Jump to content

User talk:M.mk

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

Welcome

[edit]
Hello, M.mk! 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!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently been editing pseudoscience and fringe science which has been designated a contentious topic. 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.

JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited the Wik entry, only posted to the talk tab. M.mk (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lonnie_Zamora_incident M.mk (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall making any changes whatsoever to that page, Arab–Israeli conflict. M.mk (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper edits

[edit]

I was part of the discussion at the Bob Dylan talk page and thought I would look at what happened on the Sgt. Pepper page. It looks to me like people thought just inserting a mention of the book into the page wasn't really adding anything to the article's usefulness. You might have been better off adding it as an additional source verifying Evans' possible contributions rather than trying to put the book title into the text. In fact, looking at it, I think it is a little odd that that sentence isn't sourced to the book. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.
Maybe I didn't do it in the total proper way, but the article says only:
"According to his diaries, Evans may have also contributed to the song."
The book whose title I mentioned, is the only source the average person can consult for "Evans' diaries." It is based on his diaries and quotes from them, the author being given complete access to the diaries.
Just tryna help. M.mk (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wik' cop could have tidied up what I added, not just blithely removed it. M.mk (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the book quotes what Evans reported in his diary about the Sgt Pepper song and also him helping with "Fixing a Hole." M.mk (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, McCartney even told Evans he'd get royalties for his Sgt Pepper-related contributions, but that never happened. M.mk (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People do tend to get fairly protective of high-traffic articles like ones for Beatles songs. People sometimes stick in gratuitous mentions of books or other media into articles just to boost them, as ads basically. In general, documenting where a bit of info comes from should be handled as a reference, using a < ref > tag. If you haven't done those before, edit some random article with references and see what the coding looks like. (Unless you are using an interface that will handle such things automatically; I'm afraid I'm kind of old school.) Brianyoumans (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
Editing is scary enuff aside from the scarier footnotes stuff.
>People do tend to get fairly protective of high-traffic articles
Yep, I sure noticed that. My simple additions (a sentence each) to two Jonathan Richman albums (one was I, Jonathan) have not been removed or altered.
Same for this obscurity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sia_(Pisidia)
Incidentally, J Richman says in a postal letter reply to me:
"Don't believe always this 'Wikipedia.' Someone once handed me a page about myself from there. 1/2 of it was stuff they just copped from other articles that they never fact-check and it was mostly all incorrect -- by a lot."
Jonathan to my friend who rec'd his undated letter on Aug 19, 2024:
"I once did a radio interview here in the States somewhere and the handed me 'my' Wikipedia page. Lots of it was just rumors that they read somewhere else."
Also to her "I don't know how to run a computer and don't want to find out."
I offered to fix his page.
Reply:
"I don't want to get involved in any of it; people might just be aware that ya can't just accept anything you read. That's all."
This sounds harsh in tone, but that didn't apply to the rest of his brief letters.
Above from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jonathan_Richman#Jonathan_states_in_correspondence_that_this_article_has_errors... M.mk (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's frustrating, but private communications are not considered a reliable source for articles. Information need to be published in a reliable source, usually something edited and reviewed, to be included. Of course, considering Dylan, you can see why a person may not be a reliable source even on themselves! Sometimes people lie about themselves - they want privacy, they're embarrassed by their past, they want to advance their career in various ways by altering their past - there's lots of possible reasons. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good points, thanks, and it had already occurred to me that people might not believe I'm actually quoting Jonathan -- for what that's worth. M.mk (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If he were to send me corrections as he saw things, I planned to add them to the talk tab so they could at least be seen there and people could believe them or not. M.mk (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M.mk&oldid=1251883063"