User talk:Spidaman23

Welcome!

Hello, Spidaman23, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started at Wikipedia:

It appears that you are interested in editing our road articles. If you are, then here is a list of pages that can help you get started:

Highways Project (worldwide)
U.S. Roads Project (U.S. only)
Canada Roads Project (Canada only)
U.S. state highway naming conventions
- Pipe trick (used with the link above)

Additional road article-related questions can be answered at the following links: United States, Canada, or other countries. You may also ask questions at my talk page.

Feel free to ask questions at #wikipedia-en-roads on IRC as well.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian and a roadfan! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Again, welcome! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions/Undoing (Re: "Ordinary People")[edit]

Hi, Spidaman23, and welcome. Of course, I'm assuming you're new and not just breaking in a new username. (I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a goodish few years, but have never cared to register, and so, since my IP address changes periodically, I get lots of "Hi, User:63.245.XXX.XXX, and welcome . . ." messages myself.)

Now, you may or may not have noticed, but the general consensus on Wikipedia is that it's considered polite to explain a reversion, or an edit that cuts a large chunk out of someone else's contribution. This can be done on their Talk page, but its best to do this on the article's talk page, where other Wikipedians can join in, because everyone's opinion matters equally. Your very-recent reversion of my addition to the Ordinary People article, without a word of explanation -- not even a few words in the "Edit Summary", which is where some explanation is required, is generally considered rude, because it can so easily be mistaken for vandalism, or a personal vendetta, or some other undesirable situation that could eventually result in some extreme action like page protection, the banning of a user, and so on and so forth. Of course, that's a long way off from what's happened here, but since you did an unexplained -- well, "hatchet job" -- and your User page indicates almost nothing, no history to look at and see that you're a well-trusted and appreciated contributor (as I certaintly hope you shall prove to be!) . . . Well, it gets people worried.

I'm generally not in favor of edit wars. I don't believe I've ever participated in one myself . . . I can only allow myself to care about Wikipedia too much, there's a very interesting real world out there, and if I don't keep learning things about it, I'll run out of things to contribute here. Having said that, I'm pretty confident in my addition, concerning the very, VERY recent reference to the 1980 Oscars for Best Director for Ordinary People, in Batman Confidential. That a morning-after water-cooler topic from 1980 is SO well remembered that it would turn up in a comic book dated this very month, February 2009 . . . The implications are staggering! If this month's reference, from one of the comic industry's most popular characters, isn't relevant to the Oscar controversy, then the Oscar controversy itself isn't relevant to the article, and the whole entry should be removed. Which is ridiculous. Furthermore, it still leaves a reference to the Ordinary People story, itself, in the Batman comic, so it'd wind up here anyway.

There are other issues . . . First of all, thanks to the comic book reference, people will be discovering the movie, and coming to its Wikipedia page, by the hundreds. What I reported will get reported by someone else, if not me, and I at least write in a style appropriate to Wikipedia. A dreadful lot of contributors to comic-book-related articles don't. (I hope your username indicates your interest in cleaning up the style of such articles!)

More importantly . . . Some consider it rude to do a reversion so shortly after the addition was made. Sometimes, if you wait a week or so (and, let's face it, what harm would be done if even false information remained for a week on an article about a 30-year-old movie?) you can do the reversion, and the original author won't even notice, much less come to your talk page and fuss at you. To revert within 24 hours as you did, AND not explain it . . . Yes, I'm afraid I, myself, consider that rude, Spidaman23.

I have undone your reversion, and will continue to do so, until a consensus is reached among enough known and trusted Wikipedians, on the article's Talk page, that I must slouch off and go sulk in the real world for a few days.

Okay. Hopefully I've said enough, and we can both get back to work contributing to other articles. If not, please make your comments on the Ordinary People Talk page. (My apologies for not peppering my comments with helpful links to Wikipedia policy pages and histories of the article, and all that, but I'm on a slow connection.) And once again, if it's appropriate, welcome to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.25.14.133 (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh. sorry about that -- I was pretty tired near the end, there. --63.25.253.126 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]