Sticky Parkin (talk | contribs) refs |
→Sandbox: adding creating a subpage link |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
No but what you can get away with on wiki depends on your own status or your opponent's status.:) I don't think Seattle94 will keep it up for long. With your current position, the best response would probably be to use it as an excuse to make your edit cast-iron. Make yourself impeccable- add sources to your edits, and mention and discuss changes you make to an article on the talk page. I'm not saying your edits are bad, but that at this point you would do best if they were ultra-good and your conduct ultra-perfect. It's like the editor equivalent of having the moral high ground. Some of those 'following' you then won't be able to compete, and it'd be difficult for anyone to get you into trouble. Don't revert at the moment- rather than revert someone, discuss the disagreement on the talk page of the article or their talk page, and come to a compromise. Particularly with these 'enemies'- if they suggest they have a problem with an edit of yours, go to their talk page and be wonderfully polite in discussion with them, then your actions are there for all to see. (Sometimes keeping your hed down and not interacting too much with those people is good too, though.) After a while this will show your edits and conduct to be of an irreprachable standard and then you can approach people about any problems you have with other users, or others will take action for you. At the moment, righhtly or wrongly, you're in a position of having to prove or justify yourself to avoid block, and that's what you should focus on a bit- through your edits and actions, rather than through trying to get the other in trouble. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong about some of these people :) - I've not looked at all the details. Ignore the person as a person, (concentrate on encyclopedia content, not editors' actions/personalities) improve your own edits to the ''article'' etc in response. None of this is to criticise you or say you are wrong. Hope this gives you some inspiration as to how to deal with the situation. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 10:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC) |
No but what you can get away with on wiki depends on your own status or your opponent's status.:) I don't think Seattle94 will keep it up for long. With your current position, the best response would probably be to use it as an excuse to make your edit cast-iron. Make yourself impeccable- add sources to your edits, and mention and discuss changes you make to an article on the talk page. I'm not saying your edits are bad, but that at this point you would do best if they were ultra-good and your conduct ultra-perfect. It's like the editor equivalent of having the moral high ground. Some of those 'following' you then won't be able to compete, and it'd be difficult for anyone to get you into trouble. Don't revert at the moment- rather than revert someone, discuss the disagreement on the talk page of the article or their talk page, and come to a compromise. Particularly with these 'enemies'- if they suggest they have a problem with an edit of yours, go to their talk page and be wonderfully polite in discussion with them, then your actions are there for all to see. (Sometimes keeping your hed down and not interacting too much with those people is good too, though.) After a while this will show your edits and conduct to be of an irreprachable standard and then you can approach people about any problems you have with other users, or others will take action for you. At the moment, righhtly or wrongly, you're in a position of having to prove or justify yourself to avoid block, and that's what you should focus on a bit- through your edits and actions, rather than through trying to get the other in trouble. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong about some of these people :) - I've not looked at all the details. Ignore the person as a person, (concentrate on encyclopedia content, not editors' actions/personalities) improve your own edits to the ''article'' etc in response. None of this is to criticise you or say you are wrong. Hope this gives you some inspiration as to how to deal with the situation. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 10:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::As another user said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Butte%2C_Montana&diff=220496641&oldid=220493239] you need to add references for what you put, especially if it involves real people. If you add good refs with your comments (from newspapers etc) it's not as easy for others to revert them and your work doesn't end up undone, and you have 'proof' for what you add. Hope this helps. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 14:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC) |
::As another user said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Butte%2C_Montana&diff=220496641&oldid=220493239] you need to add references for what you put, especially if it involves real people. If you add good refs with your comments (from newspapers etc) it's not as easy for others to revert them and your work doesn't end up undone, and you have 'proof' for what you add. Hope this helps. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 14:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Sandbox == |
|||
