Ravinpa
Welcome!
Hello, Ravinpa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
June 2011 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kathantara with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nasnema Chat 00:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: Request for advice edit
I assume the issue is the one with Nasnema over the usage of "enormity"? TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. I've now posted what I expect will be my last responses to her (at least on her User talk page) just after I asked you for advice (thank you so much for responding). Finding the "vandalism" tag in her warning template, above, as well as in her edit summaries had completely freaked me out, especially given that that's the last thing I'd ever do simply as a matter of honor. I felt like someone threw a mud-clot in my face.Ravinpa (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- That template is used for a lot of edits that are seen as unconstructive, including good-faith edits sometimes; "vandalism" is only in the name since that's the most common use of the template, so don't worry, you're not considered a vandal. I agree that Nasnema could have left a better message, but since editors often make mass changes like that which are blatant violations of WP:ENGVAR or a similar policy, he seems to have mistook you for one of them. Sorry about that, and don't let this incident discourage you from editing in the future; I'd hate to see an editor driven off over something like this. As for the actual usage issue, consensus doesn't seem to be in your favor, so my advice would be to let the issue go at this point. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- On June 8th, he reverted a dozen of my most recent edits on the supposed basis that I was violating WP: ENGVAR by "chang[ing] the wording to suite [my] local dialiect." As soon as I saw his notice here, I rushed over to his talk page -- within 2 hours of his posting it -- to explain that I was not "vandalizing" anything, and that he was mistaken in his belief that my edits in any way related to my supposed "local dialect."
- That template is used for a lot of edits that are seen as unconstructive, including good-faith edits sometimes; "vandalism" is only in the name since that's the most common use of the template, so don't worry, you're not considered a vandal. I agree that Nasnema could have left a better message, but since editors often make mass changes like that which are blatant violations of WP:ENGVAR or a similar policy, he seems to have mistook you for one of them. Sorry about that, and don't let this incident discourage you from editing in the future; I'd hate to see an editor driven off over something like this. As for the actual usage issue, consensus doesn't seem to be in your favor, so my advice would be to let the issue go at this point. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- He didn't explain to me that the notice was not an accusation of vandalism, even though I'd explained why I was under the impression that it was, which only confirmed my misimpression that I'd been accused of it. He just continued to insist that I was making edits within the purview of WP:ENGVAR, despite the fact that I'd quoted in my post to him an excerpt from the Oxford Concise Dictionary that made abundantly clear that the usage standard I was applying is a worldwide one, not local in any way.
- He just ignored me, and on the 10th -- two days later -- proceeded to go through edits I'd made earlier than the ones he'd originally targeted and reverted another two dozen, starting here and ending here on a completely different basis and without any discussion with me beforehand, even though I'd indicated on his Talk page a willingness to discuss the issue, a desire not to enter into edit warring, and had even provided a reliable source to explain why I was making usage edits.
- It's not the fact that he didn't agree with them that's caused me so much stress, nor even the fact that I originally believed I was being falsely accused of vandalism, but rather that after I'd contacted him to discuss the matter, he (1) sought out older edits of mine to revert and (2) refused all attempts on my part to discuss the issue until after he'd made the second set of reverts, at which point (3) he simply dictated to me his conclusion and basically told me to "get lost." He even reverted edits that I'd made in conformance with the WP:MOS:QUOTE because he didn't approve of that guideline, and refused to engage in any discussion with me at all on any of the article Talk pages.
- The fact that he sought out dozens of my older edits to revert made me feel "stalked," quite frankly, as well as targeted for my temerity in having documented his error about this being a matter of "local dialect", and if that kind of behavior is common here (which I'm gathering it is), I can't really work up any enthusiasm to continue. I decided to let a couple days pass to see whether I'd feel any better, but after being slapped around like that I'm just not. It's no wonder WP has such a tiny -- and shrinking -- percentage of female participants!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)