User talk:Sherilyn69
Welcome!
Hello, Sherilyn69, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Please be careful in making grammatical edits, such as your edit in The Time of Angels, which cause the resulting sentence to make no sense. My mistake. That one does make sense, although it's not the way I would have written it. Some of your edits to Alternative energy do not make sense, and some make sense, but are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. I have a talk page. I guess I respond to you here, then? Why are you saying that some of my edits do not make sense and some are just wrong? I was very careful. Could you show me what I did wrong?
"Me too" comments
[edit]I appreciate that you may often want to express agreement with me, but it's probably not a good idea to comment after me acting, in effect, as my cheerleader. Using arguments based on policy, rather than "Tony has been around so listen to him", is more likely to be persuasive. I noticed a number of examples starting with this one in May, repeating in August, and two more recent cases today here and here. --TS 19:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't be so modest, Tony. It is clear from your contributions that you have a lot of experience here on Wikipedia and that many people naturally defer to your opinions. You speak with the authority and wisdom that is born only out of experience. When someone has made a particularly sound argument it is worth pointing that out for the benefit of others, but actually repeating the argument would be redundant for no good purpose. When I point out that someone is speaking from experience, on the other hand, I am adding the weight of that experience to the argument that has just been made. This is not the same thing as cheerleading. Hopefully this makes my intent more clear. --Sherilyn69 (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Please look at this edit which you reverted with the note "This is being discussed on the talk page. Reach consensus with Tony before reverting."
Firstly could you indicate which of my edits you think that edit was reverting? Secondly, please avoid this "me too" stuff. I've already asked you to stop doing it. In particular the notion of "[reaching] consensus with" an individual is terribly misconceived. Consensus on the page may or may not encompass my active involvement or agreement. Consensus could form in the face of my objection, and that would be okay. I think your intervention in articles I'm editing is on the whole tending towards the unhelpful, for reasons I'm not sure I can articulate. So please be careful. --TS 20:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)