User talk:Stormergeddon
Welcome!
[edit]Please remember to sign your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~)
July 2014
[edit]Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Roscelese:, what exactly is vandalism about their edits? Please assume good faith. Well intentioned edits are not vandalism. Tutelary (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Introducing factual errors in order to push a POV is vandalism, actually. It's a single-purpose account whose first action was to falsify sources; I see no reason to assume good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- 'Factual errors' is something like changing a statistic from 1 in 5 to 4 in 5 with no reason for it. In this edit, they did remove sources and cited a Wikipedia article in itself. That seems like a beginner mistake to me, and we can't expect them to know everything as of yet. I still don't see the need to disregard WP:AGF. Being a single purpose account is not a reason to demonstrate their edits as vandalism. 'POV pushing' may be regarded as a subset of 'disruptive editing', but it is not vandalism in this regard. Additionally, you're at 3 reverts, I'd tone it down. Tutelary (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Introducing factual errors in order to push a POV is vandalism, actually. It's a single-purpose account whose first action was to falsify sources; I see no reason to assume good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I did not change any statistic. I made few changes to that page, one of which was correctness in the citation of Oxford Dictionary. The article previously defined Antifeminism as "one opposed to women or to feminism; a person (usually a man) who is hostile to sexual equality or to the advocacy of women's rights." They then had the audacity to cite Oxford in saying this. The definition on the Oxford site can be found here. I changed the definition to reflect that of Oxford. I believe reverting those changes would be vandalism. Stormergeddon (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the previous citation was correct. Oxforddictionaries.com isn't the same as the OED (as oxforddictionaries.com itself points out), which requires a subscription, but which is the superior source. If you really don't believe me, I can show you a screencap. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)They are not the same. Oxforddictionaries.com points out that OED is a historical dictionary while oxforddictionaries.com is a current dictionary. While historical definitions do help a topic, current definitions should take precedence. Stormergeddon (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)That would make sense if the OED contained other definitions and showed that the meaning of "someone opposed to women's rights" had died out. It doesn't. There's a single definition, which is more detailed and supported than the oxforddictionaries.com one. Why are you insisting on this inferior source? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)As previously pointed out by Tutelary, I am a beginner. It may just be that I'm a beginner but I don't believe in using sources not available to most, such as the subscription service offered by OED, for citation on a topic that could just as easily be defined using other reputable sources such as oxforddictionaries.com. Stormergeddon (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)- Inaccessibility of a source, as you will learn as you go on, is not a reason to use an inferior source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hullo, I am new as well, and I suppose this isn't even 'my conversation' to be in, but I was just going through the edits to this one page (Antifeminism) I had become involved with, as a part of a process of learning how Wikipedia editing generally works, and found this conversation. I'm not sure what definition you (Stormergeddon) were trying to change it to, but I thought the definition I left (among the, what, 3 or 4 someone had put there) was the best one in terms of objectivity, concision, and necessary broadness. However, (@Roscelese) while I can see the upside to selecting the best source even if it is relatively inaccessible, I'm not sure that philosophy is actually all that consistent with the purpose/aims of Wikipedia (a freely available source), and that open-access might be one good criteria to consider when selecting sources. Or, perhaps, as a decent compromise, both the more elite source and inferior-but-open-access source could be included to meet both ideals (highest quality content vs egalitarian outlook). -WikiCAWcaw (talk ⋅ contribs) 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer your edit, WikiCAWcaw, to what is current, but I doubt that it would be allowed to stay due to obvious bias by some other editors. Stormergeddon (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hullo, I am new as well, and I suppose this isn't even 'my conversation' to be in, but I was just going through the edits to this one page (Antifeminism) I had become involved with, as a part of a process of learning how Wikipedia editing generally works, and found this conversation. I'm not sure what definition you (Stormergeddon) were trying to change it to, but I thought the definition I left (among the, what, 3 or 4 someone had put there) was the best one in terms of objectivity, concision, and necessary broadness. However, (@Roscelese) while I can see the upside to selecting the best source even if it is relatively inaccessible, I'm not sure that philosophy is actually all that consistent with the purpose/aims of Wikipedia (a freely available source), and that open-access might be one good criteria to consider when selecting sources. Or, perhaps, as a decent compromise, both the more elite source and inferior-but-open-access source could be included to meet both ideals (highest quality content vs egalitarian outlook). -WikiCAWcaw (talk ⋅ contribs) 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Inaccessibility of a source, as you will learn as you go on, is not a reason to use an inferior source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors
[edit]Hi, just wanted to let you know that when "category=no" is used in Template:GOCE, it is placing the talk pgs into Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors. I've been removing that particular parameter so that it doesn't go into the maint. category. See example here. Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Really sorry about that I must have misinterpreted instructions over that.Stormergeddon (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)