User talk:97.100.176.192

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

re: Your edits[edit]

Hello, here is the relevant Wikipedia guideline on linking WP:OVERLINK. Some of the items listed to not be wikilinked include "plain English words" and "major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions". "American", "politician", and "author" are extremely common English words (to use examples from your edits). And I cannot imagine that anyone who is able to read the English Wikipedia does not know what a "real estate agent" and "television personaility" is though perhaps the latter might warrant a link. SQGibbon (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Words yes, common occupations, no. I've actually did brief research on several articles with media figures in them, including authors, and a majority of those words are infact wikilinked. Please see the discussion at WP:Help Desk at the bottom of the page. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
That other editors wikilink those words does not mean that doing so follows the guidelines. And again, if someone doesn't know what an "American" or a "politician" is, then it is very unlikely that they'll be able to understand anything written in Wikipedia regardless of the wikilinks used. I've responded at the reference desk already. SQGibbon (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Mariah Carey, is an example and that article is FEATURED; Wikipedia's finest. The subjects in question are celebrities, my area of focus, in which their occupations by no means are at all common. Singers, Actors, Musicians, TV Hosts etc --97.100.176.192 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The question is not whether the occupation is common but if the words themselves are. "American", "singer", "actor", "actress" are all commonly understood words. And again, it does not matter if other editors make edits that don't follow the guidelines. Also, the Mariah Carey article was first promoted in 2006 and upheld in 2007. That's a very long time in Wikipedia terms, consensus and standard practice changes. Let's look at a more recent FA from just a few days ago, Charles Stewart (Canadian politician). Notice that "Canadian" and "politician" are not wikilinked. SQGibbon (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
politician is not, possibly by choice of the article creator or fellow editor. At any rate, the point is if someone chose to wikilink it then it shouldn't be a problem. The articles I'm focusing on are celebrities, which can range extremely in their professions. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
"Politician" is not wikilinked because it's against the guidelines. Choosing to wikilink it is a problem because it is against the guidelines. It does not matter at all that you are focusing on celebrities as the relevant guideline applies to "all of Wikipedia" and not "all of Wikipedia except articles on celebrities". For instance, from WP:CONLIMITED "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Your position has not achieved a consensus within the relevant subprobject and certainly has not achieved consensus among the community at large. SQGibbon (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not know where you are getting this so-called 'consensus' from; there is no proof of a formal vote, the Help Desk is just an area to receive advice, not to cast formal votes. Also, your claim against 'guidelines' holds no merit as guidelines are merely just that and NOT policies. Per WP:BOLD I have undid your edits. If you wish to open a Request for Action, a vote, in regards to it then feel free to, otherwise I will continue to edit the pages I feel needed. Thanks. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
What I said is that you have not achieved any kind of consensus in support of your actions. If you wish to create an exception to WP:OVERLINK then you need to bring it up there and work to change consensus, until then we should follow the community-wide consensus that created that guideline in the first place. Currently you are acting against community consensus. As for the Help desk, several editors provided the same explanation for the guideline. Also, you clearly misunderstand what guidelines on Wikipedia are, from WP:GUIDELINES "Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts." There is nothing here to indicate that you can edit Wikipedia however you want ignoring community consensus. Please stop editing against community consensus until such time you are able to change that consensus. SQGibbon (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I've chose to discontinue this discussion and continue seeing what I can work on, as I was, before you blatantly reverted my edits, irregardless of wither other people were involved. Your vendetta is inappropriate so I've chosen to cease against your misguided claims and personal agenda. Hopefully, you can learn that Wikipedia is free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and not just you. Like I said, since you are the disagreeing party, follow whatever procedure you need to in order to stop it; since I'm just a random I.P. user and obviously don't know what to do. WP:BITE - Have a good day! --97.100.176.192 (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit but that does not mean that anyone can put anything they want into Wikipedia. There are many, many policies and guidelines that govern the nature and content of the edits that are allowed. These policies and guidelines are the results of the consensus worked out by thousands of editors over the years. We are all expected to follow those policies and guidelines even when we disagree with them. If you think a guideline or policy can be improved upon then please bring it up at the relevant talk page. Until you can affect that change then you, like the rest of us, should respect the consensus view of the Wikipedia community and follow the policies and guidelines.
This is nothing personal against you. If you look through my edit history you'll see that I spend a lot of time cleaning up articles. Sometimes it's overlinking like in this situation, sometimes it's spelling or grammar, sometimes formatting issues, sometimes the overuse of flag icons, and often just plain ol' vandalism. That's how I spend my time on Wikipedia—cleaning up articles. I welcome all constructive additions to Wikipedia because I know that I cannot possibly work on all 4 million or so articles and I'm grateful that people give of their time to contribute content to articles. I just clean up after them, it's a modest effort but it goes toward presenting a clean and consistent encyclopedia for all of our readers. So please, continue to add good content to articles and if it happens that something gets reverted because it doesn't follow a certain guideline or policy don't worry about. I've had hundreds of edits reverted over the years because of some guideline somewhere that I was not aware of. In those cases I read the guidelines and have done my best to understand them and make them a part of my editing habits. It's all just part of the process in editing and learning how to edit Wikipedia. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012[edit]

Rmhermen, you are purposely reverting the edits even as an active discussion regarding this is taking place at the Help Desk. See section for details. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 97.100.176.192. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 03:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 03:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

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 without logging in, but many editors 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 (97.100.176.192) 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! Drewerd (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --97.100.176.192 (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Eyesnore. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Eco, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Eyesnore (pending changes) 01:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)