• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've registered for a named account, a free kitten comes with your membership!

—Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was intentional. The 'Definition' section is redundant, as 'democratic socialism' is already clearly defined in the lead. The 'Compatibility of "socialism" and "democracy" section' is superfluous and serves no purpose other than potentially confusing readers. Vrrajkum (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear KTOM -- I use Wikipedia from time to time, and when I see something that needs fixing I fix it. Recently I looked up Dutch Book and Money Pump Arguments. I added a paragraph to Dutch Book to clarify the central issue which was missing. The Money Pump is a different argument which is INVOKED within the Dutch Book. It was set as a re-direct to Money Pump. I wrote up a full definition of Money Pump, which shows how it is different from Dutch Book, and then created a link to Dutch Book, and eliminated the re-direct. ALl this is a bit technical, and apparently Swister Twister did not like my definition so she eliminated my definition of money pump and reverted it to a REDIRECT, which is actually wrong, since the two concepts are not the same.

I put a note on her page, but did not get any response for a week. Then I put a second note, and she responded by saying the my definition was NOT CONVINCING???

I am not a Wikipedian and dont know how this type of problem is resolved. Your note on her page shows greater familiarity with the system and willingness to help others so I thought I would ask you how to proceed. BELOW I am copying what I put on Swister Twisters talk page about a week ago, and have not received any response to: Asaduzaman (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Asaduzaman, you have stated you are not up to speed with WP procedures and policies and so I think there are some things you should be aware of. What I am going to say is going to sound harsh, but it not intended in any way to be mean, just honest and unbiased feedback you need to hear. I hope you will have the professional courtesy to read each and every bullet point in the spirit in which it is offered, as a genuine attempt to help you understand "how to proceed", as you requested.

• You have made quite a few errors of etiquette which, while understandable as new user mistakes, will not help your trying to get others to help you in the long run. The following are things you should be aware of so you do not repeat these mistakes:

• An editor's username on Wikipedia, just as in real life, is important to use correctly. Dale Carnegie said; “A person’s name is to that person, the sweetest, most important sound in any language.” By erroneously addressing your comments to "Sister Twister" you have been careless and disrespected them. Their correct username is "SwisterTwister" (there is no space, and it is related to the word Swiss not female sibling). Consider how you would feel if someone sent you a letter addressed to "A Sad Uza Man"? It's just plain rude not to get a person's name right, especially when it is spelled out in front of you. Furthermore, to add salt to the wound, you assumed that SwisterTwister was female and since "her" real name is David I am sure he did not appreciate the assumption. Again, consider how you would feel if someone sent you a letter addressed to "Mrs. Zaman" ?

• Basic WP etiquette requires all talk page posts to be signed by the user by adding four tilde characters (~~~~) at the end of your message. By not signing your posts you send a subtle and unintended message that you are (a) incompetent to follow the simplest of procedures, or (b) too lazy to follow the simplest of procedures, or (c) too arrogant to follow the simplest of procedures. None of these are the message you actually want to send I am sure.

• There is a big difference between a "User Page" and a "Talk Page". You left your message on my User Page (I moved it here to my Talk Page). User Pages are where users place (following WP rules and limits) their Wikipedia related biographies and list their views/interested/accomplishments on Wikipedia. It is a very personal page and editing someone else's User Page is the equivalent of (depending on the degree of change) something between toilet-papering their front lawn and spraying graffiti on the door of their office.

• I want to talk about one last MAJOR etiquette issue that shows in your message above:

• Above you said "apparently Swister Twister did not like my definition". One of the most important rules at Wikipedia is assume good faith aka WP:AGF. Your message makes it clear you are assuming quite the opposite, assuming that your article was redirected because it was "not liked" which is not the case as I will show.

• You also misread/misinterpreted the explanation given when you said "she responded by saying the my definition was NOT CONVINCING???" SwisterTwister did not say that your definition was unconvincing, but rather "Your article had nothing to convince there's a solid article yet," which means that your article did not contain the WP minimum thresholds of content required for all stand-alone articles. If you read the WP:Your first article link SwisterTwister sent you you would find that ALL articles require what WP calls "WP:notability".

