User talk:Terkaal

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Terkaal! Thank you for your contributions. I am Timtrent and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Wikipedia:SHED vs WP:V & WP:OR
I think you misunderstand the thrust behind Wikipedia:SHED, it does not attempt to distract from the need to stick to the core policies of Verifiability & No original research. Mt king  (edits)  22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A response has been given on your talk page and as I stated in said response, if you attempt to edit war this or incite an argument regarding the point, I have no interest in engaging it. I provided all the links to the policies, guidelines and an essay which explains the situation adequately and as such have no interest in continuing the discussion with you when you clearly have no interest in reading my reponse properly before responding with a "I'm right, you're wrong" rhetoric. If that is the level of maturity you wish to operate at, so be it, feel free to respond further once you can engage in a fair and equal discussion. Until such a time however, I respectfully withdraw from this dispute. Terkaal -- &#60;Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!&#62; (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

SFL 2
Hello, I saw thay you previously had commented on Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination). I wanted to draw your attention to the Articles for Discussion occuring currently. You may find it at Articles for deletion/SFL 2. Please feel free to comment. Hasteur (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Tablighi Jamaat - Okie Dokie Lokie!
Hey there,

Shame our introductions are not in better circumstances but I wanted to thank you for your quick review of the request on Tablighi Jamaat.

I'll keep an eye out for any further vandalism by the IP and if any pops up I'll forward it on to WP:AIAV as advised.

Thanks again and have a good day and good luck with that backlog!

Regards, Terk Terkaal -- &#60;Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!&#62; (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh! Almost forgot!
 * Is it alright to copy paste your response on to the section I put in the article's talk page on the request, so that other editors who may not know the policy fully (Such as how I was, until your response) can be aware that further blanking by the IP can be reported to WP:AIAV?


 * Sorry for being such a bother, still rather new at this whole Wikipedia thing ;P


 * Thanks again,
 * Terk


 * Terkaal -- &#60;Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!&#62; (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiyas there Terk,


 * Your more then welcome, and the report itself was quite valid actually (Only the technicality regarding the vandalism after final warning got in the way to be honest). I'm actually quite impressed that you managed to find the protection page after only about 100 edits (Much less place that you managed to place a correctly formatted request there), as it takes most editors much, much longer to find the "Inner Working" pages from Wikipedia at all (there are quite a few!)


 * Personally i wouldn't bother with copying the response, since most new editors hardly have a look at a talk page all together. In most cases some vandalism patrol using WP:HUGGLE or another tool will spot the edit anyway, and they can drop the user a note on the issue itself if needed. As for being a bother - your absolutely not. Hence, if you have questions, don't hesitate to ask them (Either on my talk page or at the Helpdesk - just note that i am a tad busy and might a be slow to respond at times). I vastly prefer spending time helping new editors who are in turn trying to help Wikipedia forward, over having to spend time using banhammer or similar means on editors who are just here to make a mess :). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 08:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thinking that may have been the case, I just put a summary of the finidng into the talk page instead with a link leading to the specific section on the Request for Protection board for those who may wish to see it themselves.
 * Thanks for the compliment on finding those mechanics after x<100 edits but I can't accept it hehe, I'm one of those editors who's strengths lie in catching vandalism or trying to enter disputes as a neutral pov rather than the ideal role of a contributor, so those x amount of edits are mostly vandalism reversals or opinions on RfDs etc... rather than actual constructive content on wikipedia.


 * Vandalism client you say? Suddenly I feel like a caveman chipping into a mountain slowly by using the vanilla web interface haha xD
 * Either way, thanks again, I appreciate the personal feedback, adds a nice warm feeling to the community :P


 * Anyway, I best let you get back to work, I can see you're busy round here as it is without my dialogue adding to it hehe.


 * Au Revior Mon Capitain!,
 * Terk


 * Terkaal -- &#60;Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!&#62; (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoops. Thanks SineBot, even if you are an inanimate program :P Terkaal -- &#60;Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!&#62; (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thinking About It Now, There Is One Question
 Itches the back of my head nevously 

I promise this will be the last you hear from me before I end up becoming annoying, or perhaps even more so.

However, after just fixing up the editing on my talk page, I noticed you said If I had a question I could ask you here. Thinking about it, there is one thing.

This isn't so much an issue for myself anymore, I withdrew from the dispute by what I felt was just a case of trying to discuss something with a brick wall and if it was not for the scale on which this spread I wouldn't ask.

However, a while back I stumbled across what looked like a few editors, I believe to be the original creators or patrollers of the article and its related portal in question, the America's next top model portal, while doing a burst of recent changes observation.

It looked as if a group of editors were reversing any changes to a page from significant edits all they way down to the use of a word and formatting of a table (Such as was the dispute I saw that I jumped into).

