User talk:Micheldene

Welcome!

Hello, Micheldene, 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009[edit]

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'd like to contact you privately about your edits at Talk:Emma Watson, but I see you haven't enabled an e-mail address in your preferences, or have deselected the "Enable email from other users" option. Would it be possible for you to set up an e-mail address? Alternatively, feel free to e-mail me at happy_melonhotmail.co.uk. Thanks, and happy editing! Happy‑melon 18:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009[edit]

Please stop signing your name in article space, as you did a couple of times in Choate Rosemary Hall. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Is there any reason you reverted my edits across Hotchkiss School and numerous other articles, restoring inappropriate, boastful tone to the articles? Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view and avoid peacock terms that puff up the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern, and for the record: There were no "peacock terms" or "boasting" or anything else objectionable in the simple edit to which Rjanag refers. I will repeat the edit below for you to judge, but first its context. I created an article for "Eight Schools Association" (ESA, founded 1973). Those eight schools are Andover, Exeter, St. Paul's, Hotchkiss, Choate, Deerfield, Lawrenceville, and Northfield Mount Hermon. I created a "navbox" and inserted it into those schools' articles. In the case of seven of them, my "navbox" went right next to the "navbox" for another organization, the "Ten Schools Admissions Organization" (TSAO, founded 1966). The ESA has been characterized by Andover's newspaper The Phillipian as "hoping to mirror the Ivy League," and is an increasingly important entity, with a president, executive director, and athletic directors' council. In most of the Wikipedia articles about the ESA schools there was already a paragraph about membership in the TSAO or the G20 Schools or whatever. My edit consisted exclusively in inserting the following phrase into those paragraphs: "member of a group of leading American secondary schools, the Eight Schools Association." If you have any familiarity with education writing at all you'll recognize "leading American secondary schools" as a formulaic and conventional phrase that instantly identifies the genus. The phrase has had utility for decades and is an agreed way of referencing what are in fact "leading" schools. I now understand that Wikipedia must err on the side of utter innocuousness (except in 90 percent of its articles). I suppose I should be grateful that "leading" was called only "peacock." At any rate, I won't restore "leading." Its continued defense would require a seminar and a syllabus. Micheldene (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Micheldene, your continued condescending tone is not constructive to collaborative work on Wikipedia. If you are unfamiliar with terms such as "edit warring", or "undo" (as you indicated here) it might be a good idea to ask a few questions rather than accusing other editors of bullying. If you would like to learn a bit more about those subjects, click on those blue links, or browse some of the articles Drmies linked to back in December. Cheers --Baron Larf 05:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No condescension on Rjanag's part, apparently, but then Wikipedia veterans have each other's backs. Look, I know Wiki is your universe and that "collaboration" is a sacred word. The rest of us approach Wikipedia with something beyond caution and use the word "corruption" instead. Editors deal with the disasters of Wikipedia "research" every day.Micheldene (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never encountered Rjanag before, just came across the dispute on my Wikipedia:Watchlist. We are not a part of some cabal. And no, there was no condescension on Rjang's part. He asked why you were reverting his edits, and you 1) told him to back off and respect the opinion of someone who claims to have been an editor for decades 2) referred to him on his own talk page in the third person, saying "he doesn't know everything about everything, and in some areas he should try to learn"

Using Wikipedia for independent research is not smart, I agree. But what does that have to do with the current content dispute? I hope that you stay on Wikipedia and continue to contribute articles such as Eight Schools Association. That is, if you can stand to interact with us plebs. Cheers--Baron Larf 07:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]