User talk:Ppizzo278
May 2019
Hello. Your recent edit to Adlai E. Stevenson High School (Livonia, Michigan) appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. German Wikipedia is not English Wikipedia. They are a completely separate organization and their notability rules are much looser. A reliable source for attendance is also required. Please follow WP:BRD. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Vandalism
John from Idegon No Wikipedia page is not grounds for removal of a list of notable alumni. She has been recognized by the school, covered in reliable sources, fits all criteria to be listed. I ask you to not vandalize this article further or I will be forced to contact an administrator on it.
Welcome!
Hello, Ppizzo278, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! John from Idegon (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
May 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Adlai E. Stevenson High School (Livonia, Michigan). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Misconceptions are not uncommon for new editors and you have several. See my reply to your message at my talk page and please WP:AGF. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Don't keep restoring this. There is no source confirming her attendance at this school, and the content of the linked Italian Wiki article does not appear to show that she passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Per WP:BRD please discuss this contested content on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Livonia, Michigan. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sources used must meet our standards for reliability. John from Idegon (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
|
Hello! Ppizzo278,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! John from Idegon (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
|
May 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Livonia, Michigan. People come to Wikipedia with all sorts of misconceptions. This isn't a place to report every known thing about the city. An encyclopedia is tertiary. That means we report on what others have written about in reliable secondary sources. Further, content is not decided by either verifiability or rules. Consensus decides content. There are several areas in which consensus exists to use a primary source (eg census data), but no such consensus exists for crime stats. You are on your final warning here. I'd strongly suggest you not replace this content in any form without a consensus formed on the article talk page first. See WP:BRD. Please don't think I'm somehow picking on you or singling you out somehow. Most Detroit area political geography articles are on my Watchlist due to a recent vandalism spree involving stupid content about lethal birds and lions (I'm not joking), so I see your changes. You're not my "enemy" and you shouldn't perceive me as yours. You're a newer editor who needs guidance like most do. Please WP:AGF and take my actions for what they are, which is quality control. That is done by your peers here. An editor who started out getting everything reverted just as you have about 16 months ago listened, asked questions and onboarded the input he was given. He was just last week elected by the community to be an administrator. In the same time span, several dozen other editors chose to cling to their misconceptions and they ended up either blocked or quitting in frustration. Wikipedia looks a lot like social media. It's not. It looks a lot like some blogs and fansites. It's not. It is an encyclopedia. Think about this: you can use the butt of a pistol to pound in a nail if you must, but that doesn't make a gun a hammer. I'll leave you some more info here to help you figure it out. Thanks. It's clear you are trying and want to contribute. I hope this and what follows helps. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 elcome to Wikipedia Ppizzo278, from WikiProject Editor Retention
| |||
| Thank you for registering! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles users have established and adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. REMEMBER - each policy and guideline page has a discussion you can join to ask questions, add input and contribute your voice towards any current policy or guideline change underway! Join the discussion by going to the talk page of the article. Please take a minute to view a number of quick start pages for an overview of how to work within these guidelines and more information to help you better understand the practices and procedures editors are using. These include: The Newcomers Manual and User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia.
Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance! Or, better yet, visit The Teahouse where veteran editors are waiting to assist you. | |||
| Policies, guidelines and peer assistance | Help and Tutorials | ||
|
The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project. |
|
Tutorial. Step-by-step guide on how to edit. |
|
Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines. |
|
How to start a page. If you want to create a new article |
|
Style Guide. The complete guide to how articles should look. |
|
Help. The complete help guide |
|
Copyright. Addressing copyright concerns. |
|
Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki. |
|
Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance |
|
Your user pages and your sandbox. Editing in your own "personal" space |
|
Adoption program. Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing. |
|
Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers. |
This is being posted on your talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking 
in the editing interface toolbox, located just above the editing window (when editing). You won't need to sign your contributions to articles themselves; you only need to when using talk pages. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance.
