User talk:Mattimero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mattimero, 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:

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:Questions, 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!  Melchoir 08:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradance

Hi, If you don't mind, please stop adding the essay to the contra dance article -- see the talk page for a discussion on it for the details, but in sum it's not in encyclopedic style and not particularly well organised anyhow. Take care. --Improv 07:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I understand all that, but that's really not the way encyclopediae are meant to be written. Your purposes are probably more suited to a private webpage -- articles here are not meant to feel like enthusiastic activity guides (as cool as those can be). It appears that that paragraph bugs a number of other editors too because of that. It's great to be enthusiastic about things, but I think your particular expression of that enthusiasm here is problematic. --Improv 18:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If we can find a way to address those concerns in a way that's appropriate to encyclopedic style, is verifiable (that is, is not just one of us saying why it's cool), and has a neutral tone, then that'd be kosher. As-is, I don't think the essay is remotely in line with what we expect in encyclopedia articles. Articles should never advocate anything (even when we, as editors, feel that thing is really cool). --Improv 18:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That's not the way disputes are handled on Wikipedia. We discuss things, and generally go with the status quo until enough discussion happens that things are played out. We have a goal to make an encyclopedia, with encyclopedic tone and encyclopedic content. If you can find a way to phrase your content that's consistent with that, that's ok (although some of it is inappropriate by nature). Your contributions have no sources, they make possibly contentious claims (who can really say what a dance style is about, authoritatively?), they're in guide form (second person), and they really do advocate. None of this is kosher on Wikipedia (although it may be kosher on Wikibooks, I'm not sure) -- it's much more suited to a private webpage. Please stop adding the content. Also, note that in your edits you have come close to violating the 3-revert rule at least twice, which is not at all cool. As I understand, you are new to the community, and might not know all of our rules or be familiar with the kind of content we're trying to produce, but I'm asking you to please familiarise yourself with these things as soon as possible. There is no "default position" that adding new content to a page is always ok -- if the content is problematic, then it usually tends to be removed quickly. --Improv 07:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

hey Matti, I thought (probably wrongly - when you can't actually sit down and talk to someone, it's so easy to let a disagreement online turn into a fight as stressful as any fight in "real life") that since I was involved in this thing I ought to explain where I'm coming from. looking around at the guidance pages trying to put my finger on something I remembered running across once, I found a few key things in the be bold article: "...be bold in updating articles... of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. don't take it personally" (that link seems to suggest that these issues come up mostly with newcomers -- I know that that's not you); "[edits caught in reversion wars] will not survive...see: bold, revert, discuss cycle." the thing to keep in mind is that, when an edit is "boldly and mercilessly" re-edited, there is still the potential for having one's material incorporated... but the form of the incorporation may well be different from that originally proposed. it's true that your addition touches on some points previously not brought up in the article, but it's clearly stirred up some dissension. the article's discussion page (topic 5.1 in this case) is there for people to hammer this sort of thing out --Eitch 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)