User talk:Chinagreenelvis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello there Chinagreenelvis (cool username). Welcome to Wikipedia. One of your recent edit summaries, "This page WILL be kept up to date, properly organized, and accurate. Any continued attempts to impede this will be met swiftly and with prompt attention", sounds very threatening, probably moreso than you intend it to. I advise that you refrain from making threats towards other editors, implicit or explicit, in your editing. Wikipedia is a collaboration of encyclopedic content, and additions to articles (and new articles) need to have citations to back up any claims made or facts presented. Let me know if you need any assistance in how to do this. In the meantime, please do not use aggressive language in your edits and edit summaries. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you think my promise to ensure the organization and accuracy of the article in question despite the attempts of flyby editors to immediately and unthinkingly revert proper changes is threatening and aggressive. Or perhaps we would all be better served if the edits were first considered and processed by those who undo them without so much as a second to spare. That, my friend, is TRUE vandalism. In any event, what I meant what I said; If anyone wants to undo my changes based on false charges and unapplicable criteria, I'm going to revert them right back. --Chinagreenelvis (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't even look at the edits that you performed, or anyone else's. I looked at your edit summary. It's threatening, plain and simple. I'm sorry you feel that you've somehow been personally slighted in an impersonal collaborative encyclopedia. But still, flies/honey vs. flies/vinegar. If you are going to resort to simply reverting, I'll give you the same warning I gave the other involved editor. Don't. Hash out the differences on the talkpage (that's what they are there for), don't simply revert. If you haven't already, I'd advise that you read the edit warring guideline, as well as the 3 revert rule, and its potential consequences for breaching. I'm not threatening, simply advising. Do with your time here as you wish, that's the beauty of anyone can edit/collaboration. Keep in mind though that Wikipedia has some pretty strong guidelines/policies to deal with non collaborative efforts from those that wish to travel that route. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- From the Wiktionary:
Threat. Noun. 1. an expression of intent to injure or punish another. 2. an indication of imminent danger. 3. a person who is regarded as a danger; a menace.
Punish. Verb. 1. To cause to suffer for crime or misconduct, to administer disciplinary action. 2. To cause great harm to. (a punishing blow) 3. To dumb down severely or to the point of uselessness or near-uselessness.
No matter what your personal caution to my fervor may be, my promise to maintain the Publius Enigma article qualifies neither as a threat nor as threat of punishment. I understand your intentions to warn all parties involved to remain civil, but trust me, I have not nor do I intend to cross any lines into incivility.
A blind revert deserves a revert back, but as you said, not without discussion. As for that, I have already taken the necessary steps to speak with the gentleman who accused me of having an "SPA account" and of "possible vandalism." I hope this is the "other editor" to which you are referring, as it is clearly stated in the Wikipedia entry on WP:SPA to steer away from such accusations. In any event, the problem is hopefully under control, but thank you for your advice and the warnings. --Chinagreenelvis (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
