User talk:The shaman poet

Welcome!

Hello, The shaman poet, 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Please provide reliable sources to support your edits. Also, please read original research. Vsmith (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm Katieh5584. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Magnisiocummingtonite, 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 page's 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. Katieh5584 (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Bismuth with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Eye snore (pc) 16:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Your addition to Epidote has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Vsmith (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agpaitic rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Na (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fuchsite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Verdite

Galaxite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Isometric

Galena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Isometric

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Graphite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cubic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Vsmith (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:

{{unblock|reason=I am being unfairly blocked for protesting in defense of having helpful complied contributions made being deleted by an individual with lack of reasoning. I believe this case should be examined by an unbiased party and the editor V. Smith reviewed for his unjust and haste reaction without providing an explanation first.}}

. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black ~~Kite~~ kite (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not blocked for "protesting in defense" of something. You have been blocked for making personal attacks. It's not acceptable to call people morons and fools. Please read the links above. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're claiming to have multiple personalities, please leave this matter to the 'committee'. Your personal assessments or preconceived notions are of no interest to me. As you see, I have a right to act defensively. I don't appreciate being subjected to ignorant minds.

... further ignorance will only lead me to call it as I see it.The shaman poet (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good luck then. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome?... really?

I've been here for relatively a short while. I was inspired to join the wiki editors due to the numerous inaccurate imported info I saw, copy pasted from sources with errors. It seemed like analyzing the borrowed info had slipped past people! While at it, I made useful contributions as well; to the extent that I can easily provide support, either by direct reasoning or referencing the introduced material to the best of my ability.

However, from the start, a particular editor named Vsmith, albeit occasionally supportive in adding minor info, tends to delete far more than making actual contributions. Often the reasonings provided indicate a lack of focus. For example, recently, Vsmith claims that comparisons made between diamond and graphite on graphite page are "pointless and unsourced". Yet it doesn't take an "advanced degree in geology" as boasted to recognize the plain fact that making comparisons don't require referencing! Logical assessments do not require a source or sourcing. Only facts regarding the subjects being compared need to be referenced, as the info was referenced with relevant links.

Yet before discussing the issue, and so inconsiderate of the time I spent to compile the material, my efforts were wiped away labeled "pointless". Thus, every time anyone across the world wishes to compare and contrast graphite and diamonds side by side on a page, remember that the foremost authority on this matter named Vsmith (a Wiki editor- sort of) claims that you are making a "pointless comparison".

As a result of a blunt protest on the graphite talk page, I am currently blocked from further editings.

..and this is far too much more energy than I expected to spend in reaction to distraction by another editor.

Does "Wikipidia" want editors that make fortifying contributions to pages? Or would Wiki benefit more from editors who make pages look pretty after others, but delete time spent helful info with a click before using the "Talk" page first regarding their concern?

Without a sufficient answer, I don't find the need to return.

Wikipedia needs editors that can work collaboratively with other editors. When you call other editors "complete morons", and attack them for "ignorance", you're showing an unwillingness to collaborate with other editors. You don't have to agree with an editor, you can call their opinions into question, you can combat their assertions with assertions of your own (preferably backed up by evidence verified by reliable sources). What you can't do is attack someone personally. You must be willing to work with other people that you think may be "morons", without escalating discussions by making such accusations.

Look at it this way. Someone comes to an article and makes an obviously incorrect action. You undo their action. They start an argument on the discussion page to defend their action. If they don't know what they are doing, and you are better-informed, you should have no difficultly either (A) convincing that person that they are wrong, or (B) convincing other people that the person is wrong. In either case, such convincing (which helps you establish a consensus) is done via a process we call dispute resolution. Sometimes it's easy and quick, where someone is willing to accept an obviously stronger argument backed up by evidence. Sometimes it can be dragged out because someone is stubborn. And sometimes you will be wrong. But that's how Wikipedia works. At no point is it necessary to attack someone personally, and it is never helpful to try to label a person as unintelligent. If you feel that you have to resort to such language to succeed in a debate then you've already lost, ad hominem attacks are usually the last, desperate act of someone who has either lost confidence in their position, or knows that they are wrong but refuses to "lose" despite that.

Sometimes, with care, you can label someone as incompetent, but that is reserved for individuals that completely lack the ability to participate at Wikipedia. A person who either cannot understand Wikipedia's processes well enough to ever contribute constructively, or a person whose language skills are too poor to be understood (this is the English project, there are projects for other languages), that kind of person is sometimes labeled as incompetent. But those are extreme situations and don't apply to people who are simply mistaken or have a different opinion from yourself.

I hope you take this to heart and understand why you were blocked. If you have a desire to improve the encyclopedia then when your block expires, take more care to criticize ideas and actions without needing to label people themselves negatively. Remember that if you're right, you should be able to convince others that you are right without denigrating them. -- Atama頭 17:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit in which you respond is well, but you are disregarding the possibility that I may already be aware of this. I am not on wiki to compete with anyone. Thus the assertion that the accurate ad hominems used were due to failure to win an argument is ridiculous. Fact is, my personal contribution was not in dispute. It was merely labeled "pointless" by a supervising editor with delusions of grandeur. It was not done due to incompetency so much as due to ignorance. In Nature, for every action, an opposite reaction can be expected. The shaman poet (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tillandsia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hybridized. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Common Misconceptions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cold blooded. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Andy Dingley, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no one's play toy. I will react. Would you like me to write to you about what you can do with your warning?

