Jump to content

User talk:184.74.22.161

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.74.22.161 (talk) at 07:59, 13 December 2010 (→Thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Same-sex marriage and the family. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (184.74.22.161) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! — Dædαlus Contribs 04:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOM article

Hi, anon. Thanks for your comments about the National Organization for Marriage article. If you have a moment, can you come back to the article's talk page and point out some more specific areas in which you think the article could be improved, and/or suggest resources to add balancing material? Without more specific criticisms, your edit to the article could be considered a drive-by tagging, and may be reversed without the improvements you're looking for being implemented. I look forward to working with you to make the article more balanced. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOM talk page

Hi, Nat disagrees with NOM on the merits but works exceptionally hard to edit in good faith and present neutrally. He also works harder than most to be courteous and fair. There's no reason to criticize his personal POV or insinuate that it's influenced the article; please just stick to substantive criticisms of the article so we can be productive. There's no reason to alienate the people who disagree with you but are most amenable to open discussion and article criticism, and Nat is an exceptional example of this sort of editor. To be clear, I don't think you said anything outrageous, I just fear that your comment re: Nat (and your general, nonspecific complaints about the tone) were unhelpful. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOM again

I wanted to thank you for your constructive suggestions some days back (and I'm sorry I just came across them) for improving neutrality of the article on NOM. Would you be willing to take a stab at actually authoring those specific changes? I've made a comment on the Talk page there indicating my support for the three specific changes you list, but suggesting that in terms of trying to improve the neutrality of the article that it might be better if a NOM supporter (or someone less in personal opposition to them than myself) was involved in the changes. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Same-sex marriage. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. For example, www.lifesitenews.com is not a reliable source. Phoenix of9 18:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who posted this, but thanks for giving your opinion on one of the sources that I cited to. I respectfully disagree, and will defend every source I've cited. Have a nice day!184.74.22.161 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Verifiability and please do not put garbage from lifesitenews.com to Wikipedia.
Also read WP:UNDUE. You cannot quote everyone that had a opinion. They need to be somehow significant. Phoenix of9 18:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Syrthiss (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syrthiss, if you look at the SSM article, you will see that I am hard at work addressing the concerns raised by the editor who has repeatedly zapped everything (not one edit--every single edit) that I have done on this article today. I have reverted absolutely nothing, but have merely restored the edits that were reverted improperly. I will be more than happy to address concerns on the talk page and work toward consensus, but I see no willingness on the part of the other editor. I visited the other editor's page to try to work this out, but the behavior continued. May I suggest that you remind the other editor that he/she, too, could be blocked? (I did not start this edit war). I noticed that your note on that user's page was a whole lot milder than the one I got from you. Thanks.184.74.22.161 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notice I left for you is the standard template {{uw-3rr}}. I'm sorry you feel it was harsh, but it is intended to stop disruptive behavior. As the other editor is already familiar with 3RR, and we have guidelines that I am not supposed to give templates to people who are familiar with editing issues I gave him a milder warning. In addition, the other editor has not reverted beyond 3 whereas I counted 4 for you. I believe that you are mistaken in the sentence I have reverted absolutely nothing, but have merely restored the edits that were reverted improperly: that is exactly what reversion is. There are very few specific cases that allow wholesale restoration of edits, and this is not one of them. I hope this helps, I see that you have taken some steps already in the edit history of the page. Syrthiss (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I actually didn't realize I was at four reverts, although I admit I wasn't keeping track. Sorry about that. I won't revert anything else in this particular "edit war"--I'll just seek third-party intervention if there are further problems. Thanks.184.74.22.161 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phoenix of9 18:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_the_New_Editor...tho I think this is an unnecessary escalation. Syrthiss (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing here to inform you that I have commented on the above discussion here. Tomayres (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Think Jimmy Wales Is Cool

Yes, I do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Violent_.2F_Hate_Speech_in_Wikipedia

184.74.22.161 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Same-sex marriage and the family. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. This will the last time I'm warning you about your sources. Read WP:V. Citing fringe groups (which is also a hate group) like you did in this edit [1] (ie:citing FRC) is not acceptable.Phoenix of9 19:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix_of9, it appears that even a rebuke from the founder of Wikipedia has not gotten through to you.

