| Revision as of 17:48, 28 March 2007 editTxMCJ (talk | contribs)788 edits →Re: Evolution lead/Mandaclair← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:00, 28 March 2007 edit undoGnixon (talk | contribs)2,977 edits →Re: Evolution lead/MandaclairNext edit → | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| Also, I am sure you must not have meant it this way, but your comments and some of your actions have made it appear that you feel your claimed background makes you above the rules--that if anyone attempts to hold you to any standard of behavior, you'll call it "bureaucracy" and walk away, taking your brilliant mind with you, and if that happens it's our loss and our fault. "Thin-skinned" may not have been the best way of summing up this impression; I was trying in that choice of words to actually soften it a bit. Have no doubt, constructive input from experts like you claim to be is very welcome, but please try and have some respect for the others here. There are many qualified people involved in these articles--some, no doubt, with even better credentials than the ones you say you have, though your comments have sounded quite dismissive of all of them. | Also, I am sure you must not have meant it this way, but your comments and some of your actions have made it appear that you feel your claimed background makes you above the rules--that if anyone attempts to hold you to any standard of behavior, you'll call it "bureaucracy" and walk away, taking your brilliant mind with you, and if that happens it's our loss and our fault. "Thin-skinned" may not have been the best way of summing up this impression; I was trying in that choice of words to actually soften it a bit. Have no doubt, constructive input from experts like you claim to be is very welcome, but please try and have some respect for the others here. There are many qualified people involved in these articles--some, no doubt, with even better credentials than the ones you say you have, though your comments have sounded quite dismissive of all of them. | ||
| Anyway, as ] pointed out, you just happen to have started off with one of the most active and controversial articles on Misplaced Pages. Being involved in the ] article does, unfortunately, seem take a rather high level of commitment, simply because it changes so rapidly. There are some conversations there that I would like to be involved in but simply can't, because of how quickly they progress and the amount of time I am able to put into them. Thus if I hadn't reverted your edits, you still could have come back in a few weeks and found your text dramatically altered or gone because the page is so fluid. | Anyway, as ] pointed out, you just happen to have started off with one of the most active and controversial articles on Misplaced Pages. Being involved in the ] article does, unfortunately, seem take a rather high level of commitment, simply because it changes so rapidly. There are some conversations there that I would like to be involved in but simply can't, because of how quickly they progress and the amount of time I am able to put into them. Thus if I hadn't reverted your edits, you still could have come back in a few weeks and found your text dramatically altered or gone because the page is so fluid. | ||
| That said, most of the articles here are not like that, and many are languishing in need of even one or two interested and qualified editors. Though you are of course very welcome at ], if you only have a little time to contribute, you may want to check out some of the less busy and more specific articles, where discussion and controversy is fairly minimal. For example, it sounds like you have a lot to contribute to the ] article, which is pretty quiet. Many of the other sub-articles linked from the ] article are the same, and you could also check out ] and the extensive list of ] for articles that need help. | That said, most of the articles here are not like that, and many are languishing in need of even one or two interested and qualified editors. Though you are of course very welcome at ], if you only have a little time to contribute, you may want to check out some of the less busy and more specific articles, where discussion and controversy is fairly minimal. For example, it sounds like you have a lot to contribute to the ] article, which is pretty quiet. Many of the other sub-articles linked from the ] article are the same, and you could also check out ] and the extensive list of ] for articles that need help. | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| Kind regards, and good luck with the Evolution article.] 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | Kind regards, and good luck with the Evolution article.] 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Well, the roller derby edit ''did'' kinda look like vandalism, although I understand your intent. ;-) I even remember it from months ago when I was watching that article. Eve, I think you could give her a break. I hardly think she's being arrogant, just expressing a common frustration. Her talk page is hers to do with as she will, regardless of custom. Both of you obviously have good intentions, so why quarrel over little things? Just my 2 cents. Cheers, ] 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC). | |||
Revision as of 18:00, 28 March 2007
|
Re: Evolution lead/Mandaclair
"Thin-skinned" may have been an imprecise term for what I meant, I apologize for the imprecision, and also for assuming your gender. I was actually more concerned about your repeated blanking of your talk page, even after it was explained to you that it was against the rules. You do know, don't you, that the entire history of your talk page, as well as all the edits you've made, is permanently stored in your history--so if there's something you're trying to hide (such as the repeat vandalism warning you received last summer), you're only drawing attention to it. When you blank a conversation people are participating in, they will want to go to your history to see what they've missed--otherwise, no one would have any reason to visit your Talk page history.
