Concord gioz

February 2016

Hello, I'm Toddst1. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Spirit of Radio, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If I posted a reply over on your Talk page, then anyone interested in this discussion would be bouncing from my Talk page here and your Talk page there. Instead, I have posted to the article's Talk page so that we can have a single source which I see to be the most appropriate place to hold this discussion. I'll look for you there, and thanks.--Concord gioz (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Being polite

Hi there. I originally didn't intend to write to you, but I just feel like I need to. Please know that Wikipedia is a voluntary service. Everyone involved is doing this with their interests, free time and free spirit in mind. Originally, the information on Facebook had sources, despite your "unsourced statement" edit summary. And when someone adds "Replacing with info that says the opposite", those who follow the page immediately think "Oh no, that probably isn't smart". I knew it had a source, but I wanted to clarify the language to make the sentences clear. That included reverting your edit. At that time, I did not know Fast Company was wrong. I had already from previous experiences thought Harvard didn't have a face book. I reverted you and invited you to the talk page, where I expressed my thinking. When you reply later and then re-add your submission, you are inviting edit-warring. Normally, your edit was a bold one, and I reverted, inviting to talk page. That you go ahead and add edit summaries such as "Please take the time to read your own references, even if you refuse to look at mine" is just aggressive. Now, I did not follow in the path of being rude in return, and you know why? The Facebook article is seen approximately 30,000 times each day. Anyone who checks the page history can see disputes flying around. That does not create a good editing environment. Showing respect and politeness can significantly increase the chances of new contributors joining Wikipedia, because they would see it's a safe environment. This dispute is not. Something to think about. LocalNet (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I actually see myself to be a very polite person.

The tone in which I replied to you had a lot to do with the title you chose for the Talk section you had started. It showed that if you had looked at the reference I had posted (and you deleted multiple times) that you rejected very clear evidence and you never offered your reasons why you rejected it.

On the whole, I see these issues you're posting here on my personal Talk page to be relevant to the article. Even in your criticism in feeling like I have been rude to you. Perhaps, if you'd like to take a step back, you might be able to see that the way that you had repeatedly reverted my efforts was less than polite. But clearly from what you've posted here, you are a very thoughtful person. I appreciate your efforts toward helping to make Wikipedia the best reference around. And I hope you will be able to appreciate mine as well. I will now go back to those original pages in question and look forward to respectful engagement with you over there.--Concord gioz (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I need to respond to this. Because you are actually right in some of the things you say here. Can't believe I failed to post why I rejected the source. That was stupid of me, and I regret that. I also regret the talk page section title. Overall, there were definitely ways that I could have better expressed myself too. Often difficult to put ourselves in others' situations through the screen, but situations like this help to get a better perspective. LocalNet (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I was out of line myself in how I responded. You can even see in the Talk edit history that my first reply was aggressive. After posting, I looked at the words I wrote and the realization dawned on me that I had over-reacted. I then edited my post in an effort to speak accurately, but even then my words had the effect of offending you. I am sorry. I look forward to the day when we will all learn sufficient skills to treat each other with respect. We won't even have to try, because it will be the habits that we will be raised with. Until that day comes, this will take effort.

I just now looked up the word polite over on dictionary.com. It says that it comes from the Latin 'politus' which means 'polished'. Interesting. It conveys that being polite is a refinement process. And if we do nothing, our relationships can get tarnished from neglect. So I will strive to make being polite an active process. Thank you for all this feedback.--Concord gioz (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I sent one more response on Talk:History of Facebook that I want you to see, but long story short: We both made mistakes in this dispute, but the fact that we both also realize we made mistakes and are able to explain that shows we have learned valuable lessons in dispute handling. I look forward to hopefully working with you more in the future! :) LocalNet (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I posted a long reply to you over there. Probably not the ideal place for that kind of discussion. I basically wrote an essay. But that's where I posted it. Hasta for now over here.--Concord gioz (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Concord gioz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)