User talk:ImprovingWiki: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:14, 22 September 2014

Welcome

Hello, Love dance of scorpions! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Spike Toronto 01:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Invalid Vandalism

On Jan 25 I attempted to post content on Daina Gabldon's page that you disagree with. It was not vandalism. I am a huge fan of hers and would not vandalize her page. However, I nearly bought the entire Lord John Series when I found a deal on it. Fortunately I started with the first one. My observations about her departure from her previous content was both fair and objective. You may disagree but deleting my edit is not the appropriate way to handle it. A discussion on that page would have been more appropriate. That you had the nerve to post on my user page Thank You as though you were being polite is a laugh. I realize my opinions are not politically correct, but I was careful not to be either mean spirited, vulgar or offensive in any way. Unless my thoughts are offensive. If that is the case, free speech and tolerance are dead, and wikiapedia is the shovel being used to bury them. I do hope I am mistaken. 1qaz1qaz1qaz (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.

— Spike Toronto 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Vandals

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Linda Chavez: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. — Spike Toronto 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take a look. Love dance of scorpions (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and keep up the good work

You and I were patrolling the same beat Oliver Ellsworth, etc. and reverted some of the inappropriate work of a vandal. FWIW, I warned them, and also reported them to WP:AIV, as they were a "vandalism only account" that had been warned and was "hot". They were thereafter blocked, which at least for now puts an end to their bullshit. Keep up the good work. Happy editing If I can be of assistance, please let me know. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Hyderabad ganesh

Hello ImprovingWiki. I am just letting you know that I deleted Hyderabad ganesh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm Oosh. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Sin City: A Dame to Kill For because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You should know better than to engage an IP editor troll in a war. Oosh (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oosh, if you want to leave a template on my talk page, try one that makes sense. I've looked at your edit history, and it seems that you haven't reverted even one of my edits. Care to explain yourself? ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slip of the finger in Twinkle, my apologies, here's what I meant to put:

Your recent editing history at Sin City: A Dame to Kill For shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Excuse me, but I have made no recent edits to that page. So please spare me the over-aggressive templating, Oosh, or whoever you are. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of banned users MfD

Hi ImprovingWiki. Thanks for taking the time to comment on option 1 of the proposals for change at the list of banned users. It's clear that there's sufficient support that it will not be SNOW closed, so I've listed it at MfD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). I thought it appropriate to keep you informed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche

FYI [1] — goethean 14:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goethe's Religious View

I am amazed that you said I gave "no reason" for reverting his revert when you explicitly read my reply to Gothean explaining why his reason for reverting what I posted was factually incorrect and showed an ignorance of the historical method. Earlier accounts are always more reliable than later one's with reference to a particular person or event because they are less corrupted by later fabrications and additions. This is a very common fact, and I will happily further elaborate if you are still confused as to why I reverted his undue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You gave no reason in your edit summary. It's considered appropriate to do that, and failure to do it can be one reason for reverting an edit. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there was not enough room to explain why the User who reverted why I wrote was factually incorrect, but I did do so on his own TalkPage, which you clearly saw, so you were dishonest when you said that I did not do so. What I've added to Goethe's religious views is valuable information that, above all, contains truth and is well-documented unlike the New Atheist, propaganda driven historiography that largely permeates Wikipedia. You are only doing the website a disservice by hiding that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in arguing with people who spuriously accuse of me of dishonesty. When I said you gave no reason for your revert, I meant that you gave no reason in your edit summary, which indeed you did not. You would do better to take any further comments to the article's talk page. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am just frustrated by much of the New Atheist dishonesty and fabrication that so pervades our society, and especially Wikipedia, so I apologize for being unduly critical of your actions. I have given a reason now, so I hope that you will allow the valuable information from a famous scientific study conducted by one of the greatest psychometricians in the 20th Century to remain unedited. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to have an agreement about? You wanted a reason for the edit and I gave a logically coherent one. What else is bothering you with what I've written other than the fact that it doesn't portray Goethe as a vitriolic atheist opposed to the core tenets of Christianity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to post on the talk page without editing it. How am I going to have a conversation there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting

Okay, it is clear to me that you have no interest in defending your actions, rather merely to silence me. In that case, please tell me who I can report your account to? I do not believe you should be in a position to edit other peoples contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot give a reason for why you disagree with me; only pretexts to hide the information that I posted, because you do not want anyone to think that Goethe was a Christian, even though such claims are corroborated by earlier and more reliable accounts. It is because of people like you that Wikipedia is regarded as a joke in the extant academy, and why teachers in universities and secondary schools alike refuse to accept it as a citation; you only have an interest in portraying your very distorted, infinitely biased, and atheistic view of history. Goethe would be appalled.

It is also out of your (or for that matter Gothean's) jurisdiction to edit or revert anyone's contribution because you "disagree" with it; you do not have any authority to remove information you don't want to be portrayed. If you invented Wikipedia and have listed it as a site promoting atheism (which it might as well do given you are generally the rule and not the exception), feel free to remove anything I post. But if the information I post is reliable, comes from a meritorious source, and is valuable for the purposes of who understanding who Goethe was and what he believed, than you have no business at all editing anything I post.

Revision as of 00:10, 22 September 2014 edit 108.215.8.245 (talk) →Reporting ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:14, 22 September 2014 edit undo 108.215.8.245 (talk) →Reporting Next edit →
Line 151:		Line 151:

	You cannot give a reason for why you disagree with me; only pretexts to hide the information that I posted, because you do not want anyone to think that Goethe was a Christian, even though such claims are corroborated by earlier and more reliable accounts. It is because of people like you that Wikipedia is regarded as a joke in the extant academy, and why teachers in universities and secondary schools alike refuse to accept it as a citation; you only have an interest in portraying your very distorted, infinitely biased, and atheistic view of history. Goethe would be appalled.		You cannot give a reason for why you disagree with me; only pretexts to hide the information that I posted, because you do not want anyone to think that Goethe was a Christian, even though such claims are corroborated by earlier and more reliable accounts. It is because of people like you that Wikipedia is regarded as a joke in the extant academy, and why teachers in universities and secondary schools alike refuse to accept it as a citation; you only have an interest in portraying your very distorted, infinitely biased, and atheistic view of history. Goethe would be appalled.

			It is also out of your (or for that matter Gothean's) jurisdiction to edit or revert anyone's contribution because you "disagree" with it; you do not have any authority to remove information you don't want to be portrayed. If you invented Wikipedia and have listed it as a site promoting atheism (which it might as well do given you are generally the rule and not the exception), feel free to remove anything I post. But if the information I post is reliable, comes from a meritorious source, and is valuable for the purposes of who understanding who Goethe was and what he believed, than you have no business at all editing anything I post.