User talk:Permaculturedesigner

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Permaculturedesigner, 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:

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! --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Psychology of torture, Artificial scarcity and Malignant narcissism . Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very good at wiki programming. I am not even sure how to respond via this forum... but what I DO see is that truncating articles to nothing is vandalism, not the other way around. --(unsigned)

Hi, thanks for answering! Well, perhaps I'll start with a belated welcome (added further up). Please make yourself familiar with some of the concepts of this project to built an encyclopedia.

When you edit pages, please provide an edit summary so other people know what you did and why you did it. On talk pages, please "sign" your edits by ending them with four tildes (~) in a row. The software will replace this by your name and a timestamp automatically.

Regarding vandalism, adding content, which does not belong into Wikipedia can be seen as vandalism in the same way as removing information which does belong here or altering information to be incorrect.

From your answer above I can see that you were acting in good faith, so while these edits were still unconstructive, they were no vandalism in its original meaning, unless you continue to act this way.

Unfortunately, your edits where unconstructive because they destroyed years of work of other editors on these articles and added contents to the encyclopedia which has been deleted years ago for not meeting our quality standards on neutral point of view, reliable sources, original research, and encyclopedic writing style. In fact it more read like an essay or a speech ("We", "let's", ...). This is why the corresponding sections were removed long ago (see the old edit summaries). It is unfortunate, that this also removed some possibly useful information, but that's how it is. Adding this stuff into WP in the first place was not a good idea, that's why it had to be removed again.

If you are interested in these subjects, please consider expanding the corresponding sections (based on the current articles, not the old ones!) in encyclopedic style in a neutral way and based on reliable sources without adding original research. You can use the articles' talk pages to discuss matters with other editors, and your sandbox as a scratchpad for experiments. Whenever you edit the live articles, please take care that the contribution meets our quality standards because otherwise it will have to be removed again.

Thanks and welcome again! --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three pages I watch. The reason is because they are useful material to me, I have verified their sources (the original article authors work, not mine), the only thing I have done is to revert to the longer articles, which are far more informative because of greater content. These particular articles are concerned with my work, and help me to explain these concepts when needed. Permaculturedesigner (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not object to standardization of style. What I object to is the content being skeletonized. Permaculturedesigner (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve the articles, but please make sure that your additions are no original research, and that they are backed up by reliable sources and presented from a neutral point of view and in encyclopedic language. You are free to lift sections of the old article and re-incorporate them into the correct articles for as long as these criteria are met. When merging contents of the old article into the current ones, please make sure that you preserve the edits that have been done by other editors. Ideally, do it on a section-by-section basis and with proper edit summaries for each of your edits so that it is easy for other editors to evaluate your edits. If you have any questions, please discuss on the corresponding article talk pages first. No NOT blindly revert to the old version of the article you prefer as you would thereby reinvoke old versions of the article, which clearly did not met the criteria mentioned above and also because this would invalidate many hundreds of valuable contributions by other editors. Thanks for your cooperation. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand you might question more those taking wholesale whacks at what is carefully developed work (again not mine)... But I have a lot of work to do and this isn't it. So if you want to go section by section to verify edits, that's great. This experience leads me to question the utility and availability of wikipedia in a big way. Permaculturedesigner (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody wants to delete useful information, however, when we want to make this resource as reliable as possible and useful to the widest possible audience, we do have to maintain certain quality standards in order not to lose our reputation.

It's a pity that you cannot devote some time and energy to improve the articles as Wikipedia was built by volunteers who all contributed their knowledge and spare time.

Nevertheless, I have opened discussions on the article's discussion pages. Feel free to join and contribute there.

Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]