User talk:AlexandraSl

Hello, I have just created a page on my Sandbox. How do I get it live? Many thanks, AlexandraSl (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dooley

Please stop re-inserting Dooley's first name as this contravenes WP:LASTNAME - use last name not forename or initials. Thanks Arjayay (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but WP:LASTNAME is part of the standard WP:Manual of style which applies to all articles, in order to achieve consistency. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is written in encyclopedic style, which is to refer to people by their last name, other than the first mention in the lead, and in any infobox. Arjayay (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I deleted some more minor articles and book reviews to avoid excessive "listi-ness" on the Mark Dooley page. if you think they all belong in there, feel free to leave them, but ideally it shouldn't be quite so much of a CV and more encyclopedic in style Altenmaeren (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Altenmaeren for your help in improving this page. I'll keep your recommendations in mind, but I'd like to leave them in the for moment.

Thanks for taking this into account -- I think the page is better as a result. Try to think of yourself as an average reader, coming to this page to get the basic, encyclopedic information about the author. Knowing that he wrote an encyclopedia article or a short review somewhere or other at some point isn't really -- I should think -- what this person is after. The page reads much better as a result! Altenmaeren (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
This is really getting out of hand. You've been reverted by three editors now; clearly what you consider to be neutral and what others consider to be neutral are very different things. You're opening yourself up to a charge of edit warring, for instance, or promotional editing, or simple disruption--all of which are blockable. Not visiting the talk page makes this only more likely. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no taste for edit warring. I have accepted constructive edits (eg by Altenmaeren). I just dispute the constructiveness of the edits made by Drmies, and the tone of the accompanying remarks confirms a spirit of hostility directed at my work. I have done a compilation of everything that is available about the philosopher in question, and have been very careful to avoid being promotional. There are only facts here. The destruction of the page is brutal, arbitrary and I fear it will be detrimental to the philosopher at a time when he has just released a new book. Media people are reading this page and it is not helpful at all to delete all the information about his career and books. This is not promotional. It is just factual. I would like others to have a look at it so that one person does not decide to destroy the page out of his/her own will only. I will post the whole page back and thank you for leaving it there until it is looked at by others. AlexandraSl (talk)

I don't think the edits were brutal, arbitrary, or destructive. I think they largely improved the page's tone and made it sound less like an advertisement -- if people want that, including media people, they can click through to his personal page. It's worth taking them into account and trying to improve the page based on User: Drmies's suggestions (especially for better citation! But also for neutrality of tone) rather than rejecting them wholesale. He has a wealth of experience editing thousands of different pages, so I think we can both learn from his expertise in wikipedia standards and norms. Your edit history suggests an almost exclusive interest in this single page -- maybe it would be helpful to get more involved in other pages and learn from that, too! Altenmaeren (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- AlexandraSI, you are just not listening. a. this article was not neutral, and it was not like other articles--well, maybe like some really not neutral articles. b. you said "see talk page", but the only comments on the talk page are comments that say your edits are not appropriate. c. his books weren't removed: what was removed were the obviously not-neutral endorsements of his books you wrote, masked as summaries. d. the tags, requiring more sources for instance, are obviously valid: this article is woefully undersourced. e. I wouldn't have reverted you if the version you reinstated wasn't so blatantly promotional, in clear violation of a whole bunch of guidelines.
  This is tiresome, and the next step, if you revert again, is to seek some administrative assistance. Right now, you've been edit warring, inserting promotional information, removing very valid maintenance tags...all of these are blockable. You have two choices: you can help make this article better, or you can end up being blocked. Drmies (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]