Johnashby
Welcome
editHello Johnashby, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Matthew, you should follow your own advice. I attempted to open a discussion about the content, per WP:AGF. You continued to revert my changes. You have the temerity to claim that I am outside of of Wikipedia policy? I call shenanigans! Love that you brought this to my user page, however. Johnashby 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm actually slightly puzzled why you keep quoting a link to WP:AGF? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because from the beginning you have assumed that I have some nefarious intent regarding the Medium edits. I have no such, but you called my integrity into question by stating that it appeared that I "dislike the lady". My opinion of Alison DuBois is not material to the discussion, as I have quoted sources already vetted on Wikipedia. Assuming that I am acting in BAD FAITH is why you continue to see WP:AGF. Perhaps WP:NPA would be more appropriate ("Comment on content, not on the contributor"), since your central argument appears to be that something is wrong with me? Johnashby 14:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm actually slightly puzzled why you keep quoting a link to WP:AGF? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?) 17:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I anxiously await your post on MathhewFenton's page as well. I won't hold my breath. From the very beginning he has not adhered to standards, and his argument comes down to "well, I disagree! REVERT." Pointing this out has been fruitless, even when I used evidence to back up my arguments, it remained the same. In all honesty, I have been more civil than anyone has deserved regarding this because my point of view has been trampled when I am the only one who has even tried to actually argue a point.
- Also, to instigate an edit war, I would have had to have actually started the whole enterprise. My good faith edits were reverted with no discussion, as though they were vandalism. I think that characterizing my behavior on this as uncivil stretches the definition, as I tried to have a discussion from the very beginning about this article, and was rebuffed with irrational naysaying. Johnashby 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Later curiosity turned up many, many instances of User:MatthewFenton going overboard in reverts and edits. Just check out User talk:MatthewFenton/Archive/Archive 1...it's a litany of complaints about his overzealous use of reverts, copyright rules, and particularly butting up time and time again on the 3RR.
- Also, to instigate an edit war, I would have had to have actually started the whole enterprise. My good faith edits were reverted with no discussion, as though they were vandalism. I think that characterizing my behavior on this as uncivil stretches the definition, as I tried to have a discussion from the very beginning about this article, and was rebuffed with irrational naysaying. Johnashby 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I realize that none of this constitutes evidence that he did it this time...but I think the page history did that by itself. At no point was an argument made other than his personal disagreement about the added text to the article, so pointing out to him that he was in violation of WP:AGF was not uncivil: it was necessary. If my words rose above a civil tone, I do apologize. It can be difficult to deal with irrational behavior under the best circumstances, and it is particularly difficult when the person engaging in such behavior started off by questioning my intent as an editor. Johnashby 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)