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 15:22, 19 July 2010 (→Editing). 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]

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]

Thank you for your kind words but I have to disagree with you on that first comment. No one was trying even in the slightest to be friendly. Most of their posts are right here to prove it. Maybe they were trying to "prod [me] toward the "talk page" but no one had the decency to tell me what the heck a talk page was much less how to access one until one of the posters FINALLY got around to it. But of course that poster didn't bother to do that until after he had locked me out of the page, blocked me and after I filed a report about them. I'm sorry but I can't by any stretch of the imagination define that type of abusive, rude, inconsiderate and condescending words and attitudes as friendly. But thanks for trying to make excuses for them anyway. Have fun with them. They're all yours. Watch your back. I doubt that I'll be back. They've all proven that they have no interest in hearing anything other than what they've already forced into being regardless of it's error.

Fresh Start

Hi. I'm an administrator here on the English Wikipedia.

I realize this place can seem very harsh and confusing at first. That was my first experience too. However, once you understand our policies, I think you'll find this place a lot more friendly and hopefully you'll find it in your heart to assume good faith in those that you've already interacted with.

You seem like a highly knowledgeable architect and interior designer, a relatively uncommon combination and I'm sure you'd be a huge asset to the project if we can get you over this initial hurdle. Please consider making the effort. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture could be a great fit for your skills.

Please feel free to drop a note on my talk page or shoot me an email if I can be of assistance. Best regards, Toddst1 (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your considerate note. I appreciate it quite a bit. Did you unblock me? After all of the garbage I've endured today I'm not sure I'll know how to react to an act of grace. Thank you. Hell - even if you didn't, thank you anyway.

I would like to take you up on your offer because I frankly do not understand at all what has transpired here today and why so many people found it necessary to be so abusive and rude. However, I made the mistake of trying to leave a message on dougwellers talk page and accidentally left it 3 times. How I did that I do not know, but it caused me to get a "new one" ripped by an observer that wasn't even related to the issue. You all have a lot of unnecessary attack dogs in your organization. I don't take abuse very well at all. I don't think that I should have to endure it coming from anyone much less posters that I don't even know on an internet site. What I really don't understand is why none of them were blocked for their abusive behavior. In fact I find that lack of justice to be completely appalling. There's probably nothing you can do about that, but maybe you can shed some light on it. - User: Architecture and Interior Design —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.62.176 (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also really want to help you. I've never edited that article and don't know the editors, I was simply responding to the report you made. I've never been rude to you (in my opinion) and I think that you've misunderstood some posts that really were trying to help (although I can see at least one poster getting exasperated). What doesn't help is suggesting people need a psychiatrist, talking about 'attack dogs', etc. I don't mind at all your repetitive message on my talk page. No one else has done anything that warranted a block although I understand that you feel they did. If you really want to complain about that I can tell you how, but seriously, the best thing to do is to put it behind you and start fresh now. Wikipedia works by consensus, and this means people have to get on with each other to make it work.
Talk pages are discussed here WP:TALKPAGE and here Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with Other Editors/Communicating with Your Fellow Editors among other places. You might want to read the tutorial link at the top of this page. I'm very happy to help answer any questions you might have, etc., just post to my talk page to ask. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer another question, yes, it was the Administrator who blocked you who unblocked you. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No one else has done anything that warranted a block" LIKE HELL THEY HAVEN'T! So here we are with more accusations and bull. Do you people ever stop? I thought this garbage was over. It's such a bid deal that I told someone they needed to complain to their psychiatrist and called some of you "attack dogs" which you are. I've endured insult after insult after insult from you people but none of you care about that. NOTHING in this world is worth THIS ABUSE! Go find someone else to villainize. I've had enough of this.

ANY OTHER MESSAGES CONTAINING ACCUSATIONS, ABUSIVE HATE OR DEROGATORY COMMENTS OF ANY KIND WILL BE REPORTED AS VANDALISM AND REMOVED FROM THIS PAGE. IF ANY OF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS THEN GO AHEAD AND BLOCK ME. BLOCK ME PERMANENTLY! BLOCK ME FOR LIFE! I DON'T CARE ANYMORE! - comments by Architecture and Interior Design

For your sake, I'll play along with your accusations. OK, let's say we have been abusive. Why are you continuing to post on your talk page if you're not going to edit? Noone here knows who you are, and if you're not going to edit, what purpose would "defending" yourself serve? You're welcome to leave at any time, just as you're welcome to actually look at what people have tried to do for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test message

This is a test message —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.62.176 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Architecture_and_Interior_Design&oldid=374317295"