User talk:Andrew Lancaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Andrew Lancaster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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:Where to ask a question, 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! --{{IncMan|talk}} 08:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Please justify your edits
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.
-- noosphere 16:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hey!
Welcome to the wikiverse. Glad to have another medieval expert. Your contributions to the Sheriff of Westmoreland are excellent. Hope you will add something to your user page to describe yourself a bit, and your areas of interest. Wjhonson 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unjustified and unsourced edits
Wikipedia has distinct policies that ensures its proper functioning, and chief among those are that its editors justify and properly reference their edits (that means no original research). As clearly explained on the talk page, you have done neither and therefore leave your edits open to removal. Causteau (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Also what you do is open to removal, and should be explained. For better or worse we have equal "rights" in this respect. The basis of all your reverts seems to be that you think we do not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Elonka 03:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Understood. On the other hand, I was reverting reverts only, and the reverter was refusing any other form of discussion or editing until I took that action. Dispute resolution started and reverting stopped because of my "revert reverts". I can see why you would write as if all reverts are morally equal in your position, but obviously they are not. For example if you do as you say you could, and stop someone from editing that might be justifiable in some cases? BTW, for the record I did look around Wikipedia to see if there was someone else I could call in instead trying to take action myself, but the rule as I understood was that you shouldn't call in someone until I had a discussion going which was failing - or that is how I read it. So in summary my intentions were to stop the reverts, which is also yours, and I succeeded in the only way I could see how, not having your powers, even though it felt silly doing it. I basically just wanted to make some small improvements on the article though, and in that respect I am still not very satisfied. In effect Causteau jammed up normal editing work, and has diverted attention away from it. He/she still has not made any normal edits I think. Can I ask you to please keep an eye on the discussion page a little longer? A third person could certainly help on someone of the more time-wasting discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] E1b1b
I'm also glad we were able to reach common ground. While I kinda miss that old timeline, sacrifice is the nature of compromise, isn't it? There is, however, one more area of concern, and that's parts of the Origins section. In place of the bits on where P2 originated, what E3 is currently called, and what mutations E3a shows (four lines in total), I think we should include bits of that famous Cruciani quote to establish the population of origin and therefore E1b1b's possible place of origin. It does also make sense to include at least a mention of the clade from which E3b split, which you've already seen to with your phrase "amongst populations who already had the mutations DYS391p, P2 (also referred to as PN2), P179, P180, and P181". Causteau (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] E3b
Hey, you there? I'm going to edit the page as discussed above. I also want to remove the tag at the top of the page to close this thing up once and for all. Send me a message if you want to talk. Causteau (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
