User talk:Engage01
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Engage01! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you nominated the article Red Hot Chili Peppers for Good article status. You do not appear to have made significant edits to the article prior to this, and there is no discussion about nominating the article on its talk page. Current practice is that only editors who have significantly contributed to the article are able to nominate it (see the nomination instructions). I have consequently removed the nomination for now. Consider discussing whether the article is ready to be nominated with the article's principal editors on the talk page. Thank you. Leafy46 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Cleaning the slate
[edit]Okay, so after your comment on my talk page, I decided to take a step back and reflect on what's going on here, using WP:CIVIL as a guideline. I'd like to begin with an apology. I'm sorry for flooding you with all sorts of different pointers, which you referred to as going off-topic. You, as a newcomer, are likely just starting to find your way around Wikipedia, and a stranger like myself popping in and giving criticism on multiple different fronts seems to be causing you a lot of undue stress. For that, I am sorry. I am curious about a few things, however, and I think that answers to these would be necessary for clearing the air:
1) Are you aware of my rationale for removing your nomination of Red Hot Chili Peppers, and why I would likely do the same if you re-nominated it after only fixing the Citation Needed notices?
2) What is your rationale for writing edit summaries? They seem extremely unclear to me, as an "outsider" of sorts to your edits, yet you continuously dismiss my comments on the subject without providing reasons on why beyond me "going off-topic".
3) Are you aware that you have made personal attacks on multiple users, myself included, and do you plan on addressing this behavior? I am trying to assume good faith about your intentions when you make such comments, but you have also been page-blocked for making personal attacks in the past, showing a history of such behavior, and, as for my specific experience, there are clearer ways of asking me to back off than to call me "unusual".
There is no deadline for responding to these questions, and feel free to respond to any/all of them. Think of this as my way of extending an olive branch towards you, and my attempt to clear up a few misunderstandings. Thanks. Leafy46 (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- I was making a joke, it wasn't making fun. Fud and Fudd, you can see the connection. With cn's, I will prob get to it but not soon. As for the summaries, it would take an eon to explain stuff. The editing on here is not good enough. I know it's not a newspaper but there are glaring mistakes. Engage01 (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- One of the difficulties and anyone would experience this. When someone is communicating with a few users and they aren't agreeing they inevitably will just not listen or pay attention to the topic or what's being addressed. Engage01 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- It was a question. Do you ever review articles? Engage01 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I don't know if this addresses my third question. Saying "it was just a joke" isn't a proper excuse for saying things which could be seen as disrespectful, as humor can easily be misinterpreted through text; this is especially not true in my specific situation, which I interpreted as being an ad hominem attack because it was clearly directed at me as a person, and not in response to my editing. However, I find your drive at bettering the prose on Wikipedia admirable, as it's the same reason why many editors continue to work on the project.
- I would also like to request a more firm answer regarding the edit summaries. If it's that hard to explain how you come up with them, then it would be much easier to stick with the consensus on Wikipedia and just label your edits as "ce" or the sorts. I'd suggest you take a look at "I Didn't Hear That", because that's where I'm drawing connections from; despite being told on multiple occasions that your unorthodox use of edit summaries goes against community consensus, you persist at using confusing or inaccurate edit summaries.