I'm reconsidering my return

... as Wiki seems to be overrun by a gang of self indulging editors looking out for each other. Who edits the editors here? No one apparently.

Administrators address issues of editor conduct such as yours. I'd suggest that you reconsider your approach to interactions with other editors. Insults don't advance the project. Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You find it easy to make general suggestions without knowing any better. When you editors wield your authority without consideration, all I'm left with is contempt. I keep reading about how to discuss issues on the talk page, while some of you big shots refrain from talking about issues before erasing my efforts with one swoop. That's a contradiction in practice. I believe in fairness. I will not tolerate a dictatorship without protest. I much rather leave your self serving scenario than to submit. (The shaman poet (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Why I'm leaving Wikipedia

I don't consider myself a Wiki editor, merely a contributor. I'm not computer savvy, nor am I familiar with imposing my authority on editors like some others here. I don't get a kick out of that. I joined Wiki a few years back cause I wanted to learn, make corrections, and contribute to the best of my ability. However, some editors here have created an obstacle to my efforts, and so I am not going to waste my energy here anymore.

Recently, an editor full of contradictions, Andy Dingleberry reverted a useful contribution I made, cause it was deleted by another editor a couple years ago, claiming that it was "unsourced". Yet stating "I agree with you. A section comparing diamond to graphite would be a good thing." When I explained that one needs no sources for making comparisons, he exclaimed "Your style of editing, where "[no] sourcing is required for making comparisons." is not how we have chosen to work here." So he wants to make comparisons, but he doesn't know that there's no such a thing as citing for making personal analysis. Instead, he assumes the tone and position of an agentic authority on behalf of Wikipedia with an erroneous claim.

Dibgleberry then proceeds to look over my other contributions and deletes an entire page devoted to "Common Misconceptions", offering this contradictory reply "Take this to talk", while the matter was already discussed with another author. Furthermore, I made numerous additions to that article, and every time, some other editor had viewed it and allowed me to continue.

There's apparently no clear consensus approach regarding the validity of the article mentioned. And I tried to provide linked sources for it. But instead of improving on the article, it was totally ignored and deleted/redirected by a few editors. There were no issues regarding the content matter, for any arguable section/s could have been refined. Thus, I can deduct that editor gang mentality is to blame.

Speaking of gang mentality, User:Acroterion blocked me for speaking my mind while claiming "Administrators address issues of editor conduct such as yours." Well if you're not an administrator, then why do you insist on enforcing your position on me and not let the real deal handle this? Gang mentality of course!

Some of you editors tend to assume more authority than you deserve, particularly when your comments reveal stupidity at work. You claim I should work with you, and I tell you I need help, but your contradictory assumed position is one with an ego trip. So in protest, I'm telling you just how far up to stick your warning!

Furthermore, Dingleberry reverted Acroterion's deletion of my comments made to him, so go figure. I bet you feel like a fool now Acroterion. (The shaman poet (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The above section was blanked and I've now restored it. If I'm to be attacked like this, and then the attacker is to request unblocking as if nothing has happened, then I want this to be clearly visible. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaman poet: I have had, as far as I recall, only two interactions with you in content space: [1] [2]. These were both reversions where I repeated reversions already carried out by others. I do not deserve your insults here.

I have discussed with or replied to you at a couple of talk pages, largely to respond to your NPA insults.

User talk:Andy Dingley#You have serious personal issues
Talk:Common Misconceptions#Here we go again
Talk:Graphite#Comparison w/ diamond, an old thread in relation to your 2014 addition (and re-addition) of the same content. I actually took your part in this.

In your short career at WP you have demonstrated two failures to follow basic rules. You don't appreciate how WP:OR is excluded or interpreted. You also have a clear disregard, and the block record to show for it, about attacking other editors. I do not want to see you unblocked. I welcome your seemingly inevitable indef block. I do not think you are, nor are capable of becoming, an editor capable of following the few basic behavioural rules we enforce here. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for continuing to make personal attacks on other editors and for inserting lengthy unsourced opinion essays into articles. If this happens again, the next block may be indefinite. Please reconsider your approach to collaboration with other editors, and please read the verifiability and the reliable sourcing policies. Acroterion (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access revoked due to continuing abuse. If you insist on puerile name-calling, you may not edit. If this resumes after your block expires, you may expect to be blocked indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

The shaman poet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16163 was submitted on Jul 18, 2016 00:57:51. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol @ a couple of dimwit power hungry senior editors with poor reading comprehension. The title clearly states ’’’I’m leaving Wikipedia’’’. I felt the need to point this out.

Wow… Dingleberry, you express yourself with such passion, as if I disrupted your work and deleted some of your contributions or something. Do you ever make any useful contributions? How constructive (not destructive) are your efforts?

I suspect that Acroterion will rush over to impose his self-importance and save himself from further embarrassment by deleting stuff on my talk page again. I take full responsibility for all I do. That’s why I don’t delete anything from my talk page, unlike Acroterion does with negative comments to support his delusions of grandeur.

All is deserved. Fare well. (The shaman poet (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've returned to puerile name-calling, I assume you don't plan on altering your behavior. As promised, you're indefinitely blocked. Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access revoked due to continuing abuse. Acroterion (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, The shaman poet. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]