User talk:IBeatAnorexia

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

Please discuss changes to important rules on their talk pages before just changing them, as you did to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Thank you. timrem 18:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

Dear IBeatAnorexia: I greatly appreciate your desire to improve Wikipedia through redefinition of this pivotal guideline, and I do also understand what you are trying to convey by changing it. Indeed, I can see that there is some merit in your new definition - there has been significant unrest caused by overly broad interpretations of IAR. However, if I may, I would like to set before you some issues which you may have not considered in your rewrite.

I think you should understand that IAR is a long-standing tenet of Wikipedia, and the cases where IAR has caused difficulty are generally those where it has been applied out of proportion. Moreover, I think your view that the rules are an essential part of Wikipedia's functional structure is not one which is shared unequivocally by all Wikipedians, and I also believe that the majority of long-standing users will agree with me that the contrary is true. The rules exist as a series of guidelines for the sake of expedience, and what takes precedent is not the adherence to those rules but the achievement of our goal - to build an encyclopedia. The adherence to rules at the expense of this outcome is, in my view, senseless; for what are we trying to achieve here on Wikipedia other than this objective? Certainly, a community has formed, but that community should serve this goal, rather than vice versa.

The serious difficulty with modifying a long-standing construct such as this is that people have formed the manner in which they conduct tasks on Wikipedia around this ethos, and to change that at a point where the construct is accepted as the norm is unlikely to be successful, especially where that change narrows the scope significantly. Unfortunately, as a consequence, your change is liable to be reverted - but if you discuss what you feel should be modified in a collaborative manner, it may provide the impetus of change you are looking for. I hope you will take this as an opportunity to perhaps follow what I think you are, yourself, trying to seek to implement on Wikipedia - decision-making via consensus rather than unilateral judgement - by taking this to consensus rather than repeatedly changing the IAR document to your version.

Thank you very much for reading through this (slightly lengthy) explanation, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. If I may be of any assistance to you in the future, please do let me know. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of the few kind users that I have had the fortune of dealing with. It seems that there are very few that assume good faith, and try to be respectful and complacent as much as you do. Why are most people on Wikipedia so uptight? Why are they even here? To be a truly productive Wikipedian is extremely demanding, I can understand that. Not only do they have to go through the research to make an article great, they also need to debate (sometimes for months) just to reach an ultimate decision of inclusion of what they have worked so hard to write. Finally, Wikipedia would be a great place if everyone were as patient and long-suffering as you have projected yourself to be. Keep it up. IBeatAnorexia 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IBeatAnorexia: I am most extremely thankful, and deeply honoured, by your kind words to me; I fear I may, in actuality, fall rather short of your impression of me. I do, however, endeavour to make a specific point of being respectful to other users, and doing my best to assist those I collaborate with, principally because I feel there is absolutely nothing to lose by doing so, and a great deal to gain, in terms of building a better editing environment here on Wikipedia. I would like to see an environment where users can actually enjoy their work, without fear of heated dispute nor debasement by others, versus dreading the arrival of a new message on their talk-page for fear of the impact that message may hold upon their psyche.

I agree with your assessment above wholeheartedly; it is a deeply saddening state of affairs. So many users appear to have inexorable difficulty assuming good faith; unfortunately, I think this is a result of the precedent for rancorous argument which has evolved due to content disputes between users, rather than an open-minded approach of finding common ground. I also think that some editors cannot see past their own viewpoints and constantly take an adversarial approach rather than one of peaceful collaboration, in defence of their own position so as to maintain it. As you point out, Wikipedia editing becomes an extremely demanding task if one is to undertake it in a manner which actually achieves something. This is one of my strongest regrets of the Wikipedia project as it stands. I myself have, until very recently, taken an extended hiatus from Wikipedia, owing to my growing frustration at this status quo. But this is something I hope I may, in some small fashion, be able to work towards the reversal of; and this is why I have recently returned to editing.

Hypocrisy regarding policy has become rife throughout Wikipedia: people tend to choose a self-exculpatory interpretation of it, sadly, especially when it comes to the assumption of good faith and the flexibility of rules. There is really no defensible excuse for this. But this is also the reason why I feel AGF should be kept broad, rather than narrowed-down, so as to act as one last avenue by which this hypocrisy might be circumvented by those users who actually wish to write encyclopaedic content. This remains, also, my motivation towards implementing mediation processes on Wikipedia.

I feel we need more people like yourself who are aware of this, and I hope you will join me in attempting to change Wikipedia for the better - to bring this ethos of unpleasant animosity, and constant warring, to a final close. I offer my sincerest hope that you will be able to make a difference in this regard, and you shall meet with the best of success in working on Wikipedia. Once again, I must thank you, most wholeheartedly, for your kind words; and I look forward to working with you in the future. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Scooping) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Iridescenti 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Scooping. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Canthusus 07:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of Scooping

Hello there IBeatAnorexia: This is Nicholas Turnbull again. I just happened to notice your creation of the Scooping article, and wondered if I might be able to assist by letting you know of a few things about what sort of content we usually expect on Wikipedia, and what form that content should take. I will try and summarise the basic criteria that we usually look for in Wikipedia content below and where the Scooping article failed to match them:-

Encyclopaedic content, context, and notability. In general, Wikipedia articles should be on topics that are relevant for inclusion within an encyclopaedia (in other words, have some sort of useful purpose within a reference document, if someone else was to look at it) and also be on subjects which are common enough to refer to a generally-known subject or phenomenon. Unfortunately, the Scooping article failed to contain any useful information towards either of these points, in that firstly 1) the subject matter you wrote about is not really the sort of thing that would be of general interest within an encyclopaedia; and 2) there is no information which suggests the importance of the subject, nor what context the information refers to.
Reference to external resources. Wikipedia is what is referred to as a "tertiary" source, in that it publishes material referenced from outside sources rather than publishing on the basis of first-hand knowledge. In other words, Wikipedia only writes about what others have already written about, referencing those sources. In this particular article, there is no supporting source to back up either the importance of this phenomenon, nor any external information to verify the validity of the content. Also, sources must be given rather than vague generalisations.
Neutral point of view (NPOV). Further to the above point about referencing, all Wikipedia articles should reference other sources rather than merely including data on the basis that the author feels it is "true" in some regard, and represent a balanced treatment of the various opinions involved in the subject. In this case, there were no direct violations of NPOV, although as noted above a lack of sources prevents the article from being neutral with regard to containing information only from external sources.

