User talk:Nickengler

Woodcutter

Edit in question

I would like you to reconsider your rollbacks on the additions I attempted to make to the "Woodworking" page. I have reviewed the rules (twice) and can see no violation. I refer to the entries I attempted to make for Nick Engler (author/craftsman), The Workship Companion (web site), and Woodworking Wisdom (reference book). It's hard to make my case without what will sound like self-agrandizement, so please forgive me for an absurd and tiring amount of boasting. I (aka Nick Engler) have authored 53 books on woodworking, as well as hundreds of magazine articles, project plans, and videos. I have taught at the University of Cincinnati and have given seminars accross the US, so I am reasonably adept and well-known as a craftsman. All of my books with a single exception ("Country Furniture") are out of print (a circumstance that is in no small way due to the Internet). This bothers me because, like many repeat-offender authors, my need to communicate outweighs most other things in my life. The book that I attempted to list, "Woodworking Wisdom," is out-of-print and I get absolutely no financial compensation from whatever interest a listing in Wikipedia might stir up. It is simply a fine and useful reference book that contains the core knowledge needed to be a compentent wodworker as well as many, many resources for where to find more information. You will find several books reviews (written by other accomplished woodworkers) on the 'net that say just that. The web site that I tried to list, www.workshopcompanion.com, is a compilation of the 21-volume woodworking encyclopedia I wrote. Like "Woodworking Wisdom," it is intended to be a reference where you can find core (read: "indispensible") knowledge concerning the woodworking craft. If you check out the site, you'll see that I am selling nothing; there are not even any advertisements. It fits squarely within the Wikipedia rules on what sites should be included, quote: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." In fact, the two sites that are listed on the "Woodworking" page are neither encyclopedic or neutral. They are online catalogues of woodworking tools. The woodworking information on those sites, while generally of a high calibur, is there to create an interest in buying tools, not just to educate the craftsman.

I cannot help but think that the speed with which you rejected my additions and sent a canned response to justify your actions indicates that you spent zero time investigating "Nick Engler," "Woodworking Wisdom," and "www.workshopcompanion.com." It was a kneejerk reaction on your part and an unwarranted assumption concerning my motives. Given your mission, that was irresponsible.

With all good wishes, Nick Engler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickengler (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Engler - Im sorry it took me quite a few minutes to respond - i had to to go trough my edits to find the edit in question, so i could evaluate the problem, and afterwards i had to formulate a proper response.

I have actually spend some time on this issue before deciding to undo you edit, and i see now that i made a mistake in this proses. To be more precise: I have been monitoring your edits since 22:18 as part of my regular vandalism patrol. Initially nothing was wrong with these edits - I even had a quick glance at the site to see if it was a sales or similar site and i found nothing wrong with it - actually, it deemed it quite informative.

Additional edits weren't an issue as well. The book added contained the same link as well, but this was not out of the ordinary. However, a subsequent edit added a particular name with an HTML comment which AGAIN contained the website, with the name itself being a redlink (Meaning that there is no page detailing the individual). However, another link would have meant that the link was present on the article three times. Cross-referencing the name with the name mentioned on the website showed it was the same person, which set of the "Promotional" alarm for me - especially since the HTML link comment link wasn't merely copied from another notable woodworker.

However, having judged the previous edits as just fine, i decided i would just revert the last edit and leave a (canned, indeed) response on your talk page to relay that the link was becoming rather prevalent in the article, and that adding HTML link comments should not be done. In this step, i made the error: Being a rollbacker i have the ability to easily undo multiple revisions made by the same user, instead of just undoing 1 edit at a time trough the regular interface. Being busy in an anti-vandalism program at that time (Huggle), i figured i had to undo the edit, and subsequently forgot that it is set to use rollback on default, causing me to undo ALL your edits instead of just one.

You have my sincere apologies for this error - i reinstated the article as intended (Without the HTML comment of course).In retrospect i also appologizze for the canned response as it seems it didn't relay the message i inteded to (Lazy me for not just typing a response instead). If i can be of any further assistance, please ask, though it may take some time before i respond due to the local time being past midnight already. Finally, might i also be so bold to point you to [Wikibooks], One of Wikipedia's sister sites? Seeing your statement regarding your books i presume you might be interested in this site as well. With kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for exceptionally quick and considerate response. In this day and age, those two qualities stands you head and shoulders among many, many others. I thank you too for pointing out that I should consider Wikibooks. I will do that; I'm embarrased to say that as much as I have used Wikipedia, I wasn't even aware of Wikibooks.

