User talk:England's Rose: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:02, 27 August 2007

Welcome!

Hello, England's Rose, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --John 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Salmond

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alex Salmond. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --John 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please

Regarding this edit, please see our policy on personal attacks. Please stay cool and focus on edits rather than the editors who make them. Thank you. --John 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've done so many wrong things. But thanks for telling me. Sign your username: England's Rose 16:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem, many new editors make mistakes when they start. I am here to help you and reading some of the links in my welcome message at the top will help you to edit better in the future. Best wishes, --John 16:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little advice...

Hello there England's Rose,

Just a note that I do agree with much of your ideology and cultural stance, but, do please spend a little time familliarising yourself with a few of the core guidelines of Wikipedia, as it would be a shame to loose you as a contributor on the grounds you broke them. Try to stay diplomatic, involve the editting community and stay polite and civil, no matter how strongly you feel about various issues!

If you would like any advice on editting, obtaining consensus, keeping to a neutral point of view or providing references or citation, feel free to contact me at any time at my talk page - I'd be more than happy to support you smoothly into what can be a tight community! Best of luck in the meantime, and again, welcome! Jza84 20:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the these but don't know what it is that I'm still doing wrong. John doesn't like me, and he seems to be powerful here. So maybe Wikipedia is not something that wants me. All I'm doing is standing up for our great and ancient nation . Does it not make you sad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by England's Rose (talk • contribs)

I don't know where you get the idea that I don't like you. There is nothing wrong with being bold in your edits, but you must realise that you are changing work that others have produced over a long period. If several people revert you, it is a good sign that you are editing against consensus. Please discuss your proposed changes in talk and there may be a compromise we can reach. I hope this helps. --John 18:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just getting that impression, since you have have come to me so often with diplomatically phrased messages of stop. But John, the one with the numbers is not me. I promise. Don't ban me, this is me here, not the numbers man. : England's Rose 19:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm not involved in this dispute at all, and just noticed your recent edit while I was patrolling recent changes. I want to affirm, as a disinvolved stranger, that the tone of your comment isn't really the way we make our arguments at Wikipedia. Instead of arguing from emotion, here, we argue from policy- the best way for you to make your point is to make is simply and calmly, without emotion or nationalism, and then back it up with stronger sources than those who disagree with you are using. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is against our country. I try to insert "British" into the article of a British person, I get reverted and then if I respond I get warned for "edit warring" and told to go to talk. When I go to talk I have my comments removed and get accused of trollying (whatever that is) by those who hate our country. All is lost. Name: England's Rose 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another RC patroller here, I have to agree on this. It's sounds as if you're pushing some sort of agenda. This isn't the way to settle arguments here. The articles here are edited by people of all countries, many of them have no national pride for the countries they edit and this is okay, because we edit with proven, sourced, facts, not emotion, as the above editor stated. No one is against your country as far as edits go, because personal emotion is not worked in to articles, if it is, it is reverted. Information that is factual and sourced has every right to be in an article, while information that you came up with or is Original Research will be promptly removed. Spigot Map 20:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gather, from your reply, that you don't intend to change your way of editing. It seems like you're planning to continue to make your arguments from emotion rather than from reason, and to assume that people who disagree with you hate your country, rather than assuming good faith of them. That's your right, of course. The friendly advice is simply because people who edit in the way that you're editing right now don't usually have very positive experiences on Wikipedia, and sometimes, if they really can't learn to adapt to the way we do things, they eventually quit or get blocked. By the way- this might be hard for you to hear, but I don't hate Great Britain. I don't really care much about it at all. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from my experience so far there is rather little point in me editing at all. Everything I say is "rubbish", or "trollying", or what not, and my edits so far have an average life-span of about 1 minute. So, no, editing would not seem to do either myself nor our Great British Nation any good. I can only call to those stronger than I to stand up for what's right, for what's good, for what Mother England would desire. Name:

As was said, pushing agendas here and/or being disruptive will get you nowhere but blocked. Spigot Map 20:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooah

