User talk:PlusSeine
PlusSeine, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi PlusSeine! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC) |
Operation Mincemeat
[edit]Please do not re-add the unused sources back into the References section. As these are not used to support information in the article, they should not be included. This is in line with the MOS:NOTES guidance. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- See point #4 of the MOS:NOTES guidance: "General Sources." PlusSeine (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- I did. I did not consult the works when writing the article, so point 4 does not apply. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C481:7BD9:8E7B:BC71 (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- You did not write the article. There were dozens of individual contributors, just because you did not read those sources does not mean they were not used in creating the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you do not own this article. PlusSeine (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, it was me. I do not claim any ownership, but as I wrote the article completely from scratch in 2016 and 2017, and these sources were added 6 August 2021 (with no information added at the time), it's fairly obvious you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, but as you're just here to troll, that's not entirely surprising. As to the rather childish and silly accusation of "ownership", you should read WP:FAOWN and try and take on board you're really not good enough to decide what should and shouldn't be in an article. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9: Mind the personal attacks, mate. This site doesn't take too kindly to that sort of behavior. Could get you in trouble... PlusSeine (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I am not your mate. You’re obviously a returning editor or using a throwaway account t to stalk and troll, and WP looks on that much more severely than any perceived insults. 2A01:4C8:460:F910:95FE:36DE:BE3E:B37B (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9: Mind the personal attacks, mate. This site doesn't take too kindly to that sort of behavior. Could get you in trouble... PlusSeine (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, it was me. I do not claim any ownership, but as I wrote the article completely from scratch in 2016 and 2017, and these sources were added 6 August 2021 (with no information added at the time), it's fairly obvious you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, but as you're just here to troll, that's not entirely surprising. As to the rather childish and silly accusation of "ownership", you should read WP:FAOWN and try and take on board you're really not good enough to decide what should and shouldn't be in an article. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- You did not write the article. There were dozens of individual contributors, just because you did not read those sources does not mean they were not used in creating the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you do not own this article. PlusSeine (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I did. I did not consult the works when writing the article, so point 4 does not apply. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C481:7BD9:8E7B:BC71 (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]As a new editor you may find it useful to understand some of the basics of Wikipedia. You have, I see, familiarised yourself to some degree with parts of the Manual of Style – most creditable in a newcomer: one might think only a long-standing editor would know about such things – but we have a process called "Featured Article Candidate" (FAC), at which experienced editors review articles and collectively decide whether they are of the top quality, and Operation Mincemeat is one of the successful candidates. It is wise not to go against the FAC consensus without good cause. One of the conventions at FAC is that the list of Sources is a bibliography of works actually cited in the article. If there is compelling reason why a reader might wish to read some reliable source not cited, it can go in Further Reading, but there are quite careful guidelines about what should be thus added. I hope this is helpful. Tim riley talk 17:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
[edit]
You appear to have disruptively edited my talk page as I can see in my talk page revision history. As you reverted those I am not warning you this time. Please do not do that again or else it will be a warn. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)