From our dialogue above, it is clear that you are trying to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, and so I felt it to be the best course of action to let you know how you can contribute without your material being removed. The other reason is that you can find yourself blocked from editing Wikipedia as a consequence of continued posting of material that does not conform to basic requirements. I thus hope that you will be able to help us make a better encyclopaedia, and work on producing relevant article content that is written in an encyclopaedic manner. I would suggest that you try working on existing articles rather than creating new ones to begin with, until you get a good sense of what is relevant to be included on Wikipedia and what isn't. I hope this may be of some assistance to you. Should you need any help regarding Wikipedia editing, please do let me know. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As your original Scooping article was deleted you may not have seen the note I left for you on its talk page regarding my retraction of my nomination for speedy deletion for the reasons you mentioned - if you can provide sources etc as per NicholasTurnbull above I'll happily contest any deletion nomination for the (recreated) article (although at the moment it seems more appropriate for Wiktionary than Wikipedia). - Iridescenti 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks - WP:NPA

Dear IBeatAnorexia: This is just a brief note to draw your attention to the policies Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility, in reference to this user talk page post and this article talk page post. In particular, one thing that alarmed me looking at these two posts is your use of "fag" and "gay admin"; please be aware homophobia really will not be tolerated here on Wikipedia - and especially not by me. I understand, though, you may have used them merely as general derogative words, rather than with specific reference to sexuality. Either way, though, please be civil to people on Wikipedia - it really does cost nothing, and it makes a better editing environment for us all. This is also, saddeningly, the time when I must inform you that future personal attacks and/or homophobic insults will result in a block from editing Wikipedia. Thank you very much. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your last comment on my talk page: I would like to apoligize in regards to my behavior recently on Wikipedia. I suppose that I became over-frustrated in my attempt to create new, interesting content. The way people are treated here just gets to me... Though I shouldn't lash back so readily. I understand that you have a job to do, and if you must block me from the project, that's soley your perogative, and I wouldn't blame you for it. Maybe it's time I move on, as Wikipedia is at a level higher than I can adequately cope with. IBeatAnorexia 23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IBeatAnorexia: Thank you for apologising; and, of course, I accept your apology. Everyone gets "hot under the collar" sometimes, especially when frustrated; but please rest assured the message above was a warning only, and I do not generally block users from editing Wikipedia merely on the basis of a couple of ill-judged talk page postings. I always try to allow a wide margin of good faith within reason, and it wasn't your anger which I took issue with - it was the unnecessary sexuality-related slurs, and the incivility. And so, as I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your apology, I expect that you won't make such slurs again, and so there will be no problem in the future. Thank you again, and if you feel yourself getting frustrated over something, remember I am at your service should you require my assistance. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for adminship

Dear IBeatAnorexia: Firstly, I'd like to say that I consider it greatly commendable that you would like to assist in making Wikipedia a better place via becoming an administrator, and I am sure that you have the best of intentions at heart in so doing. However, unfortunately, the Wikipedia community generally requires far more editing experience than you have at present - the usual requirement these days is, provided my figures are still accurate, around 1,500-2,000 contributions and at least six to twelve months' activity. In addition, further experience with community processes, policies and procedure is expected, as well as standards of encyclopaedic contribution and civility. I hope that you will not take this personally, but before trusting people with the administrative tools we do expect a greater level of experience of Wikipedia editing. As a consequence, I regret that you would not at the present, be given admin privileges on Wikipedia; but please, after you have been around on Wikipedia for longer and have been contributing to articles productively, feel free to re-apply, and if you would like my advice on how to gain the requisite experience ("admin-coaching", as it is sometimes called) I am more than happy to offer it. Again, I am sorry to have to tell you this, but I do hope you understand. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAR

I like some of your edits at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I took the liberty of rewording a section according to my understanding of the policy.

Just as a heads-up, don't be surprised if everything you added is removed repeatedly, and you might consider discussing your changes before re-inserting it. That page is exceptionally volatile and resistant to change. My recommendation, when the content you added is inevitably removed, would be to copy it to the talk page and figure out if it can be improved in a way that a consensus will accept.

Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way, and congratulations, on uh... your username. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBeatAnorexia, I actually do not disagree with the substance of your changes to IAR. However, it is a policy page, and has gone through a very long history with extensive discussions to remain at the current version. I will not revert you again, but I strongly suggest that you take your proposed changes to the talk page first. older ≠ wiser 00:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBeatAnorexia, I am afraid you simply are not allowed to change policy pages without consensus first. Please stop editing IAR without consulting the talk page yourself. Thanatosimii 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you editing the page again, without yet making a single appearance on the talk page? You're trying to introduce major changes to policy - that requires discussion. Please let me know if you have any questions about this matter. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User_talk:Cloakdeath. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. That's not increasing any chances of becoming an Administrator --Cloak' 06:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]