User talk:UnforgivablyPotatoes

Hi UnforgivablyPotatoes! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of studio potters page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your good faith edits to List of studio potters and added an explanation to the article's history. Please see the article's talk page, section: List selection criteria which explains the criteria to add studio potter's names to the list which do not have Wikipedia articles (redlinks). I agree, redlinks which do not have citations may be removed as notability has not been established, however redlinks which do have citations noting the individuals notability should remain. As a courtesy to editors who have added redlinks, you may opt to create a new section on the article's talk page with the list of redlinks without citations which you have removed asking for citations to provide notability so they may be included in the list. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, UnforgivablyPotatoes! Thank you for your contributions. I am Gmcbjames and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Gmcbjames (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my error in reverting an edit to Chancellor. I thought I was restoring that paragraph but I ended up deleting it instead. I may have misread the sequence of edits but whatever happened I am glad you caught it. Donner60 (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm John from Idegon. Your recent edit to the page Sparks Middle School shooting appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. all crime is not terrorism. This one is not even arguably terrorism. John from Idegon (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't template the regulars, please[1]. While not ideal, this [2] doesn't warrant a warning. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion and UnforgivablyPotatoes: And to be honest, I tend to look back on summaries like that and feel bad. (And sometimes, I feel really bad. It's like, come on, son.) I'm aware that those edit summaries aren't helpful and that sooner or later I'm going to be sorry I do them; it's just that, with an edit like that (Ptolemy is attacked pretty often, the edit was similar to blatant vandalism I've seen lately, and that person used that utterly dishonest summary), I can't assume good faith. I patrol pending changes pretty often and if you did too, you'd see the same damn articles appearing over and over, never getting good edits from new and/or anonymous users. Then you'd understand that it's impossible to clear that backlog unless you accept that there are new and/or anonymous editors who just don't deserve an inch. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RA: It's generally best to be as dull and dispassionate as possible with vandals. @UP: Please tone down the wiki-cop tendencies, one day you may be a little cranky too and may need some slack. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: My attitude is, a permanent edit summary with a scorched-earth attack like this might signal to others, be they future vandal-fighters or admins considering protecting a page, that the problem is irritating at best and completely awful at worst, it's been going on for a long time, and it's got me barking fire even though (believe it or not) I am dull and dispassionate with a vast majority of vandalism I encounter. I know I'm going to go too far eventually. If that's is the price I pay to signal to others that these edits aren't accidents or one-off things, maybe it'll have been worth it. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 03:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still, wp:Civility is policy, and it is important that we make sure not to act aggressively at other editors, no matter how much you think they deserve it or how frustrated you are with them. wp:Wikipedia is not censored, but that is no excuse to use profanity in your edit summaries. For me, vandal fighting is an opportunity to help contribute to Wikipedia, since much of the vandalism is reverted by other contributors. And I wonder why there isn't a user warning for non-civil edit summaries? (which is why I made my reminder not to write non-civil edit summaries look like a user warning template) --UnforgivablyPotatoes (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All good, but I've generally seen that scolding people over minor lapses is detrimental, both on Wikipedia and in the real world. Just because you have a template for something doesn't mean that you should use it. Best to focus on the big stuff. True incivilty is a much larger and more intractable issue than petty incivility of the "piss off!" sort. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I like the way the user warning templates look, and I figured out how to make my own custom user warning templates, but I don't keep them in template spaces. When it comes to me and vandals, I just patrol the recent changes the old-school way. (clicking on the diffs to see whether a revision is vandalism or not) and I sometimes thank users who revert vandalism that I was about to revert. Name-calling (e.g. idiot, dumb), condescension (e.g. if this were kindergarten..., grow up), and judgmental belittling comments (e.g. you are the most disruptive user I have met, you do not have the competence to edit on this site, you should have been blocked sooner) is considered incivil. The civility policy doesn't provide exceptions as far as I've read on it. --UnforgivablyPotatoes (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Experience tells that a thoughtful hand-written note is more productive and effective when dealing with anyone who's been around a little while. See WP:DTTR. Impersonal civility-templating can just make things worse: it requires a light touch, and a sense of humor (carefuly adapted to this text-based medium) is generally appreciated. The now-absent and missed ArielGold discusses this at length at User:ArielGold/Etiquette2. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is a good idea to write your own messages, and humorous messages too. --UnforgivablyPotatoes (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sometimes it's harder to pull off than you'd think, given possible differences in culture, language and outlook. Keep up the good work. Acroterion (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TurkeybuttJC, you are indef blocked. Every time you start a new account and continue the same disruption, you will be blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UnforgivablyPotatoes. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]