User talk:Sebcartwright
Welcome!
Hello, Sebcartwright, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
August 2011[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you.
Please take care not to revert any edit tagged as "BLP enforcement". If you do this in the future, you may be blocked without further warnings. Instead, please join the discussion at BLPN. Jehochman Talk 23:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have responded here, but please note that there is currently no discussion of Talk:Tim Cook on BLPN, only of the article itself. --Sebcartwright (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi please don't unarchive content removed for blp issues - please join in the discussion at the BLP noticeboard . We don't need to encourage the LGBT activists from outing attempts on the talkpage with unreliable externals and unsupported claims - lets keep the violations off the subjects talkpage and focus them on the noticeboard where they are easier to deal with. thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I explained the reason for unarchiving the content in my edit summary–that it predates and remains relevant to the BLPN discussion and so should be made readily available for participants in the BLPN to refer to. Removing the content removes editors who expressed their opinion from the dialogue. The restored content was tagged with a note saying that discussion had moved to BLPN and also that the content should be archived once consensus is reached.
- Archiving the content immediately will only encourage more people to start identical topics on the talk page, believing that the topic has yet to be discussed. Preserving the content temporarily with a tag to continue the conversation at BLPN should minimize further disruption to the Talk page and also make the information available to editors participating on the BLPN as they try to reach an informed consensus. --Sebcartwright (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Rob's suggestion is excellent. Any dubious content can be discussed at WP:BLPN where it is much less likely to show up in the search engines for a search on somebody's name. Jehochman Talk 01:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't talk pages covered by robots.txt? I tried making the Tim Cook talk page come up in Google, but couldn't do it. I can get user talk and category talk pages to come up, but I haven't been able to get article talk pages to appear in the results. Of course, I only tried for 90 seconds, and you are the SEO specialist, not me. Anyway, a simple search for his name seems to be bringing up many results on the verboten topic near the top; probably more worrying is that the talk page was linked to directly by Felix Salmon's twitter in reference to this topic, but there's nothing that can be done about that. --Sebcartwright (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's a question of distance and visibility. Content in the article is most visible. On the text page is the next most visible location, and then there's WP:BLPN archives (once the discussion finishes) which nobody except frequent contributors looks at. We don't want Wikipedia to become part of a rumor mill. We can't do anything about the rest of the Internet. Jehochman Talk 02:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't talk pages covered by robots.txt? I tried making the Tim Cook talk page come up in Google, but couldn't do it. I can get user talk and category talk pages to come up, but I haven't been able to get article talk pages to appear in the results. Of course, I only tried for 90 seconds, and you are the SEO specialist, not me. Anyway, a simple search for his name seems to be bringing up many results on the verboten topic near the top; probably more worrying is that the talk page was linked to directly by Felix Salmon's twitter in reference to this topic, but there's nothing that can be done about that. --Sebcartwright (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Tim Cook[edit]
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Talk:Tim Cook. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- To respond to the items in the template: I haven't reverted the page three times yet, and I'm unable to take up the issue on the article's talk page as the article in question IS a talk page. Instead, I attempted to take it up on our talk pages, but it appears you did not read the comments and/or are using a bot. I also find it inappropriate that you removed edits that were not in question, such as my comments on page protection and tags that directed discussion to the BLPN, which would be exactly the type of behaviour we both are trying to encourage. I mentioned the presence of this new content on both of our talk pages and in the edit summaries: you either did not read them or did not care. --Sebcartwright (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!