User talk:Vwaju

August 2016
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Fred Newman (philosopher). If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Fred Newman (philosopher). Jim1138 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Fred Newman (philosopher)
Please us an accurate wp:edit summary In this edit, you "commented out" text. You should explain why you commented out or removed the text. Removed "PhD as..." It had nothing to do with formatting. If you used an accurate ES in you previous edits, you might have avoided the above warnings. Cheers. Jim1138 (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fred Newman (philosopher). Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.  Acroterion   (talk)   06:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The central issue with the block that I issued was the absence of response from you with respect to the infobox changes. Several editors questioned your edits, it is important to respond, not to simply repeat your actions over and over without discussion. If you'd responded at that time as you did above, it would have been far more productive. Please remember that discussion and consensus are essential.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Points taken: (1) My Edit Summaries should be more precise (2) I should monitor my email more carefully, and respond more timely to any question about my editing.

However, in the spirit of "Do Not Bite the Newcomers", I ask you: Is it really just that these inadvertencies (both of which, it seems, are related to only one edit) should be qualified as "persistent disruptive editing" and "simply repeat[ing] your actions over and over"? Is another inadvertency waiting to bite me "without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia" (Zackmann08)?

You will answer these questions as you see fit and, since I would like to continue as a Wikipedia contributor, I will try to live with your answers. However, I need a clear advisory on this question: Is it within my discretion to edit content that I myself have created?

With Respect,

Vwaju (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Certainly, you are entirely welcome to edit content you've created. You just need to remember to respond to other editors who may have questions or concerns about your edits, or who may feel that there is a better way to accomplish your objectives, and you may not assert an exclusive right to edit a given topic. That's really all that I ask - that you be willing to respond and discuss. You may be correct, but it is still up to you to give an accounting if questioned, since the worth of a given edit may not be self-evident.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jim1138 and Zackmann08 –

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you. I fell behind in my email, and your messages got lost below the fold. Then, I had a conversation with Acroterion about the block, and that took a few days to work through. As a Newcomer to Wikipedia contributing and editing, I confess I am a little nervous, and I was upset to find that I had run afoul of the community.

So, let me respond now to your criticisms (which I think are roughly the same). I created an Infobox on the Fred Newman (philosopher) page where there previously was none. The Infobox includes a photograph that I uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. I thought the heading over the photo should say just "Fred Newman" (without the Ph.D. suffix). The pages for other "public intellectuals" – Richard Rorty, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Susan Sontag – adhere to this style. In any event, since I documented Newman's Ph.D. from Stanford inside the Infobox, I considered this cleaner style and the elimination of a redundancy. I can see now that I should have spelled this out in my ES. I won't make that mistake again!

Incidentally, I remember now that when I tried to make this change, I had trouble doing it. At the time, I assumed it was a bug in the software. Now, I'm guessing that someone (perhaps one of you) was reverting my change as soon as I saved it. In persisting in the edit, I must have given the impression that I was Edit Warring. This blunder was a result of my inexperience. My apologies.

Although I think the world will go on spinning either way, I would like to remove the Ph.D. suffix over the Newman photo (with a detailed ES, of course). What do you think?

Best Regards,

Vwaju (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)