User talk:Scribblescribblescribble

Welcome

Hello, Scribblescribblescribble, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your edit in Baghdasar Arzoumanian. -- Ashot ^(talk) 19:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khojaly–Gadabay culture

In regards to your remark, "Please tell us why you say there are reputable sources using the phrase, or please withdraw your opinion"--please play nice. There is no need to adopt such a tone, even if the opponent (in your opinion) is completely wrong. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a legitimate request! The poster said there were legitimate sources that used the phrase, but cited none. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--but what you said sounds a lot like some sort of ultimatum, and that makes it less, not more, likely that the editor will follow your suggestion. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes it is ultimatumish-like, in that I want a reply and I am pushing for a reply. But in the context I also think have a right to expect that reply, and I did say please twice in my request for it. So hope my tone wasn't counterproductive. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about leaving out the last part, next time? Note also that AfD is not a discussion you personally have to win: the discussion (in most cases) will be closed by an administrator who will weigh the pros and cons. If someone offers what sounds like a very reasonable argument but fails to provide evidence, the administrator will hopefully recognize that a well-phrased but ultimately hollow argument is not very convincing. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, yes, I know it shouldn't be thought of as a personal win or loose situation (it's only Wikipedia after all!) - in fact I have now said that I think the article I proposed for deletion should now maybe be kept, or merged. I just expect an editor who gave a "keep" opinion to properly explain that opinion. An opinion without an explanation is worthless - it isn't even a hollow argument. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree on the terminology, but that such an opinion should be explained, and that without explanation it's not worth as much, that is correct. I'm also pointing this out because AfD discussions have a tendency to get overheated, and I'd hate to see that happen here. I haven't looked at the AfD since your response, but I will. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and thanks for your input - sincerely. It's always worth keeping in mind that edits shouldn't be seen as a personal win or loose - so it's always worthwhile being reminded by someone that they shouldn't be! Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Re to this suggestion. This is up to Arbcom. But yes, I think it is entirely possible to edit in such areas and not be banned/blocked. The "trick": do not care too much about the content (some articles will always be terrible) and move to edit other articles if someone reverts you and you can not agree about anything at the article talk page. This is all you need. Biophys (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but is it a trick new editors can master before getting banned? Everyone starts editing because they feel strongly about one particular article or subject, so almost certainly will get put under those edit restrictions. And I believe (and the evidence indicates that I am correct) once an editor is put under AA restrictions, no matter how careful that editor subsequently is, an eventual topic ban is inevitable. Three of the enforcement requests being discussed on that page concerned AA arbritration enforcement, and there were another two requests in the preceeding archived page. So in under a month at least 5 editors were given restrictions under its enforcements.

I edited anonymously for a while specifically to avoid getting put under its restrictions until I knew what was what, and who was who. But I think that will just postpone the inevitable. I looked back thru Twilight Chill's edits and it is clear to me he knew all the tricks, and played things safe and careful for a long time after his first topic ban. But still that inevitable topic ban got him again. The enforcement remedies are used as very efective POV-warring weapons to eliminate opposing editors, and I don't think they benefit article quality. I'm no fan of Twilight Chill's editing, but I believe that the restructions and remedies used to enforce his departure has far worse effects than anything his edits have done. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was not your first edit on-wiki. I will think and maybe comment later. Yes, everyone who edit war will be eventually banned. Biophys (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your questions...

I agree that a well-intended newbie has a very good chance to be sanctioned if he edits in a "conflict area". What he is going to do after reading RS and NPOV policies and seeing someone who removes well-sourced and relevant texts at will? Most probably revert. This is a difficult conflict of WP:NPOV and WP:Consensus policies that can not be resolved without an editorial board. A solution? See the beginning of my message [1]. This is bad for content, but there is no other way.
Will sanctions help to improve the content? The answer is "yes" if we are talking about banning SPAs who create nothing but disruption. However, the answer is "no" if we are talking about banning established content creators. In theory, the removal of an opinionated contributor from the area should allow other presumably more "neutral" contributors to fix the articles in the area. However, this never happens, at least in the areas I edited. The subjects liked by the banned contributors are suffering from neglect. In fact, almost no one edits these articles, or sometimes, another "side" takes revenge and restore their POV. This is my personal observation. But you can not convince administrators who are really fed up with constant conflicts in the areas like AA. Biophys (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with my assertion that the sanctions are being used as POV-warring weapons to eliminate opposing editors? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Sanctions, arbitration, ANI reports and dispute resolution were used to eliminate opposing editors. If these editors deserved elimination is another question. All of them (myself including) did something wrong and created problems for others. This is also quite obvious. I would tell that most of them deserved sanctions, but perhaps less severe sanctions. Perhaps some people just need a break, although a break (topic ban) longer than six months is unproductive for someone who was never sanctioned before. Unfortunately, the user you are talking about was topic banned previously for 6 months.Biophys (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of your words elsewhere, it's clear you haven't understood anything I've said, or have chosen to ignore it. Anyway, based on your talk page comment you are gone. And so is this thread. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]