User talk:Twistflam
Welcome![edit]
Hi Twistflam! I noticed your contributions to Sarah Jane Baker and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! GRuban (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the welcome message and editing my work for better clarity on this page. Twistflam (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
External links in Sarah Jane Baker[edit]
Hey. Could I convince you to self-revert this edit please? Per WP:NOELBODY#2, external links should not be used in an article body in this manner. You could however add an external links section at the end of the article. Please see WP:ELCITE and MOS:ELLAYOUT for how to position and style this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'll have a go thank you, is this what another commenter said was an easter egg? I think an external link for reference to the campaign should be included but understand it needs to be inputted correctly. Twistflam (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- An Easter egg link usually refers to WP:EASTEREGG and MOS:EGG, which is where you use a piped link that points to somewhere non-obvious. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok so it is not about this then, I'm confused as to why I linked it incorrectly as it conforms to "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." it is the official website of the free sarah jane baker campaign and therefore should be linked externally where it occurs. Twistflam (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- In the case of the edit that I asked you to self-revert above, it's because NOELBODY#2 reads
With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable.
- By turning the "Free Sarah Jane Baker" text in the article body into a link, you were creating an external link in the article body. Had you instead created an external links section, or instead added the link as an inline citation by wrapping it in
<ref></ref>tags, I wouldn't have reverted it, and wouldn't have started this discussion with you :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)- Ok I'm not sure how to do that but please feel free to change it to that instead, I'm new to editing. Twistflam (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- No worries.
- By the way, when you're commenting on a noticeboard, like the discussion you started about Baker at the BLP Noticeboard, please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes
~~~~at the end of your comment. This adds your user name, and a date and time stamp to the end of your comment. - You don't need to add a signature on every sentence or paragraph. You only need to sign once, at the end of your comment. For example, this comment has three paragraphs, but only the last line has my signature. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ok I'm not sure how to do that but please feel free to change it to that instead, I'm new to editing. Twistflam (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- In the case of the edit that I asked you to self-revert above, it's because NOELBODY#2 reads
- Ok so it is not about this then, I'm confused as to why I linked it incorrectly as it conforms to "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." it is the official website of the free sarah jane baker campaign and therefore should be linked externally where it occurs. Twistflam (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- An Easter egg link usually refers to WP:EASTEREGG and MOS:EGG, which is where you use a piped link that points to somewhere non-obvious. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023[edit]
Hi Twistflam! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- You also need to assume good faith about other editors' intentions. Referring to other editors' edits as bad faith is not great. If you believe there is a behavioral issue that needs to be addressed you can seek redress at WP:AE or WP:ANI, but such accusations should not be part of article editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I was reverting the page to what had been agreed and discussed with that user in the talk page and have also raised a dispute about their behaviour. They are not pressing the undo button but they are undoing all of my edits as well as others who have courteously discussed with them why what they are writing is not acceptable on multiple accounts. Twistflam (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is not correct. I reverted to the version prior to today’s edits, because so many of the edits made today were not improvements. I also deleted a phrase which contained a slur, which was, in effect, in wikivoice. I think that Twistflam thinks that their comments about me at WP:BLPN constitute raising a complaint about my behaviour. No-one has so far responded – my guess is that the ‘complaint’ is not specific enough. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- They are using the vague and ineffectual term "improvements" to justify deleting edits which they do not like despite other users seeing and agreeing to the edits I have made but adjusting them for neutrality.
- If you have a problem with any of my edits you can bring them up for discussion on the talk page as per the rules instead of deleting them. The majority of the talk page discussion are due to other users having to discuss with you your edits as they do not comply with regulations. When you have compromised this has been fine but often you do not re-edit the page to comply with what has been discussed. Twistflam (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is not correct. I reverted to the version prior to today’s edits, because so many of the edits made today were not improvements. I also deleted a phrase which contained a slur, which was, in effect, in wikivoice. I think that Twistflam thinks that their comments about me at WP:BLPN constitute raising a complaint about my behaviour. No-one has so far responded – my guess is that the ‘complaint’ is not specific enough. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have also discussed with them the removal of my edits on the talk page and they have not disputed what I have written but are going in to the page and writing what they want. I am new to editing but the reason I have had to start is due to this users behaviour on that page. [::::[User:Twistflam|Twistflam]] (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I was reverting the page to what had been agreed and discussed with that user in the talk page and have also raised a dispute about their behaviour. They are not pressing the undo button but they are undoing all of my edits as well as others who have courteously discussed with them why what they are writing is not acceptable on multiple accounts. Twistflam (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Notice[edit]
Introduction to contentious topics[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.