User talk:David Boven: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Brian P. Long
imported>Brian P. Long
Line 19: Line 19:


Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 15:29, 24 May 2008 (CDT)
Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 15:29, 24 May 2008 (CDT)
:Thanks for the note, David. I hope I didn't come off as overly harsh; I was mainly trying to be helpful. I know we have a heap of policy pages and uncodified practices that are unfamiliar if you haven't been here a while (I find or rediscover policy recommendations on what seems like a daily basis). At any rate, I saw the discussion on Geoff's talk page after I had posted the note.
:The usual (and recommended) practice is to come to some kind of consensus on the article's talk page. If two contributors find that they are unable to come to a consensus, there is a mechanism where a third party can be brought in to resolve the disagreement. The important thing is to keep the discussion civil and professional, and focused on the task at hand. Negotiating on the wording or content of an article can be contentious, but reverts have a tendency to make the process even more acrimonious. It sounds like you know how these things go. Have a nice weekend as well. Thanks, [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 20:31, 24 May 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 19:31, 24 May 2008

Welcome!

Citizendium Editor Policy
The Editor Role | Approval Process | Article Deletion Policy

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started for other helpful introductory pages. It is essential for you as an editor to join the Citizendium-Editors (broadcast) mailing list in order to stay abreast of editor-related issues, as well as the mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. Supten Sarbadhikari 06:28, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Moving Articles

David--we're glad to have you on board but please do not rename articles written by other people (eg Lepanto) without a discussion on the talk page first. The goal is to have a uniform style throughout CZ and that requires a basic policy as set by the military editors. In general "Battle of XYZ" emphasizes the generic (battles in general) while "XYZ, battle of" emphasizes the specific historic event XYZ. CZ has lively discussions on naming policies, so listen in and contribute there.Richard Jensen 08:27, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Be bold-please write! it's just that moving and renaming articles causes no end of technical troubles, and I've made the mistake several times. Happily our very good technical crew cleaned up the mess I made. :) As for Chicago, back in the 1970s I started the Chicago Metro History Fair and ran it for a few years...it seems to be going strong still. Good luck with those city schools. Right now I am working with very poor rural districts around the country, in Byrd Teaching American History projects. Richard Jensen 10:30, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Heraldry and tartan patterns (kilt article)

Right you are! Thanks for the catch. James F. Perry 16:15, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Knights Templar Article

Hey David--

I just wanted to give you and Geoff a brief heads-up that reverting each others' edits on the Knights Templar article is emphatically not the way we do things on Citizendium. If you two are in disagreement about what should go in the main Knights Templar article and what shouldn't, you need to hash this out on the Talk page. Unexplained reverts are disrespectful, but also a potentially bannable offense.

Thanks, Brian P. Long 15:29, 24 May 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for the note, David. I hope I didn't come off as overly harsh; I was mainly trying to be helpful. I know we have a heap of policy pages and uncodified practices that are unfamiliar if you haven't been here a while (I find or rediscover policy recommendations on what seems like a daily basis). At any rate, I saw the discussion on Geoff's talk page after I had posted the note.
The usual (and recommended) practice is to come to some kind of consensus on the article's talk page. If two contributors find that they are unable to come to a consensus, there is a mechanism where a third party can be brought in to resolve the disagreement. The important thing is to keep the discussion civil and professional, and focused on the task at hand. Negotiating on the wording or content of an article can be contentious, but reverts have a tendency to make the process even more acrimonious. It sounds like you know how these things go. Have a nice weekend as well. Thanks, Brian P. Long 20:31, 24 May 2008 (CDT)