- In regards to your last question, on occasions. Reviewing articles is something I would like to do more of. Leafy46 (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- By ce you mean what? Prose? That's referencing conversations. Surely the site is improved with using words which people actually say. This subject is far too deep for a paragraph. You and I aren't going to fix everything and I am fine with that. I have done plenty of stuff. Engage01 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, that I can explain. "ce" stands for copyedit, which is basically shorthand for saying that you are only correcting grammar, spelling, or layout in a page. For instance, instead of giving this edit the edit summary of "Download", which doesn't have anything to do with the changes you actually made, writing "ce" in the edit summary box would quickly inform other editors that the change you made was exclusively about grammar, spelling, etc. Hopefully that helps explain it a bit? Leafy46 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- By ce you mean what? Prose? That's referencing conversations. Surely the site is improved with using words which people actually say. This subject is far too deep for a paragraph. You and I aren't going to fix everything and I am fine with that. I have done plenty of stuff. Engage01 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- One of the difficulties and anyone would experience this. When someone is communicating with a few users and they aren't agreeing they inevitably will just not listen or pay attention to the topic or what's being addressed. Engage01 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Advice
[edit]Hello, Engage01,
To avoid friction, I recommend you stop posting on Kire1975's User talk page unless communication is required. You've asked them to stop talking to you and that would be aided by you avoiding posting on their talk page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Right, they are objecting to the school's location being named, which is Somerset County and Morris County, NJ. That's for Sean Baker. The thing is there's not a town there, the school is just in the middle of nowhere. Engage01 (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Rather than continually discussing this on editor talk pages, you should discuss it on the talk pages of the relevant articles. That way other editors feel more welcome in joining the discussion and most of the time it also means editors who might have an interest in the particular issue are more likely to see it. Plus it makes it easier for editors to review these discussions in the future. And finally, this does away with all the 'stop taking to me' silliness. If you're a discussing a dispute on an article talk page than anyone who isn't topic or site banned is free to give their view backed by our policies and guidelines and no one needs to tell the other to stop talking to them. Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also you are clearly still very unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. So I'd strongly suggest you politely ask editors for guidance if they revert your changes. Even better, seek help yourself at places like WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk. Most editors are quite happy to help new editors, but if you are edit warring to to try and keep clearly wrong changes and demanding editors explain something to you on your talk page they are far less likely to want to help you. If you're lucky someone eventually will but there's also a chance you'll just end up blocked. This is even more the case if an explanation was offered on the article talk page which as I noted is ultimately the correct place for explanation, to some extent even if the changes were so obviously against our normal practices. You should also consider that your tone aside, continually deleting messages on your talk page even if you're entitled to do it and many of these were templates messages is not likely to encourage editors to approach you to try and help you understand our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note in particular, WP:BLANKING says "
If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents
". While this doesn't mean you've understood what was said, the assumption is you feel you do and there needs to be no further discussion/explanation. So it's a little silly if you're deleting notices/warnings [1] but then demand [2] the editor who left the notice/warning offer further explanation on their talk page. If you'd wanted further explanation, you should have replied to the original templated message on your talk, perhaps pinging Voorts and politely asked. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)- Alright. Article talk pages do seem a good place. One of the largest problems has to do with articles regarding families who are well known and / or there is more than one celebrity in the family. Disambiguation. That seems a large source of conflct. Engage01 (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note in particular, WP:BLANKING says "
- Also you are clearly still very unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. So I'd strongly suggest you politely ask editors for guidance if they revert your changes. Even better, seek help yourself at places like WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk. Most editors are quite happy to help new editors, but if you are edit warring to to try and keep clearly wrong changes and demanding editors explain something to you on your talk page they are far less likely to want to help you. If you're lucky someone eventually will but there's also a chance you'll just end up blocked. This is even more the case if an explanation was offered on the article talk page which as I noted is ultimately the correct place for explanation, to some extent even if the changes were so obviously against our normal practices. You should also consider that your tone aside, continually deleting messages on your talk page even if you're entitled to do it and many of these were templates messages is not likely to encourage editors to approach you to try and help you understand our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- Rather than continually discussing this on editor talk pages, you should discuss it on the talk pages of the relevant articles. That way other editors feel more welcome in joining the discussion and most of the time it also means editors who might have an interest in the particular issue are more likely to see it. Plus it makes it easier for editors to review these discussions in the future. And finally, this does away with all the 'stop taking to me' silliness. If you're a discussing a dispute on an article talk page than anyone who isn't topic or site banned is free to give their view backed by our policies and guidelines and no one needs to tell the other to stop talking to them. Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment
[edit]Hello, Engage01,
- Engage01, I'm trying to help you here and you remove my message? I'll stop trying to help then and I wish you luck on the project. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I really appreciate the help. I think people feel stressed and they don't want to discuss things, let alone calmly or productively. Wikipedia has a lot of positives. It's unfortunate that discourse isn't encouraged. Talk pages are supposed to work; I guess it's hard to say they do, could try them. Engage01 (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)