Hello, Blanes tree, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Qflib ( talk) 18:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Some of the edits you have made on my articles are fair. I agree with many of them. I have been too liberal with the use of some sources. We can agree on that.

But you need to actually research these people before making edits. You have no awareness of who these people are and what they do. If you did any research on Cameron Mason you would find that he was a well-known YouTuber before being a well-known bike racer. If this article was from 4 years ago, the article would be more about his YouTube than his cycling. This is reflected in the new reference I used for this passage (the link to his YouTube is no longer the reference for him being a content creator).

I am happy to debate on edits. In many cases you have made valid points. This one is plainly unresearched, and unlike your other edits which I will honour, this once I will continue to revert. Theobrad ( talk) 12:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't understand why you're not being WP:NICE? Blanes tree ( talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

See Hounding discussion Theobrad ( talk) 12:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I just saw that you added primary source and notability tags to an article I recently expanded, on the attorney Melvin Wulf. I'm a new Wiki editor and was wondering if you could talk me through your decision to add these tags, so I can better understand what to do or not to do in the future. Thanks! Zelda Zanders ( talk) 14:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Certainly, I placed the tag because the page is mostly cited to sources close to or published by the subject. Please do not remove the tag until you have address this issue. Blanes tree ( talk) 15:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you point me to the sources you're referring to? I'm only aware of two: the Rutgers Oral History Archive interview conducted by Nicholas Molnar (previously cited 4 times, now only 2) and Wulf's article about Philip Agee, cited one time. Are there other sources you have concerns over? Zelda Zanders ( talk) 15:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It's probaly best if you ask your mentoor or ask about it at the TreeHouse Blanes tree ( talk) 15:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I will do that! However, since you added the tag, I'd also love to understand your thinking about it. Thanks so much! Zelda Zanders ( talk) 15:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Blanes tree ( talk) 16:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm just wondering which sources prompted you to add the "primary source" tag. Zelda Zanders ( talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Zelda Zanders I can't answer for Blanes_tree's view, but the Supreme Court cases are primary sources. They can be used per WP:PRIMARYSOURCES to validate uncontroversial facts, but secondary sources are preferred. The oral history interview is both primary and non-independent and again should be used sparingly to validate uncontroversial facts about the subject. I haven't reviewed closely to see if this is the case. Either way, you have a good range of secondary sources on Wulf and I think this is a terrific article, especially for a newcomer! Dclemens1971 ( talk) 03:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, Blanes_tree. After seeing your (apparent) mistake of interpreting an editor's response in the W. David Marx AfD, I took a closer look at your edit history.

I am concerned that your edit history shows an inordinately heavy focus on @ Theobrad's contributions; in addition to targeting their edits on other pages, you have either nominated for deletion or deleted extensive passages from every single article the user has created. Focusing on a single user's work this way can often be interpreted as WP:HOUNDING, which is a form of harassment. I don't think all of your edits are off-base, but I do think several of them are non-constructive, particularly in the way you describe them. For example, you remove the word "eponymous" and describe it as "Horrible disregard for Wikipedia's encyclopaedic tone here," which is an overreaction in tone and substance. (Eponymous is a perfectly encyclopedic word that just means something is named after someone or something else.) On Cameron Mason, you removed a reliably sourced statement with the edit summary "Wikipedia is not a soapbox for YouTubers to plug their channels," even though the edit you objected to did not include a link to the subject's YouTube channel and there was no evidence that Mason was adding the text himself.

I am concerned about some of your other edits, as well. On Melvin Wulf, you added a notability tag, even though the article clearly asserts notability with adequate sourcing to clear WP:GNG. (And indeed, anyone who receives a New York Times obit is generally going to be found notable.) If you're interested in learning more about how your fellow editors interpret the notability guidelines, spending time as an observer or participant in AfD discussions will give you a good sense for this.

You've only been here a few months, but you seem to have a positive desire to make sure Wikipedia content is not promotional. This is great! I just want to be sure you are aware of the policy on WP:HOUNDING in case you were not aware of it, and to invite you to be a little less dogmatic in how you engage with your fellow volunteers. Yes, be WP:BOLD, but also be aware this is a collaborative project, and we are all WP:HERE to build the encyclopedia together. Hope this helps. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 03:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

After reverting problematic edits by Blanes_tree on the VFS Global article, he likewise engaged in WP:HOUNDING me as well. He wrote a comment on The Great Gatsby directing me to "rewrite" that Featured Article.

Fascinatingly, Blanes_tree claims in his recent edit on The Great Gatsby's Talk Page to be a friend of the author and his wife. F. Scott Fitzgerald (whom he misidentifies as "Frank") died in 1940, and Zelda Fitzgerald died in 1948. He would need to be nearly 100 years old for this claim to be true. Assuming WP:GOODFAITH, I shall take him at his word. I look forward to hearing his recollections of drinking with F. Scott Fitzgerald and fishing with Ernest Hemingway. — Flask ( talk) 04:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree and I accept that my behaviour on this platform has fallen below the threshold. I shouldn't be hounding Theobrad or User:Zelda Zanders. If I do it again, which I won't then you should definitely report me to whoever is in charge here. Blanes tree ( talk) 12:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your apology. I don't think each individual issue was intended to be Hounding but the result of the accumulative action ended up being so. Additionally I do think your opinion-based edits on The Great Gatsby page were both completely out of ordered and just your opinions instead of a constructive discussion of ideas - especially as you cited no information or literary criticism to support your "claims". Theobrad ( talk) 12:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That's fair and I can't apologise enough for my behaviour. I'm still learning the ropes and finding my way around. I think I have found the appropriate message board for you to report your concerns about me to. Would you like me to share the link with you? Blanes tree ( talk) 12:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this response. Glad to see a conversation was able to resolve a problem before higher levels of dispute resolution are needed. W/r/t Flask's comment, please remember to respond to users' messages on article talk pages before reverting/redoing reverted edits. I'll leave the conversation here and see you around the project. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 12:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your compassion but I can't help but feel that my behaviour is really, really bad so maybe a you know what at the you know where is required here? Blanes tree ( talk) 13:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't know the procedure. However, I think this remaining on your Talk page is enough of a reminder to yourself to check yourself before making edits. And it will be helpful for other people to see this if you were to go after someone else's work again. Theobrad ( talk) 15:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That's very kind of you, but I do think you should escalate your concerns just in case I am tempted to edit any pages that you've started again. I'm a very impulsive person and I just can't help myself sometimes. You really should file an incident report. Blanes tree ( talk) 15:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC) reply