User talk:Tragic romance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Tragic romance! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

[edit] Removing outdated discussion

I'm new to editing, though I've read Wikipedia for a long time and am somewhat familiar with its editing rules.

Question: Someone on a talk page identifies vandalism or some other problem on the main article. Someone else then corrects the problem on the article's page. After that, the original comment is still on the discussion page though the problem no longer exists. Can I simply cut out that comment or section from the discussion page? Is there a risk of being accused of something for doing that? Tragic romance 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I'll add my welcome to Pat's. No, we don't delete messages on article talk pages, we leave them as a history of what's been discussed. When a page becomes very big, we archive old messages, but they're still available for anyone who comes along later to review. (There is one exception to this -- if someone vandalizes a talk page, we do delete that. But legitimate discussion is never deleted.) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baptist

That was a sarcastic comment, not a threat, and somebody took it seriously. Their personal information most assuredly SHOULD NOT be listed on this website, precisely because someone might do something stupid. Are we clear on this now? Wahkeenah 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block for disagree?

I should point out that admins are absolutely not supposed to block people merely for disagreeing with them, and if you see this happening I would very much like to hear about it and would investigate, or you could post it on WP:ANI. Adminship is a bunch of tools, not a higher rank (indeed, Wikipedia doesn't have ranks in the first place). (Radiant) 18:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on James Kim talk page and on your user page.

Please try to discuss the content of the article and not the personality or motivations of other editors, which may be seen as a personal attack, in violation of WP:NPA. Thanks. Edison 18:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me exactly what you're referring to ("personality or motivations of other editors") if you remember? As far as my USER PAGE, there can't be a "personal attack," if you're not talking about a particular person. Certain types of admins and editors are a threat to the project. Not sure what can be done about that, but I think identifying the criteria that makes someone a threat is a good idea. In any case, you're right that the focus is supposed to be on improving the articles, not personal disagreements. Thanks Tragic romance 19:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I referred to the essay on your user page, which was also posted on the Discussion page of the James Kim article. I have learned to avoid referring to the motivations of editors, or to referring to them as a class. And things posted on user pages have indeed been cited as violations. Best wishes. Edison 19:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the questionable material. Thanks Tragic romance 06:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Disruption

Whilst I'm no longer actively editing Wikipedia (including use of admin functions) I still feel I'd better reply to your message. In short I disagree. Your description of disruption sounds like vandalism, which is one form of disruption to Wikipedia that results in blocks. However, blocks for personal attacks are also fully supported by the blocking policy: "Protection... Persistent personal attacks". "Disruption... their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." I don't find anything that supports "The guideline is quite clear that PA -- even repeated PA -- does not constitute disruption."

I think personal attacks fits the descriptions above pretty well, and admins routinly block for personal attacks with support from the community. Some editors take them far more seriously than others, and whilst some just skim over them, others will leave the project because of receiving them. That certainly is disruptive.

Incidentally the message you say was a standard template, {{npa4}}, so if you disagree with it you should be raising the issue on the relevant template talk page. Petros471 12:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Tragic romance 05:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange message

You left a bizarre and cryptic message on my talk page some time ago. I asked you to clarify what you meant but you never did. Could you take a second to check it out? Philwelch 08:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ref desk edit

This edit to the science desk is a bit confusing—for the most part it's not a good idea to mess w/ another editor's signature. I think i see what happend, maybe you made these edits: [1], [2] and had simply forgotten to log-on? If that's the case then you don't really need to add an additional signature when replacing another editors comments, just explain what you've done in your edit summary and everyone will be able to see it in the page history. EricR 13:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gasoline bandit

Gasoline bandit has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this information might not be verifiable. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability for the relevant policy. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so, citing reliable sources.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Question about un-logged-in IP conversion

Hi. Sorry, the edits are recorded as being made by that IP. However, you may edit comments that you've signed with the IP and replace the IP signature by yours, explaining your action on the edit summary.--Húsönd 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Argument from Beauty

Hi T.R. While you were commenting un-sourced I was adding some more sources. If you'd like to go back to Argument from beauty I hope you'll find there are enough. If there are any more specific points that you think should be sourced more I will add them. But I think this now has more refs than most of the other arguments for or against the Existence of God - certainly a comparable number. NBeale 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)