User talk:Props888: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:25, 1 April 2011

Welcome!

Hello, Props888, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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! --Cailil ^talk 13:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to talk pages

Hello, Props888. Another editor has asked me to take a look at your edits to article talk pages, such as this one or this one. While I don't have an opinion about the issues at stake there, I agree that the tone of the messages makes them less useful than they might otherwise be. Please allow me the suggestion that you may be able to get your point across more effectively by refraining from broad generalizations or statements of opinion about potentially controversial issues, and from doubting the good faith of others. Rather, I recommend that you identify particular parts of the article that you think are deficient, explain why that is so on the basis of reliable sources, and propose a specific improved wording as the basis of a constructive discussion. Regards, Sandstein 07:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although those edits were from a while ago, I do admit that some portions of the edits contained some soapboxing, however I provided an RS for my claim and I don't believe I was not assuming good faith as I was reacting to the previous editors who were the ones failing to assume good faith by making assumptions from my name in addition to soapboxing.

Revision as of 07:35, 1 April 2011 edit Sandstein (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 187,773 edits →Your contributions to talk pages: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:25, 1 April 2011 edit undo Props888 (talk \| contribs) 43 edits m →Your contributions to talk pages Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Hello, Props888. Another editor has [[User talk:Sandstein#Props888\|asked me]] to take a look at your edits to article talk pages, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&diff=prev&oldid=415594685 this one] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&diff=prev&oldid=418705281 this one]. While I don't have an opinion about the issues at stake there, I agree that the tone of the messages makes them less useful than they might otherwise be. Please allow me the suggestion that you may be able to get your point across more effectively by refraining from [[WP:SOAP\|broad generalizations or statements of opinion]] about potentially controversial issues, and from [[WP:AGF\|doubting the good faith]] of others. Rather, I recommend that you identify particular parts of the article that you think are deficient, explain why that is so on the basis of [[WP:RS\|reliable sources]], and propose a specific improved wording as the basis of a constructive discussion. Regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein\|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 07:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)		Hello, Props888. Another editor has [[User talk:Sandstein#Props888\|asked me]] to take a look at your edits to article talk pages, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&diff=prev&oldid=415594685 this one] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&diff=prev&oldid=418705281 this one]. While I don't have an opinion about the issues at stake there, I agree that the tone of the messages makes them less useful than they might otherwise be. Please allow me the suggestion that you may be able to get your point across more effectively by refraining from [[WP:SOAP\|broad generalizations or statements of opinion]] about potentially controversial issues, and from [[WP:AGF\|doubting the good faith]] of others. Rather, I recommend that you identify particular parts of the article that you think are deficient, explain why that is so on the basis of [[WP:RS\|reliable sources]], and propose a specific improved wording as the basis of a constructive discussion. Regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein\|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 07:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
			:Although those edits were from a while ago, I do admit that some portions of the edits contained some soapboxing, however I provided an RS for my claim and I don't believe I was not assuming good faith as I was reacting to the previous editors who were the ones failing to assume good faith by making assumptions from my name in addition to soapboxing.