User talk:Clarion Collar

Welcome!


Hello, Clarion Collar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Dartford Crossing
You appear to have been reverted as the state of the article was achieved by wp:consensus. As getting consensus many have been a long, possibly arduous process, anyone making a change would have been reverted. Being a newbie likely had little to do with it. You will need to achieve consensus to get your change in there. Being wp:BOLD will not be a strike against you. I would mind your language. The use of "fuck" might irritate some. See wp:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope it does not irritate them once they realise I am merely quoting the person who reverted me. And I rather think my status as a newcomer did have a lot to do with it, given it was explicitly referred to by that person in their explanation, but I get what you're trying to say. Thanks for the info nonetheless. Clarion Collar (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you have just got off to a bad start. All your edits have been good faith and a sincere attempt to improve the encyclopedia, but your long rants with personal attacks have meant people have ignored you, which is a shame. As I think somebody said, there are millions of articles, most of which are not being worked on by anybody and need somebody with a strong view to take hold of them and improve them. London King's Cross railway station is one; Tottenham Court Road is another. I'm not currently working on either, and I don't think anybody else is. In fact, anything marked "start class" and with numerous maintenance tags will do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Dartford Crossing is the article I joined Wikipedia to fix. Your reluctance to accept the problems it still has, which make the prospect of it becoming "A class" frankly laughable using the published standards and expectations of that rating, is no reason for me to forget about it and move onto something else. If other people choose to ignore the issues it still has, for whatever reason, and are happy to allow it to be rated A-class in the state it is, then they need to have a long hard look at themselves and ask them what they are really here for - public education, or something else. No amount of evasion and diversion by you or anyone else is really going to mask the fact that my extremely detailed explanations of what is wrong with it, and how to fix it, have not been addressed in the manner expected of Wikipedia editors. I have been told all about consensus above, so I am now well aware of how the process is supposed to work. It is obvious that I am being given the brush off, that I am being taken for a fool, and I am not the only person whose attempted fixes have been foiled in this fashion it seems, up to and including your protection of it right after you reverted my edits. Rather than improving other articles here in isolation as some kind of alternative to being treated like a mug by the people seeking to protect Dartford Crossing from improvement, this experience is more likely to persuade me to put my time and energy into getting the message out there, to educators, policy makers, and the like, that Wikipedia is not a credible resource, and its articles are not as open to improvement as people have been led to believe. Except the ones nobody else is working on, of course, they're desperate to shuffle people off to them. Which is smart, in a way. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)