User talk:William Allen Simpson/User Tedernst

Tedernst Seleucia on the Tigris
Thanks for this quick action. Feel free to removed the context tag, or I can do it. Tedernst | talk 00:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I happened to be posting on your Talk page, so I noticed it right away! I'm looking for more information this very moment. William Allen Simpson 00:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Need to be careful about copyright violations. The Umich site is completely copyrighted, so while it can be used as a source, copy/paste isn't going to cut it.  Either someone from Umich is going to find it and get mad or more likely, another wikipedia editor will find it and delete it to prevent scenario #1.  I edited the page to try to avoid that eventuality, but one never knows.  Tedernst | talk 02:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

what purpose does your abrassiveness serve?
I don't understand why you need to constantly seek a rise out of me? This edit summary is an example of what I'm talking about. Why the need to put my name in an edit summary? Why the need to use the word "violation"? Why not make your change and drop a friendly note on my talk page. As it is, I see this note and have no idea what you're talking about. Unless you've recently changed MoS:DP, I'm not aware of indented italics being used in the guideline. And what purpose does it serve to stick your thumb in my eye? Tedernst | talk 18:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You think that merely citing your name is abrasive? The usual practice is to cite the specific changes reverted in edit summaries.  I'm sure there is a guideline, and you should look it up!


 * I'll remind you that early in our interactions, I was very careful not to mention your name at the Village Pump when checking on policy. In this case, the edit summary is more focused than a general policy discussion.


 * The purpose of explicitly citing the previous edit is so that folks (including you) can simply click on the edit history. That should refresh your memory, so that you'll have an "idea what you're talking about."


 * The change that you made was in direct contradiction of the explicit guideline at Redirect, and the example text in WP:D &mdash; yes, the actual example in the guideline for many years!


 * I've never see that redirect guideline. That's very helpful information and would've made an excellent edit summary!  Also, I don't find WP:D at all.  Maybe you means something else? Tedernst | talk 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know why there's such inconsistency between WP:D and MoS:DP, but here's an example where an editor familiar with one isn't necessarily familiar with both. I thought MoS:DP would cover all I needed to know about the style of disambigation pages.  Obviously that's incorrect.  Please assume good faith and help me learn what I need to know instead of treating me like a vandal. Tedernst | talk 19:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Moreover, you made that violation within 4 hours after I'd just updated the page to MoS:DP standards. I do wish that you'd stop going around and changing pages where I'd just editted!  I've recently learned that there's a term for it: Wikistalking.


 * All hatnotes are indented italic, and this requirement was rather fully discussed on the talk page recently &mdash; and many other times in the archives. However, that's not the change to which I was referring.


 * Where are hatnotes mentioned in dab guidelines? Until you recently started using them, I'd never seen them on dab pages? Tedernst | talk 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, in the past, I've tried to inform you of problems at out of the way pages like Talk:Table, another page that you changed in violation of the actual example in the WP:D guidelines. You haven't improved your behaviour.


 * Based on your talk page and web page, I'd expect we had a lot in common on a personal basis. But I have a very low tolerence for repeat offenders.
 * --William Allen Simpson 19:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. What purpose does your abrassiveness serve? I can't think of an example of anyone else I regularly come across using the word "violation" in an edit summary. How does it help? Unless you say what the problem was with my edit, the summary is useless, except to poke your thumb in my eye? Why? What is your purpose?

By the way, I have never made an edit based on who it was that edited before me. If a page is on my watchlist because I've edited it before, and you (or anyone else) edit(s) it, I'm a lot more likely to edit it than if you (or anyone else) had not edited it, because that page is on my mind (I see the page where I wouldn't have otherwise).

Also, the guidelines are not so clear that you can say I'm chaning 2+2=4 to 2+2=5. The situation is totally different. I'm editing in the way that I believe makes the encylopedia better. If you disagree, please bring it up with me instead of throwing my name around all over the place. You'll likely get much better results. As it is, you're simply provoking anger. If that's your goal, then your actions are very effective. Tedernst | talk 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The guidelines are not inconsistent. Any inconsistencies should be noted on the talk pages, and I'm sure they'll be cleaned up promptly. The main article is WP:D, and the style hints are MoS:DP. You should never have done anything with style without understanding the basic structure.


 * That you haven't even read the main disambiguation and redirect guidelines explains quite a bit about your edit conflicts with so many others. I'm appalled! You've self-nominated for administrator twice!  Thank heavens you've not been successful!
 * --William Allen Simpson 11:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)