User talk:Andrewjuren/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to Esperanza!

Barnstar

Thank you so much for awarding me a barnstar! It's wonderful to be recognized. :) --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 3 RR

Yes, I know about it and plead guilty as charged :)); obviously I can't count to three anymore at 8 in the morning (and got carried away a wee bit also), then I looked my contributions up and down looking for my edits to the article you mentioned at first...feel free to file an RfC against me; I'll apologize to the anonymous user (even if by now he calls me "little Hitler" and uses swear words).... Lectonar 11:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: one could count of course spamming as simple vandalism, so 3RR would not be given. Lectonar 11:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Too late for an apology, Lectonar. You are part of a larger problem on Wikipedia, called arbitrary inconsistency. People like you roam Wikipedia arbitrarily permitting or denying amendments on a whim. The problem is sufficiently serious that intelligent people shouldn't bother trying to contribute to Wikipedia at all. Specifically, you struck out four times links which already appear on three other sports pages; you were asked to justify it on the third occasion but no, you just struck them out a fourth time. If that is how administrators want to behave, why bother contributing? One shouldn't, because contributing is a frustrating waste of time, given the forces which pull the other way. "Little hitler" is too polite to describe people like you, frankly. Try sitting at this end, making sensible contributions and having them deleted continuously by the little hitlers on Wikipedia, instead of lazily wielding your blue pencil. In the end, good people give up and don't bother, and that point has arrived. If we were in the same room, I would probably thump you. —This unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.66 (talk • contribs) .

I can see why you would feel offended by these actions. However, I'd like to cast a little light on the reasons why Lectonar would likely act the way he did (I can hardly speak for him, but here are a few guesses). Essentially, for those of us who have been here a while, we've seen a lot of good and a lot of bad. Becuase we want to focus time on the good and quickly deal with the bad, we generally use a few stereotypes to find spammers (and other vandals) and revert their edits if they appear to be not worthy. In your case, you make the following wiki-social errors which make you seem like a vandal.

1. You do not have a registered account. Contributors are welcome to use IP addresses, but if you're going to make questionable edits, they are less likely to be reverted if you sign up for an account.
2. The IP addresses that you use have several vandal warnings on them. You use AOL, so anyone could have been the vandal, so in your case an account would be extra useful.
3. You do not use edit summaries. Again, common of vandals and uncommon of good editors. Please use edit summaries every time, not just when you're repeating an edit for the fourth time.
4. You have make personal attacks.
5. You do not sign your comments.

Really, I think that if you used an account, your reputation would increase immediately. People could give constructive critisism, because you'd have ONE talk page where people can contact you, rather than a a dynamic IP address; you wouldn't be blamed for the actions of previous users from the same IP address. I'd be glad to help you out.

Oh, also, addition of external links are generally not considered important contributions. We're building an encyclopedia, not a bunch of links to external sites. Of course, without an account, I don't know if you typically edit content or just add external links, so, again, a good reason to get an account. Andrewjuren(talk) 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and detailed comments, but I am no longer interested in participating in Wikipedia, having had a number of run-ins such as this one.
An intelligent way to decide what goes onto a particular page would be to ask four people to go away, research the topic, and settle the comment amicably. An unintelligent way is to provide a facility for four billion people to play tug-of-war over the contents of every page, every day, in an endless cycle of amendments, deletions and counter-amendments, so that good stuff goes thoughtlessly in the rubbish bin every minute as well as bad, on the whim of whoever responds to it first.
I've been around on this planet too long to see participating in things that aren't well set up in the first place as worthwhile. I will put something on a page, you or someone else will disagree, we'll argue and fight over it, probably neither will be necessarily right or wrong, and one or other or both will go home thinking "that spoilt my day; why did I bother?"', then the next day it will all begin again.
Wikipedia is open to all, which unfortunately means it's open to the fools and the idiots of the world too, as well as the wise; contributors give their time unpaid, and the battle just isn't worth it.
I'm in read-only mode on Wikipedia from now on, just using it as a (potentially unreliable) source. It's a nice idea, but it's not properly thought out, people and their time and contributions are taken for granted and often treated with contempt, and I'm not giving any more of my free time to it because whatever I can contribute can just get shoved in the bin by the next person who comes along, whether that person is wise or a fool.
Your comment that external links 'aren't considered important' is an example of the foolishness that pervades this publication. It's about providing quality information of any sort, links or whatever. But you seem to have an idea in your head that one form of information is prized above another - so no doubt you will go forth and inflict that particular fallacy on other people. You already have in your head a certain way of doing things - and you will, in time, force your way onto other people.
I suspect you will come round to my POV eventually, in a year or two, and realise that this particular struggle to evolve information isn't worth it. Or maybe you won't. Time will tell.
Take care and have a nice life, Andrew. Good luck with your studies.
Mr Anon (the evil one) of London, England
PS: As Lectonar forbids my links to Runnersworld on the Exercise page, I carefully deleted them yesterday from the following pages too, yesterday: Running; Half Marathon; Marathon. We may as well be consistent, hey!
If you visit each of those pages, you will observe that other people (not me) have seen fit to reinstate those links since then. So, as you can see, links which are forbidden by one person on one page on his whim in some sort of supervisory capacity are prized and retained by others on other pages.
There isn't any inconsistency of method. It is all done on a whim.
That is the sort of thing that puts intelligent people off bothering to amend Wikipedia: they are victims of the absence of any sensible process to determine what goes on a page.
I hope you see my point?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.66 (talk • contribs) .