User talk:Arlenmoller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Arlenmoller, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gscshoyru (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Reversed map, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Gscshoyru (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The psychological significance of reversed maps[edit]

I recently posted some information on a series of published social psychology studies concerning reversed maps that I co-authored with several colleagues (Meier, Moller, Chen, and Riemer-Peltz, 2011). Several days after adding the content the lead author on the paper was contacted by a PhD student in geography from the University of Cal Berkeley asking for a copy of the article -- a development that helped reinforce my confidence that the content I posted was indeed relevant to the entry for "Reversed Map."

I later made two additional edits. Edit #2 added a link to a "Rotatable Map Tool" -- an addition/edit that also seemed very relevant, yet for entirely different reasons than the above add/edit concerning the Meier et al (2011) article. Edit #3 added a link to a Forum Thread encouraging Google to return the free "Rotating Maps" tool to Google Maps, another topic which I would think many, many people interested in the utility of the "reversed map" concept might appreciate knowing about; again, this was a reason entirely independent of the reasons for making edit #1 and edit #2. Each time, I documented with a sentence or two a description of the edits I made.

Then on April 1st, you essentially deleted all 3 of my entries in one fell swoop, and without any explanation beyond "Reverted edits by Arlenmoller to last version by Ashmoo (GLOO)". There was also a note on my Talk page, but without any elaboration on your rationale for reverting the edits. I realize that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia contributing, but I consider myself a community member with something to offer, and this kind of sweeping revision without explanation is very amotivating for my future participation. I think each of the 3 edits I made were relevant, and each for distinct reasons. At the very least, I would like the opportunity to dialogue with you about this further before this matter is settled.

I'd also like to note that the Meier et al. (2011) article included a study that literally involved "reversing" the orientation of a map to see the psychological effect on participants. How can this not be relevant to a Wikipedia entry titled "Reversed Map"? Arlenmoller (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for reverting the whole of your contribution -- the bit at the end caught my eye, and it was because of that that the whole of your changes were reverted. There's nothing wrong with the first paragraph -- but your second paragraph and the links you added seem to be an attempt to canvas support for something, which is not what Wikipedia articles are for -- see WP:ADVERT, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI for the related policies. I've restored the first paragraph, since it was a good edit and improved the encyclopedia.
Also, sorry for the lack of explanation -- the tool that I'm currently using to fight vandalism (that's what the GLOO link was) doesn't allow you to pick a warning template the tool I used to use did, and so the template you received (the level 1 anti-vandalism template) didn't exactly pertain to why I reverted your edits. Plus, when I am fighting vandalism, I don't always take the time to notice anything beyond the obvious rules offense, which is why I missed the fact that the rest of what you added was good. I hope that this doesn't discourage you from future editing -- we'd love to have you, and every little edit helps -- so long as it doesn't violate policy, of course. Again, sorry for the revert of the good edit, and the lack of clarification when I reverted all your changes. Gscshoyru (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Apology accepted, and thank you for the explanation. I could see from your Talk page that you are a dedicated member of this community, and hence was confused by what happened. I see your point about the policy forbidding canvasing support for something (even a cause relevant to the entry). Arlenmoller (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)