{{helpme}}
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Hello there. I don't understand this code you add to the bottom of paragraphs: <div style="margin-top:15px;"> I have remove it where I've encountered it. It seems to make bit white spaces and do nothing else. Please let me know if it has a purpose.
Also, the references you added at Regular haircut and other articles seem to go nowhere. Please help. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my friend. Please check out this category. There are many hairstyles that need more refined categories. I think you know hairstyles well so I thought I'd ask you. Best wishes and many thanks for any help you can offer. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and help in the not too distant future. When the categories are more refined, it doesn't place photos in the refined categories; this is the real task and it is enormous. There are photos of most of the styles in Wikimedia but there is no way of readily finding them since most people when adding a photo file to Wikimedia for something other than a hairstyle article do not think to include the hairstyle displayed in the photo as a category. Thanks! MiltonPB (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Regular haircut. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editor JesseRafe took his "ownership" allegations to the Administrator's Notice Board on July 25 and August 1 and was advised each time to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Instead, he waits approximately 50 days and without discussing it on the article's talk page again splits the lead paragraph in two; not exactly the type of behavior expected of a Wikipedia Administrator. Thanks!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive251#Regular_haircut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive251#Regular_haircut_2
MiltonPB (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In early July, you added the taper photos horizontally above the text to alleviate the white space issue that had initially been pointed out by AnnaFrodesiak, and which all of us agreed was a problem. You only added those photos horizontally once. A couple of weeks later when I had the time, I rewrote and significantly expanded the tapers section and realigned the taper photos with their accompanying text, since there was no longer a white space issue in that area of the article. The photos were still as you had placed them horizontally on July 2, they had not been "mysteriously were undone by you a few times" as stated in your entry above. In early August I again rewrote and expanded the tapers section adding a paragraph above the "Short" taper section under the heading "Tapers" that had previously been devoid of content. On the same day, AnnaFrodesiak made up a table containing the cutting lengths of the various blades and guards, which I had initially added in text form when I wrote the article. She also enlarged each of the taper photos and that is how the Tapers sections still appear. I suggest that you are advising the wrong party with regard to reaching consensus. I have posted on the article's Talk Page in detail why the lead section should not be split. JesseRafe who took this to the Administrators Notice Board twice and was advised to discuss it on the article's Talk Page will not do so. He has once again, twice in the past few hours, disjoined the lead section, creating a massive white space issue, while this time alleging that he cannot discuss the issue on the the Talk Page since it is unreadable. The administrators who advised him to discuss this issue on the article's Talk Page did not note that the Talk Page was unreadable; if they had they would not have so advised.
I also suggest that there may be somewhat of a misunderstanding as to what constitutes "ownership," specifically:
"Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or amend others' edits. Provided this does not marginalise the valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN#Overview
And...
"Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter, an interest in a cause or organization related to the article's subject matter, or the editor could actually be an expert in the subject matter and provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. Unless an editor exhibits behavior associated with ownership, its best to assume good faith on their part.
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit.
Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN#Ownership_and_stewardship
Thanks!
MiltonPB (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what those edits actually were about....
A.
AnnaFrodesiak took the html code out of the article which caused the photos to be badly misaligned, and also left a message on my Talk Page asking about the html code which she did not recognize and whether it had a purpose. I replied that it indeed did have a purpose to keep the photos and text aligned and added the code back.
B.
And C.
D,E,F,G.
1)July 21, "opening up lede into new section so TOC comes up earlier"
2) July 23, "big white space? Problem is probably your display settings. Moved image, this is proper, lede that's 2/3 the length of the article is improper"
3)July 24, "sections cleanup"
4)July 24, "fixed needless toc template"
5)July 24, "That is *not* how a lede is used, it should be in its own section, it's beyond a mere introduction to the topic, see the MOS"
After this edit JesseRafe took this to the Administrator's Notice Board and was told to discuss it on the article's talk page.
6)July 31, JesseRafe disjoins lead section again without Talk Page discussion with this explanation: "(Elements of a haircut -- again, really?)"
7) August 1, JesseRafe again disjoins lead section without talk page discussion and states he is seeking protection. Asserts that I have ownership. Adds his only comment on the article talk page, wherein he states he was not aware that there was a Talk Page discussion regardless that he had been advised that there was a discussion on the Talk Page and he should discuss it there when he took this to the Administrators Notice Board on July 25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive251#Regular_haircut
"(sections for ease of readability, see Talk page and requesting protection, MiltonPB's "ownership" and aversion to discourse unsettling)"
8) September 4 after 50 days and without talk page discussion as advised at the Administrators Notice Board, JesseRafe disjoins the lead section giving this explanation in the summary: "sections for ease of readability"
9)September 24, JesseRafe again disjoins the lead section without discussing it on the Talk Page as advised at the Administrator's Notice Board with this explanation given in the summary: "that talk section is unreadable. Too many huge blocks of text and unclear what is copy-and-paste examples or MoS and what is your opinion, breaking this up to make it approachable to the reader, that's who matters"
I beg to differ; this is not ownership at all.
MiltonPB (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in crew cut, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Per {{too many photos}}.
serioushat 11:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent uploads did not appear to be constructive and has been or soon will be deleted. Please read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. serioushat 12:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MiltonPB. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect Princeton(haircut) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 22 § Princeton(haircut) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]