User talk:I am Zeus, king of the gods

Welcome! Hello, I am Zeus, king of the gods, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Charles Manson article

I'm no longer interested in editing Charles Manson. However, I was looking at your edit history of this article and I feel compelled to point out a few things.

You've made a total of 657 edits, more than any other editor and nearly twice more than the editor with the second most edits. (Since that editor is anonymous I'm wondering if that's you as well). You've also made slightly more that six times the edits I've made even though I'm in fifth place (108 edits) with respect to contributions.

You have a tendency to reject the edits of other editors (especially mine) who you feel are less knowledgeable than you on this subject. You removed many of my edits except one where I describe Manson's vision of Helter Skelter as an apocalyptic race war. You even removed the copy edit tag I posted.

You bridle at the slightest criticism from other editors. Specifically I'm referring to the conversation you had with user:Doc9871 on the talk page section I created titled "State of this article". I can't help but notice that it was your removal of the copy edit tag I placed on the article that triggered the conversation.

It seems to me you're engaging in article ownership, something that user:Doc9871 noticed as well. Please have a look at Ownership of articles#Examples of ownership behavior. The below behaviors described in the "Actions" subsection seem to fit you well:

An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily.

Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)

Despite what I've just said I want to believe that you're simply passionate about this article and, given the opportunity, you would be willing to prove you have no ownership issues. If this is the case, I'm wondering which of my edits you would be willing to compromise on. I am Zeus, king of the gods (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read "State of this article," a Manson talk-page section you yourself started. You will see that the changes you made caused much discussion — in which you did not participate. As I recall, you started that section after I had undone your changes to the article's intro — and after you had reinstated those changes. In response to your talk-page post, I commented on the changes you had made. You did not respond. Other editors joined in. Eventually, another editor undid your changes. The discussion ended.

Permit me to say: Wikipedia is not a playground. You can't simply charge in, make whatever changes you see fit to an article, and then leave, with the expectation that everyone will think you've enriched the thing. That article has something like three hundred footnotes, as I recall. It is the result of the work of many persons, who have discussed much of its content. Again: I suggest you go to the talk page and review the discussion that took place in the wake of your post. If you think your changes are worth something, argue for them, on the talk page.

Your copy-edit tag, not incidentally, was removed only after many long and complicated sentences in the article were broken up into simpler constructions. See the edit series that began at 00:02, 23 December 2009, and an edit series that began at 04:10, 6 January 2010. I think there was one more bit of breaking-up of sentences after those two series. The tag, in other words, was not ignored.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Having just visited the Manson talk page, I can say you will want to read, as well, two of its other sections: Cite tags in lead and Link to the new photo of Manson. In the latter, you will see, I myself made an effort to address your concern that the 2009 Manson photo somehow be part of the infobox at the article's head.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In Cite tags in lead, as you will see, editor Doc9871 — whom you have mentioned to me — stated that the article's intro, in the form in which (as he did not know) you had left it, "really sucks powerfully." In fact, it turned out that he thought the copy-edit tag had been posted by someone who objected to the intro (among other things) — not by the person (you) who had written the intro. You may confirm that by reading Manson, at his talk page.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

John:

Thank you for supporting my idea of an internal link to a current pic of Manson in the info box. I had forgotten about that.

Regarding my non-participation in discussions: I became discouraged when I saw what looked like excessive discussion and conflict over minor issues.

Regarding your editing style: The sheer number of edits you've made strongly suggests you have ownership issues. Remember Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and, sometimes, an unpleasant one. Therefore, nobody should take any one article too seriously. The very nature of Wikipedia means that poor writing and inaccuracies abound. There's no way to fix all of them -- especially within popular articles like this one.

Please take this friendly advice. Leave the article alone for a few months. Then, when you come back to it, edit with a much lighter hand.

As for me, I'm going to take my own advice. I'm not going to make any further changes to this article. I am Zeus, king of the gods (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)