User:Wikiuser100/archive 1 (2008)
Apology
[edit]Hi Wikiuser100 I have reviewed the contributions and looked at the differences and it was a mistake of mine. I didnt realise that you could spell William the way that you spelt it. That is why I have removed your warning as it not valid. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Chemistrygeek (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, it was not I who changed the spelling of William. I added several words elsewhere to help clarify the tense of a statement that read as if something that will happen in the future was already a fact today. Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok well if you need advice then contact me or Nancy and we will be able to help if I cant help then im sure that Nancy will be able to and if she cant then she can probably point you in the right direction. Chemistrygeek (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi wikiuser100 I seem to have got myself muddled up in the changes when looking at the history of the page. You didnt add the name of King William it was my misreading and appologise for putting the spelling warning on your talkpage. Hope that you understand. Chemistrygeek (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- We're square. Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi wikiuser100 I seem to have got myself muddled up in the changes when looking at the history of the page. You didnt add the name of King William it was my misreading and appologise for putting the spelling warning on your talkpage. Hope that you understand. Chemistrygeek (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok well if you need advice then contact me or Nancy and we will be able to help if I cant help then im sure that Nancy will be able to and if she cant then she can probably point you in the right direction. Chemistrygeek (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Wikiuser100, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! BusterD (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, BusterD. Thanks for the welcome. I'm not sure what triggers a new contributor welcome, but just FYI I've edited some 56 pages so far (since registering earlier this year) and a handful before that. But thanks for pointing me to the list of helpful pages you provided. If you have any suggestions, I'm open.````
No changes
[edit]Hey Wiki100:
I looked, and it does not look to me like I changed your entry. I simply added a reference I found for some of ther information...ToriV (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Great. For some reason the "Undo" command was highlighted when I went to look at my revision history for another page. Goblins, I suppose. The more and better cites for the Les Paul article the merrier. Happy trails.Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Muntz
[edit]I have responded on the article talk page. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The Bob Ross Nightmare
[edit]September 2008
[edit]
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bob Ross, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to The Joy of Painting. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Bob Ross, you will be blocked from editing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Your comments on my talk page
[edit]You asked for my "rank and authority as a Wikipedia editor" - there are no "ranks and authorities" on Wikipedia, I am an editor just like you. Administrators have additional tools at their disposal to protect the project, but I am not an admin. Your edits were reverted because they should have been discussed first on the relevant article's talk page. No one is persecuting you or hounding you. – ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- A dispute about the content of an article should be discussed first on the talk page of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Your comments on various people's talk pages
[edit]Wikiuser: you need to stop removing sourced content. If you think that something should not be included in an article, do not simply remove statements that are backed up with citations to reliable sources. Start a new section on the article's talk page and state why you think that the content should not be included. Once other editors have commented, act accordingly. (See WP:CONSENSUS)
Administrators here on Wikipedia do not go around willy-nilly doing whatever they want to, and they do not hold any special status. Any user may warn any other user who is breaking the rules. Removing sourced content from articles without discussion is not appropriate. (FYI, I am an administrator here on Wikipedia (verify), and I am making the previous statements as a moderator, as you like to call it.) J.delanoygabsadds 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- For the most part, I have little to add to what others have already said about reaching consensus. I do think, however, that it bears repeating that administrators here on Wikipedia do not have any special position, and administrators' opinions do not matter any more than other users. With more than 1500 admins, as well as freely viewable logs of admin actions, no admin can perform any administrative action without anyone knowing. J.delanoygabsadds 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
What we have here is a failure to communicate. You stated that certain details pertaining to Bob Ross' life were not pertinent to the article. Specifically, details about his wives. This information isn't trivial content. Details about lots of notable individuals' nonnotable spouses permeates Wikipeda unrelentingly. Properly sourced information about significant events in people's lives, such as marriage, divorce, births/deaths of loved ones, is not the same as saying, "Bob Ross like cheese," even if one were to find a source for that statement. Your deletion of this isnormation does, in fact, fly in the face of well-established community-driven consensus. Examine any biographical article, and you will find lots of information, [presumably] properly sourced, that you, as an apparent deletionist, might find strictly banal and useless.
It should be noted that the details about his wives was very short, noting only their names (obviously their last names were Ross, and unless their maiden names were in a source, one could not publish it) and the durations of their marriages. Such a short, sourced statement is surely not worth pursuing like this. Yuor edits were reverted because you did not provide a valid reason for soing so. As per the widely-held and practiced policy of including any properly sourced information in biographical articles mentioned above, you need to discuss first changes which go against the consensus. There's always the possibility that you might provide convincing arguments, and even influence consensus-driven policies -- but definitely not in this case. The users who addressed your actions are well-seasoned, and are familiar with the consensus to the point of being able to enforce it on matters presicely like this without needing to query the community. For you to be able to make the changes you made -- as I said -- you must discuss it first.
