User talk:F.Tromble

Please email me to ensure I will respond quickly.

Slow down
Hey man, you're new. I'm sorry if anything I say can be a shock coming in here, but you need to slow down. I noticed that your discussion with me became testy and almost passive aggressive on your part very quickly. Perhaps my responses weren't what you expected, but that's part of collaborative editing. I dug further into your edits and I noticed that you've been reverted by User:David Biddulph, User:Toddy1 and User:Неполканов, all of whom are established Wikipedia editors. And I'm telling you right now, as I told you at Template talk:Sunni Islam that if you try to edit the template based on your current line of reasoning, you will have me reverting you as well. Perhaps it seems unfair, and that we're all wrong. That is theoretically possible. But look at it this way...you have not even been at this site for one month. You've engaged in your first edit war and you've fallen into conflict with multiple editors. That can't be a good sign and it might be a good idea to take a step back and ask yourself, "what can I do to not fall into such conflicts." Sometimes part of getting the job done (editing) is adjusting your own behavior even when you feel others are wrong. It's sometimes the best choice at work, and it's sometimes the best choice here at Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments sir, I do think though that you have got me wrong. I am just asking for sources on religion articles. I know religious folks can sometimes be quite political and extremely passionate about their opinions, indeed blind devotion is common in religions and that is perfectly fine and normal although it does become difficult when people think they have a "divine right". But I signed up to wiki to challenge and to ask questions on talk pages where it seems devotees might be using the encyclopaedia as a political platform, for example presenting the revolutionary/fringe idea that there are 5 Sunni Madhabs instead of the traditional 4. Naturally this is going to make me unpopular, but I have no bad intention. Being unpopular does not make someone into the bad guy. Just want to makes sure encyclopaedic entries continue to look encyclopaedic and not like politico-religious or politico-historical "propaganda". Nevertheless, I do not see you as threatening me, and I take your suggestions on board. Best wishes. I look forward to continuing our discussion at the Sunni template discussion when I have time. F.Tromble (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You're being passive aggressive again. Insinuating that your interlocutors are being political, passionate or blindly devoted isn't very civil, even if it isn't done in an overt fashion. More or less accusing someone giving you advice of being a devotee using the site as a political platform is somewhat overt.
 * I'll give you another piece of advice. If you continue with the passive insinuations about other editors, eventually they will get tired of it. That isn't a threat, it's a quote from experience. You aren't going to get your way with such behavior nor are you being clever. It's rude and makes you look like the POV pusher. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Peace. F.Tromble (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Newbie quickly racking up infractions...how to deal gently?"
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Some advice
Hello again. I noticed you've been getting in some conflicts here and there (beyond the one we discussed at the Teahouse), and I figured I'd offer you some advice.

Wikipedia has pretty much its own unwritten rules of behaviour, and it can be very easy to miss parts of this when you're new. On top of that, Wikipedia deals with large amounts of problematic behaviour and problematic editors daily, so certain patterns get established in people's minds as likely to belong to a problematic editor or an editor behaving in a problematic way. Seemingly passive-aggressive behaviour, subtle digs and re-reverting people do fall square into these patterns. When they happen in the context of articles on religion or related subjects, this is doubly so the case.

I do not believe that anyone is accusing you of being a problematic editor at this point, but several people have commented on problematic behaviour from your side. (A subtle but all-important difference. Problematic behaviour says little to nothing about your intent or you as a person. It is well-possible to engage in problematic behaviour in good faith, which I believe to be the case in your case. Nonetheless, the more often problematic behaviour occurs after having been cautioned, warned or otherwise having had it pointed out, the more easy and likely it is for people to have difficulty taking the behaviour as having occurred in good faith)

You seem to be confused why some of your comments and such are taken negatively. One important thing to keep in mind is that we're all people behind a computer (or laptop, etc.). We can't see your facial expression or other non-verbal cues when reading your replies. Because of this, it can be very difficult to gather someone's intent. Things like a wink, a smile, a look in someone's eyes or even someone's stance that would normally "soften the blow" and let people know you do not mean things as harshly as they might seem to be at first glance do not get across in a completely written environment. This means that it can be very difficult to tell the difference between, say, malicious or non-malicious sarcasm. Similarly, it can be difficult to tell the difference between someone who is confused as to why their behaviour is seen as problematic, or someone who is being purposefully obtrusive by feigning that confusion. As the area in which you are editing sees a lot of problematic behaviour and problematic editors, more so than wikipedia in general, it is perhaps not fair but certainly understandable that people will look at problematic behaviour and see it as potentially intentional.

