Jacksoncowes

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Yacht do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Old Moonraker (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Template:User sandbox/doc with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You've more then exceeded notability. You found one extra source which was all I asked for, something minor to associate that his work was recognized and important. Going up on Christie's is notability enough for century old works. Wikipedia contains lots of factual errors, I just was worried about the self-published source before about being the first to do X. Everything checks out, this is actually quite a wonderful. Comments like this from the site prove notability, "The view so taken has since been exhibited to the Queen, and Her Majesty, we are glad to say, was very much pleased with it. We congratulate Mr. Kirk on his success. And success he had, as did his sons, who carried on until 1949." We have several sources (which are difficult to come by, I know) that prove beyond any doubt the claims, I'm approving your article! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I approved the article because you had met WP:GNG, which sets out a minimum notability and the subject has proved it. While some of the sources were not particularly reliable as say as an encyclopedia, but they did at least reference the existence of his work even weakly. LadyofShalott is definitely an experienced editor and Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and general lingo are complicated, which is why more experienced editors touch up as need be. For a biography article we use a biographical template and not about the subject (the boat) depicted in the work. WP:BOLD is just a note that if you are willing to make changes you can do so, within reason of course. Its the 'hands-on' approach that usually follows the 'I make a change, if it works it stays' or the 'I make a change, someone disagrees we discuss a different change'. Wikipedia is about working together! Jacksoncowes, I know you were a bit upset when another editor, Drmies, denied the AfC when I was busy elsewhere on Wikipedia. When I noticed it, I helped you fix it up and publish the article. We are not 'deletionists', but we just want to tweak it to conform with other articles via template changes or removing unnecessary bits or working on wording.

We do not want to discourage or attack you or demean you in any way. Please understand that Wikipedia is a massive encyclopedia with a lot of terrible articles mixed in with the good articles. Article for Creation yields more eyes and more scrutiny, but we only want to improve the article and while it may seem confusing, Wikipedia itself often is. There are more then 500,000 biographies with template issues and important data missing. Huge volumes of articles are in shabby states, WUK is actually moving towards Good Article status thanks to your efforts. Less then 1% of all articles on Wikipedia are GA status and seriously, if you want to see how terrible many articles are just hit the 'random page' button a few times. Focus on a particular page like this may raise your ire, but we rather have 1 better article then 100 bad articles. The fact we choose to spend our time helping out on this article and trying to explain the matter to you should be proof enough we sincerely care about you and your work. We are all volunteers like you, no more and no less. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is difficult to learn and can be merciless sometimes. Editors should always assume good faith, as the topic matters enough for us to contribute to making it better. Our advice is no different, Wikipedia is huge and has problems with civility at times. Remaining calm and discussing your concerns is much better, you could risk being blocked for a short time if you make rather serious breaches of incivility, name-calling or disruptive comments. I just think this whole website is way too complicated and difficult for most users to jump into all of a sudden. I've only been here for 2 months and I'm still learning the policies! Try to relax and understand that our goal is to build an encyclopedia and not become a bureaucratic nightmare full of snobbery and elitist editors who think they are superior to everyone else. I wouldn't be mercilessly destroying typos or fixing broken pages if I wanted to bully people. Please don't take our advice or edits negatively, we seriously only want to assist. If you want to read a lengthy manual and jumble of policies we can point the way, but I know much of what we do is well- nonsense to you. Even jargon like 'BOLD' and 'GNG' or even 'reliable sources', Wikipedia is a strange website compared to the rest of the net. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Jacksoncowes! 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! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2012 (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

This is for you to get familiar with Wikipedia! Sorry I didn't post this before... I didn't know how to do so. Hopefully this will help explain more of what Wikipedia is all about and why we do what we do. Its hard to hate someone who you know a lot about! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

 

a title="By Tom Morris (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL

I may be wrong, but I thought that the final sentence was 'floating' slightly - not quite belonging in that section, possibly 'intro-ing/leading into' the next section. That isn't usually how WP articles are written, where each section is self-contained. The article is certainly HUGELY more coherent and better organised than when I first encountered it, so all credit to you. I leave it to your judgement as to whether to make any mods there or remove the tag. My edits were mainly 'tweaks'. Pincrete (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pincrete: I think you are right. That whole paragraph started a section at one time and has been pushed out of place, if I remember correctly. I will work on it. Your comments are much appreciated, thanks. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please read wp:BRD you are not supposed to revert without consensus. You are also now in danger of edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please reds wp:vandalism, making accusation of vandalism without out good cause is a PA (please read wp:PA. Also you might want to read wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Slatersteven: Ta. Have read wp:vandalism, wp:PA & wp:talk many times. No violations there. I have no desire to rile you. You should not have reverted my edit, you should have edited it. But, if you are sure you are right so be it. Let the page develop and do what you can to improve it, because (IMO) it needs improving. When you think it has improved would you be so kind as to pop another note on my talk page? Regards Jacksoncowes (talk)

You accused me of vandalism. ANd yes I should have reverted your edit, BRD makes that quote clear wp:brd You make an edit, I revert it (as I disagree) you (yes you) then make the case for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Means undoing (more the nonce) another edds edits.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for signing up for this project. The project is not as active as it could be and so we can always use more help. If you haven't done so already you might want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailing to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing/New articles as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailing, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I see in a recent addition to British Post Office scandal you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good job on all your work at British Post Office scandal :) — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 05:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Berrely: Thank you that's most appreciated Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@AukusRuckus: Hi, I left a message directly on your talk page. I guess that wasn't the correct way to do that and that this is or might be. Best wishes Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jacksoncowes: That's quite in order to do and I'm very happy that you stopped by my talk page; you're welcome anytime. I can be a bit slow sometimes, though, and a little unfocused! I've replied to you on my talk page now. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Horizon (IT system) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#Horizon (IT system) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page British Post Office scandal, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page British Post Office scandal, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Post Office scandal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Davis. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply