User talk:Marvinst

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on Spanish people worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Spanish American. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SamEV (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to SamEV - Correcting spanish americans article

I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't vandalize any article. Stop accusing me of vandalizism because I don't do that and you know it. You're saying this to make me look bad to wiki and it's not fair.

All I did was reflect correct info that the author of the article has made an error in. The author made an error in the article pertaining to what constitutes a spanish american. In the aritcle he states that anyone from latin america is considered a spanish american when that's not true! A spanish american is someone who is descended DIRECTLY (note this) from spain and born in the americas. For example, mexican-born or argentine-born peloples ARE NOT spanish americans since they are born in latin america, NOT spain. I want to work with the aurthor, but the aurthor has got to work with us, the people who are trying to correct him. You're not spanish so you don't have the right to dictate to others who or what they are.

Civility

Hi there. Just want to leave a reminder that we really need to keep civility in mind when it comes to discussing articles on talk pages here. This is a collegial environment, built on consensus, and that requires editors to remain cool in potentially heated situations. I see that you've got some strong views on the concept of punk music, which is fine, but do recall that Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth - we need to have good reliable sources backing up edits that are substantial changes and especially so on a featured article. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Tony Fox

Hi, tony. You are correct about wiki's policy. As such, I will provide the adequate references to my additions to the punk rock article. However, when I do, it is understood that such references and info be added to the article and NOT be re-edited at all. Fair is fair. As a result, I have informed the author about this, but he has taken a hostile attitude towards me and upon the subject, which I reminded him, is against wiki's terms of use. He is adament about not admitting or adding new info despite the info reflecting solid references. Again, this is clearly a breach of wiki's policy and should be reported nontheless in the event of such non-compliance on the part of the author. Marvinst (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you quite get the idea of how Wikipedia works. When you submit something here, you have to accept that it will likely be edited by someone else - this is a collegial editing environment, with constant updates being made to all of our articles. Your edits to Punk rock included no sources whatsoever - and in fact removed sourced statements, which is a bad idea. Your comments on the article talk page are overly aggressive, do nothing to indicate that you have references to back up your statements, fail to show good faith to other editors, and reflect ownership of the article - this is a bad thing. I highly suggest that you take a step back and provide references that do back up your statements, instead of stating "I WILL EDIT THIS AND YOU WILL NOT CHANGE IT OR ELSE." For the record, I *am* an administrator, I'm one of the people who would receive your "report to Wikipedia" regarding this kind of information, and if you continue to be overly aggressive in your dealings with other editors, I would also enforce our guidelines regarding disruptive editing at that point. Okay? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Tony Fox 2

Fine. I will submit info with backed up sources. However, if you conclude that my info and sources are convincing and override any contradictory info on the article, then, I assume you will grant those additions on the article. I welcome this. But, you stated how wiki operates in the following regarding added info: "it will likely be edited by someone else". I don't get this. If you state that wiki works under that premise, then why was my info removed? This makes no sense according to your logic of how wiki is supposed to work.

As to allegations of aggression, I became aggressive because I cannot withstand people's ignorance regarding a subject they: 1) have not lived through, and, 2) therefore, have little knowledge about. Although I am not proclaiming to be an expert in the field, I do possess 3 decades worth of in-depth experience in that arena which I believe qualifies me a bit more than the poster of the article. As such, when I read falsehoods about the genre, I become inflammed because I know from first-hand experience that they are not true. I lived punk, the poster did not. Consider that.

As to your threats, I strongly suggest that YOU take a step back. I will furnish the necessary references upon the subject. But, DO NOT threaten me because it is so easy for you to be brave over the net than it is to be brave in person... think about it! I am here to justify my viewpoint based upon experience and accumulated knowledge. DON'T DO IT AGAIN. Understood? Marvinst (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not getting it. Experienced and knowledge mean nothing unless they're backed up with reliable sources; Neil Armstrong could come on here and write that the Moon is made of Gruyere, but unless he provided a reliable source to confirm that statement, we'd remove that too. Your changes were unreferenced and are from your own viewpoint, this is original research, and not acceptable. When you've got references - good references - that affirm what you feel the article should state, then bring them to the article talk page for discussion about how to insert them in a way that works with the article. Punk rock is a featured article - that means it's impeccably sourced and written, vetted by a large number of editors, and accepted as one of the very best articles on Wikipedia; thus, changes must be made using very good reliable sources.

I also highly recommend that you stop making demands with other editors as you do above. I'm attempting to politely and calmly ensure that our guidelines are enforced in this discussion; that's what the admins here are tasked to do. Civility is a key part of Wikipedia discourse; making all-caps demands such as those above are not civil. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Tony Fox 3

Alright, I said this before but apparently you did not absorb what I had stated I would do pursuant to wiki's policy, so I will restate it here YET AGAIN. I will provide the sources upon which the info I will present is based. I have said this more than 4 times so far. Didn't you read that in my posts to you? With all due respect, I don't understand why you contradict me when I am agreeing with you in accordance to wiki's reliable source policy to which I will adhere.

Secondly, I never found ALL CAPS to be uncivil and against wiki's terms. Is it part of wiki's terms? If it is, then provide me with a reliable source to confirm that statement. Marvinst (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have in fact read what you have written. I'm glad you're going to find references to work with; I'll look forward to seeing what you turn up. Generally, using all caps is considered to be the online equivalent of shouting; it's considered impolite in most uses, and when combined with the aggressive nature of your statements, I feel that it was incivil. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at the WP:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello, Marvinst. The thread is at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive editor at Talk:Punk rock. You are welcome to add your own comment to that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Smashville^talk 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)