User talk:Nomenclator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Nomenclator, 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!  --TeaDrinker 00:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Vegan organic gardning

Howdy and thanks for the note. Looking through the history of the talk page, it does appear that you signed the correct post. Feel free to drop me a note if I can help with anything. Keep up the great work, --TeaDrinker 18:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your recient edits to Vegan organic gardening. I've had to remove some of the material as it departed from the encyclopedic style which is central to wikipedia. Some of the material could be included but it would have to be written with out the use of I. It might be worth reading some of the style guides above first before editing. --Salix alba (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Veganism

Your edits to veganism border on vandalism. I understand that you have some strong feelings about what is and is not vegan, but you can't go around blanking huge areas of a page that have been established by slow progress away from what was essentially an in-page argument ("veganism is good. no veganism is bad. no veganism is good. no veganism is bad." etc). Blanking 'criticism' sections specifically is considered bad form. Instead of doing this, try to write more synthesized material including the "health concerns" or 'criticisms' or whatever along with your reliably cited new material. Kellen T 12:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Blanking large parts of a page is considered vandalism. Stop blanking parts of Veganism or you may be blocked from editing wikipedia. Kellen T 15:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Instead of doing this, try to write more synthesized material including the "health concerns" or 'criticisms' or whatever along with your reliably cited new material. Kellen T 12:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)"

I don't know what you mean by "more synthesized" material. I want to article to become informative, to people who want to learn about veganism, and not a discussion group on the pros on cons of veganism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion group. Since no-one is forcing anyone else to go vegan, simply telling people what is is is sufficient. A long diatribe on whether it is good or bad is unnecessary and un-encyclopedic.

I mean integrate the existing citations and information into a paragraph rather than deleting them outright. Your edits so far read more as diatribes than the material you have replaced. Kellen T 17:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. See Talk:Veganism. Kellen T 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Veganism

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Veganism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Skinwalker 17:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Block

You have been blocked for the period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on the article Veganism.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been udoing other's edits. I have been undoing other's reversions. They reverted, i reverted back. Unfortunately, if 2 or more people conspire together, they can exhaust the 3 revert max of a third who has no conspirators. The logistics of this are obvious: by time the single person in group A exhausts 3 reversions, the 2 or more people in group B, have not exhauseted their 3 reversion limit. This is a rule of the majority, and not a rule of what is correct information. For example my tiny little last edit was reverted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veganism&oldid=108471595

Here I simply corrected a grammatical error in the first sentence, added the sentence "It is an extension of the concepts of ahimsa and shakahara that have been around for millenia" and added a reference to the American Vegan Society, for that sentence. I also simplified "commits to abstain" to "abstains." Vegans do not necessarily commit to abstain. But necessarily, they abstain. I explained my reasoning on the discussion page.

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Veganism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by replying here on your talk page, by adding the text {{unblock|I didn't make three reversions. I didn't make ANY reversions, except for one SELF-reversion. I did make some edits. But each of them contained original ADDEd material.}} .

Heimstern Läufer 04:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Check date --Nomenclator 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions on Style and Etiquette

I am writing this here because it doesn't belong on the Talk:Veganism. I think that you have the potential to contribute a lot of good things to that article, and following these tips will hopefully help smooth getting those contributions accepted for you. At the very least, they will help to reduce the friction that you are developing with other editors on that page.

[edit] How to properly indent in a talk page

The most common type of indenting used on the Veganism page is the each post indents by one regardless of user method. To quote: The thread starts as above, but each new post is indented by one extra colon (:), regardless who made the post. When the post is indented too far, the next post can start at the left margin again, marked (Unindent). Sometimes a post in this system will develop its own sub tree to discuss a particular response in more detail.

Put in practical terms, the first person to write a comment on the talk page writes directly against the left hand margin. The second reply uses one indent by preceding their comment with a colon (:). The third reply uses two indents by preceding their comment with two colons (::), the fourth reply with three colons (:::), etc. If the thread gets too far to the right, you can start over at the beginning again.

[edit] Good Practises

These are some key sections from the Good practice section of the talk page guidelines.

  • Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. If you need to make a detailed, point by point discussion, see below for how to lay this out.
  • Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out, and avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Talk pages with a good signal to noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation.

[edit] Behaviour that is Unacceptable

Likewise, these are some suggestions taken from the Behaviour that is unacceptable section. Doing these things will generally anger or offend other editors. They are considered very rude, at best.

  • No personal attacks A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
    • No insults: Don't make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
    • Don't threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.
    • Don't change your text: Obviously you can edit or delete your own words, while you are still composing the initial text, but afterwards, you should not do so, as this will put others' comments in a different context. Even if no one has replied, someone may still have read what you have written — so think before you speak! If you wish to amend your statement, use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration. Strike-through is typed <s>like this</s> and ends up like this.

[edit] Don't be a Fanatic

These are taken from the Don't_be_a_fanatic page:

  1. Respect common standards - If the Wikipedia view of how articles should be presented differs from one's own perception of the subject, then it's important to recognize that Wikipedia has standards applicable to the community and all its members.
  2. Don't over-guard articles - Even if a subject is close to one's heart, or an article has been fostered lovingly, remember that it is still a communal article and communal shared collaboration. Even if it takes the article in a direction that you don't agree with, so long as policies are being followed, allow communal ownership to supersede personal emotional involvement.
  3. Don't be more certain than you have reason to be - Too much certainty can lead to assumptions of bad faith, or to inability to listen to others properly, both sources of conflict.
  4. Don't be zealous to the point other goals are lost - Intense caring for Wikipedia's policies and ways can at times lead to such excess of zeal as to be a problem in its own right. Such editors often do not understand why others criticize them, because in their own eyes they are "just doing what's right for Wikipedia".
  5. Don't slip into bad behavior - Fanaticism often leads towards personal attacks and breaches of civility, if "the truth" becomes "what one wants to hear", rather than "what's best for the project and those ones working with."

I really hope that you are willing to consider these suggestions. Frankly, I would much rather be focusing on the content of the article than fighting over things that we don't have to fight over. Peace. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs)]] 04:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] veganism suggestion

I would like to suggest you take a different approach to the veganism article. We have an article that's been relatively stable for some time until you came along. It's not perfect, but it's substantially better than it's been in the past. What has made this change? Reliable cited sources. My efforts on the article have been focused on doing research and providing these sources, examining each section in turn. Next up is the 'vegan pregnancy' section. I definitely think there is room for a reorganization of the page, but it's going to be 100% more acceptable and easier to do well if most of the content isn't under dispute. So, I would therefore like to suggest that you hold off on trying to reorganize the page, and instead help with the citation effort. I have basically just been using google, google scholar, and pubmed for this. After we've vetted the content of the page, reorganization should be relatively easy. Kellen T 08:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on March 1, 2007 to Veganism

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 09:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)