User talk:Moonhawk

Welcome!

Hello, Moonhawk, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Robdurbar 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:HighDefShare7.svg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:HighDefShare7.svg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

HAve to be inline, and discuss the topic of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 23[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth you having a read of this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary

IMO you are overzealous in your readiness to revert changes. Moonhawk (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians often disagree[edit]

Please allow me to inject something personal. Smart people butt heads all the time and you should expect disagreement on Wikipedia, even when you believe yourself in the right. It is how we disagree that matters. If you can support your position beyond refutation, please have at it. What we DON'T normally do is have the discussion in edit summary. When you find yourself in conflict, especially when you believe you are correct, it is wise to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page so that others may weigh in on what is clearly NOT a personal matter. Come to such discussions with appropriate and reliable sources, and you'll find many allies. BusterD (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind disagreement - but Wikipedia's rules also state that you shouldn't just revert good faith changes because you disagree with them and any reversions should be carefully considered. Wikipedia's own rules on reverting suggest improving the edit - rather than just doing a knee jerk reversion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting

Some people on Wikipedia are far to eager to revert edits by others and this IMO goes against Wikipedia's philosophy. Most of the reversions don't really have any argument to back them up, other than the reverter disagrees with the edit. They aren't even consistent most of the time (for example I have just had an edit to a movie page reverted. After watching the movie, I noticed that a cast member was missing from the wiki entry so I added them to the cast list on the Wikipedia page for the movie. My edit was reverted because I didn't source it - even though the entire cast section on that page is unsourced). Moonhawk (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anbd read wp:brd and WP:ONUS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading is essential. We have a lot of social norms. It is wise to make some mistakes as well, so you can figure out who your allies might be. Nobody here is your enemy, User:Moonhawk. But you might make a better argument, after your reading, so we invite you to do so. BusterD (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]