User talk:PE2011

Welcome!

Hello, PE2011, 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)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links

WP:UNDUE

Regarding a recent edit summary

I just wanted to clear up a point of misunderstanding evidenced in your recent edit summary. You said, "Added additional sentence for balance, to avoid misleading impression. Please don't delete without Talk discussion". Actually, that's the opposite of how normal WP editing works. It's fine to boldly add new information to an article. But if another editor reverts, the onus is on the person who added the info to the article to go to the talk page and justify its inclusion--not on the one who wants to remove. The way I always think of it is that we're "conservative", in the sense that the default is always less and older information, with those seeking changes being the ones who have to justify their new additions/changes.

As a side note, we definitely cannot include that information from VINE--they are not an important enough group to have their opinion represented. Perhaps if Greenpeace, PETA, or a similarly notable organization made a comment, perhaps we could include it--but not the comments of a random, non-notable activist group. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here's a better, more general point: stop editing the article, and keep discussing on the talk page. If you're having a discussion on something on the talk page, stop reverting on the article. The whole point is to stop edit warring, which you are very much doing on the article (as are some other editors). Another way of saying that is that just because you're talking on the talk page doesn't give you justification for continuing to force your preferences to the article. There is absolutely no hurry on the article--we'll fix it over time. But we cannot functionally do that if people don't stop reverting and talk instead. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the process. Regarding VINE, they are at the heart of the controversy—VINE was mentioned earlier in the graf. Why are they not important to be included? PE2011 (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, your characterization that the VINE is a “random, non-notable activist group” is wholly inaccurate: as I mentioned--and as it’s been documented in numerous sources, including the NYT--VINE is a big part of this controversy. PE2011 (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VINE is important because they made the first offer. That's it. They are quoted in news articles because of that fact. In reality, the most important entities involved in this whole deal are the college and the animal right activists. Since the initial offer, VINE has done nothing but make a few blog posts and "open letters" to the college. That is hardly being a "big part" of the issue. Read any story about this saga...by a large margin, the main players are the college and protesters. Kingsrow1975 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting editors

Hi PE2011. Qwyrxian has just made me aware of this edit that you made earlier today, where you said "I can easily recruit 20+ B&L supporters and have them weigh in". Just to let you know that this would be a very bad idea, as our policy on "meatpuppetry" explicitly forbids this. Typically such users are treated in the same manner as one user with sockpuppets - that is to say, the newer accounts are all blocked indefinitely, and the oldest account is blocked for a fixed length of time, with blocks of increasing length for further infractions. The dispute resolution process is designed so that editors can still achieve a fair result without having to resort to extreme measures like this, so it is definitely in your interest to follow policy here. As always, let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation, and know that I will NOT do that. Because Kingsrow1975 kept emphasizing "majority rule," I thought my recruitment tactic might have been within bounds (i.e., if majority rules, then the solution is to find a majority). I will put in a dispute resolution request as per your suggestion. One question: should the dispute resolution process not prove satisfactory, is there another procedure in place for a resolution? PE2011 (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is important that you go to dispute resolution being willing to compromise. It is almost inevitable that you won't get everything you want, but if you go in with the attitude that you want what is best for Wikipedia and are willing to work with the other editors and the dispute resolution volunteers, then nine times out of ten you will be able to find a resolution that you can be happy with. For the tenth time, we have requests for comment and the Mediation Committee. Or there are the various conduct resolution processes if things get more into the realm of conduct problems. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Green Mountain College". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 17:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PE2011, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi PE2011! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Dispute

Once again, my apologies. Secondly, I would reccommend WP:EA first, and after that mediation. The reason being EA is non-binding where mediation can become very binding, and can result in blocks. Sorry again. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help, gwickwire. Would it help the process if I mention that you support my latest proposal? PE2011 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly discourage you bringing up any previous DR support/not support. EA is meant to be a clean start for the editor who is assisting you to look over it from himself. Mentioning any support/not support may be seen as an attempt to sway his/her judgement, which will lead to arguing/not being listened to. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks! Glad you clarified that. PE2011 (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]