→Awesome: someone went onto talk page and changed paragraphs above - vandalism |
|||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
==Awesome == |
==Awesome == |
||
I am energetically going to "discuss" this issue listed above (5/21/13 posted, this post from 5/22/13) |
I am energetically going to "discuss" this issue listed above (5/21/13 posted, this post from 5/22/13). One editor who consistently goes around deleting information with no reason and offering no reasonable explanation is launching a full-out campaign to get me to stop contributing to Wikipedia. |
||
I have no problem when "editors" make well-informed edits/deletes that serve to add to the quality of the page, but I do think that it is a large problem for all of Wikipedia, not just me, when people just go around deleting so that they can feel some personal worth deleting content from a bedroom in their parent's house. |
|||
⚫ | This is an interesting campaign from this editor that has to be under 15 years old. For one, it illustrates the vagary of the editor landscape on Wikipedia. Some editors will propose deleting an entire section by putting it on the talk page – a form of a compromise. Other editors will lash out |
||
⚫ | This is an interesting campaign from this editor that has to be under 15 years old. For one, it illustrates the vagary of the editor landscape on Wikipedia. Some editors will propose deleting an entire section by putting it on the talk page – a form of a compromise. Other editors will lash out and delete entries without a sufficient explanation. I think deleting can certainly add value in some cases, but when the editor is simply deleting to feel some form of power – THAT is a problem for Wikipedia as a whole. |
||
== May 2013 == |
== May 2013 == |
Revision as of 12:13, 23 May 2013
Tatesullivan, you are invited to the Teahouse
Hi Tatesullivan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Feedback to people that edit my postings
Using same/similar formatting as before: If I think a previously used table is useless, I will change it. If an editor comes back to me with valid feedback on why appropriate to keep the original formatting, I will understand. When I don't understand an edit is when they simply revert to the old formatting/post without feedback.
My interpretation of "encyclopedic": I don't offer my interpretation of facts, but I do take the mosaic of facts and use that mosaic to make unbiased factual observations. Sometimes editors will say "original research", but for example if a company has a decline in operating margins, the calculation of those operating margins is not "original research."
Plot summaries for tvs/movies concise and to the point: Some summaries on wikipedia have tons of detail and some don't. If a person is willing to put in more details about a summary, then an editor should not just delete those extra details and say "superfluous", in my opinion. What is superfluous to a random editor may be a useful point of edification for another user.
Opinions versus facts: Of course a page shouldn't have an opinion, but if the writers of a show/movie use plot devices to move a story forward and there is enough supporting detail to explain the motivations of characters, then I think that should be in there.
LAST: if an editor disagrees with my posts, always put in an explanation of why you changed it. I have had multiple instances of an editor taking away one of my postings and then changing it in minor details and then claiming that post as their own.
Warning on your edits and behavior
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Awesome
I am energetically going to "discuss" this issue listed above (5/21/13 posted, this post from 5/22/13). One editor who consistently goes around deleting information with no reason and offering no reasonable explanation is launching a full-out campaign to get me to stop contributing to Wikipedia.
I have no problem when "editors" make well-informed edits/deletes that serve to add to the quality of the page, but I do think that it is a large problem for all of Wikipedia, not just me, when people just go around deleting so that they can feel some personal worth deleting content from a bedroom in their parent's house.
This is an interesting campaign from this editor that has to be under 15 years old. For one, it illustrates the vagary of the editor landscape on Wikipedia. Some editors will propose deleting an entire section by putting it on the talk page – a form of a compromise. Other editors will lash out and delete entries without a sufficient explanation. I think deleting can certainly add value in some cases, but when the editor is simply deleting to feel some form of power – THAT is a problem for Wikipedia as a whole.
May 2013
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Toddst1 (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)