• Your article does not show WP:notability ... YET. I think it can show it, but you must find the appropriate sources and include them in the article. Click that link to understand our specialized definition of notability and then you can get your article on the road to being acceptable by WP standards. On the other hand, if you cannot find appropriate sources to establish notability it is not the end of the world. If "Money Pump" cannot be created as a "stand alone" article it can still be incorporated as a section inside the Dutch Book article. Probably starting with a phrase like A similar but different concept is called the "Money Pump". The difference between the two is ... In fact many really good articles started as sections inside other articles until enough documentation was found and incorporated into it to raise it (split it off) to stand alone status.

• Your article has a lot of stylistic errors: Failure to include WP style references for all citations. Too many "go read this website" type entries. Paraphrase (but don't plagiarize) the website instead of just referring to it. You use the word "many" a lot but such a word requires references to verify what you mean by "many" (20%? 80%?) and also "many" out of what community?

I have added a few tags to your article to show you some places where improvements can be added.

How to proceed:

• The first thing I recommend is get the chip off your shoulder if it is still there. I know you felt slighted by SwisterTwister but the fact that he did not reply is more than likely just because he gets hundreds of messages every week and occasionally he might miss one, as he did in your case. He is very helpful and very knowledgeable and you could do worse than to ask for his help and try and earn his respect. Recognize he is only human and so are you (and so is everyone else here).

• The next thing I suggest is ask an admin for your existing Money Pump article content to be moved to "Draft Space" and for the redirect to Dutch Book to be removed for now. Read this blog article now. There your article can be incubated and improved until it is ready for prime time. If you are eventually able to establish notability then it can be returned to "Main Space". If you find that you cannot establish notability you can ask for the DRAFT: to be "merged" into Dutch Book or whatever article you think it would best fit inside.

• Realize and remember that working at WP requires patience and understanding. Your work will be challenged by both sages and fools. That too is part of being a Wikipedian. Roll with the punches and always assume good faith. If someone is a jerk, be better than they are and stay collegiate even if they are rude. Don't lower yourself to their level. If they cannot "punch your buttons" they will usually go away and if they don't then there are a lot of ways to resolve disputes here, but the way you behave will play a large role in whether you prevail in such disputes.

• You need to take some time and learn how things work here to be effective. Stop using phrases like "I am not a WIkipedian." You are a Wikipedian as soon as you try editing an article or in any way improving the Encyclopedia. The question is: Are you willing to study and learn how to be a quality Wikipedian? When you joined you got a Welcome message (it is still on your Talk page). Take some time to work your way through those links. Read the My First Article link that SwisterTwister sent you above. Additionally in your particular field also read WP:WikiProject Economics. Ask for input from other Wikipedians who are also economists if you get stuck. Most will be glad to help, just remember they are all volunteers and their time is just as valuable as yours.

• And finally, since you hold both a BS and a PhD I have this advice especially for you. Writing a WP article is very much like writing an academic paper as part of a team. Others on the team will make contributions. Others on the team will disagree with you at times. Others on the team will even argue and debate what is the best way to say something or what is the best source to use. The key thing to remember is it is ALWAYS a pure basic research paper. No synthesis. No compare & contrast. No original research. Paraphrasing and summarizing is good. And cite everything (using one of the official WP ref styles) except common knowledge (with common being defined as the general public, not just the economics community).

I hope this all helps. Feel free to reply below if you have questions. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 05:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WOW !! Thanks a lot for taking the time out to instruct me on all the mysteries. I will try to keep them in mind next time I need an intervention -- I just got to read this today 16th March -- I noted that my post on your user page had been deleted, but could not figure out where it had gone. You have taken a lot of time in explaining things to a newbie, as befits your chosen moniker. I appreciate it. Best wishes -- Asaduzaman (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fetoscopy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fetoscope. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note to say I made a response to the post you made here [1] . Basically, I did not consider the questions to be disruptive, I think they were valid and pertinent questions, though maybe at first sight they were worded a bit too strongly and visually off-putting thanks to the use of bold text. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE 17:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC): above link archived to:

User_talk:EvergreenFir/Archive_11#ANI_questions:_Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23Sourced_content_deletion_on_Edward_VIII here

I realize that you're kind of new here, but I'd like to know the reasoning behind reverting the edit I had done which was: A) Clearly intended as humourous or B) Gibberish

The article in question up to that point refers to Talkback, not Tuberculosis. You will also notice that the font was made small, which I construed to mean that it was a joke of some sort.

