User talk:Missoulianette

Bozeman College town

I noticed your edit and wanted to share this http://pubpages.unh.edu/~gumprech/Collegetowns.pdf gives stats and evidence for calling bozeman a college town. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_town uses the pdf as one of its references and includes Bozeman as a College town 91.125.123.1 (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Bozeman-MSU population question up to OR/Noticeboard

Missoulianette - don't be alarmed but I am raising the question we've been discussing about MSU and Bozeman's population at the OR Noticeboard. For some reason I have been unable to steer you in the right direction here and do not want to get into an edit war with you over this. The discussion here will be looked at by many others more experienced than me. If I have erred in my interpretation of WP:SYN then I will learn from this. If you have erred, you will learn. There's nothing punitive in this at all, its normal collaborative behavior that we all should engage in routinely. Please feel free to weigh in on the discussion, but remember to listen to the council of others as well. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice

I know from experience that confrontation in WP is a no win situation. Please recognize that you are an inexperienced editor. But as far as I am concerned, inexperienced editors have great potential. Trying hard to win a policy interpretation discussion by repeating the same arguments rarely works. And if you don't even really understand the policy (I know it took me a long time to get the lay of the land here in Wikipedia land) you are at a great disadvantage. I admire your enthusiasm and am offering my time to mentor you in the ways of WP. I want you to become a productive editor, making good contributions to the encyclopedia. But to do that, you have to do two things. 1) Read, Read, Read the various policies and guidelines we all must abide by. If you don't understand them, ask me. 2)Pick a topic you are interested in, find an article that really needs improvement or decide on a new article and go to work on it in your user space. Working through all the requirements of a new article is an excellent way to learn how this thing works. I will help you through this. I came to the conclusion many years ago, that to be a good WP editor, its not what you know that counts, its what you know about that counts. Editing WP articles is all about research, finding sources and writing about What the sources say. We have bullies in WP, we have editors who are completely intolerant of any transgression, and we have editors who will work backwards to help any editor. Ignore the bullies, ignore those who are intolerent but always be civil and take the high road in any discussion. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best to stop

Missoulianette, please cease your personal attacks and accusations. Just because people disagree with you does not mean they have an agenda other than quality control. You should read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I happen to hold degrees from both MSU and UM, I also have edited Wikipedia for nearly 5 years. When someone changes your edits, it is often because they have a problem. In the case of Missoula population, you put a random fact into the lead when it doesn't belong there for two reasons. 1) It isn't a particularly important fact for the lead (most cities grow over time) and 2) there is no mention of the population trends in the body of the text, other than a reference to when the community started growing -- material in the lead summarizes what's in the text, you don't put random factoids into the lead and nowhere else in a comprehensive article like this one. Finally, when you make such claims, they need a source. You know how to do footnotes, you need to find and add proper ones. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Missoula- "Proposed Buildings"

I, ATOTHEJPiano have good faith that the "Proposed buildings" section is required. Missoula is still growing, and there are many "proposed" buildings in the works. Whether it be a year, or 5 years. So please do not delete this section again. In the Downtown Master plan for Missoula on page 80 is specifies a new hotel anywhere from 150-175 rooms, at an estimated cost of 23 million from private investment(s). I have seen the "Fox site" mentioned on the news. On page 27 it state's that the building(s) in the Riverfront triangle (if ever built) could be no larger 200 feet tall (because of close proximity to MSO), but no shorter than 150 feet to support a 150+ room hotel on a less than 1 acre lot. If you have any questions or concerns, please ask instead of deleting sections that are relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATOTHEJPiano (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize there are rules. I stated sources, and it is not false information. If what I have stated as a vision is "false, and un-true" then hundred's of articles such as the Xseed 4000 , or the Ultima tower should be deleted. They are based off vision's, and that is all I am trying to add to this article; and by the way you just fully threatened to block me, and if you did actual research you could see that edit blocking in retaliation against users is against Wikipedia guidelines... so in reality you should be the one blocked. You broke the rules, I did not. ATOTHEJPiano (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise? I put the term "En-visioned buildings" instead of "Proposed"... is this better? We both do not want to get blocked... instead of fighting, lets think of a resolution. Okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATOTHEJPiano (talk • contribs) 21:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO! a lot of things are envisioned but never become anything. Missoulianette (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]