User talk:DrTomAber

September 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Stephen Law— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19th September 2018[edit]

Hello, the edit was factual and constructive, something you could have found out with a little bit of research. Perhaps I was unclear, so I have rewritten the edit with greater clarity.

Welcome[edit]

Hi, I'm an admin here, and I notice you've had a bit of a rocky start. Some brief comments:

When I'm done typing, I'm going to add a welcome template with some possibly useful links.
You very first edit should not have been treated as vandalism. Sorry about that. It looks like when you added it back, it stuck. Good.
Perhaps because of your initial experience, you're accusing other, experienced good faith editors of vandalism. That word is kind of a red cape around here; using it gets people's backs up. Please don't do that.
A complete revert of your addition was a mistake; I see that Bbb23 has admitted that.
A revert of your edit with just the edit summary "unencyclopedic" wasn't terribly helpful. But in spite of that, we encourage people to follow WP:BRD. That means when someone disagrees with your edit, you should discuss it on the article talk page rather than restore the same edit. The general rule of thumb is that new stuff that others disagree with doesn't go into an article until there is consensus for it. It takes a little getting used to, but it generally works.
Bbb23 is a good egg, but too brusque for his own good. If you start a discussion on the article talk page, he'll treat it legitimately.
OK, here's the promised template. Ask if you have questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, DrTomAber, 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:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at Mansfield College, Oxford shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, this is getting silly. DrTomAber, we're writing an encyclopedia based on secondary sources, and that brochure you cited is obviously not secondary. Whether it is reliable or not is in this case irrelevant: it's primary, closely associated with the subject, and can thus in no way establish that the contents you are trying to insert are relevant. "It's not accessible via the porter's lodge"--so what? Drmies (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Thomas. The source that I did cite is secondary. A primary source would be citing the actual blueprints themselves (look up primary and secondary sources - there is even a Wikipedia page on them). Further, if reliability is not relevant, what is? You say, 'It's not accessible via the porter's lodge"--so what?' This clearly shows your ignorance of Oxford colleges. Other than Cambridge, Oxford is unique amongst all the British universities in being a colligate university whereby students are members of a college and access their college through the porters lodge. The porters lodge plays a massive part in the life of students at Oxford, as well as providing a barrier between the colleges and tourists visiting the city. The fact that there is a college that is not accessed via a porters lodge, and thus open to other students and tourists is noteworthy. If you are uninformed about how Oxford works, I would suggest that you refrain from your rash edits. Also, my name is not DrTomAber, that is my sign on. Please refer to be as Thomas or Dr Aberato.

As I've said on Drmies's talk, the passage and source seem fine to me. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John,

Thank you for your message. Sadly, it seems that there are some here who are more concerned with policing the whole of Wikipedia by deleting everything that don't confirm scrupulously to their rules, which are blunt instruments, regardless of the quality or nature of the content while, of course, ignoring the rules themselves by marking these mass deletions as 'minor edits' - supposedly to avoid detection. Perhaps these people would be better apt at editing articles on the USSR. On a more positive note, a very kind editor has cleared up and simplified my addition to the Mansfield College page, improving the readability of the text, and making it more suitable for a Wikipedia audience. If you could pass my thanks onto him, I would be very grateful. Wikipedia would greatly benefit from having more editors like him.

Hopefully I will get a chance to add information of Mansfield chapel; however, it may take a while as I have a very busy week ahead of me, given it is the start of the university term.

Best,

- Thomas Aberato

Your draft article, Draft:Christopher Hughes[edit]

Hello, DrTomAber. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Christopher Hughes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]