User talk:Edton

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Edton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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! IZAK 11:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sep 25 CfD[edit]

Hi Edton,

...just to ensure that another of David's weird suggestions doesn't get any traction.

Would you say you find many/most of my suggestions weird...? If so, in what way/s...? I appreciate feedback as I may then adjust them accordingly. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless edits[edit]

What is the purpose of such edits? I don't see how they help improve Wikipedia. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of good presentation? Edton 09:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ghirlandajo has, and I have too. Now, what's the point of such edits? (Or, if you prefer, how do such edits improve the presentation?) -- Hoary 11:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By prioritising the important information. It is not rocket science. I am going to do some more right now. Edton 14:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't rocket science. And since description isn't rocket science either, let me describe what, from my PoV, you've done in the particular example that Ghirlandajo selected. First, you've moved categories from their regular place immediately above other-language versions. This has no effect on the appearance of the article when viewed in the regular way, but is distracting for future editors. Secondly, you've rearranged the categories away from the alphanumeric (0, 2, 3 ... A, B, ... Z) order that's conventional within WP, again making a minor distraction for future editors. And this strange edit has no edit summary. I'll turn to your most recent edit: You've done good work on the categories, but again have pointlessly moved these above the stub, and again you haven't provided an edit summary. -- Hoary 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. It is not true that alphanumeric order is standard. The relevant policy states that there is no consensus on this matter, but many people have argued in favour of ordering categories by relevance. In response to your insulting tone I plan to double and treble my efforts. Edton 15:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "insulting tone"? -- Hoary 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't intend to be insulting, but I felt rather demeaned that the sincere effort I am making to improve Wikipedia was dismissed as less than worthless, when there is no policy that backs up your opposition to what I am doing. Edton 16:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good first step would be to use edit summaries. For example, "Prioritising information by ordering categories by significance within article". -- Hoary 16:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please try to use edit summaries more often so people can understand the intent of such edits, as I admit I was a tad confused by them at at a first glance myself. Also, it's usually more acceptable for the category sorting to be done in addition to editing other parts of the articles in question instead of edits solely being just to organize the categories. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 23:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason whatsoever not to edit solely the categories. I can only think you are coming from the angle that people who edit the text have some sort of "ownership" stake in the articles, but policy states unambiguously that that is not the case. Edton 10:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I barge in for the same reason (See [1]) ... there is no need to solely change a category ordering even if it is done in good faith. There is no policy/guideline on Help:Category to let you know what order they should be in and so just merely changing categories order is not considered a good practice for many reasons: 1)It is time-consuming for you as you could do more useful stuff like wikifying articles/adding categories to other articles; 2)It is time-consuming for the people that have such articles on their watchlist (and are stopped to look if the page wasn't vandalized) especially if there is no edit summary; 3)It is considered a bad practice to make minor edits to have the interface the way you prefer it (and without consensus with that); 4)It is not appropriate to make minor edits and not define them (by clicking the This is a minor edit checkbox) as such. Lincher 17:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will decide my priorities thank you, not you. In many cases I make other adjustments that I notice are needed. Frankly Wikipedia is a shoddy mess, and there are few things it needs more than people willing to work on the presentation, as at the moment the tide of badly written and presented content is not under control. Edton 18:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should draw peoples' attention to WP:BITE! Alan Pascoe 14:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{1911}}[edit]

Please use a "==References==" header before the tag. Thanks. -- User:Docu

Sorry, my priority is to get the categories in a sensible order, and where using that heading interferes with that I will not use it. Edton 11:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What seems sensible to you may not be to others. Wikipedia is a collaborative group effort. When others object to your edits, you are bound to work with them to resolve your differences. Please read Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thank you. --Blainster 20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment dismissed as made in bad faith given that Ghirla is apparently tracking this page with a view to entering into arguments. My view is as valid as Docu's. Docu doesn't seem to understand the need for good presentation for the benefit of readers. Readers are more important than editors. I am entitled to edit Wikipedia and will continue to do so in the face of the harrassment I am suffering. Indeed it will only make me more determined. Edton 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to return to the original point, I believe that describing an incorporation of text as a "reference" is misleading in any case. It is much better to let the accurate description of the situation produced by the template speak for itself. Edton 21:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page just for attacking me?[edit]

It seems to be that only negative comments are made on talk pages. I am making hundreds of edits to improve Wikipedia which seem to meet with general acceptance because almost all of them are left in place. It is no suprise to get no thanks, but it seems that when one or two people disagree with something they appoint themselves are representatives of the community who are entitled to tell me to stop. I will not do this because I believe that these individuals are in the minority. People who have a complaint complain, but those who are happy say nothing, and therefore this page gives what I believe to be a wholly misleading impression about how my efforts have been received. Edton 20:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are being attacked more than anyone else. In the near past, you have made edits that do not conform to WP:MoS, to WP:CONSENSUS or WP:POINT. It is ok and in going toward that, people want to make you aware that your edits are being heard by a quatity of people and that if one feels something, he probably isn't the only one in this situation. I will give examples of what I mean.

- I reject these slurs. It is outrageous to accuse me of bias without producing a shred of credible evidence. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Edton 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This modification here [2] is original research or NPOV because the line most notably known has a grading feeling to it. It supports a judgment.
- That edit was designed to correct an introduction which was misleading because it was at variance with the text, which is typical of Wikipedia's sloppy work. I applied a quick fix, and suggest that you go back and work on the article further. Edton 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edits like [3], [4] could be interpreted to prove a point, and by just re-ordering the categories people will find you do not contribute helpfully to wikipedia unless you also copyedit the article in question.
- That is utter rubbish and highly insulting. It is like the people who write the articles for EB saying that the editorial staff at EB's offices do not "contribute helpfully" to Encyclopedia Britannica. You do not understand that a reference work requires two main types of work: writing of material and editorial work on presentation. Wikipedia has a lot of contributors who add valuable but badly presented content and it needs more people to tidy it up. Your hostile attitude to such attempts is lamentable. Edton 21:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An edit like this [5] is unwikipedia/unencyclopedic like in such a way that you just do it the way you like it. The way WP intends it (See WP:MoS) is by placing the EB1911 with the references and in doing so helping the reader/reviewers know where the information comes from.
- The manual of style is a guideline not a policy and this part is ill-thought out, misleading and productive of sloppy categorisation. It needs to be changed. I am disappointed that at the same time as adopting such an authoritative tone you are presenting a mere guideline as something which much be obeyed. Edton 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But,

An edit like this [6] is seen in a good light for it adds categories and orders wikipedia.

Also, people might be unhappy with your work because you change the inner part of wikipedia instead of bringing content. If you were to add information instead of moving things around or if you were to better the quality of articles by moving things around, it would be seen as helpful but what you do will be criticized for it is not thoroughly helpful. Lincher 21:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Your contempt for certain badly needed types of contribution is appalling. Edton 21:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the above is apparently yes[edit]

If you have no intention but to try to demean my efforts, please desist. Edton 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am letting you know to just listen to the voices around you and to conform to what wikipedia's policies are and what the guidelines are for. I do not intend to revert any of your edits and I will not stalk you into making you go mad, this is a desistment as you intend it but if anymore questionable edits are made I will surely come back and let you know that they aren't in accordance with what is meant by the community as a whole. BTW, on the Japanese Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia and some other, they tend to block editors that just move categories around just like (90% of your edits), but feel free to continue if you feel it helps the community. Lincher 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:American B-movie actors[edit]

I have nominated Category:American B-movie actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American anti-communists has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Category:American anti-communists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of System sales[edit]

The article System sales has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTDICTIONARY, lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]