User talk:TheFutureGood

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Nakon 00:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Santa Claus has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Grafen (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Santa Claus has been reverted, as it appears to intentionally introduce incorrect information. Please do not continue to do this; such edits are considered vandalism. Thank you. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Santa Claus, you will be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Santa Claus was changed by TheFutureGood (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.859846 on 2010-12-21T04:14:08+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Santa Claus. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome...

Hello, TheFutureGood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop reverting so much

...because it will get you blocked and your ability to edit removed. I understand you feel passionately about certain subjects, but reverting repeatedly is like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer and expecting it to not hurt you each time. People do not suddenly up and say - 'hey, this guy is reverting me twice; I'll suddenly see the light about their edit'. What they actually do is to either edit right back or simply report you for edit-warring, and you end up sitting on the sidelines while others point and laugh. Well, maybe not that, but getting blocked for refusing to work with others diminishes your credit as an editor here. And understand, most of us are here for the long haul, not just a few weeks out of the year. Work with people, and find a solution. You might not win, but you will find yourself better able to understand the nature of the opposing viewpoint. That in itself is worth the price of admission. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hello TheFutureGood,

Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources and What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. A movie or a parenting forum are not reliable sources. Secondly your parenting link said nothing about historical figures, so make sure your source tells what you state in the sentence. Joost 99 (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I had already added a source for " the Christmas spirit" yesterday, see this edit. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources tells you all you need to know (I know no more than that). I can only advise you to read up before your next edit.

By the way, for someone claiming to be the Future Good, you are creating a lot of trouble in the present.... I have provided reasons for removing Rudolph (see also Wikipedia:Lead). I moved the story books part to the previous sentence (that does not have to be referenced, by the way, only information "challenged or likely to be challenged"). Joost 99 (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sounds better in that sentence, I was unsure how to put it there because i thought it was a link. TheFutureGood (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for introducing me to the 'lead' page. It further supports my rudolph agruments.

'The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.'- Rudolph is the most notable reindeer, and certainly one of santa's most important folk legends, proving he needs to be mentioned somewhere in the lead.

'The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.'- One of the most notable contriversies associated with santa is the number of reindeer that pull his sleigh. The difference between the numbers is ALWAYS Rudolph. In order for readers to got a complete picture of santa claus, all that is needed is under 10 extra words that explain the number of reindeer. For something so small in size, it adds so much to the lead and the readers understanding.

'While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article.'-8 or 9 reindeers is a tease. The reader is likely to wonder WHY it is eight or nine, with a few words we can clear this up for them, as to provide them with answers rather than more questions.

Please read 'Jack Sebastian‎' talk page (at the bottom) and read my arguments there. By now surely I have made my point. I am sick of people not listening to me about this, I dont mean agreeing, i mean 'listening'. If you read the comment that he gave me back, it didn't address my rebutal of his excuse of avoiding 'number specifics' when number specifics were and still are already there, my edit was merely to EXPLAIN the number specifics, rather than create them.

I will consider agreeing to just remove '8 or 9' out of the article (which i didnt put in there), and having a seperate section (out of the lead), addressing the debate or 'controversy'. But if '8 or 9' stays, then so does 'rudolph' as without specifing him, the '8 or 9' part can become confusing.

Please reply to this and really LISTEN to every point i have made, you must logically, and seperately address each point, if you have counter agrugments. Otherwise i will just brush you off. I will give in only to what is best for the article, whether it is your way or mine, but it must be proven to be the best way, and clearly explained. TheFutureGood (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because you were introducing the name "Rudolph" without any explanation. Who is this Rudolph?? Why would he be the exception?? If that's not teasing, I don't know. You say it adds to the readers understanding, but in my opinion it only adds confusion. You have to take into account that people opening this article could have no knowledge about Santa what so ever, you assume some sort of pre-knowledge of the fact that the reindeers are named, and that Rudolph is one of them. So I on my turn feel you haven't listened to my rational.

Concerning your point on including the numbers 8 or 9 (which I see) and the importance of Rudolph in the lead, please take that to the talk page of the article, so that everyone who wants can have their say. That way you avoid it being a two or three way discussion, someone "not listening" or you having to point me to someone's talk page to find your arguments.

Merry Christmas. Joost 99 (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]