User talk:Prestonp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Prestonp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope that you like the place and decide to stay.

If you haven't already read the policies and guidelines page, some of the key points are:

Some other useful pages are:

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page or via email. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax τεχ 06:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] License tagging for Image:Longtermdowgoldlogtr1800.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Longtermdowgoldlogtr1800.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] original research tag on The Giving Tree

Hello there. I'm putting the original research tag back on that marked section because on Wikipedia, even interpretations—especially interpretations—need to be referenced from published sources. Without that, it's just some random thought from some random person on the Internet, and the reader has no way to see if there is any validity to the thought. Wikipedia:No original research explains the policy in detail. Thanks for understanding. --Klork 03:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on Gold as an investment

I noticed that you gave Gaai a good article tag on the talk page (only), with only a single line as justification. Also it looks like you have been extensively involved in writing the article. Writing and reviewing the same article should be avoided. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted this, otherwise I'll probably list it at WP:GAR. Please also see WP:WIAGA. My concern is that it looks somewhat POV

Thanks, Smallbones 16:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It just seemed better than Start, which is what it was listed at. Prestonp 17:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] undo to your last edit

Over at United States public debt you made edit which you described as, "Reverted to last time I edited. How does this page get so screwed up?!" You made this edit on December 15th and your previous edit was on November 10th, with about 45 edits between the two. While I understand the sentiment, I don't think this is a particularly positive way to edit wikipedia, I think you should generally respect the other editors contributions and attempt to make them better with each of your edits. Reverting one month and 45 edits looks like you are taking ownership of the article. Also, such a massive revert deserves comment (on the talk page) on what was wrong with the intervening edits given that I imagine that most of the editors thought they were acting in good faith. Pdbailey (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One specifically was not acting in good faith. Others merely compounded the error. Prestonp (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the world one or the word others refer to, do you mean editors? do you mean your edits? Do you mean my comments?
In any case, if you are defending your edit let me argue more precisely why I don't think this was a positive contribution. What of my addition of the graph of the tabulated data on the page (that was there before and after your two above mentioned edits), and perhaps several other similar constructive edits in that range? I would argue that there was potentially a lot of damage associated with this type of edit, and I'd appreciate it if, in the future, you considered this before making such a sweeping rv. If you really feel that a long series of edits was severely damaging to a page (and this is possible), then why not start with some discussion about it on the talk page, where other editors can agree or disagree with your sweeping change, perhaps point out things that they think you should make an effort to keep, or suggest a more incremental editing? Pdbailey (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)