User talk:Saintstephen000

Anti-vandalism patrolling

I saw the AN/I section and was happy to see the resolution at Talk:International House of New York, where you had taken another look at the edits you reverted and admitted you had probably been carried away while patrolling for vandalism. It's big of you to admit that; thank you. However, while recentism is a valid concern, the concern for balance that you expressed at AN/I isn't. Although this policy section focuses on fringe positions in science and history, its underlying point is that Wikipedia presents what reliable sources state; we don't beat the bushes for a contrary opinion just to be fair. We are not subject to any "fairness doctrine", and neutrality means factually summarizing the available sources, not presenting all points of view with equal weight.

Also, while I'm happy to see you using edit summaries while reverting at that article, "no" is not much better than the default supplied by the software, "Reverted edit 12345 by User:XXXX". And your subsequent revert edit summary "these good faith edits require source" was just strange: the paragraph was cited to 2 good sources, as the other editor said, and what you actually did in that edit and others was remove the section heading?? Please give an edit summary that justifies/explains what you did in your edit.

Your reverts of 2603:7000:2101:AA00:F856:8AC1:7D50:8371, on the other hand, didn't have any edit summaries so far as I can see. After seeing the section above concerning these, "Your reverts", I had a look and I have undone your revert at Khakassian State University. The IP provided a clear edit summary justifying their edit, which removed some uncited material and two wikilinks on a country no one needs to look up, Russia. Both of these were well within the range of acceptable actions. Although editors vary—some do wikilink all countries, although it's recommended not to, and some would have either cut all the unreferenced material, or looked for a few sources instead of cutting—that was by no means a vandal edit or a test edit, which is what leaving the automatically generated edit summary means. Based on that random sample, you had no valid reason to revert and should consider reverting yourself in the other edits in that sequence. And not justifying your reverts with edit summaries and telling the IP above I've read over the edits, and find them without merit, without explanation, were both rude. Is it possible you don't feel the same need to respect unregistered editors as registered editors? If so, please be aware that you're mistaken; the civility rule applies to IP editors, too. And sometimes the unregistered editor is a newbie putting their toe in the water here for the first time; don't WP:BITE them, you were new once, too. Sometimes, on the other hand, they're a long-term editor; we have IP editors who've been helping the project for years, as well as registered editors who sometimes edit logged-out for whatever reason. Both are perfectly legal so long as they don't double-vote in a discussion.

Anyway, thank you for patrolling, but please could I ask you to be more careful in doing so? Don't revert just because you yourself wouldn't have made that edit, only if it's actively damaging, always explain why in an edit summary, and consider instead reverting only partially, or making a fix (for example to broken formatting) or a different change (such as rephrasing the new addition if you don't like the wording). That way, you and the other editor assist each other in improving the article, or at least the other editor understands what they did wrong and can avoid the same mistake next time. And take your time to make sure the problem is really a problem; for example that you didn't miss the addition of sources. It's better to get it right than to get carried away with being fast.

Thank you again for helping to protect and improve Wikipedia :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

that was absolutely the nicest correction possible, thank you for taking the time to instruct me on these matters.

it's factual that at times i edit quickly when the new additions page is busy, and reading over the errors i can see where this could cause mistakes and misunderstanding.

without responding point by point in this forum, be assured I'm spending my editing today reading over your guide and incorporating it into my flurrying.

have a nice day,

Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Why dude

You reverted one of my correct changes to an inccorection. Do people not fact check shit anymore and just blindly assume? Learn to know when people die, we use past tense in those cases, not present because a dead person can't be alive, therefore it should be WAS and >not< is.

I hope you understand your blunder and don't do it again in the future. 2A02:A442:5277:1:BCD8:6391:6A6C:7D2B (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

it might have been a death announcement without source.

sometimes, editors use wiki for pranks. i was aware in real time of the passing of an important person, and was just trying to keep real.

thanks for the conversation about something with which i also care,

Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)