User talk:200.30.223.19

Dario Franchitti

For your attnetion: Talk:Dario Franchitti#Edit warring over initial description. --Falcadore (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Have left a comment. 200.30.223.19 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summaries

Civility and manners, please. Your edit summaries seem uncivilized and ill-mannered. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you care about Wikipedia? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think I edit? 200.30.223.19 (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

To help Wikipedia. I hope I am correct.

Such edit summaries chase away editors. I almost left for exactly this reason only a few weeks after I started.

Such edit summaries do not help the target. They do not amuse observers. I trust that you are not writing them for personal satisfaction. They are personal attacks and poison to Wikipedia.

Editor retention is a big concern here. Please, please write edit summaries that do not harm the project. Many thanks in advance. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor retention has always been a problem. But you don't want to retain just any editors, you want to retain editors who can write well and understand what an encyclopaedia is about. The system has never really rewarded that kind of editor, and many, many highly capable content creators have left the project over the years. The system has rewarded instead the kind of editor who makes thousands of trivial grammar corrections and never contributes any actual substance. That kind of editor gets privilege and reward for doing work that contributes almost nothing to the encyclopaedia. The result of this systemic preference for menial workers over creative workers is what you see in Wikipedia today - a sad semblance of an encyclopaedia where unbelievably basic errors abound. A while ago I changed the word "explained" to "said" in an article - explained quite clearly being an implicit statement in the voice of the encyclopaedia that what the source was saying was true. I got reverted, attacked, and eventually blocked, clearly being the only editor on that particular high profile page who actually understood what NPOV means.

If I encounter incredibly basic errors that indicate an editor who hasn't read the style guide and who doesn't understand how to write well, I tend to leave forthright edit summaries. If they drive away an editor who hasn't read the style guide and who doesn't understand how to write well, I don't consider that to have damaged the project at all. I do not see how my edit summaries could ever drive away anyone of actual value to the project.

By the way, out of absolute despair at the general quality of wikipedia articles, I mostly just correct the most egregious errors, so you might think that I don't contribute actual content either. I do, sometimes. IUE is an example of an article I wrote more or less from scratch. 200.30.223.19 (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

So I'm clear, you changed the word "explained" to "said", got reverted, attacked, eventually blocked, and that's all there is to the story? Looking at your edit summaries, I doubt that. Now, you are an indeffed editor, socking to help Wikipedia by taking the law into your own hands. You've decided that those who write poorly should be chased off the project with personal attacks and scathing criticisms. Would the community support your position if you stated it at the Village Pump? Would they really agree that getting rid of poor editors with attack edit summaries is a good idea? I don't think so.

Culling bad writers this way is a real shotgun approach. Attack edit summaries affect more than the intended target. Others who may be good writers, especially newcomers, may be reluctant to make edits for fear of being harshly criticised. These edit summaries poison the atmosphere. Also, a bad writer may spend ninety percent of his time catching copyvios or fighting vandals. If you chase him off the project, Wikipedia loses.

So, please try another way. Why not guide them? Constructive criticism instead may help them improve so that they may better help the project. If they haven't read the style guide, then point them to it in your edit summaries instead of an attack. Post at their talk with links to MOS. There are alternatives to your approach.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please review the edit history of Van Tuong Nguyen. You know, I still can't get over the mind boggling stupidity of a whole bunch of editors there. Someone reverted my edit without any explanation [1], accused me of making "unhelpful edits" [2] using a template called "welcome-anon-vandal", then accused me of trying to put original research into the encyclopaedia [3], removed my own words from my own talk page [4], apparently only to boost his edit count [5], accused me of being a sockpuppet of someone else he didn't like [6]. He apparently did this all because he thought that the word "explained" appeared in a source, and that the encyclopaedia was obliged to use this word in the article as a result. [7] It later transpired that the source did not even include the word he claimed it did. [8].

Now personally I think that User:Dave1185 is clearly an idiot and of no value at all to a project which aims to build an encyclopaedia. I think that his presence is severely detrimental to such a project, because he clearly has no solid grasp on the basic principles of writing an encyclopaedia. But try as I might, I could not find any evidence of anyone even hinting to him that his behaviour was not useful or acceptable. I wonder why not?

And no, I am neither an "indeffed editor", nor am I "socking". I have had enough of idiots being allowed to be idiots without any useful contribution to the encyclopaedia, I have tried all other options to encourage good editing, and it seems the "community" is not interested in writing an encyclopaedia but just in being some kind of ultra-nerdy social network producing nothing of any real value. If this was really an encyclopaedia building project, the situation I described above would either never have happened, or it would have ended with User:Dave1185 being banned. 200.30.223.19 (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you write this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I did. You caused me to read once again one of the most truly idiotic edit summaries I've ever had the misfortune to come across: "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sourced material"". Someone seriously came to the conclusion that changing the word "explained" to "said" could be described as "original research"! And you, apparently, consider that someone like that has some kind of value to this project. I judge that you don't take the idea of building an encyclopaedia very seriously. 200.30.223.19 (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm astonished that your only response is "Yes I did." and then on to seeking my understanding of his tresspasses. After you make an edit like that, you cannot ask me to judge him. You also lose credibilty, respect, and the right to judge others. Such a post is the worst way of handling things and is indefensible. Don't you know that?

I don't have anything else to say. I just hope, for the love of Wikipedia, that you find a way better to serve your cause. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And I am astonished that you don't seem to be able to understand that inept editors are highly damaging to an encyclopaedia. You think that me telling an idiot to fuck off is more damaging to an encyclopaedia than the idiot doing stupid things for idiotic reasons. It remains the case that not a single person told User:Dave1185 not to lie and not to leave abusive templates. No-one asked him to explain his actions. The damage he and his ilk have done is irreparable. He and his ilk drive away able editors and leave a community of idiots. Looks like you're happy being associated with that. 200.30.223.19 (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're toning it down. Thank you.

Please don't assume that I'm associated with or approving of anything others do. I have eyes. I am just not comfortable taking sides with someone who makes such profane edit summaries. It doesn't mean I disagree with you.

If you have an issue with Dave, you could take it to AN/I. Your history in terms of edit summaries may not help your cause, but you could try. It would indeed draw contrib watchers.

The bottom line again: Attack edit summaries hurt more than the intended target. They poison the atmosphere and make good editors not want to be here. You are smart. You know that. My point in writing to you has always been about alternatives.

Best wishes, and thanks again for omitting the poison and beginning to consider alternatives. (Now, almost for sure, I don't have anything else to say.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems you're still having this problem. This edit summary really isn't acceptable and isn't helping anyone. And as the person who added the modified content to begin with, I take great offence to your edit summaries. Tone it down. Write useful edit summaries and not snarky, rude attack-minded ones. Thank you. Bailmoney27 ^talk 16:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not a place to chat to each other and be nice, though if it can be that as well, then great. First and foremost, it's a mission to build an encyclopaedia of high quality. Everything else is secondary. So if I see writing that has no place in a secondary school essay, let alone an encyclopaedia of high quality, I might well leave a sharp edit summary. The theory is that all these kinds of errors are quickly removed and that the wisdom of the crowds leads to an ever upward trend in the quality of the work. But, there are actually very few incentives in the system to generate actual quality, and the quality of the work is ever declining. In the course of a typical day I might have a look at 20 Wikipedia articles. On average I'd say 10 contain really basic, glaring errors. Me, I'd like that to change. Would you? 200.30.223.19 (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)