In the interest of inegrity, I'll be honest with you. I could have engaged in that discussion with a greater set of values. I'm not saying I jumped in with expletives left right and centre, but after getting irritated with what felt like a conversation with a wall, my british sarcasm did rear it's head along with the fact I was still a newborn in terms of community participation.

In this case, I attempted to put in place a comprimise which offered information, while incorperating the original setup in place from the group of editors I referred to.

The response was a barrage of Wikipolicy links, deep analysis of and extrapolation of intent and a total revert of any edit, no matter how small to the the favoured idea of the cooperating editors.

This type of response was not just limited to myself and as a result it effectively locked out any other editor's attempt at contributing to the article or other articles in the portal. In the end, I can see why this isn't so bad, they were after all main contributors and participants in the portal in question, so this isn't really the point I was wanting to ask about.

What was however, is that during the affair, I did look over the talk pages of the users involved in the 'discussion', and noticed a bit of a trend.

It was when looking at the experience other editors were having with the user Mt  king  (edits)  that I began to wonder if rather than a well intentioned editor may have been a case of a very articulate and intelligent malicious user. I understand that is probably not the case but after engaging in dialoge on the user's talk page it ended up being on my watchlist, it was through this that I ended up seeing the issues this editor does seem to be causing to the UFC Wikipedian community and their articles with what on the surface looks like, at best, a well intentioned but overly-beurocratic application of wikipolicy to the detriment of wikipedia's coverage on the category and at worst, a malicious attempt at using wikipolicy to significantly destablise the work of a portal maintained by an editor or editors which may have in some form provoked him.

It was of interest that with every deletion attempt I saw throughout the MMA portal, it was the same editor and what looks at first glance to be a group of friends which were coming down on it's articles in what at worst, looked like harrasment.

Once again, I see editors having the same experience I have, with every attempt at discussion being met with the same repeated response on notability, regardless of evidence provided or attempts at discussion being totally ignored. I even see editors finding this experience spreading into their talk pages into they too explicitly state they withdraw all interest, just to make it stop.

Of course, this is only my perception, likely being influenced by my own experience with the user and as such probably quite biased so this is in no way intended as a "Wahh wahh, that user did this" as I admit it may appear

Just, now that I have a chance to ask, I'm genuinely hoping you might be able to shed some light on what an editor should do when they find themselves involved in such a scenario?

For a history of the I had experience with the editor and associates to better explain the context of the query rather than my own interpretation, see links below with synopsis.


 * The Initial Talk Discussion - I admit I conducted myself here in a way which I am not proud of looking back
 * The response I gave in the user's talk page, again not my best conduct and making no attempts to conceal that
 * My withdrawl from the dispute after it appeared I too was about to become stalked, in my opinon
 * MtKing's Current User Page
 * The latest example of what I was asking about
 * MtKing's Special Contributions Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terkaal (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sighs. Talk about tedious reasoning in the first link. We seem to have a source that there are 14 contestants, and we got a source that someone is voted out first. I think we can then safely assume that the last person out of a group of 14 has the 14th place.


 * What counts here, is the spirit behind the rule, and not the absolute letter. The OR policy was put it place to prevent people from drawing own conclusions based on the sources, rather then using the content of the source itself. If i were to say "She got last place, so she was the worst singer" it would be a clear opinion which is debatable. On the other hand the conclusion that someone last is a group of 14 has 14th place is simply a matter of fact, as you cannot argue that she got a different spot in the ranking. Ergo: "Last Place" and "Place 14" are, when both "first voted away" and "contestant count" are sourced, simply synonymous as far as i am concerned.


 * As for what to do i think three policies sound nice - WP:BRD, WP:DR and WP:BOLD come in mind. Shortly said - before anything else, try to talk with the editor in question and try to reach consensus. If you cannot, involve some other people trough the dispute process, and see what they think. And last, regardless of the ourcome, both editors should eventually drop the stick and walk away from the carcass since a discussion is dead when its dead. :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice Excirial, the issue itself I long left behind, like you said, discussion is dead :P. However, now I know what to do the next time I encounter such a scenario. Thanks for the pointers :D


 * Terkaal -- &#60;Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!&#62; (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian provinces
All the Indonesian provinces were in sub categories of their own - at Provinces of Indonesia - for them to have parent and child categories on the same page is a redundancy - and can be a problem as well - cheers SatuSuro 10:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha, alright, makes a bit more sense then. Thanks for clearing that up for me, I was a tad confused when I saw that in recent changes hehe. Terkaal -- &#60;Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!&#62; (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * oops answered at my own talk page - yup parent child cat combos can be problems - SatuSuro 10:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Pearson in Practice for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pearson in Practice 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/Pearson in Practice until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)