User talk:Rifled

December 2011

Welcome and thank you for your contributions. This is a notice that your test on the page 2011 Christchurch earthquake has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Rifled. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 03:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "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.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. - 220 of ^Borg 03:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Christchurch earthquake

Hello again Rifled .(Merry Christmas! It already is here, UTC+11)
I have to say your edits to this page are starting to worry me. You seem to be updating the table/s without citing references. This is not acceptable in an encyclopaedia. This breaches Wikipedias' requirement that content be verifiable. Excerpts:"Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.", "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."

This page is about an earthquake that happened on 22 February 2011, so why have you renamed a section "Main aftershocks since 4 September 2010"? How can an event be an aftershock if it occurred before 22 February 2011? This does not make sense. Could you please explain what you are getting at here? If you are trying to say that there is a connection between an event on 4 September 2010 and the quake on 22 February 2011, you will need to have a citation from a reliable source to say so. You cannot make this connection yourself. That is original research and is not allowed.
Your edit at 17:23, 24 December 2011 added "I'm gathering PGA data and will be all updated soon". Here you are referring to yourself in the text of the page. this is un-encyclopaedic to say the least!
You are not using edit summaries to explain your edits. If you continue like this it is highly likely that your edits will be reverted if other editors cannot understand what you are doing.

* Please acknowledge this message in some way, as you have not responded in any way that shows you have read and understood any messages posted on this page. For example, using edit summaries would be a good sign. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 18:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Being non-communicative on Wikipedia is not really an option, Rifled. This is a project requiring collaboration between editors. Please reply. 220 of ^Borg 14:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Rifled. You have new messages at 220 of Borg's talk page.
Message added 10:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Rifled. You have new messages at 220 of Borg's talk page.
Message added 12:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Please note that NZ uses a date format of dd/mm/yyyy. Can you please amend your recent edits? Schwede 66 03:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, I don't understand what you are asking?

I've come here because I'm concerned that you are not using edit summaries. I see that lots of others share this concern. Maybe it is time for you to do something about this. But I also see that you didn't understand my February contribution above. What I am saying is that when you edit New Zealand articles, the only correct way to write a date (using today as an example) is 17 July 2012. Any other way, for example 'the 17th of July 2012' or 'July 17, 2012' or even '17 July, 2012' is incorrect. Schwede 66 06:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I see that all the dates are now correct.

Yes, I went through and fixed them. I've come here to thank you for the great edit summary of yours that I've seen - top marks! Schwede 66 04:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]