This is Soetermans's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please stop mass reverting edits of new users, especially when their edits are correct and the categories they add apply. Consistently Heinous ( talk) 19:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Mentioned you here, so just flagging as a courtesy. Of course the issue is not remotely with your conduct. Have a great evening. Star Mississippi 01:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect SQ/200 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 18 § SQ/200 until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS ( talk) 09:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your note on revision history, I am not adding anything new I added back what was removed without consensus, it is the one who removed the info without consensus that should ask for consensus, I merely added back info that was there even few days ago and had stayed for a long time, things about vehicles and all, but yeah selectively choose me to seek consensus, when I reverted it to OG state not added new info, as per rules the one who had removed long time established info should go consensus, anyway good day. Dilbaggg ( talk) 03:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Soetermans, I want to say that I greatly appreciate your numerous and lengthy history of contributions to the wikipedia community. Although I have used wikipedia for 20 years, I had never created a username and I had only begun editing articles 18 months ago. I am writing to let you know of my experience with the process of communication as a mature person, but also a novice to wikipedia. On January 18th and 19th, I made a series of edits to the plot synopsis for the movie cast away. Initially I made a large edit that included stylistic changes to improve clarity, deletions to remove unnecessary text, additions to crucial elements of the plot, and factual corrections for accuracy. You reverted that almost instantly. So I changed strategies to make series of smaller edits. After reverting several of those as well. I made a "salty" edit summary "No one should care about Bettina Peterson's name. It's inconsequential." You then reverted that as well. The rationale given to reverting my edits was that they were not improvements or were unnecessary. You then sent a message to my IPs talk page. In the immediate aftermath of your reversions of what I considered to be generally thought-out, reasoned, and documented edits, I interpreted your message as discourteous and borderline rude. I was earnestly upset.
But, upon reflection clearly your message was boilerplate used because of your workload to the community. (Thank you again). And it seems like you have several versions depending on the nature of the situation. Anyway, at the end of your message about my edits not being constructive, you wrote "If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page." As your page is semi-protected due to past vandalism, any user that wishes to reply to your message must make a username, make 10 edits, and wait four days (actually 96 hours). Although likely an important step to limit the number of random IP talk pages that you might need to monitor, when I was denied the ability to respond, I was not sure if your direction for me to post to your talk page was an intentional slight meant to indicate that my involvement and edits didn't matter. Although I contend that a jeep is not a truck, and construction of something is different than construction on something, I now feel that corresponding about that communication process is more important than discussing the merits of my proposed edits to cast away's plot synopsis.
While its arguably better that I've had two weeks to think about this response, I believe that directing communication to your semi-protected talk page from individuals who edit wikipedia without an account, to be problematic. It disadvantages these new users. As the notification that the user cannot post is immediate on your talk page, it can be interpreted as either passive aggressive or at least a "mixed message." Since users then do not feel that they can talk to you, it incentivizes making additional edits and corresponding through the edit summaries, which is inappropriate and as I understand it undesirable within this community. So I have a suggestion for you. Change the language of your message to, "If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page or reply to this message on your own talk page."
With appreciation and respect from one beer guy to another,
Adonjay ( talk) 06:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thanks for your help!
Falconik123 (
talk) 21:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! I noticed you removed a big chunk of content on American Truck Simulator. I do agree that it did rely heavily on primary sources (I agree that the Trucks section was completely unnecessary, maybe not so much the states section but I'm not gunna argue on that), however do you think the map would be of use in the article? I feel it would be helpful to illustrate how much of the US the game currently has rather than a simple "The game is expanded up to the Midwest" which is somewhat vague as the Midwest is made up of multiple different states. ― Blaze Wolf Talkblaze__wolf 20:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tom & Jerry (2021 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Jones.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey hey. Just saw your tag at the Cozy game article. I'm not sure how I can specify it further, the citation itself says "dozens" within. Is there something from the article I can use to change? Not sure how I can adjust this for you. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 18:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I removed the stylization besides the parenthesized note, this is standard (see Doom page). I do not think it is necessary or in good faith to revert the entire paragraph of updated story me and other editors had put. While it was inflated at first, I and others fixed it to be concise and reasonable. This is a video game in early access, it receives updates, this is why the page did not previously contain a section on the final war. I have also noticed that you constantly revert articles often with no real reason, other then when the accounts are newer or because for whatever reason you believe that it was not necessary. You have also stated in a topic that you do not play games, it does not make since for you to arbitrate the necessity of a story you neither know, or care about. If you have complaints about my edits please either make a proper edit, or go to the Ultrakill talk page and ask other editors what they think. Hellaciousphlegm ( talk) 17:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I apologize for some of my behavior, it had stemmed from a misunderstanding from a issue on your talk page . Please reply to my talk page with a precise issue that you have. I do not believe the "plot is bloated" I'm not even sure you've played this game? Despite being a self-proclaimed video game philosopher I find it strange you want to remove important information, also I do not want to have a edit war I just want this to be resolved in a way that does not involve reverting the whole page. Hellaciousphlegm ( talk) 17:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
