Jump to content

User talk:Architecture and Interior Design

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Architecture and Interior Design (talk | contribs) at 02:15, 19 July 2010 (→Don't name call). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Architecture and Interior Design, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! TMCk (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complementary color

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Complementary color, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Taroaldo (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Complementary color. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Taroaldo (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You need to look at the appearance of the article before and after you have edited it. You also need to provide reliable sources for information you add as much of it seems to be based on personal opinion. See for example WP:NOR and WP:V. If you have reliable sources, please cite them and please try to keep the article well-formatted as you edit (you have been removing references and diagrams).
As you seem to disagree with the information in the article, please discuss it with others on the article's talk page before making any further changes. Thank you. Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Complementary color, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. section blanking, repeated introduction of unsourced material and opinion, repeated removal of sourced material.... Taroaldo (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I would again request that you discuss your recent edits in the article's talk page. I have previously requested that you provide verifiable sources for the material you have added, however no sources have been provided. I also again request that you refrain from removing references, categories, or legitimate illustrations which are contained in the article. Thank you. Taroaldo (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you've made massive changes to this article, which has caused a bit of a revert-war. The edits you've made have removed pretty much all the text up to now and replaced it with your own, including removing of all the references. Before making such a substantive change to articles, it is normal procedure to discuss such changes on the article's discussion page.
I assure you, nobody is "bent on misleading the general public" as you stated. Rather, this article has existed since 2003 and has been grown incrementally since that time. One editor suddenly deleting 7 years of edits and replacing it with his own text (which is written more like an essay than an encyclopedia article) will result in those edits being reverted 100% of the time.
You need to discuss this on Talk:Complementary color and describe what you feel is wrong with the current revision, and why (including reliable sources to support your position. Once consensus has been reached on the page, the edits can go live. Continuing to replace the text with your own without discussion is likely to result in temporary suspension of your editing privileges, which nobody wants to see happen. Thanks! ArakunemTalk 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Architecture and Interior Design, you have a narrow and rather misinformed understanding of complementary color. You should do some more reading of the color science literature before trying to impose your viewpoint on Wikipedia. Cheers, –jacobolus (t) 21:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

The talk page is the page you reach by clicking the tab labelled "Discussion" on the top of your screen. See Wikipedia:Talk pages for more information on them. Bart133 t c @ 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice from someone who is not involved

I'm not an admin, just so you know.

Dougweller is a well established editor, not vandal. In the Complementary color article you continued to ignore the guidelines against original research, the policy demanding you cite sources, the standard editing procedure (you refuse to discuss your edits), the guideline demanding the assumption of good faith, and and this site's definition of vandalism. It reads: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia... Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." It is only the latter part that has kept you from being blocked as a vandal so far. However, considering you refuse to cite sources (something a teacher should know about), it is hard to assume good faith. I recommend that you back down until you learn how things work here. Wikipedia is a general reference source, not an academic reference source. We don't care if you're right, we wouldn't even care if you invented color. Wikipedia has guidelines here to keep this place from being taken over by frauds proclaiming themselves to be "experts" and discourage petty fighting over articles. Dougweller locked the article because you were engaging in petty fighting and refused to follow the guidelines meant to keep frauds away.

Wikipedia is not a battleground, running around accusing people of vandalism for not bowing down to the authority of their personal knowledge only makes one look like an asshole. If you want to get this done right, go to Talk:Complementary color, and discuss what changes you would like to see (and be nice, we have a rule called WP:CIVIL, and being uncivil can cause one to be blocked). Be sure to bring in sources to cite, we don't take personal knowledge or original research. If you want more help, go to User talk:Ian.thomson, and leave a note at the bottom of the page in a new section. Be sure to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Hall Monitor's and Bullies

"== A word of advice from someone who is not involved ==" You were the one that "locked/blocked" (whatever) the page. YOU ARE COMPLETELY INVOLVED.

"Wikipedia is not a battleground" THEN WHY DID YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES TURN IT INTO ONE?

"running around accusing people of vandalism for not bowing down to the authority of their personal knowledge" WHICH IS EXACTLY what Taroaldo WAS DOING TO ME, but you little hall monitor's don't give a damn about that. You apparently protect your own. Did you call him on it and reprimand him like you keep doing me?

"and be nice" - WHEN WAS I NOT NICE? It was your little group of friends that kept deleting my corrections and blocked me. I didn't do that to you. Only after you all proved that you were such jerks did I report you to anyone.

