User talk:CrunchyCookie

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I just wanted to give you some helpful advice, or maybe just a reminder about a feature in Wikipedia known as an edit summary. The edit summary is filled out using the 200 word text field located right below the editing text box. It is strongly recommended that one get in the habit of filling out edit summaries for each edit, giving a general summary of why particular changes were made, as well as a very terse summary of what those changes were. Edit summaries are a way to defend your edits, especially if you're an anonymous user. Ambiguous edits made by anonymous users may often be mistaken for vandalism. Filling out the edit summary also gives the users who monitor those pages on watch lists or recent changes, an idea of what kind of activity has taken place. If these changes do not strongly affect the content of the article, mark the This is a minor edit check box below the edit summary field. For further help on using edit summaries, consult this guide. Thank you. — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 06:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality in all articles

Thank you for your contributions. Please refrain of inserting any point of view as you did in Kung Fu Heroes and the The Magic of Scheherazade. Thank you for your understanding. Farine May 22, 2007(UTC)

October 2007

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to I Don't Want to Wait. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Alexbrewer 03:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Geo/Chevrolet Prizm has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Leonard^(Bloom) 22:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Game discography, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. STATic message me! 14:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CrunchyCookie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, CrunchyCookie. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Muse discography, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ss112 18:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typing in an edit summary where you got it from does not suffice. The reference needs to actually be on the page. Besides, most editors are going to disagree with you if you try to say the Alternative Songs chart is more notable than the overall Hot 100, regardless of how many entries the band have on the former. Nobody said Billboard is not a reliable source; it's the fact that you didn't provide a reference on the actual article, only if editors click on the history can they read it. Also, if it took you half an hour to read a straight-forward page with all chart entries listed down it and add one simple column to a discography, I'm sorry, but that's very slow and your own fault. Nobody else's. Ss112 18:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the conversation to one talk page. If somebody writes on your talk page, respond there. Don't go to theirs. A few things:

Nationality and age are irrelevant when it comes to understanding things. Don't bring up people's personal attributes, because this can be seen as an ad hominem personal attack and it's irrelevant concerning what content belongs on an online encyclopedia. You're speaking as if I can't handle a conversation or that I don't know what I'm talking about. I think I know what I'm talking about far more than you think I do.
I'm not a bloody "moderator". I think the term you're looking for, the term we use on Wikipedia, is "admin". You must be a newbie if you're going to run around here and assume people are "moderators" just because they revert you.
If you think the chart should be included in place of the Hot 100, great. Take it to the article talk page and get consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. Debating with me isn't going to achieve anything. Ss112 18:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "reply on your own talk page" and "I'm not an admin" don't you get? Also, "I only know you clearly don't understand it" and "I think it speaks volumes about your motives, and how much you actually care about the quality of information on Wikipedia." Hahahaha. Whatever you say, buddy. Ss112 19:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never needed to get permission to edit a page before -- and shouldn't need it. My duty, as it is for any editor on Wikipedia, is to make edits that I think will improve the information on display to the world -- and my choice to replace Muse's Hot 100 entries with their Alternative Rock entries met that criteria. Yet you chose to trash my work anyway.

As I mentioned, my raising your Australian origins was a guess on why you don't understand my reasoning, which, to repeat it endlessly, is this: Muse is considered an ALTERNATIVE ROCK band here in America. Generally speaking, only alternative rock stations play their music (pop stations rarely do), which is why their entries on THAT chart are very important, while their presence on the Hot 100 are a minor footnote. I've mentioned this argument twice now, and you have yet to give a good rationaliztion for discarding my work.

You clearly didn't read any of what I said or linked to; probably barely skimmed it. The difference here is that WP:CONSENSUS says if you are reverted (which you were in this case), propose your changes on the talk page and get consensus to make them. You need to convince other editors that the Hot 100 is more important than a component alternative chart. Debating with me is not going to get you anywhere. Also, I "trashed your work"? Oh please. Your edits aren't sacred; nobody's are. Besides, you stated it took you 30 minutes to look at a page and add a column to an article, which is very basic stuff—clearly you work very slowly. It appears you've been editing since 2005 and you still don't fully understand a lot of basics of editing here. You don't get what I've tried to tell you (and you don't understand what an admin is and how I'm not one), and I have better things to do than trying to get through to newbies or those that act like them, so I won't be replying anymore. Later. Ss112 19:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Moderator", "admin", whatever -- the point is that you have the power to reverse people's edits. As such, you also have a responsibility to try to do it right -- something that, going by this conversation, it seem you have far less interest in than going on a power trip.

