User talk:Cjmclark/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cjmclark. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low 
to High 
, while for quality the scale goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
response
Dear Fellow Editor: you removed EVERYTHING including edits that were not of the "brochure" type you reference. The entire Mount Pleasant article is notoriously poorly done and clearly improvements are discouraged with complete page reverts by people like yourself. There were several factual referencs to parks, town government, corrections to a name mispelled etc. I think that you should thoughtfully make suggestions, section by section, rather than revert pages. It is clear to me now why this page sees little improvements. Editors are told to be bold while others in the editing community thoughtlessly revert to what ~ a page already flagged for its poor quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinaedits (talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- The article isn't flagged for poor quality; it's flagged for lack of citations, a condition which was exacerbated by the mass addition of unsourced promotional material. If there are copyediting issues, then by all means, please correct them. The addition of multiple sections all of which were heavily promotional in tone do not improve the encyclopedic quality of the article. As far as being bold, it's part of the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle. You were bold, I reverted, and now discussion ensues. That's how consensus is built here. Cjmclark (Contact) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Poor Quality
Perhaps it is not poor quality in your mind, but its poor quality in the minds of those who reside in Mount Pleasant, SC. Thank you for explaining the revert-discuss process. If I decide to make corrections and additions in the future, I will make small changes and provide justification in each comment section. From the start to finish, the page is filled with errors from the simple to complex (espcially the history section). Since this page is on your watchlist, perhaps you might make efforts at improvements based on research rather than simply editing (or reverting) others. Such an approach might also lead to specific reverts that do allow room for genuine improvments rather than taking the entire page back to where it stood prior to fresh efforts. Not everyone has the time to be an expert at the Wikipedia-process, however, they might bring good information to a page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinaedits (talk • contribs) 01:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate that as a resident of Mount Pleasant, you feel the need to clean up and improve the article discussing your town. I would caution you to make sure that any edits you make aren't in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, as it is often all too easy to make edits that shed a favorable POV on topics near and dear to our hearts as editors. Wikipedia's mission is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and often that means that we as individual editors need to be careful when we edit topics about which we feel strongly.
- I restored a couple of your earlier edits related to spelling and article format. I apologize for the mass reversion. The Charleston area city articles have had a troubled past with promotional tone, and given the sheer number of edits performed to the article in a relatively short period of time, it seemed easier to revert in one shot and deal with the details in discussion. As a WikiGnome, I don't have a lot of time to devote to Wikipedia, so shorter methods are often easier for me. My apologies again. I remember being a new editor and being really angry the first time some edits I'd been working on for a long time were reverted, even though they turned out not to be good edits. Best of luck with the article. Cjmclark (Contact) 01:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- I also have nearly 200 pages on my watchlist and expanding the Mount Pleasant article is quite simply not a priority for me at the moment given the limited amount of time I have to edit. I watchlist it and other Charleston area pages primarily to keep an eye on them in case of vandalism or large unsourced edits, as is my prerogative as an editor. While I generally try my best to assume good faith, a brand-new editor making a large number of edits (especially if several are promotional in wording) to only one article (with a topic-related username and a blank user page) in a short period of time is considered a single-purpose account and is often (though not always) a sign of someone editing with an agenda, usually promotional. As I have had to deal with representatives of local governments trying to edit the Charleston area articles before to make them more favorable towards their city/town, I unfortunately showed less patience than I should have in conducting a wholesale revert.
- While this does not by any means mean that you should not edit the Mount Pleasant article (or other Charleston/South Carolina-related articles), I would encourage you to diversify your edits and look towards improving other articles as well. That, coupled with putting some information on your userpage and making good use of edit summaries to explain the changes you make, will go a long way towards establishing "street cred", for lack of a better term, here on Wikipedia. If your only interest is to improve the Mount Pleasant article, then please continue by all means, but just remember to be vigilant about avoiding POV edits that may indicate a conflict of interest. It would also help if edits you make are sourced with inline citations, as that article has citation issues at the moment. I am more than willing to answer questions that you might have, or at the very least try to point you in the direction of a good answer. Cheers. Cjmclark (Contact) 19:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Edits
Thank you for all of your comments, explanation, and assistance. I understand your perspective. However, I don't think its unusual to focus on one page or topic at least not when starting out w/Wikipedia editing. I've read your bio in which you describe your focus singular -- the Stingrays.
I agree that I used promotional language and understand and value that critique.
Mount Pleasant is the fourth largest city in the State. This city has a council form of government ~ it is not a mayor-council form of government. Additionally, by removing the town's parks you've done a real disservice to those who might enjoy and explore the Waterfront Memorial Park and the new Shem Creek Park. Further there are several nature trails to be featured. Therefore, I don't think "COUNTY" is an appropriate heading for that section. It should be all encompassing "Parks & Recreation" or Area Parks & Trails." Carolinaedits (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not unusual to focus on a single page when one starts editing, but I think that (as User:Dawnseeker2000 attributed to possibly not using the "Preview" feature) when so many edits are done in a short period of time (especially without using edit summaries), it tends to raise eyebrows. I do focus primarily on the Stingrays (and as a fan have to take great pains to avoid making favorable edits), but anyone who takes a jaunt through my contributions will also see edits to multiple minor-league hockey-related pages, South Carolina-related pages, edits to the Catholic Church article, numerous edits from my time working with the disambiguation task force, and so on and so forth.
- A good rule of thumb to use when you make edits is to ask yourself "is this indisputable?" If it's a bare fact (such as the presence of a park run by the Town of Mount Pleasant), then it's probably a pretty inoffensive and safe edit to make. If it is at all disputable (such as assertions about its station as an economic powerhouse or its highly educated and motivated workforce...or to move away from promotional stuff, say you're discussing a area that's in dispute as to whether or not it's in Mount Pleasant or Charleston), then there needs to be a verifiable source to back up that fact. There's nothing wrong with making the edit as long as you can provide a source that backs it up. Will it be disputed? Maybe, but if you can back it up with sources it's a lot easier to develop a consensus that the edit should stand.
- As far as the parks and the government structure, please, by all means, restore the changes. As I said, if you can provide inline citations for sources for material in the article, that would be most helpful as the article is in dire need of reliable sources. Cheers. Cjmclark (Contact) 00:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
North Charleston - Boeing Edits
Hi Cjmclark,
I noticed you reverted my edits to North Charleston. My edits were only intended to provide a link to the Boeing Charleston Factory page - nothing sinister. If you wouldn't mind, please revert your edit so the pages will be linked. I'll be more careful about labeling my edits next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.95.226 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't think you had any nefarious intent in mind. The Boeing Charleston Factory is already linked in that section - see the very beginning. If you click the word "Boeing" it links to the factory page. Cjmclark (Contact) 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. But I missed it, and thought (plausibly) "Boeing" linked to Boeing. I think we can agree that if we simply change the link of "Boeing" to link to the company (like the other links with company names), and link "East Coast Facility" to the Boeing Plant page, it will be a lot easier for users to follow their interest to an article that details the plant more extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.95.226 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Go for it. Cjmclark (Contact) 21:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. But I missed it, and thought (plausibly) "Boeing" linked to Boeing. I think we can agree that if we simply change the link of "Boeing" to link to the company (like the other links with company names), and link "East Coast Facility" to the Boeing Plant page, it will be a lot easier for users to follow their interest to an article that details the plant more extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.95.226 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)