If being uncivil as you have stated can get one banned then why is this "Taroaldo" still on here? As you can see I've finally found this stupid page you all were fussing about and Taroaldo's comments to me on hare are OUTRAGEOUSLY rude.

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" SO YOU HAVE JUST DEFINED ALL OF YOUR ACTIONS AS VANDALISM. Why are you still allowed on here?

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." AND NOW YOU HAVE DEFINED THAT MY ACTIONS WERE NOT VANDALISM - thank you for that.

Uh, no, it was Dougweller that locked the article (click here for proof). I'm Ian.thomson, and as you can see from the article's history, I've never editted the article Complimentary color. Also, read my signature, that's more evidence that I am not Dougweller. You're way off in your accusations. You are the one treating this like a battle, you are the one getting upset, you are the one SCREAMING (typing in all caps is screaming on the internet). Quit being paranoid, quit throwing your temper tantrum, I'm trying to help you, dammit. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DISCLAIMER: IF YOU ARE OFFENDED SIMPLY BECAUSE I USED ALL CAPS IN ORDER TO DISTINGUISH MY TEXT FROM QUOTED TEXT THEN THAT IS AN ISSUE YOU'LL HAVE TO TAKE UP WITH YOUR PSYCHIATRIST. WORDS ON A PAGE CANNOT YELL AT YOU UNLESS YOU'RE HEARING VOICES.

YOU ABUSIVE PEOPLE COULD ALSO CHOOSE TO NOT READ MY PAGE.

There's this thing called etiquette, and it does exist here. Removing the comments of others is like interrupting them. Typing in all caps on the internet is the social equivilant of screaming in a conversation. Also, you're welcome to not edit Wikipedia. Quit your temper tantrum, people are trying to help you. Think about your behavior, would it be appropriate in a school? No, it wouldn't. It is quite unbecoming of a teacher, and raises questions about your intentions here. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS SOCIAL ETIQUETTE THAT EXISTED LONG BEFORE WIKIPEDIA BUT NONE OF YOU SEEM TO CARE ABOUT THAT SO WHY SHOULD ANYONE GIVE A RIP ABOUT YOUR LITTLE SUB-CULTURE. First of all I'm not having a "temper tantrum." I'm simply defending myself against you website piranhas. But if I was throwing a temper tantrum why is it that I must stop but you get to keep throwing yours? QUITE ALOT OF DOUBLE STANDARD HERE!!

(And that's not yelling - It's typing will all caps for emphasis - just like in a English lit class)

Actually, as an English major, I can tell you that turning in a paper with all caps for emphasis would get points taken off. You keep accusing others of being in the wrong, but you cannot point out what people have done. You have been provided with the guidelines this site operates under, but you refused to work with them. You refuse to acknowledge any possibility that you are in the wrong here. I'm trying to help, but you keep spitting in my face. Ian.thomson (talk)

Here's a little "Wikipedia Culture - Etiquette" For you. How to avoid being a "biter" Newcomers' ears can be particularly sensitive.

Newcomers' ideas of how things should be handled within Wikipedia will largely be out of context. It's a jungle out there and it may take some time before a newcomer becomes accustomed to how things work here. Keeping that in mind may help you avoid becoming a "biter." To avoid being accused of biting, try to: 

  1. Avoid intensifiers in commentary (e.g., exclamation points and words like terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, good, etc.).
  2. Moderate your approach and wording.
  3. Always explain reverts in the edit summary, and use plain English rather than cryptic abbreviations.
  4. Avoid sarcasm in edit summaries and on talk pages, especially when reverting.
  5. Strive to respond in a measured manner.
  6. Wait and postpone editing as soon as you feel that you're upset.
  7. Be gracious.
  8. Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus.
  9. Take responsibility for resolving conflicts.
 10. Reciprocate where necessary.
 11. Listen actively.
 12. Avoid Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand.
 13. Avoid using blocks as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you block them.

Standard welcome/warning messages are both cordial and correcting. Consider using these templates for welcoming, or the first two here for warning.

Strive to be a responsible Wikipedian. By fostering goodwill, you will neither provoke nor be provoked easily, and will allow new Wikipedians to devote their time and resources towards building a truly collaborative encyclopedia.