Again, this shouldn't have to reach the debate/discussion stage because there shouldn't even be a debate -- YOU are the problem here, and with every non-response you give, I'm more convinced it's because you just don't understand things (or won't admit your mistake). If you'd left my changes intact, I'll bet the vast majority of admins who live in America, and understand American song charts (and Muse's relationship to them), would have let my edits stand, just like the other 99% of the edits I've made over the years. This is the first time in 13+ years I've ever felt the need to dispute a change on Wikipedia, because it's my first time encountering an editor this thoughtless.

For the fourth time, I present my underlying rationale for my edit: Muse is considered an ALTERNATIVE ROCK band here in America. Generally speaking, only alternative rock stations play their music (pop stations rarely do), which is why their entries on THAT chart are very important, while their presence on the Hot 100 are a minor footnote.

So for the fourth time, do have any response of substance on why you think this reasoning was so wrong as to throw my contributions away? Or are you just going to dodge the issue forever?

(talk page stalker) Just a friendly fyi. Content disputes should ideally be discussed on the talk page of the article. This allows other interested editors an opportunity to join the conversation. Ss112 is not an admin, but he is a highly experienced editor. That doesn't mean he is always right but it does mean he has a lot of experience in this subject area (modern music) and has been editing in the subject for years. If he is citing policy and or guidelines chances are he knows what he is talking about. Anyone can revert edits, but we are encouraged to use discretion. See WP:BRD. In closing, I would like to welcome you to the project and thank you for your contributions. It can take a little time to get used to how everything works here. Hang in there... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem: if anyone can revert edits, can anyone also revert a revert? If so, how can I do this? If he's not an admin, then there's no reason he should have the final say in this matter, especially since he isn't even willing to discuss the ideas behind either of our actions, which I have invited him to do, several times now.

Anyone who 1. dosen't seem to have enough experience/judgment/intelligence to make quality edits, and then 2. refuses to engage in discussion when his faulty reasoning is called out, shouldn't have the power to mess with someone else's contributions. Anyone who's intimiately familiar with the band Muse, and with American music, would know my edits were made in good faith, were the correct call, and should stand. I shouldn't have to go through the trouble of making them all over again.

I should probably just open up a dispute with Wikipedia adminisrators about this.

You can revert edits by clicking on the page history in the link at the top of the page. Then click on the diff of the edit you want to revert. It will give you options. Be very careful with reverting edits. Read WP:3RR first. Edit warring is considered disruptive. In general once an edit is challenged it should be sorted out on the article talk page. The only exceptions are cases of naked vandalism, copyright violations and serious WP:BLP violations. You may also read WP:DR for other tips on how to handle a content dispute. And for the record I am an admin though I am choosing to remain uninvolved in this issue. Which is to say that other than to offer some general advice I am not going to take sides here. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers, Ad Orientem. I went ahead and reverted his revert, because not only do I firmly believe my edits should stand (and it takes quite a bit of time to meticulously replace one chart with another, square by square), but all evidence points to this guy just not understanding the nuances of the American music market (he's an Australian), and thus making changes that are outside his league of knowledge. If this were a case of a clueless foreigner making a mistake and then owning up to it, that would be one thing. But after I pointed out the error in his reasoning and challenged him to explain himself, he mostly just dodged the issues, then went silent, instead of engaging in any discussion. That alone makes him an irresponsible editor.

If he undoes them again and this escalates into a dispute, I hope I can count on you to back me up. I've explained my rationale on why Muse's Alternative Rock chart entries are more important than their Hot 100 chart entries -- a point I think is so obvious, it frankly feels silly that this became a debate at all. FYI, I saw explicit requests on the Muse Talk page for someone to add their Alt Rock chart entries. I agreed it was a glaring omission -- that information is standard on the Wikipedia page of every band of this type -- so I went and provided exactly that!

My edits improved the page. It really comes down to that.

Update: he did re-reverse them, so now we have a dispute. Will you help moderate, or do I have to fill out a form?

