Wayngrove

Hi Wayngrove, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

• Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
• The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

• Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.

Good luck, and have fun. --smcro 22:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jesus, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

October 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Red hair. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

December 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Impeachment in the United States, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss on the article's Talk page. (Also, see this article, just published. It might surprise you. [1]) General Ization ^Talk 19:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC),

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Impeachment in the United States. General Ization ^Talk 19:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you do not get to remove entire paragraphs of reliably-sourced content without discussion on the appropriate Talk page and unless you can establish consensus for the removal. General Ization ^Talk 20:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

None of this information in the sourced article is in question. My only complaint is that the content does not match the column header, and it still does not. I'm sad to say that you are contributing to the further decline of this website. There is no "Result" of the impeachment, only that it has happened. You are being obtuse in regards to the subject matter.Wayngrove (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The Results column is used to present the results of the impeachment process. The result is that Trump was impeached, as stated. Had the House voted to decline to impeach Trump, or failed to bring the matter to a vote, that would have been stated as the result of the process. What part of this do you not understand? General Ization ^Talk 20:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Your claim that there is "no result without a trial by the senate" is false. The act of impeachment is an act unto itself; the result of the impeachment process is that Trump was impeached. The Senate now must decide whether the president should be removed from office for the acts that led to his impeachment. If you read Professor Turley's article, you need to read it again. General Ization ^Talk 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Just making sure you're getting my messages. I find it interesting that every other subject listed in the section has either Acquitted, Resigned or Convicted included in the description of the Result column, but you are saying it's not relevant what the trial results are. Wayngrove (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The natural consequence of the approval of one or more acts of impeachment is the holding of a trial in the Senate, unless the impeached officer dies or resigns first. The outcome of the trial will be relevant once the trial occurs, but at this time what is relevant is the outcome of the process of impeachment, which concluded on December 18 in the vote to impeach. General Ization ^Talk 20:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, The date is already listed, so this is redundant information. I'm not adding content or removing content that is not already available on this page or on more applicable pages. Wayngrove (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's not be disingenuous. The date included in the Results column is clearly not what you were attempting to remove, nor is it what you removed. If you would like to remove the date and only the date, that is perfectly defensible. But as I have already explained, even if all of your edit was defensible, you may not do so once the content was restored without discussing it on the article's Talk page and gaining consensus for removal. Other than the date, the information stays unless you do so. General Ization ^Talk 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I stated "Also" because I was adding this to the discussion, not using it a reason for the whole. Now who's being disingenuous? Be careful. If I didn't know better, I'd think your bias it starting to show on a site that's supposed to be completely unbiased. Wayngrove (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I am biased against the sustained wasting of my time explaining matters that should be common sense, and policies that are already very well documented here. I didn't say you were using the matter of the date as the reason for the whole, I was pointing out that the date is not what you removed. You seem to insist on arguing with me about the nature and result of impeachment when it is clearly presented in our article (not to mention Turley's article), and about the necessity to gain consensus for your edits when it is also clearly defined. Do you need for me to point the exact location of those policies out to you as well, or can you find them? General Ization ^Talk 21:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

But, I did remove the date. I removed the REDUNDANT date under the Results Column, along with everything else under it, not the date under the DATE column. Again, you are being obtuse. Everything listed under RESULTS is either listed somewhere else on the page or on the page Impeachment of Donald Trump, which is already hyperlinked under "Accusations" to the direct left of this section. I also supplied the reason for my edit on my original attempt. There have been countless attempts at impeachment, so by the logic of your previous argument of "The Results column is used to present the results of the impeachment process. The result is that Trump was impeached, as stated. Had the House voted to decline to impeach Trump, or failed to bring the matter to a vote, that would have been stated as the result of the process", shouldn't every "tabled" attempt of Impeachment also be included? To my recollection I believe there were at least 2 of these presented by Al GReen and/or Steve Cohen.

On a side note, if Wiki was not to be edited, than why is it so easy to edit? Your "Common Sense" may not be so obvious to a standard user. I did not have to agree to any consent or pass any tests to be able to edit these pages. Wayngrove (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not taking the bait, for the simple reason that the answer to your question is already available to you in the article you were editing. Either follow the guidelines I have described for you, or don't and accept the consequences. Wikipedia is meant to be edited collaboratively, and while observing certain standards both of conduct and content. No one is guaranteed a "right" to edit Wikipedia, and those who refuse to comply with those published standards can be denied that ability, much as we try to avoid things getting to that point. As for what you agreed to, see here and the Five pillars, which, coincidentally, were brought to your attention on this very page more than 10 years ago. General Ization ^Talk 22:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Signing posts

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:General Ization, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 20:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)