Since one good turn deserves another, let me make this offer: Considering how many people on this planet are engaged in working wood, your page on "Woodworking" is woefuly short and incomplete. As a teacher, I find that it does not give nearly enough guidance for the novices who must visit it in droves, looking for ideas and suggestions. I apologize for yet another boast, but as an experienced woodworking "generalist" and writer, I could help with that. Furthermore, because I understand more than most the egos of authors, I could write something that includes what is already there so your original author will not feel slighted or discarded. Would this be something that would help with Wiki's mission?

One last request: If you investigated my background, you are aware that my other recognized field of expertise is pioneer aviation. I have another web site -- www.wright-brothers.org -- that falls within your guidelines as neutral and encyclopedic. ("Neutral" is something of a relative term in this field. If you are from Brazil and believe that the sun rose and set in Santos Dumont and that the Wright brothers were nothing but usurpers, then I am the anti-Christ. However, I think my bio of Santos Dumont would be considered neutral for the rest of the globe.) If you check it out, you'll see that it is very similar to my woodworking site -- lots of info, no advertising, a great place for kids doing History Day projects. It is, in fact, endorsed by several watchdog groups as an appropriate site for young people, unless you're a young Brazilian person. Anyway, may I list it in your external links for "Wright Brothers" without setting off the vandalism alarms?

With all good wishes,

Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickengler (talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Mr. Engler,

I am not surprised at all that you never heard of Wikibooks; Wikipedia is maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has, not counting wikipedia, as many as 12 sister projects. However, Wikipedia is a site that is very well known among the mainstream public, while the sister projects never got as much attention from the press. In part they are actually supplemental to Wikipedia though. Wikispecies, Wikibooks and Wikitionary all contain valuable information, yet it wouldn't be fitting to place the same information in an encyclopedia.

Regarding the Woodworking article: If you feel you can improve it, please do so! Except for the people maintaining the servers and workers of the Wikimedia Foundation, everyone else is working here on unpaid voluntary basis. This includes but is not limiting to the article writers, the administrators and the article maintenance people. Therefor article's are completely dependent on volunteers to be written, improved and maintained. If you wish to help, i would point you to a few pages that may be helpful - Don't worry, it is not necessarily to read and memorize all of them. Most times the "This page in a nutshell" section on top of a page offers is more then enough to understand the spirit of the rule. The pages that i think are worth scanning are The no original research guidelines, the neutral point of view guidelines and the reliable sources guideline. Again, the "Nutshell" section should provide enough information unless you wish to know every aspect and detail, which is not required most of the time. As for editing, the Cheatsheet might prove usefull. There are many more policies and guidelines, but the most important rule is to remember to assume good faith in other editors, and to be bold! when editing. Nothing is ever permanently lost or damaged, so no need to worry about "Doing it wrong".

Regarding the www.wright-brothers.org website: it is actually already added to the Wright Brothers page under the external link section - subsection Biographical (3th link). In fact, the link was added almost 4! years ago in this edit, and has been present in the article ever since; I would therefor conclude that it is quite a valid link. Actually, there is another reason to be rather proud of this. On February 17, 2007 the article was marked as a Good article, a special category that signifies some of the best article's Wikipedia has to offer. Before being awarded such a title the article is first reviewed for quality, and undesirable contents are removed or altered. As the link was present during this examination and kept, i would say this also implies something about the quality of the website.

Now, before concluding this rather long reply, i think i should add two things that might interest you. First, you might like to know that the Woodworking article is consistently viewed around 7.500 times a month on average. As a side-note for this i should add that this amount is likely influenced by the rather low amount of content in the current article. For comparison the Lumberjack article - which i think is quite a related subject - is viewed 15.000 times a month on average. Last, i should add that i am always available if you have questions or need help. Writing article's is not my main activity, but i should be able to help with most questions on that topic - or at the very least i could forward you to someone else if i would be unable to answer. Since i am just one person i am prone to downtime or inactivity though. If this seems to be the case, or if a question is urgent i would advice to use the help desk. All questions can be asked there, and more people work there then just me, which increases response time.

With kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: If you post a comment, you should add four tildes (~~~~) after the comment. This will sign the comment with your username and the date/time of posting - The result will be similar to the purple and orange signature you see after my comments