Edit may be seen [here] Regards,   Aloha27  talk  23:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aloha27. I reverted your edit and explained why in the edit summary here because it violated WP:TPOC which states: The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. None of the listed exceptions cover humorous interjection, and even the exception for off-topic discussion does not permit deleting another user's comments (preferring to hide it under a {{hat}} instead). Contrary to your belief that I am new here (and as I have stated clearly on my user page) I have been here a long time as an IP only editor. It is a long-held and deeply-seated view at WP that it is completely inappropriate to delete another user's comments anywhere except your own talk page. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 01:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, the simple fact that the entry had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic was lost on you? Regards,   Aloha27  talk  02:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not lost on me. I know what you did was with good intentions but what seems to be "lost" on you Aloha27 is that it does not matter if the comment was germain or not. I repeat: It does not matter. We do not delete other users comments except in very specific circumstances. Period. What you did was a serious violation of talk page etiquette.

Do you understand that you made a mistake? that it was very disrespectful? and that you should never do it again? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 10:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Aloha27: KTOM is right here, there's normally very few reasons where you would need to remove or edit another editor's comments (all of which are clearly outlined here). Yes I agree the comment in question was clearly intended as humorous, but seeing as this took place at an administrative noticeboard you would do well to refrain from this in the future. By all means, leave EEng a message. Cheers -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just one extra tip from one old dog to another, regarding this edit, if you ping an editor by mentioning them in a post, it only actually notifies them if you do so when you sign the post. If you subsequently add mentions in, you have to re-sign to make the pings work. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: I did not know that. Thanks dog! Woof! Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hylas may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

2003/dittert.shtml] ''Hylas in the Classical Style'' by Stefanie E. Dittert, Professor Buttigieg]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FIXED. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations)

I'm confused by this edit. Why did you need to add <ref name="NewYorker"> to The New Yorker reference? That reference was only used once in the article; that's why I didn't add a "ref name" when I added that source. I'm confused about why you needed to. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: If you want to remove the NewYorker refname I don't object, I just think it's a good practice that every ref is given a name when it's created. This help page says The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple refname inside the first <ref> code.. It's not required but it's helps with clarity (especially when you cite different articles from the same publisher like the two different WSVN stories and the many hotnewhiphop.com stories -- please don't remove those) and also another reason is just in case a ref ends up being reused later as the article grows. You never know when someone may need to re-reference the same citation. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repeated citations, it states "for multiple use of the same inline citation or footnote, you can use the named references feature, choosing a name to identify the inline citation". The key word is "can", which makes it optional. One of the greatest gifts we can give other editors is brevity and accuracy in our edits. Once edits become unnecessarily complicated, they become difficult to work with, and other editors either avoid editing the article, or mess it up, which leads to additional time spent on cleanup by experienced editors. For this reason, your edit was unnecessary, and in fact, did nothing to change the article, except make it's coding more complicated. You will notice that where the same source was used multiple times, I did in fact name the reference (and intentionally didn't name references used just once). I'm going to revert your edit. You may revert back, and then other editors can add their opinion about this on the talk page. I have no ownership of this or any article on Wikipedia, but I do mind having my perfectly acceptable edits changed unnecessarily. Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Magnolia677, I defer to your editorial style here since part of the rules on citations is to keep consistent with the existing style. I honestly did not think this would be a style problem but I understand what you are saying and you certainly have put in much more effort on this article so I will respect your wishes here. Thank you for raising my awareness of this matter. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 09:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_socialism&oldid=prev&diff=728105893 I opened a talk page section at Talk:Democratic_socialism#Hatnote; I hope you will refrain from the SHOUTY ACCUSATIONS about right-wing bias and so forth TiC ^(talk) 07:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasizing a mere two words in all-caps is not shouting, it is old-style bold text. Edit Summaries do not allow bold-font in the comment formatting so the occasional isolated all-caps word is a reasonable alternative. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion and consensus on the hatnote but I replied to your "Hatnote" thread on the article talk page in a subsection here due to the length of the text. I am inviting any editors who were actively involved in editing the page during the March-April time period of the last discussion on the hatnote to join the conversation if they wish to: @Polly Tunnel:, @Battlecry:, @JamesPoulson:, @Huon:, @Stickee:

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure if I actually edited the page but I'll give you feedback according to my research into political philosophy and economics.

