User talk:Eddiekuns

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Eddiekuns, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to get a bit more involved. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ϢereSpielChequers 14:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Styles of disagreement

Hi. I'm replying to your request for a "reality check" here. I believe that you and the other editor that you mentioned are both acting in good faith to try to improve the encyclopedia, but you both have different styles of disagreement that seem to be stretching out into an unnecessary personalization/depersonalization of an editorial dispute. The other editor ought not to have addressed your proposal with the reply, "Guy doesn't even bother to make an argument..." unless your name is Guy (which it is not). When I read that, I thought, "who has a username of Guy?" In my view, that comment was snide, unwarranted, and depersonalizing. All editors ought to be addressed directly, and if I had been referred to that way, I'd be mildly miffed. In addition, the other editor's comments: "look at you, you've just joined..." were unwarranted. Here's the best thing to write in response to being treated that way: absolutely nothing. The other editor's other comments don't seem out of line to me. Calling your argument trite or nonsensical is not a personal attack on you. There is no need for you to parrot the word "trite" back to the other person, and your question to the other editor: "why are you so critical, harsh, and insulting"...and hostile and sarcastic...were also unwarranted. So, yes, it was a ridiculous question because it was unnecessarily personalizing. I'm fairly certain that you'll never receive an adequate answer to your question, so there's probably no reason for you to ask it other than as a defensive response to being mildly (and probably justifiably) miffed. But if someone else focuses on you instead of your words about the article, they're showing you a counterexample for you to not follow. With regard to the article, I disagree with you, but with regard to the conflict with the other editor, if you let it go, you win, and I hope you win. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Either I'm not communicating clearly, or this medium doesn't lend itself to clear communication. Or both. When I parroted back the word "trite" I was actually asking for feedback on whether or not my question ("Should we create a new page for Paul Revere's midnight ride?") or my argument in favor of it was trite. If so, then I'm wasting people's time. Not my goal, not my intent. If there's a real consensus in that direction, and not just one editor's opinion, then I'm wasting my own (limited) time as well as others, and I need to just be quiet. That's the reality check I was looking for. In regards to conflict of this sort on Wikipedia and how to respond to it (that is: don't respond to it), your point is well taken. Eddiekuns (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)