User talk:Ancillarydata

Hello, Ancillarydata, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. Here are a few important links for newcomers:

If you'd like some help with editing, you can sign up at the new users log or ask me on my discussion (talk) page. If you need other help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, post a question at the Help Desk, or ask me.

Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. It is always wise to read the most recent entries at the bottom of the talk page of an existing article before making major changes to it. Before I make a major change to an article, I often make a proposal on the talk page to see if anyone minds.

Again, welcome! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beefsteak club

Thank you for your edits to "Beefsteak Club". I have reverted them, however, because you rewrote the article so that it was no longer in chronological order. If you want to try to reorganize the article, that is great, but try to keep your organization in chronological order to give the reader a historical overview. More important than merely reorganizing it would be do add more WP:Reliable sources to verify the information given. Also, it is not recommended to separate short one or two sentence paragraphs. You can combine short descriptions of the clubs in one substantial paragraph. The introduction to the article could be expanded to summarize the high points of all that comes afterwards. Perhaps that would help you introduce points higher up that you thought were very important. See Wikipedia:Article development for more tips on developing article. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:Assume good faith. You can be blocked from editing by calling someone a vandal. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how I prevent vandalism and protest about it if I am not allowed to alert the authorities to it?

Ancillarydata (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, since you wish to quote Wikipedia in defence of your mass deletions of my contributions I'm sure you will not mind my pointing our further wikipedia policy:

"Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.....Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut." I'm afraid I have to point out that your statement "You can be blocked from editing by calling someone a vandal." does seem to contravene Wikipedia's exhortation "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively". Having said that, although I did not in fact call you a vandal, I admit that describing the mass deletion itself of MULTIPLE saved changes together with the observation itself that only changes which met with your demands would not be deleted as "vandalistic" was certainly sailing close to the wind and therefore, in order to remain within Wikipedia Policy, I apologise for and retract my support for the public use of the word "vandalistic" in this case. You justified the deletions you made on the basis that I my corrections of today had made the entry less chronological. Leaving aside the fact that your right to make explained and explainable improvements to the article (for example by re-wording it to make it chronological) does not give you the right simply to undo my efforts -- especially when they involved so very many improvements absolutely unrelated to the complaint you made -- the fact is that not only did you revert the article to a version which was less and not more chronological but that version itself which you restored was already markedly less chronological than the one you yourself replaced at 13:17, 27 May 2009 Ssilvers (talk | contribs) (7,416 bytes) (→History: ce). On that occasion under "Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made)" you typed one word: "History". I have no doubt that you have not in fact acted in bad faith WP:Assume good faith WP:Vandalism and that you will very easily be able to explain the obvious contradiction between your actions (making the article less chronological both 13:17, 27 May 2009 and today when you reverted the affected parts exactly to your version) and your justification for mass-deleting my changes (that you wished thereby to make the article more chronological). If you have the time to reply before we have forgotten the issues I would be most grateful.

Ancillarydata (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]