User talk:MAURY

I dislike arguments and especially by an assertive/aggressive "editor" who admitedly wrote he "sees red flags" (anger) because he wants to edit the article I was working on before I have started well for one day while I stated I would be back to finish it. BusterD started a "stub" back in June on John Mercer Brooke and jumped in on the article I started here in October before I had completed taking the work in a specific and unique direction which is why I started contributing to that "stub" of about four sentences of solong ago.

What does he do --> start "stubs" and leaves them until someone comes along to do the work of starting and completing an article so he can step and get immediately gain "editor points" before the article is finished? That is the way it seems to me with what I encountered from BusterD the so called "editor"

The outcome is that the writers here leave with the likes of BusterD around since there are other things to do that are _peaceful_ and not argumentative and confrontational as was Wikipedia until that "editor" starting editing an article and attributing SOURCES I never used as well as taking the article in a different direction than where I was headed in my writing.

Wikipedia, just use it, don't assist it is what his kind teaches people with his kind referring to the feeling of power over people.


 * Maury, I think you are seriously misunderstanding how Wikipedia works.


 * Shell, I do not doubt that for one moment. For a year I have just worked in peace without arguments so that's what I am used to. Too, there are so many rules, templates, and new things that I have learned about some of them over a year, reading rules once in a while, but I certainly haven't read and learned everything. For example. I delete the pages here out of habit. I don't recall anyone ever telling me I could not, or should not, do this. To me it is like, "Okay, I have read the message and now to the trashcan with it as viewed on Windows desktop. It is standard procedure for me and nothing else to clean the area of what I have read.

Many people have come here to your talk page and tried to help you out, but you keep deleting the suggestions they make.


 * Sure but only after I have read them and I took some of those "suggestions" and followed them. When new here I was more focused upon learning wiki-code so I could write articles. Some stranger shows up and "suggests" whatever and I look into that but since I did not and have not known these people I suppose what I read was not taken so seriously and especially if it is a "suggestion" which can be disregarded. I then trash the notes only to keep this area clean like I do my desktop with many icons that after using I place in the trashcan. I am aware that the messages still exist but at least they are not cluttering up this area. I use this area as needed and then clean it -- the same as I do with my computer desktop.

Editors can edit any article at any time


 * I have never been aware of that and do not recall anyone telling me that. In fact, I don't recall ever having an editor jump in and rework what I am in the process of writing. That is a terrible thing to do. Why not let the writer finish? I may have edited it the same way - or a different way.

- there is absolutely no policy that expects other editors to "wait" for you to finish the article; in fact, our policy WP:OWN specifically states otherwise. There are no "editor points" gained by writing or editing articles.


 * I am under the belief that an "editor" is seeking to become an administrator and that to become an administrator that editor has to qualify by deeds. I believe that is what BusterD is trying to do and *perhaps* s/he sets up situations to accomplish that as soon as possible. s/he creates "stubs", created on back in June, and awaits a writer s/he can edit as I came to write about John Mercer Brook in OCTOBER. Why did not the editor just write that article when s/he created that stub? I have no idea. I can only guess and wonder by his or her actions and reactions.

=
Buster was not being confrontational and was incredibly patient in trying to work with you - you refused to work with him or read any of the policy he suggested.


 * Please Do Pardon me here but that is an _inaccurate statement_. I did not know anything about any "BusterD" when I found one day's work altered and a source attributed to what I was working on that I never used. I had cited no sources. S/he added ==sources== and cited them. I figured vandalism as I have seen statements about a lot of that happening to Wikipedia. I received no personal statements from BusterD as you have been intelligent to place here. BusterD should have told me something about what was happening before I reverted the work I had done. Too, after some communication and my saying _PLEASE_ BusterD added an in use tag which I was not familiar with. I thanked BusterD for that, completed my article, and told BusterD it was ready for editing now. That is *not* a "refusal" to work with someone just as my reply to you at this very moment is not a refusal to work with others.

Editors are more than welcome at any time to add sources to an article - they absolutely do not have to be sources that you used, although you definately should have listed your sources as well per the WP:V policy.


