User talk:Jjamulla

Welcome!

Hi Jjamulla! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article Blue Lake (New York). However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddle is indeed Wikipedia; they copy our material and adhere to our license for reuse. As noted on Kiddle: "Kiddle encyclopedia articles are based on selected content and facts from Wikipedia, edited or rewritten for children. Powered by MediaWiki." It should also be pretty clear that, despite the claim that they "edit or rewrite for children", it's an exact copy of our article. I hope it's clear why this is not an acceptable source.

For your other question, if there's a dead link, you can read the guidlines at WP:DEADLINK for best practices. If the original link doesn't meet the criteria for reliable sources to begin with, then your approach is generally correct - remove it and replace it with a better source, or with a "{{cn}}" tag to note the absence of a good source. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a clear and narrow meaning. It is a deliberate and conscious effort to damage the encyclopedia. A sincere disagreement about content is not vandalism. The other editor is explaining at length why they disagree with your edits. They are not a vandal. Please be aware that false accusations of vandalism constitute personal attacks and are contrary to policy. So please stop. Cullen328 (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the clear and narrow meaning. Who does the warning? Who decides specifically what is vandalism, anyone can give a "reason"? Who decides which editors changes stay?

The other editor deleted most of the article, twice at least now, supposedly because he didn't like the tone? He's changed it, I changed it back, he changed it back, it changed it back (haven't looked since then). So now who decides?

It's a very technical subject. One should probably know a lot about it before deciding what should and shouldn't be in the article. I would say deleting most of an article twice is definitely on purpose, without keeping any of the 'useful' edits. It really has nothing to do with "my" edits per-se. I was adding corrections and references from the already existing sources and text.

I added references which could have been kept/reused in what was left, but he chose to delete those too, but that's not vandalism?

I say the article is "ok" for the most part as-was previous to his edits (I actually read the references), but likely needs reorganization/re-write, which is already flagged, not mostly deletion.

The policies say be bold. How can people do that if others just delete most of the content of an article because of some random reason?

The policies also say something like don't make major changes to an article for trivial types of things, I would think "tone" doesn't rise to the level of deleting most of an article. You could say that for every single article on Wikipedia.

I am wasting my time here trying to help if people are just going to delete content.

I already seen a large number of articles that are not very good, have wrong information, don't rise to levels of notability etc. Much worse than this page was, and they don't get mostly deleted.

So how do we get some concensus or upper level review of this article, otherwise, should just delete it, it's a shell of what it was.

That sounds like on purpose to me. It is a very technical subject, that it doesn't seem like people should be significantly changing without knowledge of the subject.

There were many other editors modifying this article recently WITHOUT deleting most of the content, over many years.

This particular editor is so much better than the rest of us to see a need to delete most of it?

It's sounding like I am wasting my time on Wikipedia. Jjamulla (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]