First off you ignored most of what I wrote above. When edits are challenged the issue needs to be resolved on a talk page, preferably the article talk page so other editors who have an interest can see the discussion and join. Your assertions appear to be based on your own personal knowledge which is covered by WP:OR. This is a content dispute. It is not unusual and does require admin intervention. You need to follow the steps I have outlined. Open a discussion on the article talk page if one doen't already exist. I suggest you copy and paste this conversation to that discussion for background and wait to see what others think. We rely on WP:CONSENSUS for resolving disputes here. I strongly advise against any more reverting as that is likely to lead to accusations of Edit Warring, which is a no no around here. Also please don't post any more on Ss112's talk page. It's starting to annoy him and as already noted, repeatedly, this needs to be sorted out on the article talk page. Thank you for your cooperation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, which method would you recommend as the best initial step for filing a conduct dispute (aka grievance)? At this point, it's more that than a content dispute, and arbitration is apparently too high-level.

(talk page stalker) You have been given the steps above several times. Take it to the talk page per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. This needs to be discussed on the article talk page and then acted on as per the consensus formed. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 10:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beginner's guide to dispute resolution

Hi CrunchyCookie. I used to run an Wikipedia "adoption" course for new users. While I don't have time to do so any more, all my lessons are still available. The one on dispute resolution might be helpful for you! Worm^TT(talk) 10:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but which one is the best starting point for a conduct dispute? The sub-page on mediation says it's not for that purpose (only content disputes), and arbitration is too high-level. I'm looking for an official ruling leading to a decision, not just "suggestions on how to resolve the situation", etc. CrunchyCookie (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty much won't get anywhere until you at least try to resolve the situation. The other editor doesn't seem to have done anything worthy of arbitration or even warning. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 11:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my course, it goes through in order on what you could do, from talk page discussion (which I think is a good place to discuss things because other people weigh in), to third opinion to even starting a request for comment. All are much lower level techniques for resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The fact is, you're not the first person to have a disagreement on Wikipedia and the community is getting very good at working out how to handle them. Worm^TT(talk) 11:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to WTT: No other dispute resolution process (including the two you mentioned) can/should be initiated until the matter has been thoroughly discussed on the article's talkpage. CrunchyCookie has never posted on any article talkpage, and needs to be instructed to do that first. The reason they are in this situation is because they have never learned or been taught that that is what needs to happen. They need to get out of the litigious mindset and get into the civil articletalk discussion mindset. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement from me. It seems they only have the ability to read through the policies from bottom to top - trying the most drastic solution first. Discussion on the talk page is the next step. Noting that third opinion is designed to bring an additional voice to the talk page and RfC is designed to bring multiple voices to the talk page. It's all meant to happen at the talk page for the article. Worm^TT(talk) 12:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CrunchyCookie, please read and follow WP:BRD, which is exactly the situation you are in. You need to work out the situation by civil, good-faith discussion on the article's talkpage, before you even contemplate doing anything else. You made a Bold edit, it was Reverted, and now you need to Discuss it on the article's talkpage (instead of edit-warring) until some sort of WP:CONSENSUS is reached. Do not edit-war, and do not attempt to make your points via edit summaries or on usertalk pages. Stay off of usertalk pages and noticeboards. Simply put forth your arguments in a polite and civil way on the article's talkpage, and let others respond to you. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture, and operates by consensus. It does not operate by what you personally think is right or best. It's painful to have your work reverted, but when you make any changes to a Wikipedia article, they are likely to be modified or reverted. When that happens, the next step is to discuss collaboratively on the article's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that painful to have your work reverted. It's been done to my edits a few times, and even when I disagreed, never once felt the need to contest it, because all prior people gave a reason that seemed valid and well-meaning. That pattern died here.

To be sure, I did read your suggestion to use the Talk Page. It makes sense, and I'm not ignoring it. I just don't think a situation warrants being escalated to the next level until both parties have made an honest effort to resolve the issue at the current level (something Wikipedia's own pages recommend as a first step), and in this case, the other party has made none. To review: Ss112 made a revert on an ill-informed whim, then when I challenged his reasoning and explained my own, he responded with nothing beyond "if you don't like it, go post it on the Talk Page" (which in this context roughly translates to "I don't care, now piss off"). Setting aside the merits of his revert (or lack thereof), the fact that he refused to discuss it or take it seriously, makes it an act of bad faith, all by itself. An act of bad faith should not be recognized as valid.