"Newcomers' ideas of how things should be handled within Wikipedia will largely be out of context." - This is clearly the case here, you don't know what is going on. Have you considered that? Can you point to any point where any editors have gone against any of the above 13 suggestions? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTELY 2. "Always explain reverts in the edit summary, - no one bothered to explain RR's and reverts to me 2a "and use plain English rather than cryptic abbreviations." EVERYONE of you repeatedly used your unknown "Wiki" talk words and once again never bothered to explain what it meant or anything else. 4. "Avoid sarcasm" - It's easier to state which of you haven't been sarcastic - none of you. 5. "Strive to respond in a measured manner" - OK well you've been somewhat good at that. But it doesn't help when you thread in sarcastic and rude accusations. 7. "Be gracious." - everyone of you failed at this one. 8. "be willing to reach a consensus." none of you have even tried this one. You all have to accuse and belittle me as you have repeatedly done - go back and review your comments. Including the one's that you've deleted. 9. "Take responsibility for resolving conflicts." NOT ONE of you has tried to resolve anything. It's all about accusing and getting the last word. 11. "Listen actively." If any of you had listened you have read the frustration and if you were trying to do #8 and 9 you would have said something to bring about peace instead of throwing fuel on the flames. 12 "Avoid Wikipedia jargon...do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand." As stated before... 13"Avoid using blocks as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you block them." No one tried to talk to me. Not in a way that I could understand. And the very first thing someone did was blocked me, but only after threatening to do so in a manner in which I couldn't respond.

Go down to the bottom of this talk page and take some notes from "jacobolus".

Don't name call

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Dougweller. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Arakunem. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I too am only trying to help you. I know Wikipedia is hard to get started on, with all the acronyms and shorthand ("talk page", etc). I don't consider your edits vandalism, and neither do any of the others involved here. Vandals would have been blocked long ago. Ian Thomson linked to a bunch of important policies in his paragraph above, which will give you details on how edits, especially controversial ones, get added to the articles. Please read over them, and we'll be more than happy to discuss your proposed changes to the article after that. ArakunemTalk 23:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHEN HAVE ANY OF YOU "ONLY TRIED TO HELP?" You people have done nothing but be rude and insulting (except for Doug Weller at one point). All of you have been out for blood from the very beginning. And then when you've backed a person into a corner to where the only thing that person can do is come out fighting you accuse them of doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE TO HIM/HER. So don't patronize me with your lies. If you don't like what I have to say get the hell of my "talk page." Isn't that cute? Even I am starting to use your cute little "private-club-aren't-you-important" lingo.

OK, you're showing that you don't honestly care to do any good here, you're showing that your temper tantrum matters more than actually helping the encyclopedia. Numberous editors have given you advice, but you still refuse to play by the rules here or even to look at them except to misinterpret them. You need to drop your petty grudge, or it is quite possible that an admin would extend your block and revoke your talk page privilages. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WELL WHEN ARE YOU AND YOUR LITTLE FRIENDS GOING TO STOP ATTACKING ME EVERYTIME I TURN AROUND? WHAT ABOUT YOUR TERRIBLE BEHAVIOR? IF MY PRIVILEDGES ARE REVOKED THEN YOURS SHOULD ALSO BE.

Point to some attacks. Really. Point to them, and I will apologize. Point to some terrible behavior, and I will report the user responsible. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really need to copy and paste this entire exchange both here and over on the report page that I don't even know how to get back to and on the "Complementary Colors" history page? There right here in front of your eyes. Can't you read them without my retyping all of that crap? Why don't you just leave me alone? Maybe you intended to help but it sure didn't come accross that way. It's too late now anyway? I'm not trying to edit anything. What do you think your helping with? Of course I would have appreciated someone's help, but no one actually gave any. And if you think continuing to argue these points is helping it isn't. I'm just really fed up with abusive jerks and liars and I'm not willing to let them get away with that crap anymore. And what is posted under "complementary colors" is completley incorrect. If Wikipedia has some policy that says that I can't stand up for myself against the jerks on here then to hell with Wikipedia. You can take and enjoy all of your ridiculous erronious information.

