User talk:67.43.101.138

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Edits to Ceiling fan article

[edit] First two warnings

Thank you for experimenting with the page Ceiling fan on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Goldrushcavi 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Ceiling fan, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your edits are being reverted for a reason. Do not re-add them. --Goldrushcavi 01:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third warning

I have reverted some of your recent edits to the Ceiling Fan article. Read this explanation/warning carefully.

I am in agreement with Goldrushcavi--vandalism is not acceptable, and you will be banned for it. I've taken the time to review all your edits to the ceiling fan article, one of the only two articles you've edited. Not all your edits are bad--your correction of my misspelling "Myers" and "Meyers" was useful, for example. But the overwhelmingly vast majority of your edits are outside the boundaries of Wikipedia's standards. For example, it is not appropriate to include little-known and un-official nicknames for ceiling fans--like calling the Emerson Universal a "blenderfan". Yes, some of us in the fan-collecting community call it that--but not even all of us do it. It's not official, it's not industry-wide, it's nothing more than a half-musing term that one person coined. Posting that in the article violates a whole mess of the Wikipedia guidelines, and it makes the article look unprofessional. Since the fan does have an official name--the "Universal"--it needs to remain as just, and only, that.

Also, part of your edit on 20:25 May 29, 2007 was not appropriate. You changed the caption on the lead picture from "Generic-style ceiling fan from the early 1980's." to "A Casablanca Delta Early model ceiling fan."; there are several problems with that. First, the formatting--punctuation, capitalization (esp. "Delta Early"), etc.--does not match the rest of the article, and so (a) looks unprofessional, and (b) can be confusing to non-native speakers of English and also folks who aren't fan-savvy. In addition, your edit to the caption was destructive on the basis that it totally shifted the focus from what the picture was intended to be. Yes, that fan is an early-model Casablanca "Delta". I know that, as all us fan-folks do. Hell, that's my fan, and I took the picture. But its model name and manufacturer are totally irrelevant. Brand names do not belong unless they are extremely necessary for understanding the image and/or its context. Since the Emerson "Universal" and Hunter "Original" are both mentioned by name within the text, it makes sense for their picture captions to be self-identifying; etc. But the first picture in the article, the one whose caption you edited, IS, in fact, a generic-style ceiling fan from the early 1980's--that caption was not inaccurate; you had no cause to edit it. When someone who knows nothing, or very little, about ceiling fans looks at this article, it is relaxing and helpful to see a generic model displayed first. It is helpful to know what generic styling looks like. Your edit made the article more complex, and that's the opposite of what an encyclopedia is supposed to do--it's supposed to take complex things and explain them in easy terms.

From now on--and this is a good idea on most articles anyhow--post your ideas on the talk page and wait for a consensus before you make any edits to the article. Whatever you're questioning--whether it's a grammar issue, a wording issue, a factual issue, whatever--post your proposed edit on the talk page and wait for other people to either give the thumbs-up or the thumbs-down. This article, like all Wikipedia articles, is a team effort--not a competition. It's not about who's the best, or who's the smartest, or who knows the most. It's about getting the most relevant information presented in a logical and clear manner--and those sorts of determinations need to be made by group consensus, not individual whim. Ordinarily, it's up to your own judgment whether it's something you can change yourself or whether it's a bigger issue that should be discussed. But in your case, seeing as how this is the third "stop editing without consensus" post directed at you, your judgment cannot be trusted; we can no longer assume good faith. You need to make suggestions on the talk page and wait for a consensus, not go ahead on your own. If you continue to make unwarranted/improper/unwelcome edits, you will be banned.

I care about this article, because I [essentially] wrote it. Goldrushcavi cares about it too, because he wrote the original version, thereby laying foundational groundwork. From that standpoint, he and I are the article's creators, and now we've both asked you to follow the Wikipedia guidelines in regards to edits. I've taken a lot of time here to calmly, clearly, and respectfully explain this all to you; I've also made clear what the consequence will be if you keep violating policy. Please take this for what it's worth, and follow the rules; Wikipedia has articles which explains them all clearly. It's totally up to you, whether or not you get yourself banned.

[edit] Fourth warning

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Ceiling_fan, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Goldrushcavi 23:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)