User talk:Vrastall

Welcome!

Hello, Vrastall, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

I work with the Wiki Education Foundation, and help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. If there's anything I can do to help with your assignment (or, for that matter, any other aspect of Wikipedia) please feel free to drop me a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2015 (UT

Talk page messages, warnings, and collaboration[edit]

Hi Vrastall and KDS4444. I saw the messages here and the edit summaries at Eucestoda and think I can help. For context, @KDS4444, I'm the classroom program manager with the Wiki Education Foundation and Vrastall is a student in a class using Wikipedia this semester. If you're unfamiliar with our organization and want to talk more sometime, I'm happy to do so (let's use my user talk page, though).

It looks like this started with Vrastall's removal of these two links, which KDS4444 restored shortly thereafter. KDS4444 then left this warning here, which Vrastall removed. KDS4444 left a follow-up message about communication and removing talk page messages, which Vrastall removed. KDS4444 left a final message expressing disappointment with the removal of the messages and predicting Vrastall's removal of that message, too :)

Vrastall, I think the biggest takeaway here, for you, is to remember that, as a collaborative project, communication is really, really important. Everybody was new at this once, so people generally understand if you just say "it was an accident" or perhaps express that you don't understand what the problem is. In general it's very good practice to include an edit summary with every edit to an article. It doesn't require a big explanation, but it helps to preempt situations like this where KDS4444 just saw that you removed something he added and didn't know why. As you might imagine, that can be confusing and/or frustrating. It's also good practice to reply to talk page messages. It doesn't require you to agree with what they wrote, and you're welcome to challenge people, but some response tends to go a long way towards civil collaboration. You're not obliged to do any of this, but it works in your favor in the long run.

KDS4444, as I indicate above, I agree with your underlying point emphasizing the importance of communication in collaboration. But I think your initial messages were unduly aggressive or scolding. That can really put off new users (experienced users too, but a new user is more likely to just retreat, confused, with a bad impression of editing Wikipedia). For example, when you restored the links, you used this edit summary: Please do not edit war over this. Please explain removal of red links before removing them again and then left this message under the heading "warning", which also mentions edit warring. But there was never any indication that an edit war was imminent except insofar as any individual revert could lead to an edit war. Vrastall had only removed the links one time and did not do so again after you restored them. I can understand Vrastall being confused by that and wishing to avoid wiki drama over an issue he/she isn't even sure about.

My hope is that, if any uncertainty or ill will remains, we can open a dialogue to sort it out. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the tone of my warning messages. I did not consider Vrstall's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy when I wrote them. What I saw looked like capricious acts without explanation followed by a refusal to engage in any discussion— either an apology or a justification— which I then responded to with the kindest follow-up I could muster: an explanation of protocol. When that, too, was deleted, I became flip. That was a bit much. I should have dropped the subject earlier, especially as the matter in question, the removal of some redlinks, was so very minor. Whatever the length of my own experience as an editor, it is still sometimes very frustrating not only to be ignored, but to have my words, my part of an attempt at a conversation, erased, as though I had said nothing at all. To then emphasize the importance of not being erased and being erased a second time was hard for me to turn my back on. So hard, in fact, that I did not, even if that might have been the best response for everyone. I do not insist that I be listened to! I only ask not to be removed. Perhaps I am just not used to having that happen (and it is very unusual in Wikipedia). So again, my apologies for having seen the beginning of an edit war where none was imminent, and for failing to take into account the newness of an editor when making changes to her talk page. The other edits she made to the article on the Eucestoda were excellent improvements, and the article would certainly be worse without them. Please forgive my tone in its other respects. I, too, am still learning. KDS4444^Talk 19:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness! As a follow-up for User:Vrastall- do you now understand why I replaced the redlinks in the article? Have you come to understand anything surprising or new about the purpose of redlinks? Through all of this confusion, have you learned something about Wikipedia formatting that you did not know before? Because if I am guessing correctly, I now think I know exactly why you did what you did, and if so then it was a very common misunderstanding and one which has been the subject of more than one policy debate in the past. I know of at least one editor who was going to try to champion a cause to use greenlinks instead of red ones (a cause which has so far failed, though I fully support its intent). But I do not want to second guess you because that frequently means I am wrong. I don't like being wrong any more than the next guy. So help me out here: let me know if you have learned anything about redlinks. (And you are perfectly welcome to ignore my request! Just please do not delete it! Okay?? THANKS!). KDS4444^Talk 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alice K. Ladas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Board of Guardians. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alice K. Ladas[edit]

Hello, can you please provide citations for the content you added to Alice K. Ladas? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]