User talk:FGuerino

Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile!
'''Congratulations! You have earned the'''

Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! ~ Anastasia (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry I failed to clarify my point. As someone else has pointed out "doesn't count" means that our policy allowing one use of a non-free article does nto apply to sandbox articles. Sandbox articles should not have such an image.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi SPhilbrick .  Yes, I understood it to be as you're describing, too, which is why I haven't added the image.  It's not important and can wait.  I can always use a test/example image and then swap it out, later.  Thanks, again, for your help.  I appreciate it.  Frank --FGuerino (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

On topic sources
You need to provide sources talking about the subject of the article..... see WP:42 for the hard headed summary. Lots of references to sources not directly about the subject will not help. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse!


Teahouse
I don't wish to continue this discussion at the Teahouse, since that is supposed to be an especially friendly and helpful place. You characterized the editor's "only" goals as negative. I was trying to give a more well rounded view. I do not support ignoring the problematic aspects of his behavior. He has been blocked by administrators quite a few times, and I have never once criticized such blocks or defended the bad behavior. In my own small way, I have tried to encourage moderation of his behavior, and do appreciate the help he gave me on one of my articles. Until such time as the Wikipedia community decides to ban this editor, we have to encourage his good work and discourage his outbursts. This is a difficult challenge, but confronting him in broad public venues is pretty much guaranteed to fail, in my opinion. Best regards to you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  17:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you so certain the "Wikipedia community" will ever decide to ban me? And for what? Being right too often? Eric   Corbett  18:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , I was not predicting a ban, and hope it never happens. I think I have made it clear that I appreciate a big majority of the work you do here, and gently encourage you to show restraint and disengagement when the heat rises. But I recognize that different people have different approaches.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  18:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have used the word "unless" instead of "until", . I did not intend to predict that you will be banned, though I understand that my words can be read that way. For that unintentional implication, I apologize.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries. It's probably an even-money bet as to whether I'll get banned before I get so pissed off with the shennanigans here that I leave of my own free will. Eric   Corbett  02:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi  Cullen 328, (FYI, I'm bringing Eric  into the conversation because I have nothing to hide and I'd rather see this resolved than have it linger.) I appreciate your advice and time and I agree with your not wanting to continue the conversation in the public Teahouse, as my goal was to learn how to reward someone who I believe was a solid representation of what WP is and should always be. I agree with you and others that Eric's portfolio is pretty impressive and I've stated, openly and more than once, that I feel that because of his portfolio I think there's a tremendous amount to learn from him. I still believe this. Some of my questions at the Teahouse are about understanding and learning how to deal with some of the politics and nonsense that goes on when you're trying to be productive. I feel that asking and getting answers to such questions in the Teahouse is important because, if I'm dealing with these things, then we know other people are dealing with such things, too, and I believe the proper ways for dealing with them are invaluable for everyone.

For clarity, I'd like to point out that within a few short paragraphs of questioning Eric for facts to support his statements on particular areas of a given article, I've gotten responses from him like:


 * 1) "It's quite likely that I know a great deal more about it than you do."
 * 2) "Let me be frank. I don't think you've got the faintest idea of what you're talking about."
 * 3) "…you ought not to dabble in things you have no understanding of"
 * 4) "My first thought is that either you can't read or you're crazy."
 * 5) "Either way, don't touch the bibliography"

Now, I'm new pretty new to all of this on WP and I'm trying to understand all of the policies and politics that go on, here, but the above would seem to be violations of the Civility pillar. And, that last response even seems to get into a violation of WP policies on Ownership of articles, which state there is no ownership. And remember, all of this was while trying to understand things, to see if or how things should/could be changed.

Please let me be very clear, I'm not out to cause trouble for Eric or anyone. And, I'm certainly not out to get him or anyone banned. I'm trying to learn and contribute, and where people have helped me I've been openly grateful and appreciative about it. And, in all of my questioning or discussions, you'll see that I try my best to use manners, always trying to use words like "please," "kindly," "respectfully," "thank you," and "my best."

Anyhow, thanks again for your help. --FGuerino (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric, Continuing from above, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not out to cause you any grief or trouble and my questions were all about the article(s). However, I'm not a pushover, either. So, if you don't like my asking you to provide facts in order to support your statements about articles, so that I may better understand things like your positions, I don't know what else to tell you as doing so is a normal means of getting to resolution. However, if you choose to take an abusive, uncivil, and an unprofessional stance with me, please know that I'm not going to back down (however, I will always try my best to be civil about things). If, on the other hand, you want to help me learn, understand, and improve things in a productive manner, I promise you that I'm all ears and would always be very grateful for your help.

