User talk:Lillypad12353

October 2014
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Babylonia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.  Dwpaul  Talk   00:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you can call Lillypad12353's edits vandalism. That's obviously a good-faith copyedit. It may or may not be the ideal phrasing but it's clearly well intentioned. Lillypad, I hope this doesn't stop you from editing in the future!—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood Lillypad12353's edits, and conflated them with my reversion (which is what you linked to above). The vandal was persistently removing the date from the hatnote, not inserting it.  Dwpaul   Talk   15:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understood the situation perfectly well. Removing the date is clearly a good faith copyedit, and I honestly can't understand why you continue to call it vandalism. If you think it's so important that the date remain (which I'm not at all convinced of), you should tell Lillypad why. Instead, you seem to have decided that intimidation is the right way to approach an editor making their very first edit.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with my edits, please discuss them with me on my Talk page, on the article's Talk page or, if you think them misbehavior, at WP:ANI, not on another user's Talk page. But to take your suggestion, and for the benefit of the new editor, the year the culture and state discussed at Babylonia ceased to exist is specifically known to be 539 BC, when Cyrus invaded and it was absorbed into the Achaemenid Empire; Babylonia as used later in various contexts is not the ancient empire discussed in the article. That is what the hatnote conveyed and was meant to convey, and without the date it is less effective in doing so. Generally hatnotes should not be modified, especially by new editors.  The editor received no warning the first time the removal was performed and reverted.   Dwpaul   Talk   19:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the explanation, although the question here is specifically whether "pre-539" or "ancient" better conveys the distinction you mention. I still don't understand why you think switching between the two options is vandalism (a very strong term). I completely disagree that "generally hatnotes should not be modified"—they're as open to editing as every other part of an article. I also strongly disagree with "especially by new editors"—newcomers like Lillypad are welcome to edit any part of an article. If they make a good faith edit that's mistaken, it seems to me they should be thanked for their efforts and told politely what the issues are, not baldly reverted and accused of vandalism.
 * I chose to post here because I want Lillypad to know they're not a vandal, but if you prefer to respond on my talk or elsewhere, I won't object. I appreciate you suggesting ANI, but obviously this doesn't approach anywhere near that level.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again only responding here on the chance this editor is sincerely interested in contributing constructively to the encyclopedia: describing the removal of legitimate content (even if its value is open to question) from an article as "Grammar errors" is, unfortunately, not atypical of vandals, as is "fix typo", etc., for other unconstructive editing that has nothing to do with correcting typos. If the editor is sincere, they are asked in the future to provide a more accurate and/or informative edit summary to avoid their edits being scrutinized, questioned and/or reverted.  Dwpaul   Talk   20:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you do a lot of good as a vandalism patroller, but I think your reply just repeats earlier problem with your approach to Lillypad's edits. For example:
 * "on the chance this editor is sincerely interested in contributing constructively to the encyclopedia" If assume good faith means anything at all, it means we quietly assume this from the beginning until proven wrong.
 * Describing a good faith stylistic change (even if its value is open to question) as "vandalism" is, unfortunately, not atypical of bullies. If you are sincere, you are asked in the future to assume good faith to avoid your revert being scrutinized, questioned, and/or reverted. I don't consider you a bully, but that's what an uncharitable assessment of your motives looks like.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)