User talk:DPardoeWilson

Some superficially minor changes have been made to several articles.

Sometimes I just change a few words in an article. The results are often surprising -- people have remarkable commitments to previous wordings.

January 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you....Modernist (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your name using Four tildes like this: (~~~~), thank you...Modernist (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the lack of courtesy.

I have to pay attention to this.

I never make anything but good-faith edits.

Please provide explanations for any rollbacks you make. My failure to summarize changes or sign my name is bad, I admit, but does not justify an automatic rollback.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Modernist (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely unfair to say that my edits appear to constitute vandalism. Did you actually read them? Please explain why you disagree with them. dpw (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained - you were asked to leave a summary and sign your edits. Your last edit at Modernism included an edit summary and your last edit here was signed by you. Enough said, good luck in your future editing...Modernist (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

You have been asked repeatedly to sign your comments and leave a summary. Clearly you are provoking an edit war, currently you have at least 4 reverts...Modernist (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's five by the way...Modernist (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I may have lost count or lost track of the time. I'll admit to making five changes, but thought I had only done three within the last 24 hours.

I have absolutely no intention of provoking an edit war. If anyone had bothered to explain their rollback this never would have happened. My own failure to provide summaries, for which I apologize, doesn't seem to justify retaliation in kind. dpw (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am dropping the issue, live and let live...Modernist (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the Wikipedia, I can see how well it works, and perhaps now see why, but ...

Please do not think of this a criticism of anyone -- it is criticism of the software! I am not happy with the differing uses of the software here. If forgetting a summary is truly the reason for an automatic rollback, then the software should not accept a change without one. I would be much happier to have a machine tell me that my edit is unacceptable because it lacks a summary and signature than to have another user automatically rollback the edit. Similarly I would be much happier to have the software warn me of too many changes and eventually cut me out than to have a big warning about edit-warring inserted on my talk page. And, by the way, I have had to sit and type in essentially the same comment several times because someone edited the page since I began to do so. I wish the software would warn the commentators that a user is responding to comments made on his or her own talk page! Again, please note that this is not a criticism of any person, just a comment on the software. dpw (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not completely sure what consitutes a minor edit, hope I am doing it right

I added a very brief edit to Postmodernism -- summarized and signed, this time, sorry for previous lapses -- I think it a minor edit. I hope I am right about that. If you disagree, well, I do not want to provoke an edit war and will let a rollback stand for now, but may want to make the same change again, let's say tomorrow. I think it a reasonable, and, yes, minor one. If you disagree, say so here I'll unclick the minor-edit box when I do. dpw (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, seeing the summary helps, do your work here as best as you can keeping in mind the vast ocean of IP vandalism that most of us here encounter; most of which have no edit summaries or explanation. Your well meant IP edits were treated harshly primarily because of that simple ambiguity. :)...Modernist (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion without explanation, just ″previous better″

One of my edits was recently reverted with no explanation other than ″previous better″. That is not much more useful than leaving the edit summary line blank. If you change something back to a previous version, I would like some explanation, please. dpw (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please never say ″in it's broadest definition″

It is my sincere belief that these words must not be included in Wikipedia articles. ″A broad definition would be ...″ or some such wording would be better, since it is extremely difficult to produce a broad definition at all, let alone the broadest one.

I don't particularly support it, but it's better than your version that stated that Modernism is unequivically that. You appear to be arguing against your own edit, which, as I have already said, is also uncited. Paul B (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support it at all, preferring my own, but that is beside the point. The previous version, which you have reinstated, not only defines modernism, but claims that this is the broadest definition. I made no such claim. As I said above, something claiming only to be ′a′ broad definition would be better, if such is needed at all. Most Wikipedia articles just give a definition, without any claims about what a wonderful one it is. Making such a claim requires a citation. Merely providing a definition does not. If someone has a better definition, give it, or if anyone can cite one, do so, but to make claims about any particular definition is bad practice. Anyone who claims to have produced the broadest definition, is, IMHO, wrong. I made no such claim. Please comment as well on my objection to equating modernism, which, as you yourself said, is a movement, with modern culture, in which modern is an attribute. dpw (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A definition needs a citation as much as any other non-trivial assertion. The talk page already includes citations. Paul B (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

You are over the limit...Modernist (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next one gets you blocked...Modernist (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted the criticism and suggestion offered below about submitting an RFC. I should have done that before.

Modernism

So, that's it. You're right, everyone else is wrong, to hell with consensus-building? Is that how you edit? No, I am afraid, the onus is on you, the person who is making the request for change, to convince other editors. You don't just decide that "hey, I'm right, I can do whatever I want." freshacconci talktalk 22:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before making my last reversion I gave the following well thought out explanation:

As you will see from examination of the examples given in dictionaries which do give examples, one use of the term ″modernism″, usually lower-case, is to refer to some thought, thing or practice which is modern. A typical usage is to say that some word or object is ″a modernism″. That is clearly not what this article is about, nor is it even remotely a broad definition, certainly not the broadest. This article is not about some attribute, approximately a synonym for ′modern′, it is about the movement called Modernism. Approximately this definition occurs first in WordNet, which calls it a self-conscious break with previous genres, and with that of Professor Catherine of CUNY, who says ″Modernism is a cultural movement which rebelled against Victorian mores.″ That is too specific, WordNet is better. Both approximate the purposes of this article, which is about the movement, not the attribute. I used the term preference instead of rebellion or self-conscious break because it seemed broader. dpw (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Making Changes

Fine, that's your argument, but you do not get to unilaterally make that change if other editors disagree. That is edit warring and it can get you blocked. If you cannot convince the other editors you either drop it or you make a request for comment at WP:RFC from an uninvolved editor or administrator. You will find that if you can build consensus for your point-of-view, most editors respect that. But you, by yourself, do not get to make content changes if there is a disagreement. The onus, as I said, is on the editor seeking to make a change. freshacconci talktalk 22:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes. I will most certainly request comments from an uninvolved editor. dpw (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I clearly don't know how to do this, and got my RFC only in one category, perhaps not the best one, but perhaps it will do. I hope anyone who responds will examine the longer version of the summary in my RFC, to see my full argument for the better definition.

I hope I do not also have to request a comment on the use of ″the broadest definition″, for only one of at least two distinct and well-known definitions. Right or wrong about the better definition, I still say calling one the broadest is a mistake. If I do have to request a comment on this, I hope someone will help me get it into the right categories, please. dpw (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to edit your RfC to include an actual question for resolution (such as "Should the lead for this article state..."). I can get a sense of what the issue is but I had to dig through a lot of talk to get there, and other editors may not bother. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Social hardware for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Social hardware is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social hardware until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Yaron K. (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social Software concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social Software, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Social Software

Hello DPardoeWilson. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Social Software.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social Software}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]