Sir Edward V
|
July 2009
editWelcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Depth of field has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bcambridgeincolour\.com\b (links: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
In commenting about your edit to Circle of confusion, in no way did I mean to be discouraging (and I think I speak for Dicklyon as well). I'd be the first to agree that this article, as well as many others on photography, need a lot of work (and I include articles to which I've made significant contributions). But it's important that an edit actually make an improvement, and that may just take some experience; when starting out, unless you're fixing an obvious error, the best approach may be to raise the issue on the talk page before making the edit. Somtimes it's tough to learn Wikipedia policies (such as WP:NOTHOWTO); I personally find the documentation on Wikipedia's editing guidelines and policies tough to navigate.
For what it's worth, I take far less issue with adding the cambridgeincolour.com than do some others here, but the owner of that site has been quite aggressive in posting links on Wikipedia, and this has annoyed a few people. I think there's useful information on the site, but I have neither the interest nor the time to fight that battle.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Don't take the reverts personally, because that certainly was not the intent. JeffConrad (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I understand the whole me being new to this and not fully understanding policies and the whole wikipedia culture. I've made my way into a lot of different internet cultures in the past, and I know that it will take me a while to do things correctly. Thank you for the encouragement. Though I did originally take the reverts negatively, after reading the comments I understood why it was reverted.
- On a side note, as I get more involved with editing wikipedia, I love it more. I am just so enthusiastic about how much everyone keeps tabs on articles they have had a hand in writing. I think this mentality needs to be applied to a lot of other places. The world would be better with more places like wikipedia.
- I plan on making another effort at integrating my ideas on how those pages should flow, but I'll have to sit down and think about it, which wont likely happen soon, haha. Nathan (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I'd like to thank you for adding the member history timeline to the list, but I have a question. Because the list is featured, it must meet all of the criteria, including WP:ACCESS. The list previously had a timeline, but I had to remove it, since blind users of Wikipedia couldn't see it. I was wondering if you have checked to make sure that your timeline does pass the criteria, and if not, it must be removed. Thank you! WereWolf (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I had not thought of anything along those lines. What is the suggested course of action for making it usable by blind people? I just read the part of the article you referred me to on images. I got all of the information from others parts of the wiki page, so is referencing that good enough or is there actually supposed to be some long text describing all of the information there?
- I also don't see the point in deleting something useful just because not all people can use it. Nathan (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- There should be an alt text for the picture. I already brought the discussion up at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(accessibility)#Question_regarding_timeline. See there for more information, since the discussion is well under its way. When I brought up deleting the timeline, prior to the featured list nomination, there was a timeline (see here [1]) that did not pass WP:ACCESS, and there was no way to fix it, so I had to remove it. Your timeline, however, does pass WP:ACCESS, so disregard that comment about deleting it. WereWolf (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hello again, WereWolf. I noticed you got rid of the timeline recently. Was there a reason besides that it does not include the year 2011? I'd be happy to update it if that is the only reason. Nathan (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)