For 1RR you may only revert one edit in the entire category per 24-hours.

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

Deletion discussion about Candy Maaka[edit]

Hello, JF1982,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Candy Maaka should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Maaka .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Kb.au (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kb.au,

Thank you for letting me know. I am trying my best to do this article without being promotional. I have intentionally left out the name of Candy's fashion label and the book that she's already written. There are many media sources that I left out intentionally because I didn't want the article to seem 'promotional.' Now the article may be deleted because there isn't enough media? I have added a couple more media refs, but also, please understand that a lot of the media/press is in print and won't be found online easily. I also noticed that COI comment - how is this so? If you have any pointers, I would appreciate your help.

Kind Regards, JF1982 (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Maaka. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. If your comments concerned a deletion discussion, please consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! LinguistunEinsuno 23:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure if you can view this message here Linguist111, but I do understand that this is supposedly a discussion, and not based on votes. But I have been 'copy and pasting' how to reply on the discussion board via trial and error. I am only now aware of the 'comment' heading, and now understand that I can use 'comment' if I would like to say something (other than vote). I thought that I had to keep saying 'keep' because that is my vote, and no, I didn't use 'keep' to try and tally more votes - hence I signed every post. If I was trying to tally votes, then I wouldn't sign it with the same name every time. So far, it seems that everyone automatically assumes the worst. I am new here. I have tried to write one article so far, and have made numerous edits due to being slammed by terms that I still don't completely understand. And so far, people are more keen to call me out, rather than help. Anyway, I am learning here via trial and error. I am not a coder etc, so I reply/join discussions via copy and pasting, and then editing certain parts. It isn't deliberate - I am learning. Thanks.

JF1982 (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]