User talk:PigPigofStAlbans

Welcome[edit]

Hello PigPigofStAlbans and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to St. Albans, West Virginia, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! goose121 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...understanding issue with edit to the Saint Albans, WV page. My edit was deleted and I wasn't sure why. I even removed the links to external pages in case it was seen as advertising, but then that edit was deleted as well. I'm not sure what is wrong with the edit or how I can make it acceptable.

PigPigofStAlbans (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)PP[reply]

There are a couple of issues. First, it's a notable "people" section. A pig is obviously not a person. While a cute local story, perhaps, it's not notable for an encyclopedia. Second, your user name plus the material that you're trying to add could be construed as being spam. Strikerforce^Talk 18:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to be mindful of Wikipedia's policies on reverting edits within a 24-hour period. You have reverted other user's edits twice in the last twenty-four hours. Doing so a third time on the article in question is grounds for a block. Strikerforce^Talk 18:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pig is not appropriate for the article. Please be aware that you are now, technically, in violation of 3RR and could be blocked from editing. I would suggest that you open a thread on the article's talk page, if you'd like to consider adding the pig in another section of the article that may be appropriate. Strikerforce^Talk 18:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. PigPig is definitely appropriate for the page as he is a town legend and local folklore. The term "people" was used as a general term for celebrities or figures, and not a technical term. If the use of the term is the issue, the section could be edited to say "Notable Figures." Alternatively, maybe PigPig should have his own section? PigPigofStAlbans (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain, please, how the pig is not trivia? How is the pig notable? What, besides being a local tale, makes a mention of the pig appropriate for an encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not a travel guide, which is where something like this would be more appropriate, in my opinion. Strikerforce^Talk 20:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PigPig is notable in the same way the Mothman is, who is listed on the Point Pleasant, WV wikipedia. Why is that content notable, but PigPig is not? Like I previous asked, does he need a separate section on the page? PigPig has had numerous news stories and news articles published on him. I do not currently have the time to review all of the policies and standards. However, if you could guide me or advise me to the necessary changes to make the content fit within the policies, then I would change it to do so like I was previously trying to do. Otherwise, I will have to review everything, repost next week, and be ready to argue my case. PigPigofStAlbans (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Strikerforce^Talk 21:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't posted as an argument. It was posted as a question. I was trying to understand what would make the content acceptable and fit within the policies. In order to do so, I was clearly asking what differentiated that context from mine in an effort to edit my content in a conforming manner.You clearly do not want to offer any explanation or guidance, which is your prerogative, but at least understand what I am writing. I will review the policies and standards myself, edit the content, and post later. PigPigofStAlbans (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "other stuff exists" can be a valid argument, which even your link states, because it can show inconsistencies in the application of law, policies, etc, and provide evidence of misinterpretation or misuse. These types of arguments are usually made to demonstrate discrimination based on race, sex, etc in legal cases. PigPigofStAlbans (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing–apart from WP:N rules–stopping anyone from creating any article...", or, in this case, adding trivial information to Article X solely because similar information exists in Article Y. My "explanation or guidance" to this situation is that I believe that "PigPig" is trivia and not encyclopedic. In my opinion, it is information best suited to a travel guide or local chamber of commerce website, not an encyclopedia. Please see NOTTRAVEL, which says, in part Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like.. Strikerforce^Talk 21:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."

"In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."

Don't quote one part of your citation and misrepresent the overall sentiment of the source. The source clearly recognizes the importance or consistency and policy considerations, but it's actually irrelevant because I'm not arguing that content should be included because other content exists. I'm asking how I can improve my content to meet the policies and standards in place. The advise I sought was not an opinion as to whether PigPig is trivial or not, but rather what makes something relative to PigPig non-trivial and how to conform my content to meet those standards. You maintain the presumption that PigPig is trivial, so therefore your logic will remain circular. You will continue to conclude that the content is trivial because you see that PigPig himself is the trivial and not just the content. I don't understand why you think that a travel guide or website would be an appropriate place for PigPig. PigPig isn't an attraction or amusement, although wikipedia does allow pages regarding attractions or amusements, such as King's Island, when written in an informative manner. PigPigofStAlbans (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep coming back to OSE, even after I've pointed you to NOTTRAVEL. When your block expires, feel free to make the edits you're looking at. If they're appropriate, great. If they aren't, they'll be challenged. That's how Wikipedia works. It's a collaborative project brought together by consensus. My stance is that "PigPig" is not encyclopedic and that's the position that I will take in any discussion looking for consensus. If I end up on the losing side of the discussion, so be it. But, frankly, a quick Google search shows one media outlet story about the animal, some YouTube links and a Facebook page. That's not sufficient secondary coverage by reliable sources to make it notable. Strikerforce^Talk 23:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at St. Albans, West Virginia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Strikerforce^Talk 19:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PigPigofStAlbans reported by User:Strikerforce. Thank you.Strikerforce^Talk 20:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Kinu ^t/_c 20:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the issue with the PigPig notation on the wikipedia page. It was edited to reflect any concerns from others, which were trivial in nature. It seems the blocking was based merely on the number of edits, rather than the content. Is there an issue with the content? Can it be posted? If not, then what is the issue? PigPigofStAlbans (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting there was not a "Notable People" or "Notable Figures" section prior to my editing. I created that section and wanted to list some positive things about my town. PigPigofStAlbans (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the @Kinu: blocking admin. Strikerforce^Talk 20:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your username notwithstanding (which seems to suggest you have one purpose for editing here), you have repeatedly inserted the same material, much of which appears to be trivial and not encyclopedic enough to include, and have provided no reliable sources to support your claim of "notable." This is disruptive. I suggest taking some time (i.e., the duration of your block) to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia; a good place to start is here. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinu: I have raised the user name issue at ARV here. The maintenance bot, of course, immediately removed the report as having been answered. I just wanted to have it on the record for the proper time. Strikerforce^Talk 21:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. In regards to the username, I had actually tried several other ones prior to this username. The other names were already taken, so I went with this one as I figured it wasn't being used. I assume your "one purpose" response is referring to the assumption that the one purpose was to add the pig. However, I was actually adding more to than the pig, which you did allow the other edits to stand. I did originally link sources to the edits, but then a user took issue with what I thought were the links so I removed them. I would be happy to reapply those links. PigPigofStAlbans (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]