My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Then how do you account for the fact that three of your postings were deleted at the Teahouse as being personal attacks? Give it a rest. What I don't like is you not listening to what you're being told, so there's no point in telling you anything. I see your personal attacks have now been restored. Eric   Corbett  19:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Eric (& CC:  Cullen 328)
 * Eric, I never attacked anyone on any forum, and for you to say otherwise is absolutely a false statement. I have mentioned and asked for advice on how best to handle interactions with an admin/editor who was, in my opinion, not acting civilly or constructively, and done so without mentioning your name.  And let's be clear, based on your words, quoted above, it's not like I made anything up, right?  You did write those things, correct?


 * Let's be very clear, Eric. I've been civil with you and I've put in writing that I've been grateful for your assistance where you've given it, both, directly to you and to the broader community.  I honestly do believe there's a tremendous amount to learn from you and I'm more than happy to learn from you and work with you but I'm not going to back down when you get uncivil about things, just because you don't like to be questioned or because you don't like my proposals.  I'm not always right and I'm certainly open to facts if presented, so I try to find them by asking questions.


 * You, on the other hand, when questioned resort to words like: "It's quite likely that I know a great deal more about it than you do." and "I don't think you've got the faintest idea of what you're talking about." and "you ought not to dabble in things you have no understanding of," which is kind of interesting given that they're unsupportable and because you have no real knowledge of my experience and accomplishments.


 * Anyhow, I'm not out to war with you, Eric. I'm just trying to learn and move some things forward.  If you want to help in a productive and civil manner, I'd love your assistance.  If not, I'm now sure that there are other very nice people on WP who are competent and more than willing to take the time to do so in a civil manner.  (The Teahouse community clearly proved itself as valuable.)


 * -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you continue in your efforts to trash the information technology article then we will never see eye to eye, and one of us will end up being blocked/banned. Simple as that really. Eric   Corbett  21:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Eric, I didn't "trash" the IT article as I made no changes to it. I believe it's a very weak representation of the topic, with sections that have nothing to do with the topic, and that it could stand a good deal of improvement, an opinion that I am entitled to and free to voice.  In wanting to understand how to improve it, I simply asked you questions and asked you to provide support for any positions you had as a means of exploring what could be done to improve the article.  Instead of offering any ideas for productive improvement, you went down the path of attacking and being uncivil.   And now, based on education from members at the Teahouse, I'm clear that you don't own the article (as per Ownership of articles) and anyone can work on it (as per Wikipedia is free content).  So, if you block me from working on the article or undo any changes I do make, we'll simply follow WP processes and see what happens.  Here's my prediction...  If you get your way, I'll be respectful of it and I'll just move on to other things I can help with.  If I get my way, you'll be angry, uncivil, and do anything you can to try and undo anything I've achieved.  Am I wrong?
 * My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You have no idea just how wrong you are. And I think your sandbox article on the IT industry demonstrates very well what a lightweight you are in this field. Eric   Corbett  22:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Eric, thanks for your opinions. I'll work to improve it.  My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi FGuerino-- I'm the maitre d' at the Teahouse. I decided to close the thread because your question got answered early on and the thread turned into something mostly unhelpful.  I know you are a new editor, but I'll also note that while you did not mention anyone specific, your now-redacted comments were not exactly ambiguous either because your editing history on his talk page makes the disagreement between two of you fairly apparent.  The Teahouse is not really the right place to begin a discussion about a specific editor (dispute resolution or the administrator's noticeboard are better alternatives), and generally speaking, it's very important that accusations against another editor be supported by evidence that you provide (in the form of links to editing history usually), otherwise it can be construed as a personal attack.  Understand that I think you are doing good work here on Wikipedia, and I do appreciate you coming to the Teahouse with your question on recognizing good work on the part of editors; without commenting on your current situation, I just want to advise you on what to do when you do feel bullied by another editor.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi I, Jethrobot, Here's the follow up on yesterday's conversation...  In short, I joined WP to contribute and learn from the community.  A few weeks ago, I attempted to discuss my opinions on what I believe to be weak points of an article on IT, which is where I got my first exposure to  Eric.  Within a few short paragraphs of dealing with him, I was greeted with statements such as…


 * "It's quite likely that I know a great deal more about it than you do."
 * "Let me be frank. I don't think you've got the faintest idea of what you're talking about."
 * "…you ought not to dabble in things you have no understanding of"
 * "My first thought is that either you can't read or you're crazy."
 * "Either way, don't touch the bibliography"


 * These are all from the IT talk page and you'll note from the history that I never called him names or attacked him but wanted to discuss the article. Whether you would agree or not, most professionals would consider his behavior unprofessional and uncivil.  It appears that WP's respect and civility pillar does, also.