 * Shell, I was not aware of that rule and all I can say is that I had just started the article and was about 1/3 half the way through. I did add my sources when I had finished, they are still there now. I cannot write the article and sources at the same time as it's a distraction of thought as to where I want to go with the article I am writing but I always look over my sources and include them in the article -- sometimes when I have not finished the article and sometimes after I have completed the article. I have always done my own editing. I have not encountered some stranger stepping and altering what I had written or including some source I never used. I saw it only as vandalism. I have always written articles and other editors would come in when I had finished and changed, or added some things which is the process I thought Wikipedia worked under. I now know if I am to write an article it should be done entirely offline and placed in an article area and considered it finished so an editor can come in at that point and do whatever to the article I had written. I take pride in what I create. If it gets altered..... I don't know since only a few articles I look back on as I continue to move forward. I have never encountered the problem with BusterD in a year or more from anyone else.

Articles will change greatly over time - if you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, you should not submit your work to Wikipedia - what Buster was doing is exactly what is allowed by Wikipedia.


 * I am aware of that statement but I have never known any editor to step in the middle of what I was writing and start writing ("editing") Why not just write the article him or herself instead of disrupting another person? That would be civil it would be good manners not to "jump the gun" and again, I had no idea who the person was.


 * Its also very important to not that Wikipedia has a clear policy against personal attacks which you can read at WP:NPA. Phrases like "so-called editor" and things like claiming he was argumentative could be taken as a personal attack and can lead to you being blocked from editing.


 * My statement came long after his or her statement about me having "willful ignorance". BusterD kept on posting things and I replied to them and the more he did so the more the differences grew until he came to your talk page and posted that you look into the situation *I* was causing when it was a situation he was causing including by "seeing red flags" with me and "willful ignorance" -- who wants to be called "ignorant" in any form? Would you or BusterD or anyone you know? I do not think so. I expect others would react to a statement, a personal attack.


 * I strongly suggest you take a break and read Wikipedia policies that everyone's pointing out to you. You'll have a much better experience here if you know the rules you're supposed to play by. Shell babelfish 04:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There are too many rules here, Shell, an abundance to learn and I care only to write articles as I have done for a year or more. I plan to do something different to avoid these situations -- and this is the 1st editor (BusterD) I have had any problems with.

Shell, I sincerely appreciate you stopping in to write what you have which is why I replied. You seem to be a very fair person except on the "personal attacks" issue but them you may not have read of that "willful ignorance" statement against me on a talk page other than here.

BusterD should have written to me _here_ clarifying what he was going to do before he did it. Then none of this chatter would exist. Again, I think BusterD is seeking an administrator position other than on Wiki-Media. I come by this from reading his or her writings so I could come to know the person for better or worse. It would not have hurt BusterD to give me, or any writer in the past and future, a "heads up" before editing one's work that is in some way very important to that writer.

GOODBYE & Kindest regards to you, Shell

Wr &c. Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content.

Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.

-- Armadillo From Hell 14:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing a page without interruption
A suggestion which might make you feel more comfortable making large, multi-stage edits in the future: while people generally assume that articles in the main namespace remain open to editing at any time, you can easily work on an article-in-progress without interruption by creating a subpage in your User: namespace. For example, you could create User:MAURY/Some Article In Progress, edit it repeatedly, and ask other people not to edit it until you finish. When done, you can then merge your page into the current page, or (if no article actually exists on the topic) move your page into place under the right name. -- Josh Triplett 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hume-Minor Company
A tag has been placed on Hume-Minor Company, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Gavin Collins 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of John Minor Maury for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Minor Maury is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John Minor Maury until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

File:"Recollections of a Virginian", by Dabney Herndon Maurey, 1894 (front cover).gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:"Recollections of a Virginian", by Dabney Herndon Maurey, 1894 (front cover).gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Joseph Henry (sepia photo).jpg


The file File:Joseph Henry (sepia photo).jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused, superseded by File:Joseph Henry by Thomas Le Clear, 1877, oil on canvas, from the National Portrait Gallery - NPG-6400018A 2.jpg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 03:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)