User talk:Jimbon132
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Jimbon132, 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:
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Be cautious
[edit]Comments like "You have a lot to learn about debate before you can become a useful contributor (in general)" are in violation of Wikipedia's civility guidelines. It doesn't look like there is any consensus for your idea that Australia is an island, not a continent. At Wikipedia, sometimes, we all have to accept that consensus doesn't agree with our preferred edits. Although that can be upsetting and frustrating, personal attacks like that one are rarely helpful, and the best thing to do is to move on. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it was not civil but that is a fair way of treating people who do not treat you with civility. Secondly, if it were consensus that the mainland of Australia is not an island someone would be able to show why my reputable sources are wrong, yet nobody who has made an argument against this with reputable sources. I give a reply to someone's argument and they dont agree that their argument is wrong and they dont respond. That is a sign of bad faith, a sign that they are not concerned with the truth of the matter which is the biggest danger to Wikipedia. Silence is not consensus. How can you have an intelligent debate if no editor is willing to concede they are wrong or provide an argument why they are right.--Jimbon132 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The other user was treating you pretty civilly. He is right that so far, your contributions have been unhelpful, and he is right that, while everyone understands that new users need time to learn how Wikipedia works, people who present the appearance that they either aren't able to understand the rules or aren't likely to follow them do eventually get blocked from editing. Right now, you are presenting that appearance. For example, you don't seem to understand how to use a reliable source. You keep saying that you have proved your point with sources, and you are so far from having done so that I don't think you understand what is meant by verification. You don't need to find definitions, and use them to support an argument - Wikipedia is not a debating society, and an encyclopedia article is not a persuasive article. All you need to do is look at the best, most reliable sources for geographical information that are available, and check - when they discuss Australia, do they use the word 'island' or 'continent?' This is easy to do, and what seems like a lack of debate to you comes from the fact that there doesn't appear to be anything to argue about. They say 'continent.' All of them. If your goal is to help Wikipedia create a reliable encyclopedia, this is the point where you say, 'Oh. Good. Well, that's easy, then.' And that is what everyone but you is doing. If your goal is to have an 'intelligent debate,' that can be fun, but it isn't what Wikipedia is doing, so no one is going to understand why you keep arguing after the sources have been checked. Right now, everyone is being very polite and friendly to you, because you are a new user, and still learning the rules. But don't misunderstand - what you are doing, by ignoring the sources to argue for your own idea, is not okay, and it isn't going to lead to your having a long, useful time at Wikipedia. That's why my title for this section was 'be cautious.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you really believe it is polite, civil and respectful to tell me what I should say?:
- The other user was treating you pretty civilly. He is right that so far, your contributions have been unhelpful, and he is right that, while everyone understands that new users need time to learn how Wikipedia works, people who present the appearance that they either aren't able to understand the rules or aren't likely to follow them do eventually get blocked from editing. Right now, you are presenting that appearance. For example, you don't seem to understand how to use a reliable source. You keep saying that you have proved your point with sources, and you are so far from having done so that I don't think you understand what is meant by verification. You don't need to find definitions, and use them to support an argument - Wikipedia is not a debating society, and an encyclopedia article is not a persuasive article. All you need to do is look at the best, most reliable sources for geographical information that are available, and check - when they discuss Australia, do they use the word 'island' or 'continent?' This is easy to do, and what seems like a lack of debate to you comes from the fact that there doesn't appear to be anything to argue about. They say 'continent.' All of them. If your goal is to help Wikipedia create a reliable encyclopedia, this is the point where you say, 'Oh. Good. Well, that's easy, then.' And that is what everyone but you is doing. If your goal is to have an 'intelligent debate,' that can be fun, but it isn't what Wikipedia is doing, so no one is going to understand why you keep arguing after the sources have been checked. Right now, everyone is being very polite and friendly to you, because you are a new user, and still learning the rules. But don't misunderstand - what you are doing, by ignoring the sources to argue for your own idea, is not okay, and it isn't going to lead to your having a long, useful time at Wikipedia. That's why my title for this section was 'be cautious.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it was not civil but that is a fair way of treating people who do not treat you with civility. Secondly, if it were consensus that the mainland of Australia is not an island someone would be able to show why my reputable sources are wrong, yet nobody who has made an argument against this with reputable sources. I give a reply to someone's argument and they dont agree that their argument is wrong and they dont respond. That is a sign of bad faith, a sign that they are not concerned with the truth of the matter which is the biggest danger to Wikipedia. Silence is not consensus. How can you have an intelligent debate if no editor is willing to concede they are wrong or provide an argument why they are right.--Jimbon132 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- "this is the point where you say, 'Oh. Good. Well, that's easy, then.'" - talk
- Do you really believe it is polite, civil and respectful to tell me:
- "You have a lot to learn before you can become a useful...."
- That is rude, uncivilised and disrespectful. Certainly not polite and friendly as you claim. So please do not lecture me.
- You are lecturing me about sources and verification yet you can provide no sources which justify your extreme opinion that all sources say that Australia is a continent which is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. The problem is, what your saying is besides the point. Your not addresing my argument. Australia the continent is different from Australia the mainland and no sources say that this is a continent. I have tried to explain this to you several times, but you continue with this misconception without addressing the issue, which is not working towards concensus and is not helpful. How can Wikipedia talk pages not be a forum for debate? How can you put forward an opposing point of view without debate, discussion, argument etc?
- You have said things on the Continent talk page which you cannot back up as is evident by the fact that you did not reply to my challenge to you on that page. You also never admitted your comments were wrong when it is hardly debatable, especially on point 2. This suggests your not here on good faith and you are certainly not interested in working towards consensus.--Jimbon132 (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
--Jimbon132 (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that you don't understand my warnings to you. I felt it was important to try. I did my best to express my warning clearly, but I won't engage in arguing with you, since that is pointless- I hope you find one of Wikipedia's guidelines that phrases it in a way that is more clear, because I would hate to see you having a negative experience at Wikipedia, or failing to be as useful as you could be, and I would be sorry to see you blocked, as so many people have been in similar situations. I have removed the comment you signed with my name from this talk page; I know better than to engage in that kind of discussion on your talk page, and I'd prefer it didn't look as though I had. In the future, if you want to reference a conversation elsewhere on Wikipedia, it's customary to use a link or a diff. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thankyou for bringing your argument back to a respectful tone. I agree that some of my actions have not been in line with Wikipedia and I blame most of that on my ignorance at being a new member. I have certainly learnt much by making these mistakes. I have removed the entire passage on this page taken from the Continent talk page as it is out of context now that you have removed your quote. I understand Wikipedia's guidelines and I do not believe my current argument on the Continent talk page violates any of Wikipedias policies or guidelines. I am not concerned I will be blocked or have a negative experience. I am going to continue to do what I believe to be right and how anyone else responds to that is their concern.--Jimbon132 (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Jimbon132, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Jimbon132! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |