User talk:Paxdora
Hi Paxdora, welcome to Wikipedia. The reason it was not obvious how to connect your signature on an article to your home page is that here at Wikipedia we don't sign articles. The reason for that is articles are considered common property. You may write something in an article, but if someone else knows something about the subject they will come and add to it. Or if they think what you have written is wrong they will correct it. If they think it is biased they will change to to the Neutral Point of View. The article then is no longer yours. The other thing to say here is that what we are doing here is writing an encyclopedia. We are not a debating society, or a space for propagating particular viewpoints.
Talking of which, the article you wrote at "Mad Crowd" Disease reads like a speech rather than an encyclopedia artice. A lot of what is written is opinion rather than fact. Many people would not agree with what is written there. That is why it is nominated for deletion. The very title and subject makes in non-neutral, so it seems likely that it will be deleted. If you wish to rescue it I suggest you write it in a more neutral and factual style.
I realise you feel strongly about the concepts of Paxdora, and want lots of people to know about them, but I suggest you start by adding articles about subjects you don't feel strongly about. That way you will get to learn more about the way we do things here. Then it will be easier to add things without breaking the Wikipedia principles.
You can find more information at Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and Wikipedia:Help. If you have questions please see Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me at my talk page. DJ Clayworth 16:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Also, when someone changes an article you have written, you should not just change it back. Go to the article's talk page and ask why it was changed. Alternatively write a message on the talk page of the user who changed it; they may reply on their talk page or on yours. DJ Clayworth 16:06, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Paxdora.
You have now several times re-created the article Mad Crowd Disease, even though it was delete. You will be aware that Wikipedia sometimes has to delete articles if they are not in accord with what Wikipedia is trying to achieve. In this case the article was deleted because 1) it did not accord with Wikipedia's Netural point of view 2) it was not on an encylopedic subject.
According to Wikipedia's procedures, once an article has been voted for deletion it should not be recreated. If you try to recreate it you are not following the rules the community has laid down, and the article will simply be deleted again. If you continue you can be blocked from editing.
Please do not go against the wishes of the community.
DJ Clayworth 18:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Paxdora, I understand the point you are trying to make. In my opinion, and lots of others, the piece you wrote was not a copyright violation. RickK made a mistake there. You should not have been accused of that.
Having said that, trying to get the article re-instated is not a good idea. You admitted yourself that the article was POV. Almost everyone else who voted thought so too. Even if you succeed in getting another vote, I'm certain it's going to be in favour of deletion. In the meantime you will have annoyed several people, made some admins do some extra work, not made any friends, and you still won't have your article.
What I would suggest is move on; write some more articles, ones where there is no suggestions of POV or copyright. You'll find we are a much friendlier bunch than your experience so far might suggest.
Good editing. DJ Clayworth 19:20, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for your acknowledgment of my point of view and agreeing that the article was not a copyright violation. I really don't care about the article staying on Wikipedia, because it was just an opinion piece, which I didn't know was unacceptable at the time I posted it. The point I'm trying to stress is that it is far too easy for individuals to force their bad calls without a proper review of the allegation for removal, and the charge of Copyright Violation is a serious allegation that should not be dismissed lightly. All I wanted was justice, whereby the reason used for removal was CORRECTED and the proper reason for removal could stand on record. It should be a matter of concern for the administrators when a member of their group behaves obstinately and refuses to back down about his erroneous allegations. But as you suggested, I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia because I am a much better editor than I am a writer, and Wikipedia is a "natural" for me. I'm sorry to say, however, that the actions of RickK and the inability of others to see the injustice of my situation has definitely left a sour taste in my mouth, and I am not one to let injustices go unnoticed. I like to see things done PROPERLY and not sloppily. Paxdora
- A careful reading does not back up your concern. RickK's allegation was opposed by many people. Several people commented on his talk page. However please also remember that none of us are necessarily experts here - the nice thing about a collaborative venture is that we catch each others mistakes. Had your article been a valid one I very much doubt that the deletion would have occurred. I will, if you like, go and ensure that the reason recorded for deletion is non-neutrality rather than copyright. DJ Clayworth 20:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Paxdora: a look at your edits to existing articles is very encouraging - good stuff. Wikipedia could use you. So may I add a word of advice, to help ensure you'll stick around: You said "I am not one to let injustices go unnoticed" ... which is certainly understandable, but in an environment like wikipedia that's a recipe for high blood pressure and extreme lack of fun! The open-editing environment makes it very easy for people you disagree with to do things you disagree with, and if you're not careful you could spend all your time battling "injustices" instead of editing/writing/researching/enjoying. I've fallen into that trap myself. A bit of turning the other cheek at times is very helpful! - DavidWBrooks 20:53, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you, David, for your generosity and good will. I will keep your advice in mind as I progress here. I really am not fond of doing battle with ignorance and injustice in every sphere of my life, so I'll relegate that activity to politics and try to have more fun here! - Paxdora 6/25/04