That does not mean you should stop editing in that area, but to prevent yourself and others a lot of hassle and wasting of time, it is important to take a look at what you're saying before you post it and think for a moment if it is likely that people will assign a different meaning to it than you intend. That is always important, of course, but in areas that see a lot of problems even more so than otherwise.

It is also important to not take things personal. When someone reverts your edit, they are reverting an edit, they are not reverting you. That that edit happens to be yours is almost certainly not the (or even a) deciding factor in their reverting, especially not on first revert. When you keep repeating the same edit after being reverted multiple times, it will play a role, but repeating the edit after being reverted is something you shouldn't do anyway.

Reverting someone's revert ("re-reverting") is for obvious vandalism (like someone replacing the page with "poop", someone changing someone's length to 15ft, stuff like that), obvious spam and similar. Edits that everyone who is here to be constructive would agree do not belong on wikipedia. When you are accused of edit-warring on AN/I, your habit of re-reverting is what they are speaking of.

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear AddWittyNameHere, you are very kind to take the time to explain things to me here. Thank you very much for that. I have neot been here long enough to have established any habits yet but I certainly appreciate the advice and will do my best to make sure I avoid developing any habits like the ones you warned me about. Are emoticons frowned upon or acceptable here? Concerning the appearance of sarcasm, won't this always be assumed by people who have first assumed the worst about oneself from the outset rather than assuming good faith? In such cases is there a protocol on how one might go about trying to reassure such editors without them assuming one is being insincere? Thank you again for your friendly support. F.Tromble (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I use habit for simplicity and brevity, but feel free to replace that with "perceived habit due to multiple (in the meaning of "more than one") actions falling within patterns commonly part of or accompanying such a habit" if that makes more sense to you.
 * Emoticons depend a bit per person and per situation. I would say "avoid overuse of them, but use them if you believe that this will make your intended meaning more clear", though in the latter case, please do first see if you can reword the sentence in such a way that it is clear without using them.
 * Regarding the appearance of sarcasm, no, not necessarily. It certainly is one of the ways that a comment may be seen as sarcastic while not intended as such, but there are multiple other ways this can be the case as well. To give a few examples:


 * Use of a phrase that is commonly used in a sarcastic manner in a context where it is commonly used in a sarcastic way;
 * Fitting with behaviour, mindset, opinions and actions, known or perceived, of the person making such a remark. For example, it is rather easy to see someone's remark as sarcastic if they have only edited the articles Sarcasm and Sarcastic and proclaim on their userpage to love sarcasm, or if someone proclaims "Oh vandals, how I love you so" when they are known to spend most of their time on wikipedia fighting vandalism;
 * Someone else having made a near-identical remark towards them in a malicious way.
 * There are many other examples possible, but I believe that the three mentioned above make my point clear enough. As to how one may go about reassuring an editor it was not meant in such a way... usually, the more flowery the language used is, the more likely it is perceived to be false in such a case. A simple reassurance is usually best. The more you focus on the way they perceived it, the more likely it is that it will be seen as another subtle dig. Compare it with common phrases like "I'm sorry you feel that way" and such. They rarely are meant to express a genuine apology, but rather to get in another dig.
 * More important in such a case is to look back at the word or remark that caused it and to look how it could be misconstrued like that to avoid such a thing next time, and how to state it without it being taken the wrong way. (Also look into it to see if you didn't somewhat intend it to be taken that way, even if subconsciously. Thoughts tend to seep through into our words, after all)
 * This can also be useful in a reassurance or apology. "I'm sorry you took my remark to mean [misconstrued meaning], though I assure you I did not mean it that way," will only offend. "I see now that my remark could be misunderstood. However, I simply meant [intended meaning]. My apologies for this misunderstanding," will be more likely to be effective. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Witty :) F.Tromble (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) If you have questions or want advice, you're always welcome to ask me, here or at my talkpage. I have your talkpage on my watchlist, so I should see it if you ask me something here, but if I take a while to respond while I have been online, feel free to leave me a talkback-message on my talkpage. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)