User talk:Ballroom Dancer 001

Welcome!

Hello, Ballroom Dancer 001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Caroline Joan S. Picart have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't source biographical information to a book written by the subject herself, and "top of the class" and (unverified) "wrote columns for" is just resume-style fluff. In addition, you removed a review of one of her books--and such references are precisely what this article needs. Please click on some of the above links to learn what Wikipedia is, and what it isn't. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Bbb23. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attacks you've made against Bbb23 are uncalled-for: please reconsider your approach to your interactions with other editors, and please understand that you've received advice meant to help you. Calling other editors "a little child" is, well ... you can fill in the rest. As Bbb23 requested, you'll get more help if you ask nicely. Acroterion (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir or Madame:

I respectfully disagree. I asked the writer in question, point-blank, to explain the nature of his/her edits. The writer in question chose to play a childish game of saying "Maybe if you ask me nicely." The writer in question has chosen to not to engage in a constructive discussion of why the edits were made. If the writer does not wish to explain his/her edits, then this forum serves no purpose.

04:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

When confronted with demands like "Justify yourself or I will seek arbitration," it's perfectly reasonable for an editor (who is a volunteer like everyone else here) to decline further interaction. You then escalated to personal attacks. Please reconsider how you interact with other volunteers on this site. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir or Madame:

The person in question did not decline further interaction, however. I did not escalate; the person in question refused to discuss substantive matters.

My original comments should have been more polite, and for this I do apologize. I was vexed to see edits continually undone with no edit summaries written. But emotion should indeed be restrained.

Ballroom Dancer 001 (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 left edit summaries in both cases: [1], [2]. Acroterion (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but did you look at what you are calling an "edit summary?" The person's edits do NOT even remotely correspond to the summary. The person undid paragraphs at a time of my work under the vague description of "unencyclopedic." If you want to edit ONE specific item at a time, and put an edit summary, that makes sense. It does not make sense to undo literally everything I did. This is not careful editing. Why is a person's family not relevant in a biography? Why are her awards in law school not relevant? Why is the end of her radio program not relevant? How can you justify the person RE-insterting "forthcoming, July 2012" after I edited out the word "forthcoming?" Is the time in the calendar month/year somehow in dispute, that it is wrong for me to remove the word "forthcoming?"

It's not logical to take the person's edits seriously when they undid EVERYTHING I put in all in one swoop.

Ballroom Dancer 001 (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot[edit]

Hi Ballroom Dancer 001! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]