Given that you're an admin who represents this site, I'm now curious if you agree that giving an actual response would have been the decent and responsible thing to do, even if it's not mandated by Wikipedia protocol.

If the point I've been making more recently hasn't been clear, the original debate about the revert is of secondary importance at this point. I would still like that resolved, but done so via the most proper (and productive) method: by getting this bad faith revert explicitly cancelled. Even if I went the Talk Page route and got results, there'd still be the larger issue of an inconsiderate troll going around messing with people's perfectly fine edits, then walking away without a care because Wikipedia's system put the burden on the other party. He even admits on his talk page that masses of users "develop grudges" (a diplomatic description) against him -- no mystery there -- and write a pre-emptive statement defending his pattern of reverting edits. His actions should be corrected, or at least discouraged.

So I'll ask again: given that arbitration is too high level, is there an ideal method for raising a dispute about his conduct with an official authority? Or is there zero chance of it being taken seriously? CrunchyCookie (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CrunchyCookie, you're not getting it. You have not "made an honest effort to resolve the issue at the current level". To do that, you need to go to the article's talkpage and open a civil discussion. So far you've had at least 8 administrators and experienced editors tell you that, but you are not listening. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored the entire paragraph I just wrote explaining why I don't think it should come to that in the first place. The short version: a proper back-and-forth between the two parties should be exhausted, or at least tried, before taking it to the Talk Page stage. He should justify his action to me, not just make a revert and then walk off. CrunchyCookie (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is ignoring what you are saying. But you are saying why you don't think it should be this way - however that is the correct way to handle it in Wikipedia and the first step is going to the Talk page. If you continue to ignore it you are merely saying that you want everyone else to work as you want not as it is. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 08:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You haven't heard a thing that 8 administrators and other experienced editors have been repeatedly telling you. Stay off of usertalk pages. Always use the article's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"As you want" implies it's unreasonable of me to expect someone who's reverting my edits to engage in a discussion about it. You're essentially saying it's totally fine for anyone to revert someone else's work, without having any responsibility to even ATTEMPT to defend that stance when challenged. In other words, the requirements for demonstrating good faith are much looser on the part of the reverter. What a one-sided approach.

Again, if he'd made some effort to engage in conversation about the merits, I'd be more than happy to escalate things to the next level -- the Talk Page. But that engagement never happened. CrunchyCookie (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to engage in a discussion in the wrong place. Taking it to the talk page OF THE ARTICLE is the correct place. It is totally fine for anyone to revert someone else's work. The challenge to that when you believe they should not have done so happens on the article talk page. You have not done that. You have gone to their user talk page and you have called them names. But you haven't done the first thing everyone here has told you is the correct next step. Just because you would like the next step to be a different one does not make it so. There is an established process for making changes. You don't have to like it but to be taken seriously you do need to follow it. You keep stating that if everyone did things the way you want you would be happy. But that isn't how the process works. It's not about what you think should happen. Multiple people have explained that. Let me quote from one of the pages suggested to you "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." Eventually people will stop trying to help you. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 08:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is "totally fine for anyone to revert someone else's work" WITHOUT PROVIDING A REASON WHEN CHALLENGED (thereby demonstrating "good faith"), then again, that's incredibly one-sided.

On another note, it's a bit overwhelming to maintain four simultaneous conversations, so I'd prefer that Antiqueight and Softlavender disengage. Nothing personal, but I'd rather just hear from the admins, partly since they presumably speak for Wikipedia. CrunchyCookie (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to realise that the Talk page of an article is designed specifically for discussion of improvements to the article - it is meant to be the first step in the discussion phase, it allows any interested editors, especially the one who reverted you, to join in the discussion. What's more, it provides a history of the sorts of discussions that keep coming up, editors are able to see what has been decided in the past and why - and therefore base their discussion on that historical knowledge. By taking it to a personal talk page, that discussion history is lost. Worm^TT(talk) 08:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Butting in because I came across this at WP:RFAR) Just wanted to point out that the thought that admins presumably speak for Wikipedia is erroneous. Administrators have no power to rule over content. When it comes to content, they have no more authority than any other editor and using their tools in a content dispute can, and will, get them stripped of their administrator privileges. Blackmane (talk)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CrunchyCookie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CrunchyCookie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]