I saw that you copied the Murder of Joseph Didier article to your user page. That is completely appropriate, as I don't doubt that you intend to work on it and try and find more references. However, Wikipedians generally don't use their user pages for this, but rather they create a sandbox. You can do this by copying the text into something like [[User:Presumptive/sandbox]] or [[User:Presumptive/Garage working area]]. Here's a [[Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_create_a_user_subpage.3F|link]] you might find helpful. Just a suggestion to help keep your user page tidy. [[User:AniMate|<font face="papyrus" color="Black">A</font>]][[User talk:AniMate|<font face="papyrus" color="Green">ni</font>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<font face="papyrus" color="Black">Mate</font>]] 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:49, 26 June 2008
AfD nomination of Murder of Joseph Didier
I have nominated Murder of Joseph Didier, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Joseph Didier. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Presumptive, it appears that you have copied this article word for word from various sentences located here. That is massive violation of Wikipedia's rules about copyrights. You should probably address this here or on the AfD page. AniMate 07:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just so you know I decided to ask for broader input from the community at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Presumptive. AniMate 07:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes navigating Wikipedia can be hard for new users. You've made some mistakes, but I do want you to continue to feel welcome. A good way to get advice about the workings of this place is to get adopted. Might I recommend WP:ADOPT? It's a great place to find experienced users willing to mentor newer contributors. AniMate 09:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Responding to your comment on my talkpage, it seems that copyvio defeated this one. There is no rule saying that an article can't be recreated after deletion. If you decide to do so, I recommend spending time first to make sure content and sources meet Wikipedia standards and policy and material considered copyvio is not included. 23skidoo (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, you can re-create an article after speedy deletion, but not after a formal AfD process. The reason is that a speedy deletion is not debated by the Wikipedia community but an AfD is, and hence carries more authority. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the onus is on the person creating and championing an article. I've learned that if you can't easily find sources -- or if those sources are exclusively print and hard to find via the Internet -- then it's better to not bother, otherwise it's just upsetting when an article gets AFD'd. 23skidoo (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Murder of Joseph Didier
I have nominated Murder of Joseph Didier, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Joseph Didier (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Debate 木 06:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not following you around, but it's just that you posted the Sam Swope article during the time that I was on new-page patrol to get rid of vandalism articles. I marked your article for speedy deletion, then you posted it again after speedy deletion. When an author does that, I (and other editors) put the offending author on a watchlist for a while, which means that any action that author takes is flagged for attention. That's why several editors and administrators, myself included, have stayed on your case — you've been attracting unwanted attention to yourself.
- You keep making all these claims about Swope being an award-winning author, and thousands of people signing petitions and such, but you continue to offer no proof of these claims.
WRONG: THE AWARDS WERE MENTIONED IN THE WEBSITE. Therefore, we cannot verify these claims and cannot consider them to be accurate. Please read this page to see what we consider to be reliable sources. Please note that references do not have to be available online — that's impossible for many older references — but they do have to be legitimate references that at least someone can look up at a library. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- The proof is in the references. The reference said 51,700 + 2,100, not me. I'm shocked that over 50,000 signatures from a town of 150,000 and something that was 35 years ago but then there was a lot of fear at the time it happenend.Presumptive (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder: Erasing warning messages from your talk page does not make them go away. Editors and admins can easily retrieve them at will to see the record of warnings you have been issued. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Housekeeping is allowed. Furthermore, rather than dispute certain warnings which can cause hurt feelings, housekeeping is sometimes the best way. I have read the messages and improved in some ways where the suggestion was, in my opinion, helpful. Please be helpful, not critical. Presumptive (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, housekeeping is allowed, but it is commonplace for new users who have had several warnings issued to them to erase them, thinking the problem will go away. It will not, and furthermore, if an admin is about to post a warning here and sees a record of previous higher-level warnings in your talk-page history, he or she is not likely to treat you as favorably, and may be more likely to block you. Just sayin'. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is also not kosher to delete another user's comment, then mischaracterize them with a so-called "summary." You're wearing out your Wikipedia welcome. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You can tell your e-mail buddies...
