User talk:Barepunts

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Barepunts! Thank you for your contributions. I am Malik Shabazz and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

January 2014
Hello, I'm Arunsingh16. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Legal status of Internet pornography because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.  Cheers AKS  11:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Legal status of Internet pornography. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Barepunts: I'll leave the template in place in case someone else wants to chime in, but I suggest you try the Teahouse, which is a help, advice, and discussion space for new editors. The hosts there may be able to help you out. You appear to have run into a common problem, which is that it is a huge project with many diverse points of view, so often something that seems obvious to one person unexpectedly arouses opposition or turns out to require discussion. I can tell you that our main guideline in cases of disagreement about article content - including terminology - is that as a general encyclopedia, we aim to reflect what reliable sources have said. So if you have not already done so, post to the talk page of the primary article in which this arose, with citations supporting your point that the terminology should be changed to reflect usage in the field. However, others - particularly at the Teahouse - may have more useful input. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a nice Welcome
International agencies such as UNICEF have stopped using the term "child porn" and moved towards other wording such as "images of child sexual abuse". See my edit history for my attempts at changing some -not all- instances of the phrase "child porn" to "images of child sexual abuse". Rather than looking at the supplies references (given in the form of a wikipedia article that contains reliable refs) and helping to tidy the article my edits were reverted. One reversion made an assumption of bad faith even though there was talk page discussion and valid edit summary. The automated message thing that user left was not nice. The article I was editing has many flaws. Rather than waste time bickering over what should be an uncontroversial change to some words editors could have sought citations for other claims, or fix style problems, or anything. So, now you have an article in the same lousy condition it was in before I tried to help wikipedia and you have someone who after a few days now hates Wikipedia. Good job at editor retention.

My question

Where can I post a link to my user page so someone at wikipedia can understand the frustrating experience that new users have?

Barepunts (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have a content dispute - and there are plenty around, we cannot expect everyone to agree - we have a resolution service at WP:DR  Ron h jones  (Talk) 23:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As stated above, if you have a content dispute please use a form of dispute resolution like the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With large scope such as "all articles this word is in" and unfinished community discussion, unfortunately it's difficult to accept your edits. You may be interested in participating in the discussion until consencus is reached (it may be possible to do that without involving additional people, if the involved people are sufficiently interactive and verbose). Gryllida (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
 Cheers AKS  09:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

does wikipedia research new editor retention?
I tried to make some small uncontroversial edits to a bad article. My experience has been so bad that I have no interest in continuing to edit wikipedia.

'''My question: does wikipedia research new editor retention? Is there anywhere I can post my userpage to so those researchers can see the ridiculous obstacles in place for new editors?'''

Again: there is no way I'm goong to continiue to edit wikipedia if it is this hostile just to change a few (not all) occurances of a common but poor phrase to a common more modern cited sourced phrase used by international child protection and law enforcent agencies. Barepunts (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Barepunts: I'll leave the template in place in case someone else wants to chime in, but I suggest you try the Teahouse, which is a help, advice, and discussion space for new editors. The hosts there may be able to help you out. You appear to have run into a common problem, which is that it is a huge project with many diverse points of view, so often something that seems obvious to one person unexpectedly arouses opposition or turns out to require discussion. I can tell you that our main guideline in cases of disagreement about article content - including terminology - is that as a general encyclopedia, we aim to reflect what reliable sources have said. So if you have not already done so, post to the talk page of the primary article in which this arose, with citations supporting your point that the terminology should be changed to reflect usage in the field. However, others - particularly at the Teahouse - may have more useful input. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Barepunts, I'd like to concur with what Yngvadottir said you should try out Teahouse before making any rash decisions, I think you'll find it and the users there very helpful. As for what you explicitly requested, you'll find it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention and Missing Wikipedians. Lastly new sections generally go at the bottom of the page hence the reorder. Regards &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 19:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

dug up 3 new refs, on top of the 3 refs you pointed out
Howdy barepunts, noticed you at WP:RETENTION, and damn sorry it wasn't earlier. Call me 74, if you like. Bad news is, plenty of people on wikipedia just like what you ran into. Good news is, they aren't trying to drive you away. The wikiCulture is just a little broken right now, is all. Anyhoo, found the refs you pointed at, plus dug up an FBI ref, a BBC ref, and one other which had more than three letters, which is ENTIRELY too complicated so I forgot the third name. :-)

Would be happy to help you get your change into the article, if you care to stick around awhile. Folks here will definitely appreciate your help... and hey, before you wound up in revert-me-ville, you already made two perfectly rock-solid edits, which I appreciated, and of course, the 500 million readers appreciated. Sigh. Lemme know if you'd be interested, you seem like an asset to me. Thanks for improving wikipedia, hope to see you at some point. Please leave me a new section on my talkpage, if you reply here and I don't get back to you pronto. &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Re
Thanks for your discussion at this section ( the revision I see now ). Mind, catalytic approach would make the environment much less hostile, but it requires effort on your side also.

You were given a lot of hints on your way, eg "ideas that require mass edits to implement are subject to discussion", "discuss first"; that discussion didn't come to any agreement. I'd raise a new helpme, asking how to draw additional attention to the discussion, there are more crowded places than an article talk page out there. --Gryllida (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)