User talk:Kryolux

November 2007

Hi, please see Talk:Gettysburg Address. Thanks! Kaisershatner 17:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Kryolux, 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:

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! --JBC3 (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Ellenville, New York, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --JBC3 (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Ellenville, New York. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --JBC3 (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Ellenville, New York. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --JBC3 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who the bleep YOU are, or where YOU get off removing MY CORRECTION of PREVIOUS material *I* posted on the Ellenville site.

The change in hours was taken directly from the Ellenville official website; I don't know how much MORE verifiable and reliable you can get for that info!

As for you simply removing the reference to the village hall being only the tallest building in the village, it's because I recently recalled that the Nevele tower OUTSIDE the village, but in the TOWN is the tallest TOWN structure. By YOU removing my correction, YOU are maintaining a falsehood! YOUR undos are perpetuating false information! PLEASE let it go!

As for me, I have been responsible for most of the updating and improvement and accuracy of the Ellenville page, and *I* am as reliable a source as is possible! I'm a recently retired ELLENVILLE TRUSTEE, a member of the Ellenville Government Study Committee, sit on the Ellenville Museum Advisory Board, am former publisher of the Ellenville News, former editor of Wawarsing.Net for the Ellenville-Wawarsing Chamber of Commerce, and senior civics columnist for the Ellenville Journal. I think I know a bit more about Ellenville than YOU do! Kryolux (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kryolux, your message to me is entirely uncivil, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I recommend you check your attitude immediately, as I have just as much right to edit this article as you do. If the change in hours was taken directly from the Ellenville official website, all you had to do was cite the website as the source of your information, as you were instructed to do in the messages. Wikipedia has a very clear policy on verifiability which states that (1) "[the] threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and (2) "[editors] should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. You cannot be a reliable source, regardless of your credentials, because Wikipedia has a policy requiring no original research. All sources must be "[...]reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". --JBC3 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kryolux, I'm noticing now, after looking back at the edits, that you did include the website in your second and third edits. I apologize for having overlooked this. I will strikethrough the second two warnings. In the future, assume good faith and remember civility when confronting editors (like myself) who may simply have overlooked your citaiton by mistake. Again, I apologize. --JBC3 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kryolux, please be advised that I have posted an alert to Wikiquette alerts regarding your latest uncivil comments directed toward me in your recent edit summary. I feel your comments violate WP:CIVIL, a Wikipedia policy on civil behavior. --JBC3 (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary was to get YOUR attention; I'd be happy to remove the parts YOU feel are "uncivil" if you tell me how; however, THAT interpretation of "uncivility" is merely YOUR opinion, and I disagree with it. You are focusing on petty matters and ignoring the bigger picture; stop acting like a little mama's boy running to hide behind her skirts. It takes TWO to tango, and you are not blameless.

MY opinion of YOU is that YOU are rude, imperious, patronizing, a wiki-bully, and a nit-picking busybody hypocrite who doesn't follow his/her own advice, but acts in a high-handed and precipitous fashion, "fixing" what isn't broken, making assumptions without evidence, and not FIRST posting concerns to the discussion section before acting in an arbitrary and erroneous way.

See: "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text."

No, YOU didn't do THAT; you just made a FALSE assumption and barged in. Indeed, when did YOU ever FIRST bring up any concerns on the discussion page regarding Ellenville?

Further, in the presumed case in question: "Text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is also not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part. In both these cases, it is a good idea to make a note of the situation on the discussion page"

Now, I KNOW Frank Romanek, who recently took on the task of revising and updating Ellenville's horrendous old website. Overwhelmed by the job's enormity, and not the most literary of guys, he FREELY "borrowed" material from various existing sources, such as a video of a local event *I* shot, but without crediting it to me, AND HE cut & pasted the text FROM the Wikipedia entry that *I* wrote first! NOT the other way around! So, if anything, HE violated MY copyrighted material, as it was ORIGINAL CONTENT based on MY knowledge of the FACTS involved.

Had YOU brought this concern up in discussion BEFORE assuming and mucking about, it wouldn't have come to this.

Hey, I don't go and muck with a Queensbury page, because I know nothing about Queesnbury. Your "fixes" show you don't know about Ellenville. And the wording YOU used in many of your "fixes," besides being clunky and ungainly, whereas the originals were terse and elegant, have been, in several instances, WRONG or misleading!

You may know more about technical formatting and Wiki jargon than I, and if you want to limit your changes to making format changes that conform to more standard layout and linkage, fine, but stop confusing superior Wiki ability with superior knowledge about the CONTENT of the article!

Your obsession with templates and Wiki tech speak leads to an impersonal and patronizing approach to dealing with persons like me who are less "nerdy" on this stuff, and I found YOUR initial posts to me imperious, snotty, and rude, particularly as the "advice" you laid on me wasn't followed by YOU!

YOU remind me of the petty bureaucrats and martinets I've often had to deal with as both a public official and editor/publisher, or like one of those Robert's Rules wonks who uses superior knowledge of the minutiae of parliamentary procedure to bully and cow those not as studied in it, and to manipulate meetings in self-serving ways.

So, should I counter-alert on YOUR rude and uncivil actions toward me, and YOUR violation of the "If you suspect a copyright violation" POLICY?