...to lay off the rude comments on my talk page. If they wish to comment on the AfD (even if you've recruited them), they can sign up for a user name here and post their comments themselves, instead of having you act as a go-between. Until that time, their comments carry no credibility. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I have never asked anyone to place any comments, rude or otherwise, on your page. On the contrary, I am a polite and restrained person. There is a difference between my asking people for ideas on how to explain notability and what you are accusing me of. There are so many thousands of bad articles (press random articles on the left) that I am at a loss why you keep hounding me. Let's try to be polite and keep a bit of distance, at least for a week or two. Presumptive (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I created a version that stands up to scrutiny. I believe that you're trying to do good work for Wikipedia, but you're shooting yourself in the foot by being so combative. Please cool down, and discontinue (if you haven't already) the canvassing efforts. Realkyhick (talk · contribs) is a very knowledgeable editor who can be an excellent resource...there's no need to be adversarial. — Scientizzle 23:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
adoption
Let's go for it.:)
This is a box you can put on your user page. Now you will have to be good and not bring shame upon our family name (joke.) "Presumptive Parkin" sounds quite good actually.:) So, there's a lot of issues people seem to be going on about, perhaps we could move to email just so we can discuss things in more depth. I haven't read through all the ins and outs of what you've supposedly done yet:) But I can see you want to create articles and I think you will lead to some good ones being created, or other articles being improved. Sticky Parkin 13:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
"To improve the article, I named the section something like "Station owner controversy and criticism". That is a more fair summary and establishes the extent of notability, i.e. a station dispute."
The thing is it's not just a station dispute because he got in the papers etc. If he'd just got in the local paper or written a blog of his own about it, then that wouldn't really be notable, but he got national press for his antics/death.[1] (I use google news a lot to see if something has references in WP:RS- it's very useful.) It's not entirely biased, because it includes the fact that the station owner lost the case. Also- this is an encyclopedia and not many people would know what zone pricing is etc.
The C+C heading may be there so that more could be added in future. Perhaps you could add more so it's not just this single, lesser criticism? Then it would justify its heading, and there'd no longer be an argument about the heading. As you say, it's unlikely to be the only criticism. Or you could include a sentence or so about the response from Shell explaining why they charged him what they did or whatever, so their viewpoint is explained. Add sources, then it's much harder for people to justify simply undoing your edit.
"Is following someone you don't like and changing edits appropriate?"
No but what you can get away with on wiki depends on your own status or your opponent's status.:) I don't think Seattle94 will keep it up for long. With your current position, the best response would probably be to use it as an excuse to make your edit cast-iron. Make yourself impeccable- add sources to your edits, and mention and discuss changes you make to an article on the talk page. I'm not saying your edits are bad, but that at this point you would do best if they were ultra-good and your conduct ultra-perfect. It's like the editor equivalent of having the moral high ground. Some of those 'following' you then won't be able to compete, and it'd be difficult for anyone to get you into trouble. Don't revert at the moment- rather than revert someone, discuss the disagreement on the talk page of the article or their talk page, and come to a compromise. Particularly with these 'enemies'- if they suggest they have a problem with an edit of yours, go to their talk page and be wonderfully polite in discussion with them, then your actions are there for all to see. (Sometimes keeping your hed down and not interacting too much with those people is good too, though.) After a while this will show your edits and conduct to be of an irreprachable standard and then you can approach people about any problems you have with other users, or others will take action for you. At the moment, righhtly or wrongly, you're in a position of having to prove or justify yourself to avoid block, and that's what you should focus on a bit- through your edits and actions, rather than through trying to get the other in trouble. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong about some of these people :) - I've not looked at all the details. Ignore the person as a person, (concentrate on encyclopedia content, not editors' actions/personalities) improve your own edits to the article etc in response. None of this is to criticise you or say you are wrong. Hope this gives you some inspiration as to how to deal with the situation. Sticky Parkin 10:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- As another user said [2] you need to add references for what you put, especially if it involves real people. If you add good refs with your comments (from newspapers etc) it's not as easy for others to revert them and your work doesn't end up undone, and you have 'proof' for what you add. Hope this helps. Sticky Parkin 14:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sandbox
I saw that you copied the Murder of Joseph Didier article to your user page. That is completely appropriate, as I don't doubt that you intend to work on it and try and find more references. However, Wikipedians generally don't use their user pages for this, but rather they create a sandbox. You can do this by copying the text into something like User:Presumptive/sandbox or User:Presumptive/Garage working area. Here's a link you might find helpful. Just a suggestion to help keep your user page tidy. AniMate 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)