First of all, contrary to your comments, my edits to the Same-Sex Marriage and the Family article you referenced were fully and appropriately sourced.

Second of all, I totally disagree with your assertion that NARTH is a fringe organization.

Third, it is not inappropriate at all to cite to organizations that oppose LGBT parenting for data on the positions held by organizations that oppose LGBT parenting, or for data on the reasons given by those organizations for their position. In fact, it is perfectly appropriate. NARTH is a primary source for such information. I did not cite NARTH for the position held by the mainstream social science community, but for the position of those who oppose LGBT parenting. This information is important to provide balance in the article.

Fourth, your decision to label the Family Research Council--a nationally-known entity that may well be the foremost Christian advocacy organization in the United States--as a fringe group and a "hate" group is, quite simply, off the wall. If you want to waste your time and get batted down by an administrator, please feel free to go ahead and argue that point. The fact that you do not like an organization does not make it a fringe organization or a hate group. It's just absurd of you to make that claim here.

Fifth, if you have legitimate edits or concerns, I welcome them and will attempt to address them--as I have done. However, I see your latest "warning"--along with the accusation of hate speech and the rest of the nonsense you've tried to pull over the last few days--as nothing more than an effort to intimidate. That type of stuff just doesn't work with me--and it is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. In case you need clarification on that, feel free to revisit Jimmy Wales' comments to you.

Thanks.184.74.22.161 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your contributions. I can tell you are acclimating well to Wikipedia but feel free to throw any question you have my way. As I think you've found out by now most folks here are wonderfully nice but I would encourage you to look over Wikipedia's policies, specifically those regarding what material needs to be cited and what it can be cited with. - Schrandit (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks!184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of edit-warring over Pro-life

Unfortunately, you have made a number of changes to the article that other editors, including myself, have felt compelled to revert. Combined with the fact that you rarely explain yourself on article discussion pages, and we have a pattern of uncollaborative editing, or even edit-warring. Regardless of your views, which I am sympathetic with, this sort of behavior isn't acceptable. I'm going to ask you to please consider discussing your changes in advance, and especially after they are reverted. If you don't see a consensus supporting your desired edit, you should accept this and leave the article alone. Dylan Flaherty 06:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan, I respectfully disagree that I have been "uncollaborative," or that the changes I've made are unacceptable, any more than some of the reverts of my changes (some of which, quite frankly, make very little sense to me) are uncollaborative or unacceptable. Regarding the pro-life page, there is one particular edit that keeps getting reverted--even though I have addressed the purported reason that another editor made the revert in the first place. In that instance, I would see the other editor's behavior as uncollaborative. Also, it seems to me that you have only reverted a change I've made one time, and that there is pretty much only one other editor who has been reverting my edits. That is hardly a "pattern." So it seems to me that your lecture is a bit of an overreaction.
I often find discussing potential changes on the talk page to be a less-than-useful exercise. However, since this particular issue has been kicked back and forth several times, I will accept your suggestion that it be taken to the talk page--even though I have some issues with the rest of what you said. Have a nice evening.184.74.22.161 (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the responsibility of the editor making the change to ensure that the change is in line with consensus. The very fact that you rarely participate in article talk pages demonstrates your uncollaborative editing style, and your willingness to respond to WP:BRD reversions with counter-reversions is nothing short of edit-warring. Even now, you reverted before bringing the issue up on the talk page, which goes against BRD. Dylan Flaherty
Actually, if you look at the LGBT Parenting page, you will see one example of a situation where I have brought an issue to the talk page in a proactive fashion (not the issue I posted about today, but a previous section). Be careful not to broadbrush people based on one experience. And what happened to assuming good faith?!184.74.22.161 (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It died right around the time I looked at your pattern of contributions and noticed how few edits you made in the article-talk namespace and how quick you were (and still are!) to edit war. Dylan Flaherty 06:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reviewed the WP:BRD page and understand part of what you are saying. I would have been more receptive to your comments at the outset if your tone had been less condescending and obnoxious.
In reviewing the WP:BRD material, I found some helpful hints that I'd like to remind you of:
BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. Try an edit summary of "Let's talk about this; I'll start the discussion with a list of my objections" rather than "Undo. I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

Have a good night.184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:184.74.22.161&oldid=402108789"