Welcome!

Hello, Dcs002, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Tea with toast (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your mediation cabal case listing. After looking at the article, the edit history and the contribution history of User:Parserpractice I fairly quickly came to the conclusion that the article is seriously deficient in terms of WP:NPOV and violates WP:SYN, WP:NOR, WP:BLP as well as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It also appears that the editor in question is not amenable to discussion. I seriously doubt that mediation is appropriate in this case, the editor in question appears to see wikipedia as a platform to right great wrongs and in my experience such editors are single-minded and mission-orientated. I would suggest you raise this at WP:AN/I. Regards, Justin talk 11:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Justin. I'm still kinda new as a WP editor, and I didn't know I could check on my own page for messages. And I don't know if this is the right way to respond to you either. But thanks.

Mediation Cabal member The Wordsmith took on our case with a couple postings and suggestions we both could live with, but none of the tricky stuff was addressed, just some citation problems. But the last time we heard from The Wordsmith was 12:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC). Our mediation page (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-13/U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks) has simply become an extension of the discussion page for that article -- highly verbose and seriously messy, though less verbally abusive.

I've thought this was a bigger mess than we should present to the Mediation Cabal, but I wanted to follow procedures. If I file something on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, may I quote what you've said to me?

Thanks for looking into this, and for your suggestions. Dcs002 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I did quote you as I filled out the Admin noticeboard page. Dcs002 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all and I've added a comment to AN/I. You might like to move this to your talk page, sorry but I messed up putting this on your user page. Regards, Justin talk 08:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also in this ArbCom case, sanctions were enacted, which give admins additional powers to deal with disruption. If you want to request enforcement of sanctions, you should post on the WP:AE noticeboard. Otherwise, there is the request for comment on user conduct process, which could be of some use. PhilKnight (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This mediation is being closed, and many major changes are now being made to the article (mostly by the mediator). Thanks to those who commented or helped this process along! Jeez it's been a frustrating process, but it's yielded good results for the article. Opinions, personal conclusions, and accusations don't belong in any article, and they're finally being removed without reverts.

I have no ill will toward the other party. I sincerely hope she/he has saved all that work and can publish it elsewhere. Who knows, some of those points might be worth a closer look from a historical perspective. They just weren't encyclopedic, and when presented as fact (as opposed to hypothesis), they placed blame on individuals who I believe acted heroically under insane circumstances.

Personal lessons learned: Mediation is a process not to be entered into lightly, especially if the other party is strongly opinionated. It can take a long time and a lot of energy relative to everything else in real life. The cause, IMO, needs to be worth the effort. But if a dispute needs resolution, that's what has to happen. If this actually had to proceed up to the next level of dispute resolution, I'm not sure it would have been worth that much of my time & energy. But it was a good cause. 9/11 is so emotionally charged, and it's so important to report the events as they happened, leaving the fringe theories out of it, though being respectful to their adherents. So many people were so badly scarred for life on that day. That's who we need to respect with rock solid neutrality and the strictest adherence to all policies. Dcs002 (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're trying to do some good for the 9/11 attacks page. Been there, tried that. The pathetic little paragraph on the page as a kiss-off to conspiracy investigators is only there because I insisted on *something* being there, after my revised suggestion for a sub-article for the page was rejected. And by the way, Tarage is full of it. I've had lots of experience in dealing with him. No amount of evidence or mainstream sources will deter him from whatever his political agenda is (it certainly involves ignoring the truth of 9/11.)

Peace. Neurolanis (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Unfortunately I don't know which 9/11 page you're referring to, or who Tarage is. I've looked in on a few of them and left comments here & there, but this name doesn't ring a bell. If I did something good, then you're welcome! Dcs002 (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive19#Bog turtle. Very good point about needing a taxonomy section. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you made a request at WP:FEED a long time ago, but have continued to be active on Wikipedia and made good edits to the encyclopedia. Since you have posted on WP:FEED in the past, I would like to suggest that if you want please try and help out at the page, as we have a massive backlog. It'd be really great if you provided some advice to other, new users on their articles.

To do this, you'll just need to take a look at their article, which they'll post the link to, and maybe see what perhaps can be improved, like adding sections, references or links, much like you would do with any other article, except you are giving feedback rather than making actual edits. After getting some idea of what needs to be improved, you just need to tell them briefly underneath. It's really simple but incredibly useful to new users and their articles, and helps to overall increase the quality of these new articles.

I hope you will at least consider. Please send me a message if you have any further questions, or if you would like further information. Thanks a lot! Chevymontecarlo 13:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while, but in the time after I requested help I did visit the page semi-regularly and offer comments when I thought it would be helpful. (See above on this page for a grateful response to my feedback on one article.) I'll try to get back there more regularly to help with the backlog. During those months Wikipedia consumed an inordinate amount of my time, mostly with the mediation cabal case, but I kinda burned out. I'll try harder. Dcs002 (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you weigh in on this discussion regarding a viewpoint by a critic/newspaper and how it's included in an article? Dan56 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]