I want to see what you consider to be an attack. And if you're not going to edit anything, why are you bothering with your talk page? I've tried to let you know why your edits were reverted, what you could do to prevent that in the future, tried to warn you about behavior that could get you blocked, and have tried to explain why you were blocked. What else should I have done? And what about jacobolus? He basically did half the work for you, providing sources for the article's improvement. If you really believe an article has errors, point them out in the talk page when you're not blocked (it'll be over soon), instead of throwing the whole article out. This was pointed out to you before you were blocked. Wikipedia is a summery of sources, not a source in itself. Even if you are right about complementary colors, you need a source. You're welcome to not edit, though, and that includes this talk page. If you are so disatisfied, what purpose would staying here serve? What do you get out of it except attention? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS FROM IAN THOMSON - YOU ASKED: "And if you're not going to edit anything, why are you bothering with your talk page?" RUDE AND INFLAMATORY

"tried to warn you about behavior that could get you blocked" - RUDE AND INFLAMATORY WHY SHOULD ANYONE BE BLOCKED FOR TAKING UP FOR THEMSELVES AGAINST YOU PEOPLE.

"What else should I have done?" A WORD TO YOUR BUDDIES TO BACK THE HELL OFF!

"You're welcome to not edit, though, and that includes this talk page." RUDE AND INFLAMATORY - THIS TALK PAGE IS SUPPOSEDLY MY TALK PAGE AND I SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY WHATEVER WHENEVER REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I'M EDITING OR NOT. AND IF SOMEONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT THEN TOO DAMNED BAD.

"what purpose would staying here serve? What do you get out of it except attention? " THE SAME QUESTIONS COULD BE ASKED OF YOU.

"What do you get out of it except attention?" COMPLETELY RUDE AND INFLAMATORY.

NOTHING WAS POINTED OUT TO ME BEFORE I WAS BLOCKED. ONE PERSON KEPT THROWING UP COMMENTS THAT I HAD NO IDEA HOW TO ACCESS OR WHAT THEY MEANT OR HOW TO RESPOND TO THEM. BUT NO ONE ACTUALLY CONTACTED ME AND TOLD ME HOW TO DO ANYTHING OR WARNED ME ABOUT ANYTHING. So your statement is completely false.

COMMENTS FROM IAN THOMSON'S EARLIER POSTS "== Don't name call ==" That whole paragraph from you was unsolicited and condescending. Go back and read it.

":OK, you're showing that you don't honestly care to do any good here," - RUDE INFLAMATORY AND CONDESCENDING

"I don't consider your edits vandalism, and neither do any of the others involved here. Vandals would have been blocked long ago" - HONESTLY I DIDN'T SEE THIS COMMENT EARLIER. IT WOULD HAVE HELPED TO DIFUSE ALOT OF FRUSTRATIOIN BUT THE FACT IS THAT I HAD ALREADY BEEN BLOCKED FOR VANDALISM EVENTHOUGH I WAS NOT THE VANDAL - BUT NOW THAT I GO BACK AND LOOK THIS ONE WASN'T FROM YOU.

":OK, you're showing that you don't honestly care to do any good here" - RUDE INFLAMATORY AND CONDESCENDING.

"you're showing that your temper tantrum matters more than actually helping the encyclopedia" - EXTREMELY RUDE, DOWN RIGHT NASTY, CONDESCENDING AND INFLAMMATORY


Go back and reread jacobolus's comments. Take note of how he attempted to difuse all of the frustration and anxiety. Notice that eventhough he is correcting me he isn't accusing me, talking down or being condescending.

Here's an earlier one that I completely forgot about. This was back when I thought that you were dougweller. "Wikipedia is not a battleground, running around accusing people of vandalism for not bowing down to the authority of their personal knowledge only makes one look like an asshole" IF THAT ISN'T A COLD-BLOODED RUDE, CONDESCENDING ATTACK THEN ...WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT. THIS ONE WAS COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE AND UNCALLED FOR. "(and be nice, we have a rule called WP:CIVIL, and being uncivil can cause one to be blocked)" DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THIS CONDESCENDING STATEMENT ISN'T AN INFLAMMATORY ACCUSATION?

July 2010

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disruptive editing and general bad-faith. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

  • As Arakunem said above, nobody is trying to keep you from doing anything. It's hard to figure out what you're doing in the beginning - when I was first getting started I tried to do some really crazy things. Your edits to Complementary color weren't reverted so the evil crew of WikiBullies could keep the article how they wanted it. Instead, because, in trying to fix the article, you replaced it with your list of things wrong with it, other editors restored the article and tried to explain how to get it changed. If you can explain why you want those changes made, you can still get the article changed, even though you're blocked from editing right now. While you're blocked, you might want to read some of the pages people linked to above and learn how Wikipedia works, then in three hours you can go to Talk:Complementary color and explain your changes. Instead of calling others names and going on about a secret gang of bullies who want to mislead the public, you could actually get the article changed this way. Bart133 t c @ 23:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN BLOCKED IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES SHOULDN'T HAVE LAUNCHED A CAMPAIGN AGAINST SOMEONE WHO IS TRYING TO KEEP YOU FROM TAINTING THE EDUCATION OF NAIVE INDIVIDUALS.