Also, I am sure you must not have meant it this way, but your comments and some of your actions have made it appear that you feel your claimed background makes you above the rules--that if anyone attempts to hold you to any standard of behavior, you'll call it "bureaucracy" and walk away, taking your brilliant mind with you, and if that happens it's our loss and our fault. "Thin-skinned" may not have been the best way of summing up this impression; I was trying in that choice of words to actually soften it a bit. Have no doubt, constructive input from experts like you claim to be is very welcome, but please try and have some respect for the others here. There are many qualified people involved in these articles--some, no doubt, with even better credentials than the ones you say you have, though your comments have sounded quite dismissive of all of them.
Anyway, as Gnixon pointed out, you just happen to have started off with one of the most active and controversial articles on Misplaced Pages. Being involved in the Evolution article does, unfortunately, seem take a rather high level of commitment, simply because it changes so rapidly. There are some conversations there that I would like to be involved in but simply can't, because of how quickly they progress and the amount of time I am able to put into them. Thus if I hadn't reverted your edits, you still could have come back in a few weeks and found your text dramatically altered or gone because the page is so fluid.
That said, most of the articles here are not like that, and many are languishing in need of even one or two interested and qualified editors. Though you are of course very welcome at Evolution, if you only have a little time to contribute, you may want to check out some of the less busy and more specific articles, where discussion and controversy is fairly minimal. For example, it sounds like you have a lot to contribute to the History of evolutionary thought article, which is pretty quiet. Many of the other sub-articles linked from the Evolution article are the same, and you could also check out WikiProject Biology and the extensive list of Biology Stubs for articles that need help.
Hope the Honkytonk Heartbreakers are still the best rollerderby team in the solar system :-) --EveRickert 16:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
---
Hi Eve. Thank you for your informative message. Actually the Misplaced Pages rules as I read them, do not say anything about blanking your *own* Talk page. Please correct me if I am wrong and direct me to the written rules to that effect.
In addition, I would like to point out that just because some Misplaced Pages'er somewhere is of the opinion that certain edits are "vandalism", does not make it determinately so. None of the three entries you refer to, that were subsequently deleted by other editors, fall under Misplaced Pages's definition of Vandalism, and two of those entries (Threepeat, WFTDA as a secret society) were arguably constructive, informative edits to those entries. The third entry (to solar system) was not an entry about roller derby as much as it was an entry about using the term "solar system" as a context within a statement of hyperbole.
It is unfortunate that users like yourself can make Misplaced Pages such a difficult, unpleasant environment to try to disseminate valuable information in. It is no wonder that there is not more of a professional presence here. I really don't understand how anyone has the time to write, weed through, and reply to postings such as the one you've posted here. As you ought to realize, my breaking of the "rules" has nothing to do with arrogance, and everything to do with the fact that I don't spend a lot of time on Misplaced Pages, and don't have a lot of time to spend studying within the Wiki School of Etiquette and Protocol. I thought I might have some valuable information to share and contribute, but beyond that, I really cannot be bothered with all of this drama.
Kind regards, and good luck with the Evolution article.Mandaclair 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the roller derby edit did kinda look like vandalism, although I understand your intent. ;-) I even remember it from months ago when I was watching that article. Eve, I think you could give her a break. I hardly think she's being arrogant, just expressing a common frustration. Her talk page is hers to do with as she will, regardless of custom. Both of you obviously have good intentions, so why quarrel over little things? Just my 2 cents. Cheers, Gnixon 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC).