User talk:Lorem Ip/archive

File:Content Analysis of two UN Speeches, Iran-U.S..jpg
This page is a file, if you want to nominate it for deletion you should use Files for deletion, not Miscellany for deletion. Hut 8.5 22:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Metaphysics
I note that you deleted a large part of Metaphysics without first seeking the views of other editors first. &mdash; Philogos (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Three editors including myself have criticised your deletion, and none have supported it.&mdash; Philogos (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A fourth editor has now reverted your deletion. If you have sought the opinion of other editors before you made you deletion-edit you would have discovered that it had no support. There is a difference between being bold and being rash. I suggest that in the futurure you seek the views of other editors before you make such edits. Would that be a problem for you?&mdash; Philogos (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Lorem Ip, I strongly advise you to engage in a discussion about this issue. This is Wikipedia. When you make edits to Wikipedia you need to be open to discussing those edits, defending them if they were justified and apologizing if they weren't.


 * In many social situations, admitting error opens you up to Bad Things, but not on Wikipedia. Here, refusing to discuss things opens you up to Bad Things. Refusing to discuss things tends to lead to someone escalating the situation to a noticeboard where administrators enforce Wikipedia policy with user blocks and / or bans. You can avoid this by having a calm, rational discussion when one of your edits are challenged.


 * Likewise, if your behavior was correct, those who challenged it need to be educated about Wikipedia policy. If you refuse to discuss the matter, how will they ever learn? Also, even if your behavior was correct, if the situation escalates to a noticeboard, your refusal to discuss may result in sanctions, and your past behavior (ignoring warnings, redirecting your talk page to evade warnings, editing of administrators' noticeboard incidents after they have been closed, engaging in personal attacks, etc. etc.) may very well come under scrutiny. Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I became aware that dirt digging is a favorite pastime in wikipedia instead of engaging in arguments about article content. Therefore now I don't expect myself to engage in any controversies. If you care to check my edit history, I don't have particular area of fanatic interest. I am just reading wikipedia for my own education. If I think something requires intervention, I edit it. Sometimes it goes OK. Other times I hit a hornet's nest. Big deal. I understand your concern that I am a potential troublemaker. Well, I will try not to be. Lorem Ip (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)