User talk:Vwaju

Welcome!

Hello, Vwaju! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 22:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

August 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Fred Newman (philosopher).

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Fred Newman (philosopher). Jim1138 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Newman (philosopher)

Please us an accurate wp:edit summary In this edit, you "commented out" text. You should explain why you commented out or removed the text. Removed "PhD as..." It had nothing to do with formatting. If you used an accurate ES in you previous edits, you might have avoided the above warnings. Cheers. Jim1138 (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fred Newman (philosopher). Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vwaju (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a longtime user and supporter of Wikipedia, but I’m new as an editor. I take my responsibility as a member of the Wikipedia community very seriously, and am trying to learn and follow all the rules.

I have been charged with "vandalism" (Zackman08) and "persistent disruptive editing" (Acroterion). With respect to these charges: I created an Infobox on the Fred Newman page where there previously was none. The Infobox includes a photograph that I uploaded to Wikipedia Commons (documenting its provenance, following Wikipedia guidelines). I thought the heading over the photo should say just "Fred Newman" (without the Ph.D. suffix). I noted that the pages for two other philosophers (Donald Davidson, Ph.D. and Richard Rorty Ph.D., both of whom are listed as "Influences" on Newman in the Infobox) adhere to this style. Since Newman's Ph.D. from Stanford is documented *inside* the Infobox in any event, I considered this cleaner style, an elimination of a redundancy, and a minor adjustment of format. I assumed, as creator of this particular content, that this was within my discretion. Jim1138 notes that my ES was not precise enough. Point taken: Going forward, I will make my summaries very precise.

As evidence of my good faith, I invite you to review the section entitled "Work", which is my main contribution so far to the Fred Newman page. I hope you will agree that it's an honest and thoughtful attempt to document Newman's philosophical writing. I ask you also to observe that I have *not* deleted or commented out *anything* that any other Wikipedia contributor has written!

As I understand it, the 31-hour block on my editing privileges has now expired. However, as someone who hopes to become a trusted member of the Wikipedia community, I am concerned to have unanswered charges of "vandalism" and "persistent disruptive editing" against my name. (Jim1138 writes: "You may be blocked from editing *without further warning* the *next time* [emphases added] you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia. . .) In light of the above explanation, I ask you to consider the possibility that this charge was too hasty, and to expunge it from my record.

Wikipedia is an inspired experiment and a great achievement. Above all, it is a statement of confidence in the American people and all the people of the world. I feel privileged to be part of it, and hope to contribute to its further growth in years to come.

With Respect,

Vwaju (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Account is not blocked; please do not use the unblock template for this purpose. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The central issue with the block that I issued was the absence of response from you with respect to the infobox changes. Several editors questioned your edits, it is important to respond, not to simply repeat your actions over and over without discussion. If you'd responded at that time as you did above, it would have been far more productive. Please remember that discussion and consensus are essential. Acroterion (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Points taken: (1) My Edit Summaries should be more precise (2) I should monitor my email more carefully, and respond more timely to any question about my editing.

However, in the spirit of "Do Not Bite the Newcomers", I ask you: Is it really just that these inadvertencies (both of which, it seems, are related to only one edit) should be qualified as "persistent disruptive editing" and "simply repeat[ing] your actions over and over"? Is another inadvertency waiting to bite me "without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia" (Zackmann08)?

You will answer these questions as you see fit and, since I would like to continue as a Wikipedia contributor, I will try to live with your answers. However, I need a clear advisory on this question: Is it within my discretion to edit content that I myself have created?

With Respect,

Vwaju (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, you are entirely welcome to edit content you've created. You just need to remember to respond to other editors who may have questions or concerns about your edits, or who may feel that there is a better way to accomplish your objectives, and you may not assert an exclusive right to edit a given topic. That's really all that I ask - that you be willing to respond and discuss. You may be correct, but it is still up to you to give an accounting if questioned, since the worth of a given edit may not be self-evident. Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim1138: @Zackmann08:

Hi, Jim1138 and Zackmann08 –

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you. I fell behind in my email, and your messages got lost below the fold. Then, I had a conversation with Acroterion about the block, and that took a few days to work through. As a Newcomer to Wikipedia contributing and editing, I confess I am a little nervous, and I was upset to find that I had run afoul of the community.

So, let me respond now to your criticisms (which I think are roughly the same). I created an Infobox on the Fred Newman (philosopher) page where there previously was none. The Infobox includes a photograph that I uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. I thought the heading over the photo should say just "Fred Newman" (without the Ph.D. suffix). The pages for other "public intellectuals" – Richard Rorty, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Susan Sontag – adhere to this style. In any event, since I documented Newman's Ph.D. from Stanford inside the Infobox, I considered this cleaner style and the elimination of a redundancy. I can see now that I should have spelled this out in my ES. I won't make that mistake again!

Incidentally, I remember now that when I tried to make this change, I had trouble doing it. At the time, I assumed it was a bug in the software. Now, I'm guessing that someone (perhaps one of you) was reverting my change as soon as I saved it. In persisting in the edit, I must have given the impression that I was Edit Warring. This blunder was a result of my inexperience. My apologies.

Although I think the world will go on spinning either way, I would like to remove the Ph.D. suffix over the Newman photo (with a detailed ES, of course). What do you think?

Best Regards,

Vwaju (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]