The definition used to be correct. But no one went through cute little talk sessions to change it to the erroneous garbage that it is today, So why do "I" have to waste my time doing that now? That information is incorrect PLAIN AND SIMPLE and no discussion is necessary to see that reality.

We have rules here, we have pointed them out to you, you refused to follow them, you keep bucking them and calling the people that are trying to help you rude. If you were a student, you would have been sent to detention for your behavior, and then sent home for the day. You're bordering on being expelled. You did not cite sources for your edits, you refuse to cooperate with anyone, things that you have to know to graduate from college, which raises questions about your claims of being a teacher. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHEN HAVE YOU STOPPED BEING RUDE? WHY DO YOU KEEP CONTINUING THE HARASSMENT? I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYONE APOLOGIZE TO ME FOR THEIR CONTEMPTUOUS BEHAVIOR. YOU AREN'T ABOVE BLAME AS YOU KEEP IMPLYING. YOU ARE NOT INNOCENT IN ANY OF THIS.

Point to where I have actually been rude, and you aren't just reading my comments that way. I am trying to help. Please point to where I have done anything wrong in this. Consider this, if at least 7 editors, 3 of which were completely uninvolved in the article Complimentary colors are correcting you, maybe it's not them, it's you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. THEY ARE RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE.

Consider: None of us actually have to help you. Bart133 t c @ 00:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AND NONE OF YOU HAD TO BE JERKS EITHER, BUT YOU DID THAT ANYWAY.

Please do not bite the newcomers

All of you bullies who like to gang up on people seem to know all of this Wiki culture backward and forward. So why is that none of you seem to know "Do not bite the newcomers, and be aware that you may be dealing with someone who is new and confused, rather than a problem editor?"

HUH? I'm waiting. You all are real tough guys when you're hiding behind your computer aren't you? You certainly couldn't be construed as decent human beings - much more like a pack of rabid dogs.

NOW IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I'M SAYING, GET OFF MY "TALK PAGE" AND LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE! ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please do not bite the newcomers (AN YOU ALL HAVE DONE)

  • Understand that newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By empowering newcomers, we can improve the diversity of knowledge, perspectives, and ideals on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity as a resource and ultimately increasing its value. In fact, it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia (i.e., substantive edits); while insiders and administrators are responsible for a large bulk of total edits, these often involve tweaking, reverting, and rearranging content.[1]
  • Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value. A newcomer brings a wealth of ideas, creative energy, and experience from other areas that, current rules and standards aside, have the potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; perhaps what the newcomer is doing "wrong" may ultimately improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is trying to achieve before concluding that their efforts are substandard or that they are simply "wrong."
  • If a newcomer seems to have made a small mistake (e.g., forgetting to put book titles in italics), try to correct it yourself: do not slam the newcomer. Remember, this is a place where anyone may edit and therefore it is in every sense each person's responsibility to edit, rather than to criticize or supervise others. Do not use bad manners or swear at newcomers, or they may not want to contribute to this website again.

Do not bite the newcomers!

  • If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out things that they've done correctly or well.
  • Remember that newcomers are often unaware that edit histories are saved. When their edits are deleted, they may panic, start an edit war, or leave Wikipedia entirely, mistakenly assuming that hours of work have been irretrievably deleted. Please gently let newcomers know that their work is never lost and can always be retrieved from the history. Inform them that they are able to negotiate on talk pages and that if all else fails they can always revisit the article a few months later to negotiate with a new set of editors.
  • Newcomers may be hesitant to make changes, especially major ones, such as NPOV-ing and moving, due to fear of damaging Wikipedia (or of offending other Wikipedians and being flamed). Teach them to be bold.
  • While it is fine to point a new user who has made a mistake towards the relevant policy pages, it is both unreasonable and unfriendly to suggest that they stop taking part in votes, Articles for Deletion discussions, etc., until they "gain more experience." This both discourages new editors and deprives Wikipedia of much-needed insights.
  • When giving advice, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Any new domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized structures, which take time to learn (and which benefit from periodic re-examination and revision).
  • Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account.
  • Sometimes users forget to use four tildes after talk page posts. You can make the reminder process easier and less annoying by using the following two templates. In the meantime, you can use Unable to detect username to fix those anonymous comments.
  • Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!
  • Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity and to our project.
  • Remember that you too were once a newcomer. Treat others as you wish you had been treated (or perhaps were treated) when you first arrived.
  • Remember: "Don't bite, do what's right. Being a friend is all right."


