User talk:ChateauOfADoubt

Welcome!

 * }

July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Troy, New York has been reverted. Your edit here to Troy, New York was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://frontparlorseries.wordpress.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Other Stuff Exists
Hi Chateau,

I decided to move this discussion to your page. I know it is frustrating, but please read "Other Stuff Exists". We cannot expect a single editor to fix every problem on Wikipedia. He/she can only fix the problems he/she notices. If you see other problems that need to be fixed, please fix them. The Wikipedia community will thank you for your efforts. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and the same way certain oppressed communities feel targeted by the police. Perhaps they won't deny that they are speeding, but they can't help notice that it is ONLY they in the oppressed communities that are being punished. Again, I did not expect him or her to fix everything, but in a very small section, I would expect someone to remove all the problems under "violates policy xyz," rather than just a single user's contribution. Barek even commented that he or she noticed other things in that section violated policy as well and did not remove them. I moved one of the annual events that states that it is monthly into a new section entitled "monthly events" and added two others that were of similar notability. Barek undid my edits, rather than removing the events that violate the policy. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please try to assume good faith and act accordingly. If you do, even if you were wrong, you would approach your editing in a productive mindset and people will want to help you.  If you don't, people will tend to judge your comments harshly, especially when you are talking about a well-respected editor. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to tell you that I don't care about anything going forward. I'm saying I have reasonable suspicion to assume that I have been targeted, no one will acknowledge this, nothing that I do on wikipedia is left without being undone, my efforts here are a waste of my time and emotional energy, and just because someone is respected in his or her field doesn't mean he or she shouldn't be subject to criticism. People assumed good faith of Joe Paterno. People assumed good faith of multinational corporations. I understand I am not a top contributor but the occurrences leading to my feeling this way are real. I tried to read the explanatory article to find out why my additions violated policy, and before I could even comment that I didn't think the article sufficiently explained as much, Barek had left another comment that other events should also be removed but did not remove them. I honestly expected that Barek (who has been very prompt in removing my violating contributions) would proceed to remove the events that he or she was referring to "also" violated policy, but has not yet done so.

I am not crazy. I will not allow this to convince me that I am. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you do not like the rules that are applied to all Wikipedia editors. If that is the case, then Wikipedia may not be the best place for you to publish your thoughts.  There are many places you can publish that do not operate under Wikipedia's strict rules of verifiability, etc.  Those might suit you better.  Good luck, Ebikeguy (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you do not want to consider my experience on a human level. This is not about Wikipedia's rules, it is about how I have been treated. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel mistreated, but if you wish to continue editing on Wikipedia, you will need to follow the rules we have established here. I've tried to be helpful and polite.  I don't feel that I have mistreated you in any way.  That said, my main goal in having this discussion with you is to help you improve Wikipedia, not to sooth any hurt feelings you might have.  If you have any questions about how to effectively edit Wikipedia, please feel free to ask them.  If you are looking for pity, then I am afraid I do not have time to to provide such.  It's time to put on your big girl/big boy panties and carry on.  Ebikeguy (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Pity and empathy are not the same thing. I don't understand how you provided me with any help here. I am not a robot, I am a human being. In the future when you are dealing with human beings, it would be helpful if you could try to understand where they are coming from before telling them how they are wrong. This is not about being mature, it is about how one deals with people. If you are just here to restate the rules, or truly to help me improve Wikipedia, your help would have been best appreciated clarifying the topics Barek did not, rather than just providing more defense. Explaining how a respected admin is infallible is not improving Wikipedia in the slightest. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've tried to help you. Apparently, I've failed.  Good luck to you.  I am considering this conversation terminated.  Ebikeguy (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Exterminated, even. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I was unable to help you, I thought you might be able to get helpful advice from an experienced Wikipedian at the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a friendly, supportive place where new Wikipedians can get advice from editors who are there to help you.  I hope they can answer your questions more satisfactorily than I could.  Ebikeguy (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

Jonathan and Sarah, Teahouse hosts 02:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)