Marbrian

edit count | edit summary usage

Welcome!

Here are some cookies to welcome you! :D

Welcome to Wikipedia, Marbrian! I am Collectonian, and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Collectonian (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

please don't accuse me of vandalism in your edit summaries, while I have no problem with you disagreeing with my edits, I take offence to you calling my edits vandalism, in addition to that, while I dont consider my edit to be perfect, it is far better and more neutral than the POV ridden crap that you reverted to . take care Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I have unfairly characterized your edits as vandalism. To my mind they amounted to a hostile and sweeping "undo" of edits by another user that struck me as thoughtful and considered, and which deserved the courtesy of constructive discussion. Certainly I don't think either neutrality or good English were issues to warrant your intervention. I would love to learn what, exactly, you mean by "POV ridden crap," in order that I may help to make the Klarsfeld article more neutral than it is. Marbrian Marbrian Dujardin (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, after time to reflect, I am not sure if POV crap was correct (I am sure it isnt the most polite term) or if putting the prior edits down to lack of English ability - that commented is not directed at you, but at whoever made some of the previous edits. Phrases such as "they suffered prosecution" to me, seems to be either POV crap or just crappy English - either way, I dont like it.

I forget the actual wording but there was something along the lines of "fortunately, they were not in the car" fine English, however it is not up to the editor to say what is or is not fortunate, for the person who planted the bomb it was unfortunate - whoever wrote the article, has obvious sympathy for the subjects and their causes, and this is reflected in the tone of the article and the way the previous editor tries to make excuses for their criminal acts. Their acts should not be criticised, celebrated, nor commented on, they should merely be documented. Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright Sennen, I'll defer to your views in this matter and will step aside. I do wish to note my regret at some of the more recent changes, however, and I hope I may urge you to give them maybe just one more thought. Anyway, these are sensitive issues and others are probably better equipped to deal with them than I. Peace! Marbrian Marbrian Dujardin (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to step aside, add some more to the article - I find that if an article does not seem balanced, then adding to it, is a better way to balance the article, than trying to remove things. I had no problem with the content, the only problem I had was the wording, that seemed to imply that they did a good thing, if they did something good, then listing their actions in a neutral manner would reflect this in a much better way, than simply using words that imply that their actions were good. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)