As *I* live in Ellenville, I have had a vested interest for decades in making sure that information in and about Ellenville is accurate and makes a positive impression. Nary a week goes by that some pup reporter for one of the regional dailies or local weeklies makes a silly error based on their lack of knowledge, which *I* have to write-in a correction for. Now, based on YOUR and Wikipedia's criteria, an article posted in a regularly-published newspaper is a "verifiable" source, even when it's WRONG, but *I*, who actually KNOW the correct info, somehow hold no water. (BTW, the comment that "truth" doesn't matter, only "verifiability" is absurd; verifiability MEANS "to prove the truth of, as by evidence or testimony" and comes from the root "verus" or TRUE! If that's really Wikipedia's standard, then, to paraphrase Shakespeare's comments on the law, "Wikipedia's an ass.")

So, who do I go to respond to your "I'm telling mom on you" snit?

I'm willing to back off the "attitude," but don't think it wasn't prompted by what I perceived as YOUR attitude, and how your impersonal, template-based "form letter" replies come across, and how YOUR muddy boots on a page that reflects on MY home village feels like an INTRUSION into MY living room by a total stranger who lacks the courtesy to even start with a polite PERSONAL inquiry in the appropriate discussion page before lopping this and trashing that. I'm the most civil of individuals when TREATED with respect as an individual, and YOUR cold, snooty initial "form letter" slugs just got my dander up. Sorry.

Now, your thin-skinned whining (another "template" set aside for just such situations?!!) has set me off again. Sorry, again.

Instead of making it personal, how about we just discuss the CONTENT of the article, and where YOU get off thinking YOU know more about the ACCURACY of the content than *I* do?

Original research

Just wanted to help clarify something, since you look like a new editor. Your own knowledge and experiences are not usable sources for Wikipedia articles. We call this "original research" and it's not something that should ever be included. When it comes to issues like what the tallest building is in some little town, consider not including the information at all. If some reliable source has not covered that topic, then it's not likely to be suitable for inclusion here. A lot of the material in Ellenville,_New_York is probably better suited to the town website than Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy vio, etc

Yeah, I think JBC3 was just confused. And now I see he's "retired". I think he was just trying to do what was right, but he managed to do it rather clumsily. Copyright violations are taken pretty seriously here- but it wasn't at all clear to me that the material he was objecting to was actually copyrighted. And sadly, yes, there are lots of editors here who communicate in silly form letters, rather than just explaining themselves in a more personal way. But, don't worry about it. I think there are legitimate concerns with some of the content in Ellenville, New York, but I don't think it's an emergency. Friday (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is just "retiring" that username, but that's just my interpretation of his last post; but then, making such assumptions is what got HIM in trouble here, after all ;)

He COULD have followed his own advice and ASKED FIRST, on the discussion page, rather than making a false assumption, acting on it, getting all hissy when I explained it was THE REVERSE (that is, the Ellenville official website COPIED MY ORIGINAL WORDS FROM Wikipedia!), and refusing to budge, but instead made it PERSONAL and whiny.

So it's not that the material on the Village's website wasn't merely not "actually copyrighted," but IT was copied FROM MY Wikipedia entry! And *I* didn't refer to it AS my source, which debunks his second error, the fallback that it was "circular," so he then called me a "liar/mistaken/wrong" instead.

No, HE was wrong. HE took it personal and over-reacted.

I have tried to make the Ellenville Wikipedia page the most comprehensive and useful AND ACCURATE possible. I see many other village or town sites that are far more questionable (some include the NAMES of officials, e.g., or other transitory data; what's wrong with posting FACTUAL information that can only HELP readers? Indeed, I posted much of this before the NEW village website came out, and it was the ONLY place it was available at that time.), but I don't go sticking MY nose in. Why not wait until someone with some EVIDENCE comes and challenges anything here before getting all medieval on my ass as JBC3 did and just cut my work out and accuse me of things without any proof?

I surely want to improve the page, and that will take some more time and work, but I don't need ignorant interlopers who confuse technical knowledge of formatting, which I certainly can welcome and appreciate, with factual knowledge about the village that makes the page more useful and valuable to readers who are interested IN Ellenville, MY home village, of which I've been a Village Trustee, newspaper publisher, magazine editor, weekly columnist, member of various boards and committees, etc.

There's a REASON for every line I've contributed to this article, and to have some outsider make assumptions and determine what is or isn't relevant or meritorious of inclusion based on his IGNORANCE, well, it gets my dander up, that's all.

-- Kryolux (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way.. I appreciate why you're annoyed, but capital letters and namecalling won't really help your case here. Now that he's "retired", the situation is resolved, right? Why not just let it drop? Friday (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have merely tried to respond to errors and misinterpretations. I don't appreciate being called a liar, or being accused of things I didn't do. (And caps are just easier to deal with than italics or boldface, and it's just inflections for emphasis, so please don't make a big deal of IT, OK?) I've already wasted far too much time dealing with all aspects of this, and it really urks me that I had to.

It's dropped for now, but I will be monitoring the article to see if he or others come back and make the page WORSE for all the wrong reasons.

-- Kryolux (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how do I remove the "uncivil" words in the previously posted summary line?

-- Kryolux (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOU CAN'T CHANGE - oh, sorry. You can't change an edit summary after the fact. :-) It's just part of how the Wiki software works - all revisions are kept, along with the edit summaries. It's no big deal though. Friday (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage

Hello Kryolux. I was wondering if you might be interested in working on the Ellenville page on Wikivoyage, a travel and tourism site connected with Wikipedia. The rules there are a little different. Gamweb (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]