User talk:Max.NYC.Black

Welcome!

Hello, Max.NYC.Black, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! «JavierMC»|Talk 22:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it out[edit]

Excuse me? Your very first contributions to Wikipedia appear to be a hit piece against a webhosting company, with edits that do not adhere to a neutral point of view. A non-biased description of events is fine, assuming it isn't undue weight, but your version included a number of negative comments that misrepresented the issue. Of the millions of affected customers, a small percentage of those overbilled suffered from overdrafts and account cancellations. Perhaps you should get used to Wikipedia by making some non-controversial edits and learning its policies and guidelines before jumping in at the deep end. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too. Jessie, my edit was in line with content that is already there. One quote was chosen specifically from a customer that was less unhappy and one from a customer that was more unhappy as reflected in the article. I doubt opening up the details to a wider audience would favor the strict guidelines you have personally set for this page. The article exists and it speaks of an issue of magnitude.

I don't need to hear that I am being outclassed by a seasoned gun for hire like yourself. You might be better at this than me because, I barely have any experience with the system. I understand the ethical system completely. I'm not getting paid for this, like I imagine you are.

You are effectively enacting censorship. By yourself, you are deciding what should and should not appear on the pages you edit, by putting yourself in charge of the page. That is the most contrary behavior to what Wikipedia is about. You have and insist on breaking it's cardinal rule of being a public forum, and not merely just against Dreamhost, but a cornucopia of troubled companies plagued by bad press.

Tangentially, do you really think my edits were a hit piece? Max.NYC.Black (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you are just not getting it. Everything you tried to add to the article presented a negative view of the billing issue. I edited your addition to remove the completely inappropriate negative comments from DreamHost customers, because they were completely unrepresentative of the DreamHost customer base as a whole. For every customer that "felt" the billing issue was a big deal that impacted them in a bad way, there are dozens and dozens for whom this was not so. Therefore, giving these negative comments a place in the article would be non-neutral. Furthermore, going into more detail about what turned out to be a minor event would represent undue weight. Finally, claims of "censorship" are ridiculous. I am simply ensuring the article (one of hundreds I regular contribute to) describes the subject in a neutral manner. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia invites editors to be WP:BOLD and to avoid WP:BITE. Explaining matters in a civil and constructive manner is much better than berating them and using such catch phrases as "Excuse me?" and accusations of an edit being a "hit piece against" an article is borderline WP:UNCIVIL. You should assume good faith editing (WP:AGF) and present your view in a civil productive manner. I looked at the DreamHost article section on the billing issue and believe it is presented in a NPOV giving the weight of the number of customers involved. It contains the facts and also cites reactions in proportion, which of course is my opinion and subject to consensus debate if rejected outright. Lets all just remain civil and help in making this online encyclopedia better for the readership and a less stressful environment for editors new and old, alike.--«JavierMC»|Talk 03:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice about Dreamhost[edit]

In reply to your message left on my talk page, I went to the DreamHost article and left a view on the talk page there. The billing dispute, see my reply User Talk:Max.NYC.Black#Cut_it_out. As stated there, my interpretation is just that, my own. In no way be discouraged in contributing to Wikipedia. There are editors that have strong opinions on certain subjects and will try to convince other editors of their reasoning, but this is within consensus and should no approach the level of WP:OWN. Use article talk pages to discuss contentious additions, and it's always a good idea to read the talk page before making an edit to see what has been discussed before and what consensus or lack thereof has been reached. Be WP:Bold and I hope you enjoy contributing to this encyclopedia. It takes some time to get used to many of the intricate processes and working within a community of editors with sometimes opposing views. If you find yourself involved in a heated debate, take some time away, grab a coke or do something else for awhile until you feel you have fixed both points of the debate in your mind, and then come back. You'll find, in most cases, that your thought process has sorted the dispute and perhaps even given you an avenue for consensus to present. Just try to work towards that end. I welcome you again and wish you happy editing.--«JavierMC»|Talk 03:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]