As I'm living in Europe in a Social Democracy it seems important to distinguish from this idea of Democratic Socialism that has been tossed about in Bernie Sanders' recent political campaigns.

The public might not understand economic Socialism in having never been exposed to it as people in Eastern Europe did to its non-democratic form, with some people seemingly using it as a blanket term for Statism, Fascism, Economic interventionism, Keynesianism and possibly other things linked to a government.

It's gotten to the point where the Prime Minister of Denmark has reacted to Bernie Sanders' statements by pointing out his country has a Market economy. Nordic capitalist countries actually have a high degree of Economic freedom according to this index and this is on the opposite to any ideas of economic planning.

The United States also has a market economy and is also a United Nations member. So technically it would be be a Social democracy too although liberalization and privatization are pronounced as they are to a lesser degree in the United Kingdom.

To clarify the difference:

• A Social Democracy very much has a Capitalist (private ownership of industry) economy with varying degrees of Economic, social and cultural rights as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• A hypothetical Democratic Socialist country would have Democratic rule with a Socialist economic system (worker or publicly owned industry).

In terms of the hat-note, the hypothetical Democratic Socialism would definitely be about (complete?) control of the economy.

However, the description "left-wing ideology favouring a market economy with state intervention and regulation with a market economy" repeats "market economy" is seemingly ideologically charged in conflating the concepts mentioned above according to views of Free market proponents with respect to a system that has probably never existed.

Technically speaking, most if not all countries in the world would have fit this description a century ago since governments were Authoritarian to some degree regardless of having a right or left wing majority with State capitalism as the norm as it still is in some parts of the world.

It's only with the Austrian School that there has been renewed interest in Economic liberalism. The shift is understandable seeing high level of taxation but, contrary to some narratives, a lot more of tax money goes to paying back interest on public debt than goes into social programmes in European countries with the rest being the usual mix of mismanagement and cronyism.

Hope that settles the question. In future, I suggest people with differing views discuss something like this openly to reach a neutral viewpoint that suits everyone.

Excepting maybe any political "bots" pushing their own brand of conformist thinking without realising that this is one of the slippery slopes that led to World War II. Democracy works because it continually adapts through constant political competition and it is definitely dysfunctional seeing the political simplisms being propagated today. --JamesPoulson (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be known, I'm not thanking you because you said keep at my article. However, I am saying thank you because that was perhaps the most extensive and well-researched response I have seen at an Afd. If that is the norm for you, you have a bright future here and I wish the best for you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick: Not the "norm", but I have my moments.

Seriously though, doing the research is why we have the {{find sources}} template and why do the research if you aren't going to share it in a discussion that is (A) not supposed to be a vote and (B) intended to develop consensus through persuasive arguments? 99% of the time it just takes a minor refinement to the find sources search parameters (in this case adding "Sweden") and the rest is easy.

Sometimes however, saving unjustly nominated articles takes a bit more including researching both the external-to-WP sources and the internal-to-WP policies, plus setting aside personal biases: I really don't like rap music. In the end it's worth it when you can save knowledge from being removed from the ultimate encyclopedia.

Thanks for appreciating my effort. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 12:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote here that I have not spent enough time creating good articles. I have created 259 articles, and you have created none. You stated that I have "displayed a remarkable lack of good faith" and that I have "wasted the time of other WP editors" and I risk being banned. I have made 31,015 edits to Wikipedia and have never been "banned". And in my opinion, the only time wasted has been reading your excessively verbose comments. If you have an issue with my good faith or skills as an editor, direct them to me or to an administrator. Furthermore, to write on a discussion page "if you have any issues with other editor(s) those problems do not belong being discussed on this page", and then go on to denounce another editor--in the same edit--makes you look foolish. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not required one makes an edit summary on Wikipedia; it is highly recommended, yes, but nobody is obligated to. As I'm updating peaks quickly I often don't, so I find edit summaries like this directed at me unnecessary. I've been on Wikipedia for over 10 years and I don't need advice on it. Also, the not updating of the accessdate was an oversight; if you had bothered to look, I updated every other related accessdate earlier, except the one instance on this article. Again, that is something I don't need to be advised on. It appears from an earlier message you direct the same things at other editors (Magnolia677, for instance) and must assume they're all newbies who need to be told things. In future, please don't be condescending right off the bat to people or assume who they are from what they've done in one edit or a cursory glance; it looks foolish, as Magnolia said. Ss112 17:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you Ss112. I meant no disrespect and I am sorry if my comments gave offense. Now that I have been prompted to view your User Page and learn a bit more about you please note that (A) I am impressed with your body of work here at WP, and (B) I will certainly adjust my comments to be more appropriate as regards your experience when talking with you. That said let's try and resolve some of your concerns:

