User talk:Yendor1152
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Yendor1152, 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
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Richard 01:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, stop messing with the Waterville, Maine article like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waterville%2C_Maine&diff=139100340&oldid=139069782
I am in Waterville. I know that there is a CVS almost UNDER the street on JFK. Nobody knows that without being there. Even satellite photos don't show that it is almost under JFK due to loss of depth perception with satellite pictures. I know the big white Ames sign is still on the building and that it is not boarded up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spevw (talk • contribs)
I don't mind you slamming Waterville as long as it is true and is documented. I think some of what you write is true but other stuff is just opinion. Spevw 00:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Waterville, Maine. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. --Richard 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Waterville, Maine, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Richard 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Richard 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Your comment on my Talk Page in response to the above warnings
You wrote:
- Until you're an actual administrator and have REAL power, I see no reason to follow your dictates.
Yendor, since you are a new Wikipedian and have not been properly welcomed until today, it is understandable that you do not understand how Wikipedia's policies are enforced. Any Wikipedian, whether they are admins or not, has the right to place warnings on other people's Talk Pages in the way that I have.
In a limited sense, you are right. At this time, I myself cannot block you for violating Wikipedia's policies but an admin can and will. The warnings posted above are the first step in the Wikipedia process for enforcing the policies.
In general, we do not block users who were not aware that they were violating policies. The warning templates are intended to be used to provide users a warning that they are violating policies and thus an opportunity to avoid future violations. Once a user has been warned, they may be blocked for future violations.
You have now been warned. Future violations may be reported to the admin noticeboard for an appropriate response. One possible response is that an admin may decide that the best way to prevent further violations is to block you from further editing. You may appeal the admin's decision to block you if you feel that you have not violated Wikipedia's policies. I invite you to read the policies that are mentioned above and determine for yourself whether or not you have violated them.
--Richard 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your message on my Talk Page there. Please sign your messages with ~~~~. The WikiMedia software will insert your username and a timestamp. Thanks.
--Richard 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Waterville suggestion
If you want to write about how bad Waterville is, you can do it the right way. Think NYC drug dealers are coming in? Surely, the crime rate must be increasing? If so, cite that. If it is possible to cite the number of NYC people arrested, that is documentation.
Think that more people are on welfare? Is there proof? A new satellite welfare office open? Did the mayor say something in the newspaper that you can quote?
Do you have a picture of thriving downtown? How about a picture of the deserted Ames, the one near the Dollar General store. A picture is worth a thousand words. Want to write how Wal Mart sucked the life out of downtown? How about a picture of the crowded Wal Mart parking lot and the deserted downtown?
There is a better way to write. You don't have to sugar coat it. Just write the facts. Pretend that you are a guy from Minot, ND or some other place coming to write an unbiased review. Then do it! Spevw 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no "Dollar General Store," it's a "Family Dollar." And I don't believe for one minute that Wal*Mart sucked the life out of downtown Waterville. I was a business owner long before Wal* Mart even thought of coming here, and the downtown was on life support then. It hasn't been "thriving" since the 1960's. For one, it lost a number of anchor stores--Levine's, Butlers, Sterns, Dunhams, Alvina and Delias, Laverdieres--stores that had been in business for literally decades. Many of these (in fact, all but one) went out before Wal* Mart came to Waterville. Yet, all I've heard from the downtown "Business Association" is that Wal* Mart has hurt business on Main Street. That's just a crock.
I see no reason why I have to cite the Concourse sculpture or the abandoned Ames building, etc. Those are "landmarks" as much as the footbridge, and I don't see that cited.
The trouble is, people are coming to this entry and changing things, removing what they "don't like," and all the while, they wouldn't know Waterville, Maine if they stumbled over it. That, to me, is the height of hypocricy.
Yendor
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yendor1152 (talk • contribs)
- Yendor, in theory, everything in Wikipedia should be sourced to a verifiable, reliable source. In practice, the vast majority of assertions are not sourced. Only those assertions which are challenged must be sourced. I'm willing to believe that Waterville is a welfare town. Unfortunately, the way that you have expressed this is unencyclopedic. I really don't need to explain this to you. I'm sure you are aware that the style of writing that you used was very informal and highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia.
- The points that you make about Waterville's economic decline are encyclopedic if you can source them to a reliable source (newspaper story, magazine article or an official document from the local, state or federal government). Just find a way to make these points in an encyclopedic way.
- As for the "landmarks", it really depends on the definition of "landmark". Your definition is not in keeping with the standard concept of a landmark and that is why I removed those entries.
- --Richard 03:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I added some of the information that you mentioned above. I am not in favor of sugar coating the article. In fact, it's a shame that downtown looks so awful. I didn't know that so many stores closed besides the Ames. Spevw 00:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that we should not be trying to "sugar coat" the truth. That was never my intent. However, the truth will be more readily accepted if it is presented in a neutral and objective manner. If it sounds like stuff you'd hear in a bar, then it doesn't belong here. If it can be backed up by reliable sources, we can insert it here.
- --Richard 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ok, I tried to be polite but...
With regards to your POV/unencyclopedic comments you've repeatedly added without explanation:
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Chiller (TV channel), you will be blocked from editing. --Squiggleslash 13:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You're the one vandalizing my entries. Please stop. If you continue, you will be blocked from further editing.
- I was trying to be polite when I previously removed your vandalism, giving you the benefit of the doubt in terms of how I worded my summary. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be banned. --Squiggleslash 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] March 2008
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Waterville, Maine, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
