User talk:Thinredline

Manners & style

Thinredline, thanks for your contributions to articles in the climbing field. However I have two requests for you, if I may. The first is to be more civil towards other editors, and more respectful of their good-faith contributions. Some matters are open to interpretation, and there may be more than one right answer. None of us can say that we know what is true; instead we have to work with other editors to create a consensus-version. For that reason it's best to try for a collegial atmosphere. Second, please read over the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. In particular, your edits haven't all been in the encyclopedic language that we prefer, language which never uses first or second person references ("we" or "you").

I know Wikipedia's practices are a bit arcane, I'm still figuring out some of them. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Please take a look at this page: Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is one of the most important polcies we have. The key concept is that any editor (or reader) should be able to verify matreial in the text. It's common practice, when someone make an assertion that expresses a value judgement (like "best", "worst", "top ten", etc), to ask where the information comes from. I'm not picking on you, it's just how we tend to do things around here. -Will Beback 05:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out. Wikipedia is a collaboration. We all have to work together. -Will Beback 07:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see. Will asked me a question on a talk page. Which I answered. Then he missquoted me, and then told me to take his missquote, document it in the proper manner, insert it in the page... I declined Then he had the nerve to send the above, claiming that I was violating site policies by not documenting a comment on a talk page.

funny stuff Thinredline 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a misquote, it was an example. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Everything in the article space needs to be verifiable. -Will Beback 19:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My history with the admin Will Beback I come to this page and find a poorly written mostly incorrect 30 word into to climbing. I spend an hour writing an admittedly less then perfect intro. The next morning someone came in out of the blue and erased it, replacing it with dribble. I barked. (seems to be a common scenario for first time users) Will responded on my talk page, not a problem He had me delete a getting started page. Not a problem (it could of been reworded)

A while later I added a list of fifty different historical items at one time. Will mentioned documenting things. I told him that I didn't have time do that yet. Maybe later. (there is a lot of misinformation on this site)

He bugged me again and I told him he was annoying me. (I don't like people to waste my time)

The problem:

=

Excert from this page

1938 Cassin ascended the Walker Spur of the Grandes Jorasses

Can we please include the significance of these benchmarks? There are countless first ascents, but only a few are worth including in a short list. For example, why is this important? -Will Beback 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a lot of peoples list for one of the top ten ascents ever. Why is a long story worthy of a book. It is also the classic line on one of the most famous wall in the Alps. Thinredline 03:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's say that.

''1938 Cassin ascended the Walker Spur of the Grandes Jorasses, considered among the ten most difficult ascents ever

and let's make sure to say who thinks it is amont the top ten. -Will Beback 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you giving orders now?

==

I declined

Then he had the nerve to send me a pm claiming that I that I was violating site policies by not documenting a comment on a talk page.

All of the above can be found on the Talk:Climbing page.

All I am asking for is the sites opinion of whether will's behavior has been appropriate or not.

I want to be able to contribute to this article, without people wasting my time. Useful and appropriate guidance is fine. Orders are not. Your more then welcomed to delete anything I add that you object to.

I also would like to know if my observation that Will doesn't know much about climbing constitutes a personal attack? If the guidelines say that it does. Then I apologize. I do kind of object to will's standard of deleting anything he doesn't personally know.

I would also point out that I offered to document a few select items chosen by the admins. () that doesn't include assertions made on a talk page

Thinredline 22:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (a twenty plus year climber(hardly any aid) with an extensive climbing library)[reply]

It's like this...

I see you have the necessary skills and experience, I would warn you not to attempt climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.

You are new to the project, Will is not. You don't need to agree with his opinions, but you do need to respect his experience. What Will is telling you is absolutely correct; this is an encyclopaedia, it's not like any other web project, and everythign here is supposed to be traceable back to reliable secondary sources. We have no opinon on whether a given climb is easy or difficult, we report that such-and-such an authority rates it as easy or difficult. Everything on Wikipedia should be treated at one remove. Read the five pillars to get a flavour of what's going on here. Also note that Will has remained civil. It's very important to keep cool here. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the way things work around is that admins can ask a volunter a question on a talk page and then cite them for violating site policies for declining to document an assertion that was made in a talk page(not an article) in response of a direct request from an admin. An assertion that I had already declined to make in the article itself. Somehow he thinks that I am obligated to find someone else that says the same thing that I told him in order to support an assertion that he wants to add to the article. That doesn't make sense to me.

Thinredline 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the way things work is that experienced editors (who may or may not be admins) give guidance; if that guidance is rejected or ignored and policies or guidelines are being bent or violated then the polite notes become firm. It's not personal, and it has nothing to do with expertise. Actually that isn't quite right; the editors who have most trouble with policy are often those who know most. The problem with being knowledgable in your field is that you can write from memory a distillation of dozens of sources, but we can't tell the difference between that and a novel synthesis. If you go to your bookshelf and pull down the relevant book, you can cite it as a source (WP:CITE tells you how). But however much we trust you we can't take your word for it. So, I recommend that rather than fighitng with Will or other admins (a fight you can't win, unfortunately) you adopt a slightly differnt approach: ask for help in getting what you want across in a way that fits with how we do things here. Just zis Guy you know? 18:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping Wikipedia

Thinredline, thank you for helping Wikipedia. You are helping in the way you know how and that is good and I apologize on behalf of Wikipedia for any unhappy feelings you have over how your generous donation of time was received. On the other hand, Will is also helping Wikipedia in the way he knows how and also (I'm guessing) feels sometimes unappreciated. Please realize none of us are paid and we all need to accept that we need each other to make Wikipedia good. None of us are good at each of the skills needed. You bring knowledge of climbing to the table and that is good. Will brings knowledge of Wikipedia to the table and that is good. This reminds me a little of [[1]]. I hope you'll grow to enjoy helping us make Wikipedia better. If there is anything I can do to help please let me know. Again, thanks for helping. WAS 4.250 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am interested in your debate with Will Beback, the admin. Your summary of what he has done to you sounds very similar to what he has done to me. He acts as if I am an employee of his, and he is the manager that approves the edits. He, despite having no idea about the topic, defys me even without providing sufficient evidence towards why text should not be there. I have been fed up with him for a while, and dont think of him as a good admin. In one instance, he so badly mistakened one editor as my sockpuppet, and suspended me for something the other editor did. If you ever decide to file a complaint against him taking his adminship away from him I would fully support you. --Ericsaindon2 07:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History(Climbing)

Hello! If you are going to split the content of a long article in to a series of sub-articles, you should do the following. Firstly, give the sub-article a meaningful name that people are going to search on. Secondly, leave a brief paragraph on the main article in the place where the information sat, describing the information and giving a researcher an idea of what to expect to find if they decide to read it. Thirdly, place a link to the main article at the top of the sub-article in order to allow researchers to travel backwards without using the browser buttons. Lastly, categorise the article in order for it to be indexed in the same manner as the main article. (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Subsidiary_articles and Wikipedia:Article series for more details. (aeropagitica) (talk)

External Pages on Rock Climbing

I edit Spadout.com. I added a link to my site after adding content to the wiki. Our link was trashed because I presume you guys thought it was spam and just junked it. Have a look at the site. We offer thousand of pages of valuable information. We are supported by our advertisers but do not sell goods or services. I believe you will find our website to be more valuable than the current list (http://www.abc-of-rockclimbing.com etc). Is there a way I can have my link 'certified' so that it is not deleted by someone who doesn't even look at it? - markaniteNOSPAM@yahoo.com (remove NOSPAM). Thanks, Mark

No, there is no way to certify a link. Anyone can add a link. Anyone can delete a link. WAS 4.250 02:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]