User talk:P22575R15

Welcome...

Hello, P22575R15, 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:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Gman124^talk 17:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Some pages you might like to check out are:

Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia — main welcome page.
Wikipedia:Introduction -- Wikipedia introduction page.
Wikipedia:Tutorial -- Wikipedia editing tutorial.
Wikipedia:Questions — the "where to ask questions" directory.
Wikipedia:FAQ — quick answers to the most common questions.
Wikipedia:New contributors' help page — a place for new users to post questions and get answers by volunteers who monitor or frequent the page.
Wikipedia:Help desk — where volunteers answer questions on how to use Wikipedia. Many new users go there for help too.
Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User — where a new user can be adopted by an experienced user who will be his/her mentor.

Fraternity and Sorority lists

Are you getting any kind of consensus when you move these, or are you just doing it? You should really talk to the people with the Fraternity and Sorority wikiproject and get some more advice so you stop moving the articles multiple times. Justinm1978 (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been re-organization material posted for weeks. See both the project discussion page and the disambiguation project discussion page. Hopefully it will be a step forward.P22575R15 (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please (a) explicitly point out where this discussion has occurred and (b) explain why there is a comma in the title of the new articles (e.g. Student organizations in North America, (fraternities and sororities). --ElKevbo (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Fraternity.2C_Sorority.2C_and_the_whole_deal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities P22575R15 (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I see nothing remotely resembling consensus and scarcely any conversation at all. And all of that occurred on the dab project talk page with only a pointer to that discussion on the other Talk page.

I'm not going to move the articles back to where they belong as I am simply burnt out on performing such tasks. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can take the commas out. P22575R15 (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I see nothing remotely resembling consensus" I never said there was consensus. Please read carefully. I did suggest that there were long discourses that went nowhere by people dissatisfied with things as they were. I made a change. It might be better, it might not. This is wikipedia. Rather than changing everything back, why not think of an improvement? And when you think of an improvement, and put into effect, no one will be happier than I. P22575R15 (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles about student organizations without consensus

I see what you were trying to do here and appreciate your point of view, but there doesn't appear to be shred of anything resembling consensus for these moves. You have needlessly complicated a large number of article titles

All of your moves now need to be undone, and I now need to bother an administrator to clean up the mess you have made. Some days it's no fun being the Fat Man Who Never Came Back.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, your moves have been undone by other people. Wikipedia runs on consensus- please get it before doing that again. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and owning articles

Please see WP:CIVIL in response to your message to me. Additionally, how is what you did an improvement? You moved pages to longer titles, without the consensus of other people. When you did that, people complained. Nobody owns an article. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? The reason your page moves were rolled back were because you had no consensus to do so. Additionally, the title you moved them to is long and complex. Something like Fraternities and sororities in the United States or Fraternites and sororities in North America would be fine - if you got consensus from people on the article talk page. And from what I've read, this isn't the first time you've done this. Bottom line is, get consensus on the article talk page, and if there is little to no objection, then do the move.

And the reason I did the move back was because of consensus that the move you did wasn't a good one. I simply reverted back to the article title before the dispute, which is common practice around Wikipedia. And I'm not claiming to WP:OWN the article- I moved per consensus that the new title was too wordy, and right now, a discussion on what to do is ongoing, so my move will likely only be a temporary location.

"Please do not make gratuitous allegations instead of engaging the material. You are forcing the inadequate prior situation on people." You've done moves like that in the past, plus, nobody wanted you to suddenly move that. You were even brought up on the administrators noticeboard, because of the concern people had over your actions. And if the situation is inadequate, start a discussion. What may seem "inadequate" to you may be acceptable per Wikipedia standards. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no discussion on the page in question that you linked me to. And where did I make hostile comments? Link me. Additionally, I've read up on the situation, so yes, I know what's going on, before you dispute that. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fraternity

I'm sorry that you've run into some trouble in trying to clean up the page Fraternity. Something that may help in the future, however; if you know that there is some disagreement about a page, it's always better to discuss any changes that you want to make rather than going ahead and making them anyway, as that can often turn into an edit war, and may everyone unhappy.

You've given my cause for concern, however. This first edit to my talk page, followed by your correction here, makes me think that you run both accounts - if that is the case, please be aware the sock puppetry is strictly forbidden. While there are legitimate uses for alternate accounts, if you use an alternate account to circumvent any Wikipedia policy, you will likely be blocked from editing. This is taken very seriously. I will assume that you meant things for the best, but if you do indeed operate an alternate account, I would strongly advise you to only use it for legitimate reasons. -- Natalya 00:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Can you explain this edit? I know I warned you previously about sockpuppetry, and it is positive that you're at least taking accountability for your apparent different accounts' edits, but really, if you continue editing the same discussions with different accounts, I'm going to have no choice but to open up an investigation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Natalya 00:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that this had distressed you. I am very glad that you are taking account for your edits, because it shows that you're not trying to use multiple accounts to show extra support for issues. I just want to make sure that you're aware of what you can and cannot do with multiple accounts - I'm glad that you do know this.

Also, to quell your fears, I'm not tracking everyone (or anyone's) posts - when anyone posts on talk pages that I watch, however, it's something that I'm going to see.

Again, sorry to bother you, and I hope you don't take too much offense at this last post on your talk page. -- Natalya 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down...

After seeing your comments on User talk:Natalya, please tone it down a bit. Your comments there bordered on a personal attack. And some of your edit summaries are unacceptable, such as "bite me". And there's this. Bottom line: cool down, or you could be blocked for your actions. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to threaten a block on my talk page seems misplaced. In the first place, there is no ongoing behavior. For example, my comment, "Bite me" was in response to The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, who appears to have taken the comment in the spirit in which it was intended. My interchange on the talk page of User talk:Natalya seems to be generally resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. I do knot know why you are trolling through my posts, looking for conflicts that do not exist, and posting thing on my post page that are unwarranted.P22575R15 (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternity (disambiguation)

Hi, Just a gentle suggestion that you read mos:dab before doing too much editing on disambiguation pages because these are quite different from articles and do not for instance require categorising, nor is it possible for them to be un-neutral, nor do they need to display a global view ... what they need is to list articles with titles (or alternative titles) that may be confused with the term being disambiguated. They exist for the sole purpose of helping readers find the article they seek when there are confusing possibilities ... not to inform them about a subject. If they contain errors, the cleanup tag is sufficient to attract the attention of editors who understand how dab pages should work.Abtract (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I also add a question about your tagging of Fraternity (disambiguation)? What exactly are the disputed issues with this dab page? You have added dispute tags, which claim that disputes should be discussed on the talk page, but you have not added anything to the talk page to explain what you are disputing. I can see there has been some recent difference of opinion about the content of the article Fraternity, but since there have been some page moves and splitting, it is difficult to follow. Please restate your objections to the format of this dab page, so they can be resolved and the tags can be removed. SlackerMom (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ab, I find this comment "nor is it possible for them to be un-neutral" to be absolutely incomprehensible. Every list is constructed through editorial decisions, and every editorial decision is susceptible to bias.P22575R15 (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]