Again, welcome! John from Idegon (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ppizzo278. I was in the process of responding to you at User talk:John from Idegon, but will post it here instead since John has removed your post per WP:BLANKING. Whatever disagreement over article content you're having with John is going to be best sorted out on the relevant article's talk page per WP:DR. If you were WP:BOLD and added certain content to an article, but the content was subsequently removed by another editor, then follow WP:BRD and start a discussion about the matter on the article's talk page. The burden is upon you to establish a consensus in favor of making the changes you want to make by showing how they are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Posting on the article's talk page will make it much easier for others who might be watching the article or otherwise interested in the subject matter to participate in the discussion. Going back and forth with John here on his user talk page is not going to help resolve this dispute. John mentioned BRD and consensus in his above post user talk page, but perhaps you didn't read beyond the intial boilerplate template warning. Your latest post here on John's user talk page is not going to resolve the matter at all, but may actually be seen as an indication that you intend to edit war to try and force the contentious content into the article. Pursuing such a course of action will end badly for you no matter how right you think you are. My suggestion to you is to continue to discuss things on the article's talk page, but it will be consensus which will determine whether the content is added and how it should be added if it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I realize you got mixed signals from John from Idegon (offering you help above then him seemingly rescinding it on his user talk page), and I can appreciate that this may be upsetting, but telling them that you hope they "become a better person" is at best passive-aggressive and at worst a personal attack, so please don't do that again. And definitely do not edit war until the matter has been resolved on the article talk page. Thanks. El_C 01:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Marchjuly First of all, I would like to thank you greatly. Excuse my informal language, but the past two days have been Hell for me. I have begun a discussion on the page in question (Livonia, Michigan) and am already receiving great feedback. Although, John still asserts himself and declares that the information is useless. I will listen to you and avoid any argumentative confrontation, but I will just ask that you talk to John as you have with me. Thank you again. In all honesty it is very nice to hear feedback from somebody who is nice. No mal-intent was met when I was wishing him good luck. I was referring to the tagline post things on his page saying that he was doing taxes and was having health problems. However, this is again noted and I will not mention it again in the future. Ppizzo278 (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- EL C also posted above as well; so, some of the comments were his. Anyway, John is not asserting himself in the manner you seem to think he is and he's not really stating that such information is useless; he's merely pointing out that better sourcing is needed for such information to be considered for addition to the article to the article. You appear to be trying to use a primary source which can be trickly to do even for an experienced editor; this is because editors are not allowed to interpret sources in a particular way because doing so would be original research. What you need to find is a a reliable secondary source which strongly supports the content you want to add and interprets it the way you want to interpret it, and then discuss this with others on the article's talk page. Even then, WP:NOTEVERYTHING might still be applicable even if the content can be properly verified and the consensus might still turn out to be not to include it.FWIW, you were WP:BOLD and made a major change to an article; you were then reverted by another editor who left an edit summary explaining why. At that point, you should've started discussing things on the article's talk page because once content has been reverted (unless the reversion itself is clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy) it's going considered to be "contentious". New editors are usually not familiar with this process and often misinterpret Wikipedia being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" as meaning that anything goes. The reality is that lots of editors add content which ends up reverted by someone else for some policy or guideline reason, and the person doing the reverting is usually not doing so just to ruin someone's Wikipedia experience; they are doing so because they are WP:HERE. The more you edit the more likely you're going to be reverted (I've had over 7000 edits deleted or reverted). When it happens, slow down and try to figure out why either by directly asking the other person or looking for an edit summary. Part of the Wikipedia experience is figuring things out for yourself; so, when another editor like John adds a template to your user talk page containing lots of links to Wikipedia pages, they are basically saying "Please read these pages because they contain information you will likely find helpful". It's going to be assumed that you will take the time to look at these pages; so, others might be a little less responsive to you if it appears that you didn't bother to do so and simply come back to their user talk page demanding further explanation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- ^Everything that Marchjuly said is so very true. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is the best way (in my view) to move an article where it's gotta go. Keep in mind though, my total edit count is like, less than Marchjuly's exact amount of reverted edits. I'm just a newbie lol –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- EL C also posted above as well; so, some of the comments were his. Anyway, John is not asserting himself in the manner you seem to think he is and he's not really stating that such information is useless; he's merely pointing out that better sourcing is needed for such information to be considered for addition to the article to the article. You appear to be trying to use a primary source which can be trickly to do even for an experienced editor; this is because editors are not allowed to interpret sources in a particular way because doing so would be original research. What you need to find is a a reliable secondary source which strongly supports the content you want to add and interprets it the way you want to interpret it, and then discuss this with others on the article's talk page. Even then, WP:NOTEVERYTHING might still be applicable even if the content can be properly verified and the consensus might still turn out to be not to include it.FWIW, you were WP:BOLD and made a major change to an article; you were then reverted by another editor who left an edit summary explaining why. At that point, you should've started discussing things on the article's talk page because once content has been reverted (unless the reversion itself is clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy) it's going considered to be "contentious". New editors are usually not familiar with this process and often misinterpret Wikipedia being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" as meaning that anything goes. The reality is that lots of editors add content which ends up reverted by someone else for some policy or guideline reason, and the person doing the reverting is usually not doing so just to ruin someone's Wikipedia experience; they are doing so because they are WP:HERE. The more you edit the more likely you're going to be reverted (I've had over 7000 edits deleted or reverted). When it happens, slow down and try to figure out why either by directly asking the other person or looking for an edit summary. Part of the Wikipedia experience is figuring things out for yourself; so, when another editor like John adds a template to your user talk page containing lots of links to Wikipedia pages, they are basically saying "Please read these pages because they contain information you will likely find helpful". It's going to be assumed that you will take the time to look at these pages; so, others might be a little less responsive to you if it appears that you didn't bother to do so and simply come back to their user talk page demanding further explanation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
|
Motivational kitten |
Hey, I am sorry things on Wikipedia can be difficult sometimes, but it'll all work out.  –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
|