Saffron1x
 | This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of DanHowitt (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |  |
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
- and you must always:
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Hu12 (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I see someone already warned you above, I will give more details of the problem. First, did you use a reliable source, no you did not. The Oregon Peak Adventures info is backed by, Oregon Peak Adventures! Try a third party media source, such as The Oregonian or maybe a climbing magazine. Using the Oregon Peak Adventures website comes across as promotion/SPAM and we do not allow it. Next, read WP:WTA, WP:AWW, and WP:NPOV for wording issues. Also, the name of the climber was bolded, I think I know why, you saw other items bolded so you thought you would too. Not how it works. See WP:MOS for when things are bolded (as well as rules for headers). Lastly, yes size was an issue. One sentence would have been enough coverage, and it could have gone into the existing climbing section (that's assuming you can provide a Wikipedia defined reliable source for the info). But in general, read everything linked in blue in my message and the above message so you can get a better idea of what is allowed and what will simply be removed. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm trying to include a climbing records section with references to news articles. It's an interesting part of the human history of Mt. Hood. Any advice on what would constitute an acceptable entry?--Saffron1x (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopediae edit
Saffron1x, perhaps you haven't quite grasped the concept of an encyclopedia. It has a particular style for writing, as well as topic scope. In our case, these are described in Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Wikipedia isn't written specifically for mountain climbers, but for laymen. Mount is spelled out because Mt. is ambiguous: Does Mt mean mountain, Montana, Maltese, metric ton, or the element Meitnerium? While the meaning is 50+% clear to those in the know(!), an encyclopedia is written for those who know nothing about a topic—some of whom might not understand English very well. That is why "writing shorter" isn't a major goal in an article, though brevity certainly is.
As for your request for discussion with Katr67: You're already submitted several unacceptable additions, which several of us patiently discussed with you. The addition you made after that pushed the boundaries of what we indicated was acceptable. Katr67 is a seasoned Wikipedia editor, and is also an accomplished professional copy editor, and trimmed the text to what the Wikipedia community agrees upon. Note that, though the discussion was by just a few editors—myself included—there are quite a few more editors following along. If they had anything to add—or disagreed with what we said—they would have already.
I recommend you read the Manual of Style so, if nothing else, you realize we aren't being arbitrary or unfair. If, after that, you still think the current phrasing of Mount Hood#Climbing climbing records is unacceptable, please suggest an alternative on the talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Saffron--I've also replied to your message on my talk page.Katr67 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)- Nevermind, I've moved my reply to Talk:Mount Hood#Climbing Records. Rather than post in two places, next time just drop a short note on someone's user talk page saying something like "I have a question for you about Mount Hood on the talk page." This helps keep the discussion from becoming fragmented. Katr67 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hu12 edit
Disagreeing with hu12 is one thing. Mounting a compaign is another. Currently you are making a fool of yourself. Your interventions will not affect the Don Howitt page contents, nor affect Hu12, who appears to me to be acting in good faith. You, on the other hand, seem to have dispensed altogether with the good faith concept. I suggest - as multiple other wikipedians have already suggested to you - that you read some of our policy pages before you make a bigger fool of yourself. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been surprised at the lack of professionalism here at wikipedia. The use of personally attacking and offensive language like "fool" "act like a fool" "bigger fool of yourself" and Hu12's allegations with a chat-site as his support (he cites the chat-site) of aliases, self-promotion, attacking other's reputations, etc. A very simple climbing record listing was added recently, with support from Hood River News article photocopies, and this causes pages of this strange and unprofessional discussion in the Talk page for Mount Hood?--71.193.192.251 (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked edit
-Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)