User talk:Sarahseehoward

October 2014

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. Martin451 01:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to tell me that and what are you doing monitoring the National Report page? Please do not revert other peoples' revisions back to false statements. You, sir, do not know the definition of "satire." National Report is a very dangerous hoax machine.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to National Report with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to National Report. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sarahseehoward. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 04:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

October 2014

Your recent editing history at National Report shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sarahseehoward. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Sarahseehoward, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! McGeddon (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to let you know I've deleted your recent talk page comment where you called other editors "self-appointed guardians" and "Sheldons" with a "comically stubborn OCD nature" - throwing insults around isn't going to help resolve the problems you see in the article, it's just going to put other editors on the defensive or shut down the conversation before it can go anywhere. WP:NPA is a whole policy about why this is a bad idea. Feel free to put your comment back again without the jibes at other editors. I completely agree with you that it's misleading to frame National Report as "satire", and I think the new Verge source should be enough to make the article clear. --McGeddon (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading around a bit, I think other editors were just sticking to "satire" because that was the only term being used by secondary sources. If every single piece of coverage calls something a spade, Wikipedia calls it a spade, even if it seems obvious to us that it's actually a fork - although wading in and fixing "obvious" mistakes like that can work in some cases, it generates mistakes in others. What we should be doing is looking for secondary sources that call the thing a fork, and ideally that discuss whether it's a spade or a fork. (That the Verge article explicitly talks about National Report starting off as "satire" and quietly dropping the term seems very significant, and I added it to the article earlier today.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]