User talk:32.218.46.251

Fighting that vandal editor
Be happy to. Thank you, as well, for keeping an eye on him. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandal Editing???
With all due respect, I honestly thought that Wikipedia welcomed information instead of its users attempting to reject it. Moreover, if anyone is "vandal-editing" here, with all due respect, it could also be construed to be you. You seem to think you know more about the article page's subject. Why can't you leave the "Sam Distefano" page alone once and for all and stop slicing/dicing it? I promise you in my heart of hearts, it has already been approved by the Wikipedia Articles Submissions staff and re-edited by them numerous times before you went in and started butchering it significantly and repeatedly. While I appreciate your passion and concern for factual accuracy, some of your comments in the "edit-history" section seemed to be getting a little personal.

I've already contacted the same Wiki staff members who originally posted the article. Again, I'm sure we all appreciate efforts to ensure factual accuracy. But by the same token, I'm sure you'll also agree that those efforts should be tempered by striking a balance with also not overstepping boundaries that ultimately result in utter annihilation of an article. I assure you, there is nothing at all to be concerned about regarding this particular article and its factual accuracy. So, if you would please, at least hold off on re-deleting entire sections until the staff members at Wikipedia have a chance to review it again? Does that sound fair enough for the time being, please? Again, I mean no offense toward you. I'm sure your intentions are in earnest. And again, I do appreciate that. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. I'd be happy to discuss any future concerns at any time. Are you allowed to contact me? If so, let me know, and we'll figure out a way to correspond more easily than this posting. Happy Holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallyfrjersey (talk • contribs) 23:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but "I assure you, there is nothing at all to be concerned about regarding this particular article and its factual accuracy" is not the way Wikipedia operates, and I guarantee that no "Wiki staff members" [sic.; we're all volunteers] would agree with the notion that we should "take your, or anyone's word for it." One of the core principles of Wikipedia is that claims must be verified with reliable-source citations, and that there be no original research such as personal reminiscences. We also strive for a neutral tone without magazine-like essaying and peacock terms. RE: " I honestly thought that Wikipedia welcomed information," Wikipedia welcomes verified, neutral information that is not indiscriminate trivia and overdetail. From what I have seen, the other editor's edits were perfectly called for. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

My dear sir, I never called you a "vandal editor". Please read comments and signatures more carefully. And please do not clutter my talk page with rants. No one impugned the veracity of your edits. They simply asked you to provide reliable sources, one of the bedrocks of Wikipedia. Another bedrock is writing from a neutral point of view. Gushing, effusive praise, name-dropping, cherry-picking, and whitewashing are distinctly non-neutral. They are eschewed in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a Hollywood trade paper. So learn something about Wikipedia before you brashly throw your weight around. (Hint: Click on all the blue-linked terms in this comment and in Tenebrae's comment above and read all the corresponding pages.) 32.218.46.251 (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. That makes more sense, and I truly apologize. I will work on retrieving reliable sources that can be cited first, before re-adding any additional info in the future and will extend an extra-concerted effort to not "peacock" or "fluff" any of the writing. I've only been contributing to Wikipedia for a couple of weeks and evidently have much more to learn about it. I did not mean to upset anyone. Again, I am sorry. While I appreciate your recognition and apparent acknowledgement of my "weight" (that's rather flattering, actually), I assure you it was never my intention to be appearing in any way to be "throw[ing] [it] around." Again, I most sincerely apologize, thank you for the much appreciated tutorial, and wish you a truly Happy Holiday Season! Cheers! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.181.8 (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)