User talk:YeAntientistWeepingBeech

Welcome!

Hello, YeAntientistWeepingBeech, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

-- Hi I notice you improved Groton Bank Historic District article, thanks! I created or added to a lot of similar articles in the past, myself. If you are interested in historic sites like that one, perhaps you would like to join wp:NRHP, the WikiProject about National Register places. Either way, you are welcome to post questions or comments at its Talk page, wt:NRHP. I will "watchlist" here and will probably see if you reply here, but feel free to contact me at my Talk page any time. Cheers, --do ncr am 16:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: YeAntientistWeepingBeech (May 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Joe Decker was:

You don't need to submit your user page for approval, this process is for articles, not user pages. That having been said, your draft here complies with our policies as near as I can tell, you can simply edit your user page and put the information there.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:YeAntientistWeepingBeech/sandbox/YeAntientistWeepingBeech and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

joe decker ^talk 17:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! YeAntientistWeepingBeech, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! joe decker ^talk 17:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving a note here in case you didn't see what I wrote elsewhere, you're welcome to simply edit your user page without submitting it as an article for approval. Welcome to Wikipedia, and please let me know if I can help you find your way around the place here. Do check out the links in the welcome template at the top here, too, they're a helpful introduction. --joe decker ^talk 17:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Ravi Shankar (poet). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yashovardhan.
Thank you for your comments, suggestions and friendly warnings. I appreciate it. I edited that page after seeing the material in question missing. I remember that story clearly when it occurred and recently read a thorough recounting of it online (which I did not link to because it is appears on Medium and a journal's blog). But I was surprised to see no mention of criminal convictions, resignation and the fall-out on the subject's article, as it was a big story in that community and has had last repercussions in the writing community, the academic/teaching profession and higher education. Still, I took great pains to link only to mainstream articles and reporting from newspapers and news sites and focus on the actual cases and their resolutions. Again, I'm a newbie, but I didn't understand how a linked section could be disappeared and more by what seemed to be repeated unregistered IPs. The previously mentioned recounting [I am glad to link to it here, but not sure that's appropriate or since it's on a journal's website not sure if it qualifies as an adequate source] discussed the subject's repeated use of sock puppets online and that, combined by these speedy erasures from IPs around the world, raised my suspicions.
In any case, I am thankful for your comments and advice and will let the process continue.--YeAntientistWeepingBeech (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at your edits in detail so I'm not sure if they were the right thing to do. I did deny aDRN case filed by a third party due to lack of discussion. I suggest you to read WP:DISCFAIL which will help you understand what you can do if your additions are repeatedly reverted and the other editor doesn't discuss. Good to have you here on Wikipedia! Yashovardhan (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, from the peanut gallery, i am just curious, and went to see what editing was going on at Ravi Shankar (poet). I noticed this contribution by you of sourced material about criminal violations, and see that was removed by another editor. Hey, it is very hard for most people to get started at all in Wikipedia, with the biggest hurdle in my opinion being that new editors don't appreciate that everything they add needs to be reliably sourced. Also there are a lot of rules here, either explicit ones in the policies and guidelines or unwritten ones that get developed in practice, which even experienced editors don't know and/or they try to impose them or act upon them without explanation.

Your addition does appear to be reliably sourced. And from what else I have seen, it looks like you are really perfect for being a great Wikipedia contributor, and I really do hope you like the place and stay. However, encyclopedic coverage of negative stuff about living persons is a really difficult area, and editing in such areas can be like running into a buzz-saw i think. I have developed biography articles, but mostly about no-longer-living architects or not-controversial architects. And I have avoided contentious Biography of Living Person (BLP) articles for the most part, but I have participated in some. Like many editors, I don't like to see legitimate negative stuff whitewashed out by the subject person or their supporters, and it needs to be conveyed that some Nobel-prize-winning scientist was in fact convicted of child molestation or whatever. One consideration I gather is that the extent of encyclopedia coverage needs to be appropriate, like some small negative thing cannot be given undue coverage. Here, at first glance it looks like what you wrote was too long and gave too much negativity in what is otherwise a pretty short article about the subject, in my humble opinion. I second the suggestion above and also at the Talk page of the article, that proposals about the negative stuff be discussed (probably at the Talk page of the article).... you could do well to make your proposal explicitly there and then walk away and do other stuff in Wikipedia for a while, and come back to the discussion and the article in a month or two or more. Reading up on the BLP-related policies and guidelines is also good to do. But one very easy and good way to learn about policies and unwritten rules about biographies might be to participate for a while in the Articles For Deletion process about biographies, i.e. browse at Category:AfD debates (Biographical) and try posting your opinions in some of those, and monitor them and see how they turn out.