i removed it while i find a source or reason to include it. thank you for your constructive feedback, i apologize for my behavior, and attempt to edit war. Hellaciousphlegm ( talk) 18:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Soetermans, I apologize for the recent edit warring with you and other editors at A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Thank you for calling me out for violating the WP:3RR. Will be more mindful about the guidelines. Regards, Cinosaur ( talk) 14:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 16:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)I feel like if you think the wording is an issue then you're fully free to change it to something you think is more fitting, obviously I don't know how you think so I'll just be guessing if my prose meets your standards. I personally think however that it's better to have information that is worded slightly awkwardly than information that is demonstrably incorrect and perpetuates misinformation. ExceedCharge ( talk) 07:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This is Soetermans's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please stop mass reverting edits of new users, especially when their edits are correct and the categories they add apply. Consistently Heinous ( talk) 19:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Mentioned you here, so just flagging as a courtesy. Of course the issue is not remotely with your conduct. Have a great evening. Star Mississippi 01:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect SQ/200 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 18 § SQ/200 until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS ( talk) 09:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your note on revision history, I am not adding anything new I added back what was removed without consensus, it is the one who removed the info without consensus that should ask for consensus, I merely added back info that was there even few days ago and had stayed for a long time, things about vehicles and all, but yeah selectively choose me to seek consensus, when I reverted it to OG state not added new info, as per rules the one who had removed long time established info should go consensus, anyway good day. Dilbaggg ( talk) 03:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Soetermans, I want to say that I greatly appreciate your numerous and lengthy history of contributions to the wikipedia community. Although I have used wikipedia for 20 years, I had never created a username and I had only begun editing articles 18 months ago. I am writing to let you know of my experience with the process of communication as a mature person, but also a novice to wikipedia. On January 18th and 19th, I made a series of edits to the plot synopsis for the movie cast away. Initially I made a large edit that included stylistic changes to improve clarity, deletions to remove unnecessary text, additions to crucial elements of the plot, and factual corrections for accuracy. You reverted that almost instantly. So I changed strategies to make series of smaller edits. After reverting several of those as well. I made a "salty" edit summary "No one should care about Bettina Peterson's name. It's inconsequential." You then reverted that as well. The rationale given to reverting my edits was that they were not improvements or were unnecessary. You then sent a message to my IPs talk page. In the immediate aftermath of your reversions of what I considered to be generally thought-out, reasoned, and documented edits, I interpreted your message as discourteous and borderline rude. I was earnestly upset.
But, upon reflection clearly your message was boilerplate used because of your workload to the community. (Thank you again). And it seems like you have several versions depending on the nature of the situation. Anyway, at the end of your message about my edits not being constructive, you wrote "If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page." As your page is semi-protected due to past vandalism, any user that wishes to reply to your message must make a username, make 10 edits, and wait four days (actually 96 hours). Although likely an important step to limit the number of random IP talk pages that you might need to monitor, when I was denied the ability to respond, I was not sure if your direction for me to post to your talk page was an intentional slight meant to indicate that my involvement and edits didn't matter. Although I contend that a jeep is not a truck, and construction of something is different than construction on something, I now feel that corresponding about that communication process is more important than discussing the merits of my proposed edits to cast away's plot synopsis.
While its arguably better that I've had two weeks to think about this response, I believe that directing communication to your semi-protected talk page from individuals who edit wikipedia without an account, to be problematic. It disadvantages these new users. As the notification that the user cannot post is immediate on your talk page, it can be interpreted as either passive aggressive or at least a "mixed message." Since users then do not feel that they can talk to you, it incentivizes making additional edits and corresponding through the edit summaries, which is inappropriate and as I understand it undesirable within this community. So I have a suggestion for you. Change the language of your message to, "If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page or reply to this message on your own talk page."
With appreciation and respect from one beer guy to another,
Adonjay ( talk) 06:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thanks for your help!
Falconik123 (
talk) 21:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! I noticed you removed a big chunk of content on American Truck Simulator. I do agree that it did rely heavily on primary sources (I agree that the Trucks section was completely unnecessary, maybe not so much the states section but I'm not gunna argue on that), however do you think the map would be of use in the article? I feel it would be helpful to illustrate how much of the US the game currently has rather than a simple "The game is expanded up to the Midwest" which is somewhat vague as the Midwest is made up of multiple different states. ― Blaze Wolf Talkblaze__wolf 20:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tom & Jerry (2021 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Jones.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey hey. Just saw your tag at the Cozy game article. I'm not sure how I can specify it further, the citation itself says "dozens" within. Is there something from the article I can use to change? Not sure how I can adjust this for you. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 18:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I removed the stylization besides the parenthesized note, this is standard (see Doom page). I do not think it is necessary or in good faith to revert the entire paragraph of updated story me and other editors had put. While it was inflated at first, I and others fixed it to be concise and reasonable. This is a video game in early access, it receives updates, this is why the page did not previously contain a section on the final war. I have also noticed that you constantly revert articles often with no real reason, other then when the accounts are newer or because for whatever reason you believe that it was not necessary. You have also stated in a topic that you do not play games, it does not make since for you to arbitrate the necessity of a story you neither know, or care about. If you have complaints about my edits please either make a proper edit, or go to the Ultrakill talk page and ask other editors what they think. Hellaciousphlegm ( talk) 17:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I apologize for some of my behavior, it had stemmed from a misunderstanding from a issue on your talk page . Please reply to my talk page with a precise issue that you have. I do not believe the "plot is bloated" I'm not even sure you've played this game? Despite being a self-proclaimed video game philosopher I find it strange you want to remove important information, also I do not want to have a edit war I just want this to be resolved in a way that does not involve reverting the whole page. Hellaciousphlegm ( talk) 17:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
i removed it while i find a source or reason to include it. thank you for your constructive feedback, i apologize for my behavior, and attempt to edit war. Hellaciousphlegm ( talk) 18:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Soetermans, I apologize for the recent edit warring with you and other editors at A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Thank you for calling me out for violating the WP:3RR. Will be more mindful about the guidelines. Regards, Cinosaur ( talk) 14:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 16:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)I feel like if you think the wording is an issue then you're fully free to change it to something you think is more fitting, obviously I don't know how you think so I'll just be guessing if my prose meets your standards. I personally think however that it's better to have information that is worded slightly awkwardly than information that is demonstrably incorrect and perpetuates misinformation. ExceedCharge ( talk) 07:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)