User talk:Lartoven/Archives/March 2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lartoven. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Signpost: 25 February 2013
- Recent research: Wikipedia not so novel after all, except to UK university lecturers
- News and notes: "Very lucky" Picture of the Year
- Discussion report: Wikivoyage links; overcategorization
- Featured content: Blue birds be bouncin'
- WikiProject report: How to measure a WikiProject's workload
- Technology report: Wikidata development to be continued indefinitely
Discussing reversal of a contribution
Hi,
You informed me you reversed my contribution (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Male_contraceptive?diff=541951935) as it was not constructive. I would like to discuss that. I made 3 changes. Which one did you think was not constructive? Surely all of them were not constructive?: - Outercouse: According to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/mens-sexual-health/birth-control-men-22600.htm it is a valid method. And in fact, it is far more effective than 'withdrawal', so so should be an option that people consider. - RISUG Phase II to Phase III. This is simply a factual correction. It is listed as Phase III on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance Not constructive? - Adding http://www.malecontraceptives.org/ as an external reference is also as valid as the existing reference to http://www.newmalecontraception.org/
Please don't be so quick to slap down wikipedia contributions. Wikipedia needs new contributors, and they won't get them if draconian moderators enjoy wielding their big sticks more than they enjoy contributing to the global knowledge pool.
Think of it from my perspective: I am obviously not playing a prank or trying to spam. I am probably contributing because I am interested in the subject, read it, and found it lacking. I am finding time to contribute in my busy day because I think the value it provides is worth the sacrifice of my time. That almost implicitly means it is constructive to at least some people, at least not to me, and therefore probably not to other people like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrainStain (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
PS: You message said "Send me a message". I went to the page, and saw no mention of "Send message" or "New Message" or anything helpful. So I hope I sent this in the right way. I know I am a relative noob, but even noobs can be helpful or grow into someone more helpful. Please be more specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrainStain (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- You have indeed found the correct forum for sending me a message. I apologize; adding informal terms such as "outercourse", changing numbers around, and adding external links are all usually signs of unconstructive edits. I ask you to not take offense, restore your edit if you'd like, and please use the "edit summary" feature next time, which will reduce the chances that your edits are mistaken for vandalism. In addition, please sign your messages on talk pages by placing ~~~~ at the end of your messages, or else SineBot will have to do so for you. Calvin (t·c) 01:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 March 2013
- News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm
- Featured content: Slow week for featured content
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations
The Signpost: 11 March 2013
- From the editor: Signpost–Wikizine merger
- News and notes: Finance committee updates
- Featured content: Batman, three birds and a Mercedes
- Arbitration report: Doncram case closes; arbitrator resigns
- WikiProject report: Setting a precedent
- Technology report: Article Feedback reversal
Why did you delete the image and neutral version ? The articles should be neutral in accordance with rule WP:Neutrality -- CPI-RUS (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Per User:Orange Suede Sofa, "restoring original lead as current version doesn't make sense; neutrality aside, "armed confrontation between verticals of power" is definitely not common English usage". Calvin (t·c) 00:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)