User talk:Crocoite
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Crocoite, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
It was not vandalism. I modified the change to conform with Wikipedia:Manual of style. On the page that you made, it said Category:Mormonism on the top of the page so I assumed that it was a mormonist church. I think the page could have identified its denomination. If it was already specified, I apologize. If you suspect that I vandalized the page because I am an atheist (I know my userbox says I am an atheist right in your face), it is not. I'm sorry mirageinred 01:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, Wikipedia is not for advertising. Thus, the page MUST be neutral (which it was not) and it does not need to list the entire address of the church. Identifying city and state is good enough. mirageinred 02:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that your change was not vandalism. I was surprised to see the change and after reading your user page, I figured you were an atheist messing with my page. The reason it said Category:Mormonism was the page used the Colombia Barranquilla Mission page as a template. Perhaps your comments would be more appropriate for the talk page instead of editing the page directly. Then we can discuss the Manual of Style issue. Crocoite 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- The page used the Colombia Barranquilla Mission page as a template and neither are intended to be advertising. Crocoite 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry
I thought that had been added to the article itself, I didn't realize that it was the talk page. I'll revert if you haven't already. John Reaves (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please revert.Crocoite 23:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I already said I would (and I have). John Reaves (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Posting Fox News pieces into Talk pages
Posting random Fox News summaries into talk pages (which you seem to have been doing often) is a combination of trolling, pushing a Point of View, and possible copyright infringement, and is also inappropriate - Talk pages are for *discussing* the article, not the subject, and not for throwing in random headlines or comments from media outlets. Please stop. — jesup 04:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment Jesup. I have stopped adding the Fox News summaries into talk pages. Let me address each of the issues you mentioned:
- Trolling - Wikipedia says trolling is (among other things) "posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others." My intent was to provide an alternative POV that was directly related to the topic. Someone could read the article and decide if a NPOV change needed to be made to the main article.
- Pushing a POV - Wikipedia says "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly." I think I was fairly presenting a current issue related to the topic.
- Copyright Infringement - After reading the "Terms of Use - Linked Sites and Advertising" on the FoxNews.com website, I decided to stop adding the links on future pages until I can obtain permission from the Legal Department of FOX. On my previous edits I am striking-through the article summary and removing the hyperlink to FoxNews so I'm not accused of copyright infringement.
- Talk pages - Wikipedia says Talk pages are to "provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article..." In a way, I was making a proposal; someone could read the article and decide if a NPOV change needed to be made to the main article. For example, in the MoveOn article talk page, I added a subsection for "FactCheck.org" and you deleted my comment. (I will be responding to that issue on that talk page later.) FactCheck.org made a valid comment in the referenced article and someone could read the article and decide if a NPOV change needed to be made to the main article. Just leaving the FoxNews summary and link doesn't seem to get my point across, so I will figure another way to start a valid discussion. Crocoite 20:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for stopping. It certainly appeared to others that you were trolling since your "intent was to provide an alternative POV directly related to the topic", especially since they were added without commentary, and particularly without any proposal. If raw headlines from an (admittedly) partisan news outlet were added without comment or balance etc to the article, they'd be removed as inappropriate quickly; the assumption would be you added them to Talk (as you say) to "provide an alternative POV", not in an attempt to discuss the article, or even to propose a NPOV addition related to the headline.
- The discussion of "conflicting views" ("should be presented fairly") refers to the article, not to the Talk page. Perhaps part of the misunderstanding is that "Talk" is not a forum for discussing the topic of the page; it's for discussing the editing of the page. A perhaps subtle distinction, but important, else Wikipedia's talk pages would become a huge morass of people arguing over every semi-controversial topic. I think most editors would not consider raw news headlines/links to be a "fair presentation" of a current issue - and even if it was, Talk isn't for presentations.
- Re: MoveOn/FactCheck - if you'd either edited the page (assuming NPOV, relevance, etc) or asked in Talk: "FactCheck said this; is this something that should be added to Criticism? Here's some proposed text", that might have been a lot more constructive and less likely to be miscontrued. Note that this doesn't mean a free ride to post POV under the guise of proposed addition, of course - one must abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the policies governing Talk. Remember also that most people just read the pages; only (active) editors monitoring a page generally read the Talk page, and they tend to be "involved" on the subject (pro or con), and so one isn't likely to persuade anyone of anything about the main topic with a Talk posting.
- Thanks for the detailed response, and happy editing. — jesup 00:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
