User talk:MATThematical/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, MATThematical, 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
• How to write a great article
• 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! --Berland (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Derrick

Please do not edit other people's contributions to the debate. It is important that people taking part can see the whole debate: even if you think some comments are unrelated, they may have affected other people's inputs, so they should still be visible. Even in changing your own contributions, you should strike through the old ones like this but leave them visible. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Matt, I see I am too late, JohnCD has already told you about the "etiquette" to follow in AfD debates. I think you are overreacting a bit. I don't think B0bby's remarks concerning people "coming here from forums" were necessarily directed to you personally. In general, when participating in AfD discussion (which from time to time cqn become quite heated), it is good to try to keep a cool head and not to respond immediately at a comment that one perceives as insulting or inflaming. It makes your contributions to the discussion really more effective. It's tough, though. I used to participate a lot in this kind of discussion but have stopped doing so, because of the fights one tends to land into. Anyway, don't take things personal, keep your cool, and just give factual arguments, even if "the other side" resorts to jelling and accusations. AfD is not a vote and the closing admin weighs the arguments when making his decision. If your comments are factual and calm, they will certainly carry much more weight. I would also advise you to read some of the WP guidelines on notability, reliable sources, etc., because that will help you a lot in this (and similar) discussions. Hope this helps. --Crusio (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

SPAs

Hi again, I identified Jasonbholden as SPA because from the total of 36 edits, the only ones that are not to the Derrick debate went back to June 2008. Interestingly, since I tagged this person as SPA and you remarked on the non-existing userpage, a userpage has been created and suddenly some edits were made to a different article. The new edits justify the removal of the SPA tag, I think, but when I put it there, to me that was a SPA... --Crusio (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Wie edits

Why do you keep editing this page to try to summarize what she said, when you can provide an exact quote that is also included in the citation? Wikipedia is supposed to be factual and written from a neutral point of view. Putting your own spin on something rather than providing the exact quote goes against that. In addition, her "I knew the rule wrong" is notable in its own right because she has become known for saying that. --Crunch (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you get into a sticky place when you try to summarize quotes, although it makes sense that you wanted to do so because the quote a bit long. Wikipedia is very particular about neutral point of view. It may be a better solution to just include the long quote. It's not really that long. Do you want to give it another try? If you don't, I will. --Crunch (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't rewrite or omit a quote because it includes bad grammar. This is an encyclopedia and what happened should be recorded accurately even it puts the subject in a bad light. --Crunch (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wie Streamlining

On a quick glance, streamlining the Wie article seems to make sense, although I don't see any conensus to do this or discussion. You probably should add a note to the Talk page about what you're doing. I posted a note on the Talk page back in 2006 but obviously that was too long ago to be relevant. I'll take a look and see how the article looks with your changes but widespread like this really have to be noted on the Talk page first. --Crunch (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I took at look at what you did. Given that there was no discussion and therefore no consensus, your edits were reverted. I have started an actual discussion on the Talk page and we can discuss ideas for streamlining in a disciplined manner there. Please be respectful of Wikipedia processes. Thank you. --Crunch (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are not just being a prankster. I'm the one who started the discussion in 2006. It had exactly one reply that came two years later and had nothing to do with the initial question I posed now over three years ago. This is not a relevant discussion because the article in 2006 was completely different than the article today and the reply two years later is not any sort of consensus. If you want to talk about streamlining an article, you can't base it on one post a year ago in response to a question posed three years ago. The article was completely different three years ago. To make widespread edits, pose the questions, as I did today, in the Talk page. Ask for specific changes, like as I mentioned in the Talk page, a change to one section. See what response you get and try to work things out collaboratively. --Crunch (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt for being new to Wikipedia and not understanding that you can't go in and make widespread changes without asking for discussion and getting some sort of consensus. One reply to a question posed three years ago is not a consensus. Not even close. To answer your question, I'd give the proposal a month or two -- a month should really be enough. It may only be you and I discussing the changes. I'm confident we'll agree on most of the changes. --Crunch (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)