Anyhow, again I am glad you are participating and i hope you will hang in there, don't be upset if your recent contribution is reverted, not immediately appreciated. Note that what you wrote out still does exist, in the edit history of the article you or someone else can find it and copy it to a Talk page or reinsert it into a future version of the article. Only truly horrible personal attacks get purged out of all records by a process called revision deletion. --cheers, --do ncr am 18:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello do ncr am,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. And also the praise. I've left a more detailed comment about this matter above in response to an earlier comment. I trust the system that's been created over the years and look forward to learning about it more. Apologies for my bullishness in editing. The page apparently seems to have now been protected by someone else, of which I am glad, and my initial submissions remain on the page. Thank you again.--YeAntientistWeepingBeech (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

antientism

My last comment for the day: you're not against ents, are you? I won a Halloween contest by my Ent costume once. I think Ents are under-appreciated, and I am especially against discrimination against them, so i guess that makes me an antiantientist. --do ncr am 18:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love that. No. I'm grateful to the ents for their destruction of the orc foundries at Isengard and trapping Saruman there. My name refers to a glorious (ent-like?) weeping beech tree at Ye Antientist Burial Ground in London, Connecticut. I believe it's one of the oldest weeping beeches in New England.YeAntientistWeepingBeech (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good, whew!

You're not an antindentist, either, i hope. :) In this edit I modified your reply here by indenting it (using ":"). It is unimportant, even tedious, to explain, but I will just share anyhow about this mostly unwritten practice. Note Wikipedia is trying hard to develop its WYSIWYG editor for mainspace articles, but communication between editors at Talk page are saddled with an obsolete system that doesn't support threading or normal features that anyone would expect. Chaos is lessened by most editors indenting their comments when responding to a previous comment. If discussion wanders too far over to the right, someone will "unindent", perhaps inserting an {{unindent}} template to mark it self-consciously. Continuity is helped by extra-indenting of any reply to an earlier comment, when discussion has gone on below, so that a smaller side conversation can happen, with clarity as to what follows what. Note that editor Yashovardhan used 2 indent characters in their comment "I didn't look at your edits in detail..." in discussion section above, so that it would remain clear that my comment was in response to yours not to that. For you to reply to their comment, you would indent just once more than that. Extra indenting helps for side conversations to happen which don't disrupt the overall flow of a discussion. Inserting a subsection title about the side conversation would unfortunately fragment and disrupt the flow. Anyhow, there are no absolute requirements about indenting, and on this page there is no confusion, but in longer discussions involving many parties it can help a lot. Some editors are touchy about any change at all being made to what they have posted, and in general you shouldn't fix others' grammar or spelling, but merely indenting their comments for clarity about what follows what is sometimes okay. Here on your own Talk page you could certainly go back and indent your and others' comments within the section above, though it is hardly necessary. You would have absorbed all this from just seeing other Talk page discussions going on, no doubt, but I point it out partly to illustrate about unwritten rules/practices which I was making claims about above. I don't know if there are factions of indenters vs. antiindenters in Wikipedia; a more well-known divide is between "inclusionists" vs. "deletionists"; i am pretty much in the first of those two categories. Enough! cheers, --do ncr am 19:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:YeAntientistWeepingBeech/sandbox/YeAntientistWeepingBeech

Hello, YeAntientistWeepingBeech. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/YeAntientistWeepingBeech".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 23:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]