Mt6royal
Welcome!
editHello, Mt6royal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Getting Started
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Note
editI happened to see this [1] edit summary for your edit to Vehicle insurance in the United States. Your edit supported the point made higher up in the article and was sourced. However, in principle, another editor might see fit to edit or remove the edit in order to improve the article. In such a case, it would not be vandalism, and you shouldn't try to pre-emptively make an edit stick by labeling any dispute with that edit as vandalism. Vandalism often involves the word "poop" or something similar. Good-faith disagreement is not vandalism, and it's always better to avoid using that term unless it's clear-cut graffiti rather than a disagreement. Hope this helps, happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)And in my opinion, deleting legitimate arguments against mandatory auto insurance, intentionally, constitutes vandalism. The section on arguments against mandatory auto insurance is a joke and will remain a joke if legitimate arguments are intentionally removed (which looks to me like vandalism according to Wikipedia's definition of vandalism that you have quoted me.)
- According to the definition of vandalism, anything that diminishes the integrity of Wikipedia is defined as vandalism. In the web page on United States auto insurance, arguments against compulsory auto insurance, the paragraph does not contain any of the various arguments against mandatory auto insurance (hurts the poor, is very difficult to enforce, costs a lot of money, innocent people get cited, insurance companies do not want to insure high risk drivers, etc). My edits were deleted and I do not know why they were deleted or who did the deleting. I have studied mandatory auto insurance laws since 1980 (over 30 years) and have much expertize in this area. I am a college graduate, and have attained straight A's while in college. If Wikipedia is going to stand behind someone who makes a mockery of the section "Arguments against mandatory auto insurance" and refuses to allow legitimate arguments, to me that is diminishing the integrity of Wikipedia and fits the definition of vandalism given by Wikipedia. How does Wikipedia know that the person deleting legitimate reasons for arguments against mandatory auto insurance isn't a proponent of the law who just doesn't want anyone to see the arguments against mandatory auto insurance? I do not think Wikipedia should allow people to delete legitimate material without valid reasons for the deletion. So who deleted my additions, and why? Doesn't Wikipedia have and referees? I don't see anything on the costs of liability insurance. I think I will insert that and someone who simply does not like seeing the cost will edit it out, simply because he does not like the addition. To me that is diminishing the integrity of Wikipedia and vandalism. The section indicates Virginia and New Hampshire do not require everyone to have liability insurance. What has that got to do with arguments against mandatory auto insurance?Mt6royal (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)The section is a joke.
- Here is the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia from WP:VANDAL:
- "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page."
- "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."
- New editors often confuse good-faith disagreement with vandalism. That is why I left my note, I do not want to see you go down the path of labeling a content disagreement as vandalism, which usually ends badly. Please remember that the collective, community-based ethos of Wikipedia encourages the examination and occasionally ruthless editing of everyone's contributions, and what may seem self-evidently valuable to you may not be for others. Posting a summary that any disagreement or removal will be construed as vandalism isw contrary to that ethos. Please see WP:OWN for more on why editors do not own articles or edits. Acroterion (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody has removed your most recent edits. Your 11/11 edits were reverted as "poorly sourced, possibly original research" by another editor: you can see it in the edit history. I again caution you that disagreement over content is not vandalism. I also note that your most recent comment starts to veer into advocacy. Please try to maintain a neutral tone, and please read WP:OWN if you haven't already. My concern here is to head off trouble and to ease your path into editing Wikipedia: this is not an uncritical environment, and you need to be prepared to justify your edits by reference to neutral, third-party sources, and to set your personal opinions and motivations aside. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Eastern Montana Dairy history
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. LiquidIce (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Eastern Montana Dairy history has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Not a notable subject, too specific, more suited for Wikia or a personal website.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)