Making changes that violate policy can easily be construed as vandalism -- it suggests that you either didn't read or care to abide by the community standards -- but that is incorrect. The policy of vandalism states, in part:
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.
It appears to me that you indended to be helpful, as a deletionist, but it flew in the face of established community consensus and policy. I will remind those editors who made those comments to you about vandalism the specific of policy, but the bottom line is: do not remove properly sourced information from Wikipedia without prior discussion. This is really not a matter of needing to arbitrate, because this is a matter of content dispute, which whould be discussed on appropriate talk pages. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Another response to your call for assistance
[edit]I've been away from keyboard for a day or two, so I see others have developed some ideas in response to your request. BTW, I applied the welcome template to your talk page because I didn't see in history where anyone had previously welcomed you. The welcome template contains many helpful links which can answer questions normal new or inexperienced editors might want to see.
The normal place to go for dispute resolution would be Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, because that page offers many useful links and excellent advice about how to handle oneself in a dispute. The very first section of policy on the page is headed: Focus on content. Your request for help asserts: 1) There are levels of editors relevant to dispute resolution (which is peripherally true, administrators possessing community endorsement to monitor and assist the DR process), and 2) Editors "acting quite imperiously" who have reverted your edits are threatening you viciously (I don't see viciousness anywhere here, at least by wp standards).
Before you get into the more formal process of DR, you might want to have a lively discussion on the subject's talk page. Say anything you want, related to the subject. Discuss the subject fully. You might mention the term "vaporware", since the game announcement in March 2006 has seen zero publication and sales. You might mention the rather tepid quality of the descriptive text relating to the subject's marriages.
You might go straight to the talk pages of the users troubling you and call shenanigans (which is the path you chose). You could make a pretty good case that since the video game has never materialized and since wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL BALL, the game stuff should come out, since it might represent WP:ADVERTISING. The section is otherwise cited WP:TRIVIA, and since the pedia is not an indiscriminate list of facts this stuff should come out.
You might go straight to the page and fix the sloppy text in the personal life section. You might find surprising allies in exactly the editors you chose to label and characterize. Another editor, User:Abtract has already taken a position similar to yours on the subject of deleting the trivia list.
Arguing with those editors on the merits is strongly encouraged. Lots of venues exist where your case can be made, reinforced and adjusted. Those editors have reasons for their own valid positions and every such discussion gets us ever closer to the truth. What you just can't do is label and characterize editors unfairly. It's not helpful behavior. It doesn't move the pagespace forward. Such action has the adverse effect of raising temperatures. Agitation. This is why WP:3RR is such a big deal; this is the proverbial line the Wikipedia community has drawn on "did not/did too" arguments.
So have all the discussions you want in talkspace, and if someone reverts your changes, defend your position inside common practice. Characterizing others' actions is totally in play (as opposed to characterizing the editors themselves), but keep the labeling to a minimum.
That's my advice. Don't have your disagreements in pagespace. And don't be in a rush. There's no wikiedit made today that can't be repaired tomorrow. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Talk page reverts
[edit]You appeared here to revert a user on his/her own talkpage. Please note that a user is entitled to administer their talkpage the way they wish. Please do not allow this to deteriorate into an edit war. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Rambling Man. Thanks for the heads-up. I did not realize that I went through with that undo. I started to - not knowing anything about Wikipedia policy concerning same - then saw another post on the user's page lower down and responded to it there. Evidently I did not cancel out of the original edit. Appreciate the feedback. Lotta learning curve here. Never been in a dispute like this before.Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Wikiuser100, Thanks for your interest in this article. However, I feel the lead paragraph I am suggesting does reflect your views and presents the material more readily to the reader. I note the following advantages over the version you just replaced:
- The first paragraph is crucial, and should say what the article is about. Your suggested paragraph, which reads as follows: "The term bespoke is employed in a variety of applications, from computer software and finance to firearms and jewelry." is a little unhelpful. The first paragraph is the most critical part of the article and should be the most informative, while your version says absolutely nothing. Giving a short list of varied fields which use the term, while giving nothing on the term itself, hardly informs the average reader at all. See Wikipedia:Lead#Opening paragraph.
- To better draw the distinction between the clothing-related and other uses, I had changed the way the levels of heading were placed.
- You deleted along with the lead a useful reference with no comment.
- At least mine uses complete sentences.
The revert you just made was a plain, straightforward, revert put everything back to how it was, incomplete sentence and all, while the latest version I have put up is not some stubborn revert, but rather adapts the text to the considerations I think you are trying to apply. If you want to change the article, please work with the latest version to reach a consensus by editing, not by reverting to an old bad version.— Kan8eDie (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)