 * I'd been instructed to use the Teahouse to ask questions so I asked (in the past) how to effectively deal with verbally abusive members. I was informed of the ANI but had no intention or desire to escalate, hoping I could resolve things with Eric, myself, even though he has a long and documented history of such behavior.


 * This last visit to the Teahouse was to look for a way to publicly commend/recommend Gtwfan52. I felt that anyone who took such a professional and constructive approach to helping others, after my dealings with Eric, should be commended.  In both cases, I did not mention anyone by name.  My mistake was not thinking of the reality that others might go back and check edit histories; something I am now clearly aware of.


 * A question for you: Is it the Teahouse or the ANI that is the proper place to get advice on how to properly deal with uncivil behavior by a community member?


 * Also, while I could be wrong, you may want to consider that with things like internet bullies becoming a big topic in the news, the allowance of profanity and online verbal attacks/abuse by its community members may eventually become a significant liability for WP and its brand, as many children visit daily and, eventually, someone with influence will catch on to the fact that they're clearly exposed to these things.


 * Also, kindly note that user  Cullen 328 became involved and was both civil and professional throughout this issue.


 * I'm sorry that, both, you Cullen had to intervene and waste your time with all of this.


 * --My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi FGuerino. I'm not going to discuss Eric's or your behavior in any great detail here because this isn't the right venue for it, and I've already said what I've needed to him directly, though I certainly agree Eric's responses were unnecessary and unhelpful after a certain point.  The general course of action in this situation is to talk with the editor directly and if that is unsuccessful, go to dispute resolution if the problem is primarily disagreement on the article content, or go to WP:ANI if it is primarily about editor behavior if you believe the behavior merits administrative action.  Historically, dealing with incivility has been challenging, and you get a sense of why if you decide to take this to ANI.  The Teahouse is not the appropriate forum to bring negative accusations about other editors, though asking about how to deal with incivility in general is encouraged.  The problem was that your question was a little bit of both.
 * You said that you have no intention to escalate the situation, but you are also concerned about uncivil behavior and want something to be done about it. I don't think you can have it both ways, unfortunately.  You'll need to decide what you want to do next.  About your concerns about bullying, understand that incivility is fairly common on Wikipedia just as it is in regular interactions among people.  If it is a liability, it has been in effect for over a decade and while not perfect, I think we are doing OK so far.  We have entities that mitigate it too, like at the Teahouse.  But you know, I'm of the opinion that incivility is a pretty human thing because most of us care about this project in some capacity, so tensions will flare up from time to time even over trivial matters.  Having spoken to both of you, I think it is best to let this go, but having no special authority, you are welcome to do whatever you think is best.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi I, Jethrobot, thanks for taking the time to respond and answer my questions on use of Teahouse vs ANI in this situation.
 * Regarding your suggestion that incivility is fairly common on WP, I've now noticed, firsthand, what it's like to deal with it. The truth is that I can take care of myself.  However, there are many others who can't and, even worse, some may be children.  I'd think that there'd be a push to either support the WP pillar of respect and civility or abandon it so as to avoid constant confusion for members (if everyone wants to accept that incivility is common and acceptable in the community).  Anyhow, as I learn more of the politics of WP, maybe I'll understand more of what really goes on here and formulate better assessments.
 * In the mean time, thanks again for taking the time to help and I apologize that you had to get involved. My goal is to avoid such nonsense.  However, if I get sucked in to such situations, you have my word that I'll continue to deal with things, civilly, to the best of my ability.  In the mean time, I hope you don't mind if I reach out to you for advice, if I ever encounter such behavior and have questions about how to best deal with it.
 * --My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, FGuerino! Let me try adding a different piece to this discussion. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and, along with collaboration comes conflict. There will be disagreements about content and different interpretations of policies like WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Decisions are ideally made by consensus but this is not unanimous consensus which means that some editors will either see changes happen that they think are incorrect or not see changes happen that they think are absolutely necessary. It takes a large measure of maturity when one is on the losing side, to shake the sand from your shoes and move on to work on other articles without ones ego feeling bruised.
 * You also have the factor that there tends to be a small group of people who work on similar articles. Past disputes can easily reemerge when the same editors once again disagree about an edit. Unfortunately, it only takes one party holding a grudge for the situation to devolve. You need all parties to maintain civility, even under circumstances where one feels provoked. This doesn't come naturally, it requires intentionality and effort.
 * My point? WP:CIVIL is a principle and a goal to be reached. But as long as human beings are, well, human beings, it's going to be a work-in-process. Wikipedia is not utopia and social interactions and attitudes reflect the societies its editors live in. You can focus on editors who provoke hostile feelings and I can guarantee that WP can easily become a WP:BATTLEGROUND. OR you can develop a thick skin, get down to work and express gratitude to fellow editors who are a pleasure to work with. Then, while you'll have ups and downs on Wikipedia, you won't find yourself bogged down in past slights and insults. Wikipedia will be a productive environment!
