User talk:Alamanth

Concerns about content

 * Title changed for civility: formerly titled by Penbat as "Stop butchering Wikipedia articles".
 * See also: User talk:S Marshall and User talk:Penbat

You are whizzing round butchering Wikipedia articles in an irrational way and without any prior discussion. STOP IT.--Penbat (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Referring to my obviously well-intentioned edits as "vandalism" and "butchering" is uncivil, and calling me "irrational" and yelling "STOP IT" could be interpreted as personal attacks.


 * The "Wikipedia articles" to which you are referring were each created by you, very recently. They are very short, and are without appropriate context; I feel they represent content forks and that the information within them would better serve readers if conveyed through existing articles. I carefully merged the material to articles that seemed closest in topic to the articles you created. This is not "vandalism" by any measure.  Alamanth (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Both of you need to cool down right now. Penbat, your edit summaries and some of your other language are way out of line. Alamanth, you need to stop making wholesale changes such as in History of narcissism, where you clearly do NOT have any kind of consensus and never addressed the matter on the talk page. It's fine to be bold, but not in such contentious matters. If you two keep this up, you will run into trouble soon, since this has the potential to become disruptive very easily. I suggest both of you grab a hot or cold beverage and take the dog for a walk--and possibly work on some other articles if the WP bug bites you. Thank you both, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would care to explain on the article discussion page just what you think is wrong with it.--Expsychobabbler (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I made a short note in my edit summary, but I'd be happy to explain further at Talk.  Alamanth (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Drmies; thanks for your input. I agree that it's preferable to go to the Talk page before making drastic changes, and will try to do this without fail in the future.  Please understand, though, that some reasoning went into this: History of narcissism is a brand-new article which Penbat created as a content fork of narcissism or narcissistic personality disorder, just five weeks ago.   There is a discussion at Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder, dated to early 2008, in which Penbat participated.  In this discussion, several editors raised significant concerns over creating new articles related to the topic of narcissism.  Having seen this discussion, and the new creation date of History of narcissism, perhaps I underestimated the importance of "seeking consensus" to undo something to which several editors had already objected in previous discussions.


 * I'm a little confused: does this mean that, within the culture of Wikipedia, a person who creates a new article is typically interpreted as having "property rights", and that new articles should tend to be respected? Do Wikipedians tend to think it is more wrong to merge without consensus, and more right to split without consensus?  I'm aware of the "mergist" and "deletionist" philosophies and so forth, but am not sure what philosophy prevails, and, more importantly, I don't entirely understand what I did wrong here, or what information should come into play when I'm making these types of decisions.  Any information or resources to help me understand are appreciated; thanks.  Alamanth (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Alamanth, thank you for your response. The discussion on the talk page you mention is quite old, and I didn't look back that far. As for property rights, well, they shouldn't exist, but I believe there to be some sort of consensus akin to "possession is nine/tenths of the law." I don't know about the philosophies; I just know that in contentious matter, in which experienced users write content in which they are invested (both of you are, it appears), it's best to tread lightly, even if you are right (which we all are, of course). You merge, Penbat starts yelling, you possibly yell back, an admin is asked to get involved, accusations of sock puppetry are made, outsiders like me stick their nose in... If you are right, and consensus agrees that these are POV forks, then you will have done a good thing, and while it undoubtedly will take a lot more time, it is infinitely more painless. In the meantime, though, I am more interested in deescalation, and that means for you to please refrain from drastic edits, and for Penbat to stop using all too inflammatory language. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to do that. What you're saying makes perfect sense: the amount of time and energy that goes into a large disagreement is a waste, and it's far better to avoid the disruption in the first place.  I apologize for having gotten off on the wrong foot and will try to communicate more thoroughly in the future.


 * even if you are right (which we all are, of course)


 * That got a grin; thanks. :) Alamanth (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

<--No grins anymore now. Of course your editing skills were not those of a newbie, but this is kind of sad. Happy trails anyway. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet
You have been. (blocked by MuZemike 23:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Unblock request
--78.152.234.193 (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)