Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 13:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to
assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on
Talk:Elaine massacre. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Doug Weller
talk 13:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Elaine massacre, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the
sandbox for that. You deleted well-sourced information. The sources are in the article and the infobox and do not have to be repeated in the
WP:LEAD. It's disturbing that you didn't even bother to check, as has been noted on the article's talk page.
Doug Weller
talk 13:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that good faith is a good thing. I'll admit that I do feel the article is biased, but mostly I felt it was inaccurate - certainly unsubstantiated in at least one critical aspect.
As far as not giving a valid reason - I felt I did! However, I submitted edits for two articles at more or less the same time, and for the same reason. I can't locate my "reason" for either page, but IIRC it was tied to my statements on the Talk pages.
And I certainly intended it to be constructive. Your comment about the sources is not clear to me, as I did check the sources.
Rather than drag this out Q&A style, I have submitted a follow-up on the Elaine massacre Talk Page. Please review & advise.
Seamusdemora ( talk) 15:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller: I have checked the records, and I did give a valid reason for removing the passage in my edit. Perhaps you did not understand my reason? In response to your messages, I augmented the reason for my edit by posting a detailed explanation on the Talk page for the Elaine massacre, but have received no reply or acknowledgement from you since then. Perhaps you do not see replies I post here? Perhaps you are no longer following these articles on Elaine, AR or the Elaine massacre?
I've left other comments on the "Talk" page for the Elaine massacre since your message. I'm not getting much feedback from the other editor (Jacona). As it is now, I feel the article is mostly a one-sided smear - no effort is made to present the information in a balanced way. Consequently, when you admonish me for not acting in good faith, I cannot help but wonder what that means. Let me just say this: I am a frequent Wikipedia user. I have always believed that one could count on Wikipedia as a fair and objective source of information. I believed this strongly enough that I encouraged my children to use it from an early age. I do not feel the article on the Elaine massacre measures up to what I have come to expect from Wikipedia. I could cite several passages from this article to support that, but this doesn't seem the right place to debate that.
Perhaps I have aggravated you and/or Jacona? If I have, let me extend my apologies for doing so, and offer my assurances that it was not my intent to aggravate. One of your messages to me included a link to something called the "Arbitration Committee". I have read part of their charter - to adjudicate "... serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". Your tone leads me to wonder if you feel my actions fall under that classification. Without hearing from you, I can only guess, but I will be happy to submit this to them for review. I am not saying I haven't made mistakes - editing on Wikipedia is rather complex - but I do not feel I have acted in bad faith.
I'll leave things as they are for a few days. If I've not heard from you by then, I will reach out to one of the Committe's clerks, and ask their advice.
Best Regards, Seamusdemora ( talk) 00:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like you and Doug connected later on Talk:Elaine massacre, but just so you know, the welcome message at the top of the page and the notice at the top of this section are standard messages that use templates, sort of like form letters where some custom text can be added to clarify the specific problem. Some Wikipedia editors watch lots of pages for vandalism or other inappropriate edits, or patrol all recent changes. Since they are changing and commenting on hundreds or thousands of pages, they might not come back later to any given page, including your user talk page, looking for a response from you. It's not that they're specifically ignoring you because you've angered them or anything. You may find it helpful to use the ping feature to bring your response to the attention of another editor in this or any other situation.
If it's not become clear already, I'd also like to mention that the work of editing articles is not really coordinated behind the scenes like it would be at a commercial encyclopedia where a boss might dole out assignments to underlings. Articles are generally edited by whoever randomly decides to pitch in, and there's no one particularly in charge of anything. What coordination does happen is the conversation on talk pages and in edit summaries, and sometimes via WikiProjects where people interested in a particular topic or type of problem (like neutrality or grammar) randomly decide to pitch in (but there's almost never enough labor to completely cover all articles a project might want to in a systematic and timely way). There is more coordination for site-wide guidelines and behavioral enforcement, as you can see on the pages dedicated to those efforts, but those are also driven almost entirely by self-organized volunteers. -- Beland ( talk) 19:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 13:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to
assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on
Talk:Elaine massacre. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Doug Weller
talk 13:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Elaine massacre, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the
sandbox for that. You deleted well-sourced information. The sources are in the article and the infobox and do not have to be repeated in the
WP:LEAD. It's disturbing that you didn't even bother to check, as has been noted on the article's talk page.
