Jump to content

User talk:75.2.209.226

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noraft (talk | contribs) at 06:49, 10 May 2010 (typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thanks-

Many thanks for your edits especially for reverting the vandalism in the van den Broek article. I hope you will sign up for an account and join the WikiProject Wisconsin. Thank you again-RFD (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! :-)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 I highly 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 (75.2.209.226) 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!--Newbiepedian 20:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work-

Many thanks for reverting vandalism with the Lucian Pulvermacher article-Keep up the good work-RFD (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Consider establishing a userid

Your contributions are well thought out and constructive although the use of an anonymous identity is maybe an area you might wish to reconsider. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic titles

I would appreciate it if you would direct me to the section of the MOS the refers to how to deal with academic titles as I have unable to locate it. Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard above, found it. Centpacrr (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks-

Again-keep up the good work! I hope you will reconsider and sign up for an account. We need you at WikiProject Wisconsin! Many thanks -RFD (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose

Your welcome, I missed a few things. But I'm glad to hear that the effort was appreciated. Sincerely -- Bullock ✉ 19:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed his edits and feel that they are within the WOC and POV standards as I understand them. The very stilted language has not been reintroduced, so the article remains readable. The subject is contentious, but the tone remains fairly objective. I will continue to monitor it for a while and elevate it if any serious violations are noted. Sincerely -- Bullock ✉ 20:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

Hello. First, I'd like to say that I appreciate your "activeness" in editing Wikipedia. In the course of preparing to make a statement regarding the Stephen Ambrose situation, I took a look at your edit history, and I'd like to bring up something that is of concern to me: the way you communicate with your fellow editors.

  • I would encourage you to read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars and think about what it says. You're putting vandalism warnings on the pages of someone with over 7,000 edits, and someone else near 35,000. How is this constructive? Do you think those people are going to see this warning and think "Wow, I didn't realize I was vandalizing the encyclopedia! I should stop."
  • We're all here to build an encyclopedia, in a spirit of mutual collaboration. The tone of the following comments is of concern:
    1. In other words, don't claim to be making "corrections", when what you are actually doing is edit warring about wording that has nothing whatsoever to do with historical accuracy, and don't claim to be making "grammar tweaks" when all you're doing is changing the wording. Professional writers make a distinction between word choice and grammar. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC) (said to a user with 7000 edits and no history of edit warring [1])
    2. The first sentence refers to a time period in the past; hence it uses the past tense. The second sentence refers to a time period in the present; hence it uses the present tense. I can recommend a couple of good grammar books, if you like. It seems to me that your time reverting such changes and issuing vandalism warnings about them is not well spent. And you obviously haven't learned to avoid discussion about such things. Perhaps 90% of the vandalism you identify comes from IP addresses. Whether the edits you revert are actual vandalism or false positives is another matter. Further, it doesn't mean that 90% of all vandalism comes from anonymous editors, just that 90% of your reverts are of IP addresses. This could just be a reflection of your bias. I can also recommend some good books on statistics and logic. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC) (said to a user with almost 35,000 edits [2])
    3. Read, and read carefully. You really need to pay attention to what you're doing and to what you claim others are doing. I do not "keep speedying it." It was speedily deleted once by someone else, recreated by the original editor once, and then I requested a speedy delete, based on the reasoning of the first administrator. Sheesh! The inconsistencies in the administration of WP give me the heebeejeebees! 75.2.209.226 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC) (said to a user with over 12,000 edits [3])
  • The following edit summaries are also of concern:
    1. (→Rankings: enough already!)
    2. (reverting vandalism - User:Centpacrr has repeatedly been warned not to use academic titles per WP:MOS)
    3. (→Inaccuracies: wordy, wordy, wordy, wordy, wordy -or- Why use 10 words when you can use 100?)
    4. (really lousy writing; still needs a lot of work)
    5. (Undid revision 360320341 by Centpacrr (talk)Don't play innocent; you know perfectly well what the problem is.)
    6. (→Inaccuracies: pseudo-sophisticated, pretentious writing)
    7. (→Other sites: unsourced drivel)
    8. (executive produced?? learn some English)
    9. (→Nature vs. nurture: huh?? this is gibberish)
    10. (now that's a short attention span - by the time you've gotten to the end of the sentence you've already forgotten the first two words of the senttence)

...and those are just in the last two and a half weeks.

I find it ironic that the very first time you ever posted to a user talk page you applied an assume good faith template to a user with over 2,000 edits...when you had 63 edits, and then went on to not assume good faith by applying vandalism tags to users who were clearly not acting in bad faith (which is a requirement for something to be called vandalism).

I think that there are more collaborative ways to go about making your points. How would you react if someone talked to you that way? Would it make you feel defensive? Have you ever had someone say something like "Learn some English" and then responded positively? These people here, editing Wikipedia, are volunteers for a non-profit association. They deserve to be treated with a basic level of respect, even if they've broken a rule or acted outside a guideline, much less disagree with you about something.

The reason I've chosen to write this long message to you is because I have never edited the same article as you, and I'm not "for" or "against" any of the groups, facts, or opinions that you (or anyone you have edited alongside) are. I have never notice your username until today. There is no evidence of ulterior motives (helping out a friend, bad faith because I'm bitter about some past conflict, etc.). And because I'm "clean," you (and possibly future admin if you continue on this path) will not be destracted by these possibilities and have to deal with what I'm saying on the strength of the statements.

You may notice that I'm mentioning the edit counts of some of the individuals you've been communicating with. This isn't because someone with more edits is somehow superior; they are not (see my userpage for more evidence of that belief). However, a longer history provides more documentation of past behavior, and these editors do not have a history of vandalism, poor choices in grammar, edit warring, or anything else you may be accusing them of. Assuming that your goal in communicating with these users is to get them to alter their behavior (stop doing something, start doing something, do something differently, etc.), your communication style is inhibiting you from achieving that goal: The regulars aren't going to respond in such a way that your goal is met. Then they may be frustrated, you may be frustrated, not a good situation for anyone.

I think you have a great amount of energy, and I appreciate all the constructive work you've done on this encyclopedia; the sum of human knowledge is better for it. My hope is that one day we can all share the spirit of mutual collaboration and disagree without disrespect. Thanks for reading this far. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 06:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.2.209.226&oldid=361227319"