• if you had bothered to look ...: Respectfully, an editor (any editor) should never need go back and cross-check your (or any other editor's) other edits, look through your Contrib History, or even glance at your User Page to determine if you are competent or how you have done things in the past. In fact, as you certainly know from your years of experience, WP:AGF strongly frowns on making judgements about other editor's competency.
• It is not required one makes an edit summary ...: I agree. If you read my Edit Summary carefully you will note I used the word "should" not "must". My view on the matter of Edit Summaries (this is not directed at you personally but it is my view on the topic in general) is that failing to include them makes more work for other editors because then when something is wrong the later editor has to try and puzzle out what was intended and how best to fix it. WP:ES states that an Edit Summary helps others to understand the intention of your edit and WP:FIES states that when an edit such yours doesn't have an edit summary, there are fewer reasons to assume good faith and busy editors may be more inclined to revert the change without checking it in detail.

In the case of your particular edit please note that lacking any explanation the edit strongly resembled "sneaky vandalism" and I was very tempted to just revert it outright as such. However, having recently dealt with a very similar edit problem (which by the way appears to involve another of your edits, I did not see the connection before this) I did assume good faith and checked out the source. A simple two word Edit Summary like "new peak" would have been very helpful.

• you direct the same things at other editors (Magnolia677, for instance) ...: I see from the Page History that you have stopped by the article page and made contributions a number of times. Thank you. I can only AGF that you are not investing any of your valuable time following the details of what has been happening there wherein the "other editors" you mention have repeatedly engaged in highly contentious edit warring that involved explicit failures to use the Edit Summary or discuss changes on the Talk Page. My comments to M677 and others were to encourage communication between them in order to prevent more edit warring. If you are also referring to my comments made to Xboxmanwar you will find he IS a newbie and needs extensive guidance as he learns the ropes.

To sum this all up: (1) I corrected an edit that I could have justifiably reverted on the spot. (2) I provided guidance for future similar edits based on the content of that edit, not an evaluation of the editor who made it. (3) I am sorry if my comments offended you but they were appropriate to the circumstances of the edit. (4) In the future I will recognize that you are a well-experienced editor and consider this when responding to your edits or making comments. (5) I will continue to provide helpful suggestions for better edits where appropriate and to encourage all editors to use the Edit Summary field per WP:FIES.

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that was a lot of explanation I didn't really expect. I understand what you're saying but you're kind of lumping me in with those who have edit warred on the page and because they've been doing so, haven't been leaving edit summaries. If I were disagreeing with somebody over content, I would have definitely left an edit summary. However, I don't agree with the implication it's okay to just revert an edit without checking it per WP:FIES. In fact, I was busy and hence why I didn't leave an edit summary in the first place. Kodak Black was just one of many pages I edited in a short space of time and the only one I didn't change the accessdate for. I think if an editor is reverting, they should always check what they're doing, otherwise this would be against assuming good faith, as it's assuming an edit contains non-helpful changes. Ss112 18:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: The edit warring bullet above was not about your edits but was in response to your mention of my comments to other editors. I did not lump you in with them, I was only explaining why my comments to M677 and others were appropriate to their edits and not condescending or a lack of good faith in those circumstances.

