User talk:Elendaíl

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Hello, Elendaíl, 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:

Quick introduction to Wikipedia
How to write a great article
Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLOS Computational Biology
Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)
A few tricks to help you format references are at WP:MEDHOW

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, try Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then type {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to visit the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).

Again, welcome! Graham87 15:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proprioception

Hi Elen, thanks for your edit to Proprioception. I've kept all of your wording changes (with a couple of minor tweaks) but undid your formatting changes to that article, because (a) they don't work well with screen readers and (b) those sections are meant to be written as a paragraph, not a list. Graham87 15:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hey, I saw your new section at ANI and thought I'd give you some completely unasked-for advice. I'm sorry if it's unwanted as well, so take it or leave it!

I would suggest ignoring WP:THIRDPARTY. It's just an essay, not a policy or guideline. And not only is it just an essay, but it's an essay that isn't widely referenced in other discussions and was substantially written by a single editor almost seven years ago. Those are usually signs that an essay doesn't reflect the current consensus of the project as a whole.
I also wouldn't worry about making sure that Wikipedia terms of art are reflected in articles, because they usually won't and shouldn't. We have policies like WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY, for example, where "notable" and "verifiable" have very specific meanings that guide the way we edit. We'll use them in this way on our Talk pages, but we can still use their dictionary definitions in articles.

Again, take it or leave it. If you have any questions, just ask! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, Woodroar. When I wrote my proposal I found about half a dozen definitions of "third party" from different sources. I chose WP:THIRDPARTY because it's very comprehensive and also because I thought that the fact that it is taken directly from Wikipedia would prevent other editors from challenging it. Boy, was I wrong! Anyway, that's the less relevant part of the whole story, maybe it wasn't even a good idea to include it in the ANI. What matters about the ANI is the behaviour of these editors.

Elendaíl (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can read over everything and reply here this week. Sorry, I have to take care of some work that just came up. :( But I will absolutely give more advice based on my understanding of the situation. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, take your time. There's life outside the Wikipedia :D Thank you!

Elendaíl (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a "too little, too late" situation, but I've read through the Apollo Moon landings Talk page and the ANI discussion as well as the Teahouse discussion. And it's definitely a mess. I'll preface this by saying that I understand you're new. I'm sure you had no reason to suspect a lot of the things I'm going to mention here. Some editors learn the easy way (welcome messages on their Talk pages, friends/relatives/teachers/students who edit Wikipedia, or media written about Wikipedia) and some learn the hard way (getting blocked or discussed at ANI or other noticeboards), but either way, experienced editors usually cut new editors some slack. And by and large, most editors have been pretty forgiving thus far. Another thing to understand about Wikipedia is that we're all volunteers. Nobody has to do anything, and that includes educating you on policies vs. guidelines vs. essays, or responding to your questions. That being said, this is how I see this, in retrospect:

I think you got off on the wrong foot by arguing based on WP:THIRDPARTY, which, as I mentioned early, is just an essay and basically carries zero weight in a discussion. And yes, you had no reason to know this. I wish that other editors had been more clear in explaining this, but perhaps they didn't know that you didn't know. (Most editors don't research another editor's history before responding them, so it's entirely possible that they didn't know you were new.) Later, you got off on the wrong foot even more after an editor suggested you initiate a formal move request and you didn't. And then there was some discussion about "independent" vs. "third party" where everyone was talking past each other. I hope you can see that that, from the point of view of the other editors, it appeared that you were attempting to push through a name change outside of the formal process, against consensus, based on an essay, and ignoring what they were saying. That's not entirely what happened, but I feel that's how other editors interpreted your actions. And I'm sure this is where the troll accusation came from.

As it stands right now, I'll be frank and suggest that you drop it. You can file a formal move request, but I honestly don't think you'll get much traction. Pushing for sanctions against another editor is also likely going to result in sanctions against yourself, because, though you're new, the slack that everyone has been giving you is only so long. I understand that this probably isn't the interpretation that you want to hear, but it's an uninvolved and neutral interpretation, if that means anything. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at the Teahouse

I collapsed the rest of the discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions as it might be a little intimidating for new users to run into that. But if there's still something you're worried about I'm happy to help you here. Your last comment was Unfortunately, my last and most important question hasn't been answered yet. Can I ask what question hasn't been answered? You asked who called you a vandal, to which we said no one. You asked if someone could have deleted their edit, and were told that was technically impossible. I'm just trying to make sure you have received answers to all your questions, so if there's something I've missed please let me know. Bradv 01:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: in regard to the "vandalism" thing, Elendaíl is likely referring to this. That was a spurious warning by an account that has since been permanently blocked for that exact thing. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winterystepe posted unwarranted warning messages on a lot of user talk pages and has since been blocked. They were definitely not an experienced editor giving you a hard time, they were a troll. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That happened quite a bit later. Here is where he first asked the question at WP:THQ, over 2 hours before that notice was posted on his talk page. Bradv 01:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. VQuakr (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elendaíl: I specifically invited you to discuss this here so we could keep the Teahouse free for new editors. This is getting quite disruptive. Bradv 01:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm finished. Now that I know how deep the rabbit hole goes (kudos to VQuakr and DES for that), there's no need to discuss this any further. Thank you. It's been exciting.

Elendaíl (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another way to do it

Hi! I came across the rather confusing discussion at Talk:Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings#Proposal to rename the article. It might be a better idea to make a formal move request per WP:RM. That way you also may get input from other, univolved editors. Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse!

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

from: Erick Shepherd

April 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Euryalus (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, for the issues raised in the current ANI thread, and this amendment of another person's comment for the purpose of misleading others. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Test