User talk:StartGrammarTime

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, StartGrammarTime! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Writing an article
 * Five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Help pages
 * The Teahouse (newcomer help)
 * Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi there, just wanted to thank you for the request you made on my behalf on the incidents noticeboard. I didn't even realize edit summaries could be removed! It was very thoughtful of you to request that, and I appreciate it. :) Jessicapierce (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Jessicapierce, no problem at all! I had a memory of seeing edit summaries removed for personal attacks and you did not deserve to have that on the internet forever. I'm so sorry you had to go through that nonsense. You stayed so cool and calm and did everything right, well done! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I work in customer service, so I'm pretty used to people flipping out when they think I'm standing between them and what they want. Adult tantrums are a thing. But so is kindness. :) Jessicapierce (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

SGT
Well, waiting to ask what SGT means... as for your opinions. I really think this site is having major difficulties. There may be no end to that. How about looking at the overview rather than focusing on Wikipedia principles, to which few are adhering. I was baited into a situation and you didn't even see it. Summerdays1 (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia certainly isn't perfect, but that's why we keep working on it, right? That's my reason, anyway - I've used Wikipedia so much to learn about things, I want other people to be able to do the same, and I want to be able to leave it better than when I first arrived (even if it's in a very tiny way, since I usually make very tiny edits - they add up!)
 * According to the code of conduct, it doesn't matter whether you were baited. It doesn't matter whether you think you're right and the other editor's wrong. Heck, it doesn't even matter if they've been temporarily blocked, or whether they've been reprimanded in Arbitration, or if they're attacking you! Staying civil and not attacking other editors is one of the [WP:5P|Five Pillars] of Wikipedia. I know it can be hard sometimes, but you have to try to rise above it and remain calm and civil. If you don't, you'll just end up blocked. Personally, I think we need as many good editors as we can get. It seems like you're really passionate about improving Wikipedia, as I am, so it would be a shame to lose you over something you can change. Just stay calm and if you feel you're being baited, don't rise to the bait - step away, look at dispute resolution options, and if other editors are deliberately making Wikipedia worse (or just making too many mistakes and not listening to polite feedback) you can be confident that sooner or later they'll be blocked and you'll still be here to keep making it better and better. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you this site is kind of a giant disaster. The sooner you see that, maybe there's more hope. Summerdays1 (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I found one of the biggest vandals, did I get commended? Nope, they're laughing and probably still doing stuff. Summerdays1 (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Summerdays1 Well, if you've found a vandal, your best shot is to report them at WP:AIV - make sure to add diffs as evidence! First off, though, make sure that what they're doing matches the Wikipedia definition of vandalism - WP:VANDAL. You don't have to stand back and watch if you see editors disrupting Wikipedia, but you do need to make sure you are following the rules. Attacking them and casting aspersions without evidence will only get you in trouble, not them. So check out the Five Pillars I linked in my last comment, read through the information about vandals, and then decide what to do next. Whatever you do, though, make sure you're polite and civil about everyone involved. If someone's misbehaving it will be very clear; all you need to do is present the evidence so that administrators can look through it and take appropriate action. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing is better, maybe it worsened. Did you ever get involved in similar things? Summerdays1 (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Summerdays1 I'm really sorry to hear that. Do you mean did I ever get into an edit war, or find a vandal, or something else? I don't think I've ever gotten really caught up in an edit war; mostly I figure that if someone's reverting one of my edits, either I'm wrong or someone else will come along and revert them. For the other, any vandalism I've found has been really obvious - you know, swear words everywhere, or someone spamming articles with irrelevant nonsense - and usually they've come along, made a mess, and then run away. So that just makes me sigh and clean it up, like when one of my cats makes a mess! (He's a very dumb cat, but I love him).
 * If it's something else and I've totally misinterpreted, let me know, I'm happy to answer and try to help you with whatever's up. I hope your day is getting better! StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem with this vandalism is that if I don't do anything it will not be discovered. Maybe you could look at the last month or so of Guardian H's edits. Summerdays1 (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's highly unusual but I have never found the obvious junky vandal. Summerdays1 (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Summerdays1, I've had a look but honestly I'm not seeing any edits that match the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Perhaps I'm missing something? There's certainly a lot of disagreement but that's always pretty standard for Wikipedia, I must admit! Could you point me at some of the things you see as problematic, perhaps? StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ElKevbo and Guardian H have been removing quite a bit of information from college and university articles. GH has also broadened the damage to other areas, people in academia and government. Summerdays1 (talk) 09:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Summerdays1, have you been able to engage with either of them on the article talk pages? Or their talk pages, if it's a lot of articles? If I were in your shoes, that would be my first move. Assuming good faith, as you know we always must, it's possible that the editors have a good reason that you and I don't currently see. Not being especially familiar with the areas you're all working in, I can't really venture any ideas as to what those reasons might be, but you should ask and see whether there's something we've missed. Remember to ask politely and in the spirit of working together, even if you think the other person might be up to no good! Edits can always be reverted if necessary, although it can be a pain to clean up afterwards, so stay calm and don't let yourself become stressed.
 * If you don't get any response, or if the response is rude or unhelpful, my next step would be collecting some diffs both of problematic edits and of your efforts to reach out and discuss. Then I would take that to AN/I; if you have evidence of a problem, and evidence that the editor in question is unwilling or unable to come to an agreement - and that you've been polite and willing to listen! - you can be sure other people will see what you're also seeing.
 * I hope things do get better soon :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Summerdays1 Oops - I think you might not get notified if I don't ping you. Sorry about that! My actual response is above this comment (because editing pings into a comment, alas, does not work). StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk page discussion for minor change which is correct
Thanks for your helpful reply on this topic at the Teahouse. I found a way to address the reverter's concern, proposed it as a compromise and it was accepted, so the problem is resolved.

I suppose I'm not the first editor to sense an incongruity between the three-revert rule, with which I was familiar, and BRD, with which I was not. I suspect the former preceded the latter chronologically, and that the latter won out because it more effectively cut down on edit warring. It will be admitted that there are drawbacks to letting anybody revert anybody/anything, with the onus always on the correcting editor; but I've now seen that it worked in this case and it presumably has in many others, without anyone's going down to the wire on the three-revert rule in an all-out edit war. Bret Sterling (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That's great to hear, @Bret Sterling! There can be tension between rules, you're absolutely right, and working out what to do is harder when you haven't been editing Wikipedia for approximately forever (I definitely haven't been here long enough to know all the rules). In my experience, though, if you follow BRD things usually do work out - sometimes it's just a misunderstanding, sometimes someone doesn't have all the information, sometimes it's a word choice that means different things to different people - and even better, if you're doing your best to compromise and discuss and find consensus, you're doing the right thing and other editors will back you up if the person you're trying to discuss with gets rude or refuses to talk. So well done again on finding consensus and avoiding a 3RR ding, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)