I guess we will agree to disagree (which is okay) on the value of Edit Summaries and their ability to save editor's doing unnecessary research into other editor's logic or intent. We do seem to agree however that AGF should be applied to all edits and I try to do so but sometimes, like you, I get busy. When that happens I have occasionally used shortcuts for the sake of expediency, and sometimes that has backfired. "I was too busy doing good work to do the job right," is probably not the best reason for anything we do. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I was hoping to see a de-escalation of things but if you insist that I file a full-on report at WP:AN/EW I will. The evidence of edit warring is ample and clear. I did not respond to your recent rant on my Talk Page in order to keep the peace per WP:KEEPCOOL and WP:LEMONADE but you are making it difficult to continue to do so. If you insist that I file a report it will also be noted that since this conversation was a one-on-one between Ss112 and myself and since there were no edits that {{ping}}'d you or used your [USER:] tag it can only be assumed that you are wp:stalking my Talk Page in order for you to have been able to reply so quickly here. Finally, if you insist I file a report I will also be raising the question of what appears to be of your attempted ownership of the Kodak Black page in violation of WP guidelines. Would you care to talk about this like adults and resolve it between ourselves or do I need (as you put it) to direct this to an admin? I will now step back and not reply to you here for 48 hours so please take your time in considering your response carefully. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 19:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed text from the Kodak Black article here and left the edit summary "removing unsourced content". You then reverted my edit here, and left the edit summary "better to build the encyclopedia up than tear it down". The Kodak Black article is a biography of a living person, and I removed from it unsourced content, per WP:BLPSOURCES, which states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed". I'm confused as to how my removal of unsourced content is "tearing down the encyclopedia"? Furthermore, you re-inserted the exact text that I had removed, but included a source for the text. While I am grateful you took the time to find a source, I would ask that in the future you please take a moment to leave a more precise edit summary. Specifically, credit the original author and edit, as well as the improvement you made. As stated in Help:Reverting, "having an edit reverted can be upsetting to other editors". I would add that leaving an insulting edit summary makes it worse. WP:FIES may assist you in this regard. Thank you for your consideration. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to make this comment, not trying to be mean but, Magnolia677, maybe, just maybe, if you took 5 minutes to do research, this problem wouldn't have happened. Not every single thing needs to have a source right next to it, plus the Major Key article was even linked to that chart, and you didn't take the time to check that article out. Xboxmanwar (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sir. I shall reply and specifically say thank you for sending me a speedy deletion notice for a page that was already deleted. I made a wrongful mistake and I hope you will forgive me. I never meant to do something so blatant and disrespectful like this. I will request for this name to be deleted steeply instead of keeping the namesake for future. Thank you and I hope you receive this when you get the chance. DBrown SPS (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC) DBrown SPS (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinrich Gresbeck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can deny being a sixist all you want. We all see the way you treat five and seven. TimothyJosephWood 15:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: ROFL -- yeah I fixed that but not soon enough I guess. Thanks for the chuckle! Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to string that side-chat at ANI along any further there, but if you follow that train of logic just one step further, you will complete the circle to User:MSJapan's earlier comment: An instance of "faulty perception" is usually a "problem" that is very easy to solve (at least where you are concerned  ;-), and therefore correcting that misperception has the immediate result of "solving the problem".

More broadly, if I'm mad at you because you did something that I misunderstood, there is "a problem" – because *I* have a problem, even when you're totally innocent. Consider, e.g., practically any group of 12-year-old girls. Mary is unhappy because she decided that Jane's decision to sit on the other side of the lunch table meant that they weren't friends any longer. It never occurs to Mary that Jane had some other reason for this choice: she needed to talk to another student about an upcoming test, or it gave Jane a better view of the boy she's semi-secretly in love with, or she hadn't been able to find Mary. This "perceived problem" is a "real problem" for those girls, even if the whole thing seems stupid to anyone for whom those age is just a distant, vaguely unpleasant memory rather than current life. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I appreciate you taking this offlist and I agree. My point was (as stated in the ANI) that it is a possibility that LaMona's perceptions are coloring her ability to see clearly what other editors are concerned with. The only person who can change those perceptions is LaMona herself, thus my advice to her to think about how she see the world. She is apparently a very good editor and I offered the advice in an effort to prevent her from possibly self-destructing down the road.

MSJapan's comment seemed to me to be an effort to turn this into a case of (my words) "sexism causes LaMona's perceptions to exist so that is the real problem." While this may be true to some degree, it is not true that just because sexism exists then it is OK for LaMona to see it in everything that challenges her. Again, LaMona is the only one who has any control over her own perceptions, which is what I was trying to point out to MSJapan. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 14:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]