Doug Weller
talk 13:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that good faith is a good thing. I'll admit that I do feel the article is biased, but mostly I felt it was inaccurate - certainly unsubstantiated in at least one critical aspect.
As far as not giving a valid reason - I felt I did! However, I submitted edits for two articles at more or less the same time, and for the same reason. I can't locate my "reason" for either page, but IIRC it was tied to my statements on the Talk pages.
And I certainly intended it to be constructive. Your comment about the sources is not clear to me, as I did check the sources.
Rather than drag this out Q&A style, I have submitted a follow-up on the Elaine massacre Talk Page. Please review & advise.
Seamusdemora ( talk) 15:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller: I have checked the records, and I did give a valid reason for removing the passage in my edit. Perhaps you did not understand my reason? In response to your messages, I augmented the reason for my edit by posting a detailed explanation on the Talk page for the Elaine massacre, but have received no reply or acknowledgement from you since then. Perhaps you do not see replies I post here? Perhaps you are no longer following these articles on Elaine, AR or the Elaine massacre?
I've left other comments on the "Talk" page for the Elaine massacre since your message. I'm not getting much feedback from the other editor (Jacona). As it is now, I feel the article is mostly a one-sided smear - no effort is made to present the information in a balanced way. Consequently, when you admonish me for not acting in good faith, I cannot help but wonder what that means. Let me just say this: I am a frequent Wikipedia user. I have always believed that one could count on Wikipedia as a fair and objective source of information. I believed this strongly enough that I encouraged my children to use it from an early age. I do not feel the article on the Elaine massacre measures up to what I have come to expect from Wikipedia. I could cite several passages from this article to support that, but this doesn't seem the right place to debate that.
Perhaps I have aggravated you and/or Jacona? If I have, let me extend my apologies for doing so, and offer my assurances that it was not my intent to aggravate. One of your messages to me included a link to something called the "Arbitration Committee". I have read part of their charter - to adjudicate "... serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". Your tone leads me to wonder if you feel my actions fall under that classification. Without hearing from you, I can only guess, but I will be happy to submit this to them for review. I am not saying I haven't made mistakes - editing on Wikipedia is rather complex - but I do not feel I have acted in bad faith.
I'll leave things as they are for a few days. If I've not heard from you by then, I will reach out to one of the Committe's clerks, and ask their advice.
Best Regards, Seamusdemora ( talk) 00:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like you and Doug connected later on Talk:Elaine massacre, but just so you know, the welcome message at the top of the page and the notice at the top of this section are standard messages that use templates, sort of like form letters where some custom text can be added to clarify the specific problem. Some Wikipedia editors watch lots of pages for vandalism or other inappropriate edits, or patrol all recent changes. Since they are changing and commenting on hundreds or thousands of pages, they might not come back later to any given page, including your user talk page, looking for a response from you. It's not that they're specifically ignoring you because you've angered them or anything. You may find it helpful to use the ping feature to bring your response to the attention of another editor in this or any other situation.
If it's not become clear already, I'd also like to mention that the work of editing articles is not really coordinated behind the scenes like it would be at a commercial encyclopedia where a boss might dole out assignments to underlings. Articles are generally edited by whoever randomly decides to pitch in, and there's no one particularly in charge of anything. What coordination does happen is the conversation on talk pages and in edit summaries, and sometimes via WikiProjects where people interested in a particular topic or type of problem (like neutrality or grammar) randomly decide to pitch in (but there's almost never enough labor to completely cover all articles a project might want to in a systematic and timely way). There is more coordination for site-wide guidelines and behavioral enforcement, as you can see on the pages dedicated to those efforts, but those are also driven almost entirely by self-organized volunteers. -- Beland ( talk) 19:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)