User talk:75.70.123.215

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Randy'L He-dow Teton has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Enigma msg! 20:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Enigmaman. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RC-0722 communicator/kills 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I made a mistake. I revert hundreds of vandalism edits a day. If you feel I made a mistake, revert my edit and leave a polite message on my page. Personal attacks are NOT the right way to go about it, and if you persist, you will be blocked from Wikipedia. Enigma msg! 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't make a mistake. The edit you made to the page WAS unconstructive. Check yourself. Enigma msg! 20:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if the message I posted on your talk page seemed to be a personal attack; it was not intended to be. I posted a more polite message, which shows several reliable sources that establish that Randy'L He-dow Teton was not in fact the first or only person to be depicted on a US coin while still alive; Thomas Kilby and Calvin Coolidge were both on US coins while still alive. You were in fact mistaken (that's not a personal attack; that's just the facts) that my edit was unconstructive. Please check my new message on your talk page. I will also post that on the talk page for the article I edited. Thank you. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
When I revert vandalism, I look for two things: 1)If it's standard vandalism. 2)If the words being added are spelled correctly. You added an incorrectly spelled word to the article, so I reverted it. Yes, if I had done more research, I could have checked to make sure that something needed to be added, and then fixed your spelling instead of reverting your edit. But since I revert hundreds of vandalism edits a day, I don't have time to check if any of them are legitimate. If you avoid spelling and grammar mistakes in your edits in the future, I can assure you I won't revert you again. Enigma msg! 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Not trying to start a fight here... coins are something I study in great detail and when I catch a mistake that doesn't fit the facts, I try to correct it, and find sources to back me up if need be. If I make a grammatical, spelling, or typographical error, feel free to correct it, and I'll strive to avoid them as much as possible in the future. If I make a factual change I'll be sure to do my homework first and make the sources that back my change up available... if you think they should be incoroporated into the works cited for the article feel free to do so. Thank you and sorry for the misunderstanding. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
However, I will say if the only clear problem with one of my edits is that it's misspelled (or has a typo, or a gramattical error) it would seem only fair to assume good faith and just correct the error, rather than revert it, assuming it to be vandalism. Innocent until proven guilty, right? I respect your motives, but hope you'll be a little gentler in your methods in the future. If you try to be more understanding in the future I'll be glad to meet you half way and double check my spelling and grammar. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:RC-0722. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. telling me that I don't assume good faith is a personal attack RC-0722 communicator/kills 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
OK so it's a personal attack to defend yourself against accusations of making a personal attack?! I have never attacked any Wikipedia editor personally and publicly disagreeing with an editor is not a personal attack, unless I'm severely mistaken about the definition of the term. It is also not a personal attack to accuse someone of assuming bad faith on your part, when their own words clearly demostrate that, nor it is a personal attack to point out someone made a mistake on a provable factual basis. Again, am I mistaken on this? If anyone's making personal attacks here, it's you, as shown by your words and actions. (And if it's a personal attack to accuse someone of making a personal attack, you're no less guilty than I of doing so, but I'd disagree that constitutes a personal attack in the first place.) I've been perfectly civil here and this whole thing started when I edited an article that contained factual errors that could be deomstrated by referring to Wikipedia's own articles that somehow was initially deemed uncontructive by reason of containing a minor spelling error. Since then I've been basically accused of vandalism and levying personal attacks while nobody has given me the benefit of the doubt or assumed good faith, which I understand is also a key Wikipedia policy. I've read your policy on personal attacks, and nothing I have done constitutes one, under that definition. Also note that I never accused you of not assuming good faith, I have accused Enigma of doing so, and that accusation is provable by his own words and actions. Calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack, if if the person it's said to doesn't particularly like it. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
May I point out that under WP policies, you were not assuming good faith by assuming that were not assuming good faith (which we were). Also, your edits did constitute personal attacks. Thank you. RC-0722 communicator/kills 14:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, how is it "good faith" to assume an edit is unconstructive for no other reason than it contains a spelling error? Especially since subsequent to that, I clearly demonstrated that the article as it stood before my edit was factually incorrect, as demonstrated by Wikipedia's own articles? Is that "assuming good faith"? Doesn't seem so to me, if I'm mistaken on the defintion of "good faith" explain my mistake please.
You have shown no hesitation in accusing me of violating Wikipedia policy, yet when I return the accusations it somehow constitutes personal attacks. Would calling that hypocrisy constitute a personal attack? Please advise.
Would pointing out that levying accusations against someone who was trying to improve your encyclopedia by correcting a factual error, of vandalism and personal attacks, demonstrates why few mainstream sources take Wikipedia seriously as a reliable source of information, constitute a personal attack? If so, just go ahead a permanently ban me now, because I have no desire to contribute to a so-called encyclopedia with that kind of mindset. It would seem to me that your (and other editors') actions on these kind of lines is directly contrary to your stated goal of creating a reliable encyclopedia. I only caught one factual error, but if you treat people who correct them this way, I can guarantee that many others may exist, that may never be corrected if you chase away anyone who tries with your heavy-handed tactics.
You know what, if everything I do constitutes a personal attack, why don't I just go all out and make one a personal attack that can't be misconstrued as anything else? You sir, are an idiot, as are all of you Wikipedia editors, and your self righteous attitute about defending this encyclopedia against all you disagree with, including those trying to improve it by correcting errors, is the very reason Wikipedia is not taken seriously by the mainstream. I now know why every college professor I've ever spoken to takes such a lof view of Wikipedia and now agree with them, and I regret defending Wikipedia to them as a reliable source of information. If someone can't even come here to correct factual information without being attacked... then clearly Wikipedia can't be relied on to even tell me what color the sky is. Sure it's probably mostly reliable... but even a broken clock is right twice a day. As others have pointed out, any outright factually false statement here can stand if enough editors agree... or in my case, if enough editors disagree with the person trying to correct it. I got the error corrected only after having to fight for the right to do so, and be accused of making personal attacks when I called people on making mistakes. I will go elsewhere for my information from now on and advise others to do the same.
Go ahead and ban me. Based on what I've seen so far, being banned from editing Wikipedia should be considered a badge of honor. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, everything you say is not a personal attack. Also, I looked and was mistaken; I should not have marked that as a personal attack. Also, I looked at your edit and can't figure out why enigmaman reverted them instead of fixing the spelling errors. I highly encourage you to keep checking WP for those mistakes that you mentioned earlier and keep correcting them. I will also reinstate your edit to the article (I don't remember the name) with proper grammar and spelling. And hopefully you will still be here to see it. RC-0722 communicator/kills 15:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
My mistake to revert it and RC's mistake to mark your message as a personal attack. Please accept our apologies. Enigma msg! 17:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, apology accepted. Please also accept my apology for the drama... even if I was in the right I still feel now that I overreacted somewhat. I will keep my eye out for any errors I notice on Wikipedia and try to keep a close eye on my spelling and grammar, and try to be diplomatic when pointing them out and correcting them (will also post sources if the error is not so obvious as to not need justification). No reason we can't get along as long as we're willing to be civil and understanding to each other. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)