I reverted your recent edit to United Kingdom. It seems as though you were trying to add a source but couldn't quite get the coding right. If you need any help with that I'd be happy to have a stab at teaching you? If you have any other questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Scarian ^Talk 21:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, gallant sir, was the perplexity of aforementioned edit? I can only declare that on the screen before me the result was amiable. Was the source itself not deemed to be of fitting purpose? Name: England's Rose 21:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Right. The problem with it was the actual coding. I didn't much look into the context of the edit after seeing the trouble with the coding. So, would you like me to try and teach you how coding works and how to cite sources, my friend? Scarian ^Talk 22:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your contributions! If you want to add the source, you can check out WP:CITE and WP:REF. They contain some great information. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them on Wikipedia:Help desk. If you want to test your coding before putting it in the article, you may do so in the sandbox. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs you

Wikipedia needs more impartial contributors like you who insist on presenting the facts to counter the POV-pushers (for which Scottish articles are particularly renowned). Unfortunately, you are going to have a tough time of it. Once your name is known, your edits will be reverted almost on site. I gave up editing under my Wikipedia user name long ago. It was pointless, every edit I made was reverted by one particular obsessive POV pusher (who would regularly make over 100 edits a day!), and I just couldn't keep up with it. Keep up the good work. You will get my support with reverting the reverters when I see it. 81.129.245.72 22:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... Scarian ^Talk 22:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, because they will not let you push your own POV, they are now POV pushers themselves? Spigot Map 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have been wounded Sir Numbers, you have not been slain. I however am already rather popular, and I have made only a small number of edits. I fear that if even a louse on my hair were to murmur, a full score of wikipedians would seek to silence him. Despite presently confining myself to talk pages, even those are censored. They certainly make resolutions rather quickly regarding who they deem worthy of their company, and who outcasts. I am already an outcast. The leprous bell is already strongly attached around my neck, and my place among the men of wikipedia of futile expectation. I fear we may have to be saying, sooner rather than later, "Goodbye, England's Rose". Name: England's Rose 22:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic

Please keep discussion on articles talk pages related to building the article. Off-topic conversation is not the purpose of the pages. Please read WP:NOT. If you continue to add off-topic chat, you will be blocked from editing. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please come here only with pleasantness and goodfaith. Name: England's Rose 22:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the talk page for off-topic discussion, this is not the purpose. Just stop using them for discussion not related to improving the article, and we'll all be happier. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first assertion falls far from the truth, and thus, as a result, the remainder follows this path. Name: England's Rose 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your specific enquiry was(basically): Why is Scotland called a nation? - I, personally, don't know. But I do know that people whom are erudite in topic's such as the correct title for a country or state or whatever edit that article and make sure everything is correct and recognised. Please realise this. Btw, article discussion pages are for discussing the improvement of the article only. The subject itself cannot be discussed. If you require any help please don't hesitate to contact me. Scarian ^Talk 22:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The matter was not so much an enquiry, but a topical point about phraseology. It should not by any means be deleted, especially after I had already received instruction to take it to talk by the illustrious John, Wikipedian Elder. Shall we put the question to John. John, sir, would it be better to continue that dialogue by editing the article, or by parley? I venture to guess that John's answer will be to stick with Talk. Name: England's Rose 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

As you know, I am British too, so there is a sort of "brotherhood" between us. That is why I believe I am in the perfect situation to help you acclimatise to Wikipedia... by explaining some of the rules etc. How would you feel about that? Yes/No? Scarian ^Talk 00:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 : The matter was not so much an enquiry, but a topical point about phraseology. It should not by any means be deleted, especially after I had already received instruction to take it to talk  by the illustrious John, Wikipedian Elder. Shall we put the question to John. John, sir, would it be better to continue that dialogue by editing the article, or by parley? I venture to guess that John's answer will be to stick with Talk. Name: [[User:England's Rose|England&#39;s Rose]] 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
+==Help==
+As you know, I am British too, so there is a sort of "brotherhood" between us. That is why I believe I am in the perfect situation to help you acclimatise to Wikipedia... by explaining some of the rules etc. How would you feel about that? Yes/No? [[User:Scarian|<font color="black" face="tahoma">Scar</font><font color="black" face="tahoma">ian</font>]][[User_talk:Scarian|<font color="red"><sup>Talk</sup></font>]] 00:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)