User talk:Tripower

Untemplated discussion
My, that's a lot of warnings/icons/hands/etc in a short time. Do you feel at all as though you're being talk at rather than to? It appears to me that there's nothing here that can't be worked out with discussion rather than with warnings. So I'm listening. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2nd
I see that you've again removed the section of the article that has been an issue. Please do engage in debate here, instead of continuing to do that.

I can see that the previous interactinos you've had had been less than friendly, and that your concerns regarding privacy may appear to be falling on deaf ears. I'm offering to help translate for you the various aspects of this that may be confusing, and ensure that you're able to continue to edit. But that's only going to be possible if you communicate to me, as opposed to going straight back to the article.

Thanks, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Who are you? And what is your relation to Wikipedia? tripower (talk)
 * I'm a volounteer editor, like you. There are only a very few people who have any relationship to Wikipedia (more accurately, the Wikimedia Foundation) other than "editor."  Editors may, after some time and demonstrated responsibility, be extended additional privledges by the community and become "administrators" in addition to being editors.  I'm one of those.  In fact, a good example of how the community works might be my requests for adminship.  Does that answer your questions regarding my role? Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

American exceptionalism
I see your edits to American exceptionalism today repeat your concern there two weeks ago ("Political in nature and provides no insight into the history of this term"). Two weeks ago, this was reverted with the explanation "keep fully sourced discussion by scholars-- the "political" implications of the term are often noted and it's indeed an issue in 2012 elections". Today's revert of your edit (by a different editor) gave a similar explanation: "restore well-cited text describing modern usage, the sources being scholarly".

If you still feel there are problems with the section, please discuss the issue by making comments at Talk:American exceptionalism. When possible, it is often helpful to partialize the issue: rather than attempting to remove a large, well-sourced section; address smaller pieces (such as problematic wordings, unsourced points of view, weak sources and such). If you find that the material represents a point of view ("John Smith was power hungry."), you may wish to ensure the wording is neutral and well sourced ("Opponents described Smith as 'power hungry'.") Additionally, you may wish to include well-sourced, cited opinions to the contrary ("Smith's supporters believed his forceful nature was just what his cause needed.").

While there is a lot to learn at Wikipedia, a few main points should help you avoid most problems. One problem area many newer editors seem to run into is not communicating enough. When someone disagrees with one of your edits, making the same edit with the same explanation is unlikely to persuade them. Someone will likely revert it again with the same explanation. Discussing the issue on the talk page is far more likely to get lasting results. Cheers! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Noah's Ark, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Your Edits to Last of the Mohicans
Instead of removing properly sourced historical background as you have twice at The Last of the Mohicans page, I recommend taking your concerns to that page’s talk page. What you’re doing right now could be seen as vandalism, and continually waiting a day or two between removing such edits could also be seen as a form of edit-warring. —Hobomok (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

October 2023
Hello, I'm Vacant0. I noticed that you recently removed content from Giorgia Meloni without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Vacant0 (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)