User talk:Arista31

April 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fermat's Last Theorem. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. JBW (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I dont understand what was wrong with the added edit? I didnt remove anything or change anything. I added to where Fermats Last Theorem was showing where its been in "popular culture". It listed Simpsons as one instance. I added where Fermat's Last Theorem was on one of the most popular and successful sitcoms; Modern Family. Perhaps you've not heard of the show? I thought I was adding something of interest for the popular culture section. Why was it wrong? It was not my intention to "vandalize" anything!? Vandalize;To damage or destroy (another's property) willfully or maliciously. How did I damage the property? You accused me of willfully trying to damage or destroy it? How is adding to where Fermats Last Theorem is in popular culture? Please explain in detail. I would never intentionally or willfully damage or destroy anyone's property. I take great offense to being accused of any offense. If there something I am not understanding please show me what exactly was destroying or damaging? I don't want to unknowingly be doing something. It would only be a misunderstanding if I did. I'm confused. Arista31 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was rereading Wikipedia chapter on vandalism. I copy and pasted one paragraph; "Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia."
 * As I've stated, I have not changed anything. What about it looked like i was vandalising? I edited my own edit a couple times because i didnt proofread before i posted.
 * I've read thru Wikipedia on editing and I cannot find something to show I did anything wrong.
 * I get accused, charged, and convicted and the prosecutor is also the judge, and as defendant i get no chance to plead my case. Arista31 (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ArbCom?
 * Can i take this to ArbCom? Arista31 (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! You technically can take this to Arbitration Committee, but your case will be declined because you don't try any other steps of dispute resolution. Your edit is reverted because this is "out of scope"; you can't write this in Fermat's Last Theorem just because it appears in an episode. The person who loves reading (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been reading on what constitutes "appearing in popular culture". Seeing how it is out of scope.
 * "Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are to be avoided".
 * "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular POV on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular POV."
 * That said, I will accept it being removed. But I do not accept being accused of vandalism and according to Wikipedia I should not have been charged and convicted of it. Ive asked 25 friends and aquantances to read it and tell me truthfully, if, when reading the entry, with my addition from modern family,that it looks like someone trying to vandalize the entire entry and all agreed that it comes off innocent enough. Clearly there is no hostile intent of any kind. And Wikipedia has said not to jump to accusing editors. Especially when its obviously innocent enough and clearly wasnt trying to harm the entire entry. There nothing worse than being accused and convicted to something that is untrue and effects my reputation. Arista31 (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)