User talk:Toastman451

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hemet, California, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WM-86 12:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to mince words here - DO NOT PUT THE WORD "HUMAN" IN YOUR EDITS, AS THAT CONSTITUTES VANDALISM. I'm specifically referring to your recent edits in Salusbury family, Elliot Francis, Adamov (České Budějovice District), Jeopardy!, Damian Militaru, Thoms House, Agranat Commission, Riley (motor-car), Monte Viso tunnel, Toutiala, Artie Wayne, The Pacific Cultural Institute, and Drop set - all of those were nowhere near constructive and have been reverted.

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Daniel Benfield (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Some clarification please...

"I see that you did not find my contributions to Wikipedia to be necessarily constructive, but I would love to get some input from you as to how exactly my adding the word "human" to entries on human articles constitutes vandalism. Your own user page describes you as a human, so what is the problem with adding that to other human pages?"

• For one, my user page is NOT a Wikipedia article - it is my own personal space where I can post a humorous description of myself. Labeling myself as human just exemplifies this.

"I appreciate your enthusiasm for the progression of a more comprehensive and accurate Wikipedia, but do not threaten me without a valid reason. The editing of pages is allowed to make them more complete and accurate, an all I have done is add facts into them that were not there."

• The fact is, you were adding "human" to articles like Jeopardy! for absolutely no reason. If readers (including non-Wikipedians) look at an article, they know that football players and houses and TV shows are human-based - they don't require the word "human". Indeed, adding such words detracts from the encyclopedic nature of the articles.

"The fact that you would take the time to actually revert each entry where I have made pages more complete, and then threaten me for "vandalism", is simply pathetic."

• See my previous comment. Basically, Wikipedia assumes that its readers are human and can recognize references and articles about like creatures. Again, adding "human" to articles actually hinders the article's power. If someone reads the article and sees "(person's name) was a human historian who lived in Mexico from 1897 to 1944", then they will think "Well, DUH. What historian has been a dog or cat or...?"

Basically, performing such edits do NOT help articles grow and be more accurate - indeed, they detract. Thanks for your time, and I hope you understand. Daniel Benfield (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)