User talk:Desertphile

Cleaned

I have removed the ancient history here. --Desertphile (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yilloslime

User Yilloslime has objected to my citations apparently because a few of them are to YouTube videos. I consider that behavior vandalism. --Desertphile (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have received emails from other editors who note that the user often fails to provide legitimate reasons for his/her removals and edits, but that is fairly common practice even though it's contrary to polite rules. Usually taking mildly abusive users to mediation once is enough to convince them to be polite and to explain their updates. (I had a number of individuals who would reverse everything I did simply because they worked for rival corporations or had ideological bents and objected not to the content but to any content about subjects they did not wish to see described and referenced. Mediation put a stop to that, politely and with civility such that everyone walked away happy -- except for the CoS which doesn't count.)

Another thing I find useful is having a reminder of the rules complete with links to them on my own talk page. And you should have an active watch on all content you update, if you don't already, so that abusive edits are noticed. Damotclese (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Off wiki audiences

Hi, FYI I have deleted a new thread you posted because you're addressing an off wiki audience. Our talk page guidelines restrict use of article talk pages to discussion proposed edits and sources to improve the article. Chastising your non-wiki audience isn't really within that scope, so I deleted the thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy brings up a good point about the phenomena we're seeing in the past 3 or 4 years where researchers who discount the contents, citations, and references of Wikipedia pages lack the ability and desire to contribute to improving and correcting Wikipedia pages, usually due to ideology. It was not always like this, researchers who objected to content were also capable editors who discussed and suggested changes to pages, yet stark bifurcation along economic, political, intelligence, and ideological lines means fewer researchers opposed to Wikipedia's contents have the skills or desire to edit.

By the way, I have the exact same problem that Desertphile noted and in the same arena. I work in watershed issued dealing with potable water, waste reclamation, sewage treatment and all related issues which are tied heavily to Global Warming and there is abject refusal among some researchers to accept the citations and references in the extant Wiki page while said researchers are unable to explain what is wrong with the Wikipedia page's contents. Since they refuse to assist in editing the page, their proposed corrections just don't exist.

I have colleagues who see drinking water resources literally drying up due to bark beetle infestations of pines in the watersheds we work within who dismiss Wikipedia as "liberal lies." It's a fascinating human behavior. Damotclese (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to return to Wikipedia

I heard that you are still working on the ranch out in the middle of nowhere, so you probably do not have Internet. Are you ever going to return to Wikipedia or is it all just so very pointless -- ha ha! TrainsOnTime (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Alire new mexico moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Alire new mexico. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)