Plenty of editors have tried to be nice to you, and tried to help you understand the policies of Wikipedia. There is a way things are done around here that's very simple to understand, however, you don't seem interested in trying to get along with others. If you'd like to edit the encyclopedia, please take the time to check out a couple of those links and understand why your contributions were correctly reverted. If you're not interested, good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMPLETE BS! NOT ONE OF YOU TRIED TO BE NICE OR TRIED TO HELP. EVERYONE OF YOU CAME OUT OF THE STALL HATEFUL AND ANGRY AND SLINGING INSULTS AND ACCUSATIONS.

We have pointed to the guidelines that needed to be followed to get your work into the article, we have pointed to what guidelines you were violating, we have explained these rules to you, but you ignore them. We have helped you, you refuse to help yourself. You need to calm down. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO I HAVEN'T. HOW CAN I IGNORE THOSE RULES WHEN I HAVEN'T CONTINUED TO ATTEMPT TO EDIT ANYTHING. NO ONE HAS HELPED ME EXCEPT DOUGWELLER. THE REST OF YOU HAVE BEEN COMPLETE RUDE JERKS! I DON'T NEED TO CALM DOWN. I APPARENTLY NEED TO KEEP DEFENDING MYSELF AGAINST YOU. WHY DON'T YOU JUST LEAVE ME ALONE AND GET OFF MY PAGE? YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT LONG AGO BUT YOUR AN INSTIGATOR. JUST LIKE I TOLD THE OTHER GUY. YOU ARE NOT INNOCENT IN ANY OF THIS. AND IF MY PRIVILEGES ARE TAKEN AWAY THEN SO SHOULD YOURS BE TAKEN.

Hi Architecture and Design, let's start over, shall we?

It looks like you've gotten off on the wrong foot with us here (that is, with the Wikipedia community).

Fortunately, as a group we don't hold any grudges, and would be glad to have you as a cooperative/productive editor.

You're absolutely right that the current complementary color article isn't as good as it could be: it needs to cite more sources, and it's far from precise or comprehensive. Unfortunately, you removed the entirety of the existing content without explanation, and your replacement text didn’t cite any sources, and was based on a narrow and frankly incorrect understanding of what a complementary color is, both from a human visual perception perspective, and from a paint mixture perspective. For better explanations, I suggest the following links: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Eventually, I'd like to improve Wikipedia's article. In particular, it should describe complementary colors as a psychological phenomenon (after images; additive mixtures as in a disk colorimeter) by reference to the opponent process, and should discuss complements as typically understood in various color systems. If you'd like to do the relevant research and work on that, we'd be glad to have you.

If you insist, however, on adding the information that you added to the complementary color article before, without any sources and without any discussion, you'll quickly find yourself unwelcome here. We work based on a system of consensus and compromise, and verifiable content citing reliable sources. If you want to work on Wikipedia, you have to work within those parameters. (For good reason!!).

If you have any questions about Wikipedia, complementary colors, or anything else, feel free to ask on my talk page.

Cheers, jacobolus (t) 00:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FINALLY - a decent human being. Thank you VERY MUCH jacobolus whoever you are. And thank you for your invitation but I will not be commenting or asking questions as I am 1) exhausted and 2) have been miserably disappointed by all of this. Good luck to you and thanks for your comments.
I think everyone else was also trying to be friendly, while trying to prod you toward the talk page (as opposed to repeated reverts). It's just easy for the whole thing to seem impersonal and confusing for new users, since all the protocol and features (talk pages, user pages, etc.) isn't always immediately obvious. Don't take your experience of the last day as typical of the Wikipedia experience (though there are a fair number of disputes for various reasons, as in any community full of people with strong opinions), and don't be too discouraged. Everyone here is (for the most part) pretty nice once a civil discussion gets started and everyone figures out what's going on. :-) Either way, have a nice day; maybe you'll be back once you've recharged a bit. –jacobolus (t) 01:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Architecture_and_Interior_Design&oldid=374235044"