 * I'm trying the latter approach but I have a long way to go. I still have bruises from some unpleasant encounters and I struggle not to respond in kind. I, too, am a work-in-process. I guess I'm writing this all because I think you should have realistic expectations. There are a lot of wonderful people working on Wikipedia but even if everyone was wonderful, there would still be conflict because it's the nature of the process of editing, deleting, reverting, redirecting and creating articles on an open source project. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 16:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Newjerseyliz,
 * I understand what you're saying and I'm more than fine with that type collaborative development of conflict. I don't know how far back in the conversation you were able to read but I was referring more to the type of conflict that arises when people verbally attack others, intentionally.
 * I agree with you, it's always better to focus on and surround yourself with those who are civil, courteous, and productive, both, on WP as well as in life. And, in all other cases, develop a thick skin.
 * --My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. I did read a lot of the comments (both here and at the Teahouse) but can't claim I've seen everything. I agree with you that civility is a goal and I hope you find more instances of collaborative development of conflict than you do destructive forms of conflict.
 * Happy editing! I saw some positive comments elsewhere about an article you are working on. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 14:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Archiving a talk page
Your suggestion might get the editor warned as it wasn't very specific. Editors can certainly delete from their own talk pages but doing that on any other talk page without creating an archive page will likely get a warning. -- Neil N   talk to me  00:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi  Neil N , Thanks for pointing it out. --FGuerino (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean to submit User:FGuerino/Information technology industry to AFC?
Greetings, I saw at Teahouse you were asking about AFC; did you mean to submit User:FGuerino/Information technology industry? It is not yet submitted, so if you want it considered at AFC you have to hit the "Submit" button in the sandbox template at the top. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Matthew, not yet. I intend to do so in the near future.  I'm still at a point where I'm trying to get some competent copy editors to help tighten it up.  If you know of any you can recommend, I'd certainly appreciate it.
 * By the way, maybe you can help with a related question... At the top of the page, I have some non-article-related text that does things like make it clear that the article is a draft.  Do I need to remove such information before formally submitting it?
 * Thanks, very much, for taking the time to try and help.
 * --My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You're talking about This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work in progress page? I believe that text goes away when you hit "Submit". MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Matthew, yes. That's it.  Good to know.  Thanks again for taking the time to help. -- My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Frank, if you want to go through AfC, being well aware of the other options, then go ahead and submit it. The draft will still be available for you or any other editor to improve while it waits in the queue. Don't think of the article as "frozen" during that time. Improvements made will not delay the review.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Cullen 328: Thanks. I'm just working with another very generous editor who's helping with copy-editing, before submission.  I also have a small bit of content I'd like to add before submission.  I'm hoping to submit soon.  I know I've thanked you before but please know that you've been an great resource to learn from and I always appreciate your help. Frank --FGuerino (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit complete
Hey F. I've completed the copyedit. I must tell you that your task is, I think, to simplify, source everything that can be sourced and remove everything that can't. I've edited the words used to give a level playing field, but it reads to some extent like an essay, and though as I've said I know very little about the marketing and formal classification of the IT industry, so I can't say for sure, parts have the feel of original research. By the way, if I might impose on you one grammar/writing style tip, as it's something you do a lot and is an impulse you can easily learn to recognize and consciously curb: Whenever you are going to use past tense, and you start writing "would" followed by a present tense word, just step back, take out "would" and make the word past tense. For example,  would become  → became;  would follow  → followed;  would result  → resulted and so on. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for your help and the feedback. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner but I've been away due to other priorities with family and work, which forced me to abandon WP for awhile. I agree (and have always agreed) with your assessment that the page reads like an essay. This is my first real attempt at a full article so I was hoping to get it to a point where it had some "meat" to it (my apologies to any vegetarians who read this) and then have the community help me improve it, so that the article will improve and so I can learn from the improvements. For example, your suggestions on the correction of behavior patterns are exactly what I hope to learn from people who've been doing this far longer than I have. Thanks, again, for all your help and please always feel free to continue to suggest any constructive improvements, as I'm always willing to learn. Thx, FGuerino (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)