User talk:Steve110

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Rockpock e  t  06:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Riches
Steve, I note that you're new to Wikipedia, with under 35 edits. I wanted to drop you a note, and ask you that if you have any problems with edits that are made with official policies, such as the guideline that we're not supposed to link to fan forums (which I posted a reference to), you make a comment on the talk page for the forum, rather than in the comments. You'll find it easier than editing to make comments, and it will be available to everyone in the future, so that if we reach consensus on this issue, it will be there for people in the future, so the page doesn't go through this in 6 months with a new set of editors.

Also, please refrain from calling names, such as calling another editor 'childish'. At Wikipedia, we assume good faith; the comments in the edits were getting out of hand on both sides, and I'm afraid the best way to deal with this issue is to follow the guidelines that say we should not link to fan forums. I did it not because I care about the fan forums, but because it was going to turn into an edit war if it was continued, and that will lead to both of you being blocked for reverting each others edits instead of discussing it.--Thespian 05:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to add a note of agreement with Thespian. I can see no justification why any of the fansites should be linked per WP:EL. I have warned Ecollier2012 to refrain from adding sites back at risk of administrator action for disruptive editing, so hopefully the edit war will settle down now and we can get back to the real business at hand. Happy editing! Rockpock  e  t  06:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rockpocket and Thespian for helping me to understand Wikipedia better. I hope one of you will take the time to go through my edits and read through my comments on each of them. I have always stated a perfectly valid reason for removal of another site and I have also kept them from overwriting other links. It appears that I got somehow pulled into what you guys called a war without even knowing it, by removing spammy links. I feel sad, since this will leave a mark on my history that I don't think belongs there. Anyways, thanks again for your help Steve110


 * Don't feel bad about it. Edit warring is rarely a good thing, but it very difficult to avoid sometimes - even when attempting to act with the best in intentions. The idea is that we should all discuss the issues rather than reverting and re-reverting, however it can be difficult to do that when the other editor's goal is to "win" the edit war. I, myself, was accused of edit-warring yesterday when trying to stop an editor making nasty comments. It would have been better if the situation could have been resolved without reversion, but sometimes it happens. As long as you learn from it and avoid making it a habit, this will not leave a stain on your character.  Rockpock  e  t  17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for encouraging me a bit. It was a bit of a downer. I didn't know as much about the talk pages as I do now. I guess I still need to learn a bit. I gave quite a lengthy explanation on the articles talk page. Its mainly intended for you and Thespian. Once you both read it, you can also remove it (not sure if its too long for everyone else not involved) Steve110


 * The ways of Wikipedia can take some learning, and people will often chastise you for things that you don't believe you have done. The way I approach this is that if a couple of independent editors indicate something to me then there is a fair chance that they have a point. Incidently, I don't see you as an "offender" and, if you compare the request I left for you against the note I left for Ecollier2012, you will note the difference. I appreciate your reasoning for your edits and don't particularly disagree with them. However, the actual process of reversion and re-reversion can be disrutive and I was asked to intervene to stop that, rather than comment on the merits of either position. My advice would be to take a little time to let things settle down, then you can make your case for your link on the talkpage. If there is no major opposition expressed there, then you may replace the link to the site. As I said, this is no big deal though - just part of the regular rough-and-tumble of Wikipedia - so please don't let it effect your editing unduly. We do appreciate your contribution and hope you will continue. Rockpock  e  t  18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll point out that I didn't even leave a note for Ecollier2012, because I didn't think it would make a difference coming from a non-admin, and they were ONLY there to add that link, over and over. You've made good contribs in the past, and I wouldn't have left you a personal note if I didn't think that you're worth keeping; you can look through my rv-vandalism stuff when I'm doing recent-change patrol, and see that I usually just leave the subst-warning for most people so that I can say that they *have* been warned ;-). Your problem was that you let yourself get baited into an edit war there by someone who has one purpose only on Wikipedia (you want to see a worse example of this, scope out Mousepad sometime; there's a frequent reverter *there* who is, I believe, not sane). In the future, I'd suggest when you notice someone is doing one edit so persistantly, take a look at their contribs page, and see if that's indeed all they do. That'll give you more info on how to deal with it (indeed, the best thing if they're only doing one obsessive edit is often to just pass it up to an admin, instead). --Thespian 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you deleted your own post, I know I'm not worried about YOUR edits, Steve :) You're showing the ability to learn quickly and for that, I hope to see you still editing around wikipedia :) -- Ipstenu ( talk | contribs ) 19:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rockpocket, Thespian and Ipstenu. Wikipedia surely is a strange animal and highly dynamic and thanks for not giving up on me. I will follow your advice and see if I can come up with something besides good links. One more question if you may: How do you guys know that I have commented on my own Talk page? Do you use some sort of monitoring tools? Steve110


 * Yes indeed. You should see a tab at the top of each page that says watch (or unwatch if you are already watching the page), if you click this it will add the page to your watchlist (which you can access from the link at the very top of the page). You can also adjust your settings so any page you edit will automatically be added to your watchlist. You can do this under my preferences. See WP:WATCHLIST for more detailed information. Rockpock  e  t  01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)