User talk:TylerMc86

December 2016

Hello, I'm Twitbookspacetube. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Arthur Ashe Courage Award without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kankakee, Illinois, 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. John from Idegon (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do I need? I live in Kankakee and am a member of two of the groups. TylerMc86 (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are claiming that somehow Kankakee is some sort of theatre mecca (in which case you'd need newspaper or magazine articles about community theatre in Kankakee that discuss each group by name and originate from well outside of the extended metropolitan area of Chicago), no amount of sourcing will make this content encyclopedic. Community theatre groups, almost by definition, are of interest only in the community. A mention that there are community theatre groups is entirely appropriate and already exists in the article. The details are not appropriate. We are by policy not a directory. John from Idegon (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it did not mention 4 groups. It mentioned one specific group, and without anyou sources I might add. I don't see why the newspaper articles have to be from outside the Chicagoland area. I see plenty on the page that is only known locally. I see that on plenty of places. If all the groups have Web pages that's should be source enough that they are located in Kankakee. It should either list them all or a generic "home of 4 Community theatres." Maybe it doesn't mean anything to someone in New York or L.A. but it means something to people here to take pride in out Wikipedia page to list our town'so positive aspects.

That is not the purpose of this article. It is in no way for the community. It is an independent encyclopedia article about the community. What someone from the community wants in the article is only important from the standpoint of the source and policy based arguements they can make for it. You've admitted your purpose is not to build an encyclopedia but to boost community pride. Get a website. That is not what this is. John from Idegon (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was not to boost pride. It was you correct the article only listing one theatre. So please tell me why you haven't erased the other parts that only pertain to our community?

So you seriously had to erase all the other info from the culture section?

Seriously why can't you leave it how it was? Why is it so important to you that it can't list the info it had? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it might not be important to you but it is to the people the wrote it in the first place.

TylerMc86, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TylerMc86! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Kankakee, Illinois. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a blockage. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK how do I stop the person who changed it. I listed that there are 3 theatres in the town and the Editor John from Idegon thinks it is not relevant info in his opinion for he erased the entire section it was in.

You should discuss the matter at the article's Talk page. It is best for the material to be left out until there is consensus that it should be included. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked him to please leave it and he refuses, citing that if it hasn't been in a newspaper outside of Chicago then it is not worthy of being on Wikipedia.

This is precisely why you should discuss the content at the article's Talk page. Make your case for why it should be included, and resist any urge to criticize the other editor (though you're welcome to discuss their reasons why the information shouldn't be included). Discussing it there will enable other editors interested in the subject matter to weigh in, so you won't be in the ping-pong match you're in currently. If opening a discussion there doesn't yield a result you would like, you can then pursue other forms of dispute resolution as you wish, but simply reinserting your material without a Talk page discussion at this point will almost inevitably be seen as edit-warring. You may wish to review WP:BRD, which discusses some best practices for handling editing disputes. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So shouldn't have have to explain why he deleted it?

He's not obligated to, but if you post your rationale for adding the information and nobody opposes it after a few days, if he then deleted it again the onus would be on him to explain why he's deleting the information. DonIago (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did post my rationale, no one had a chance to give an opinion as he changed it back again. Can I add it back without "undoing" his edit?

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kankakee, Illinois. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. John from Idegon (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem now? I cited all the entries with websites. I posted in the talk on the page and without even giving it a chance to be judged by others you erased it. As far as the capitalization, that is standard APA formatting, you can't argue with that.

My two cents: do not re-add the material unless nobody replies to the comment you left at the article Talk page for at least several days. In fact, I'd recommend, if nobody says anything after several days, making a follow-up post noting that you will be re-adding the material an additional several days later if nobody speaks up. @John from Idegon: should provide their rationale for the removal there as well. I may or may not choose to add my own comments once I have a better idea of John's concerns, but even if I don't, you could request a third opinion if the situation continues to be a ping-pong match between you and John, or pursue other forms of dispute resolution. What you absolutely should not do is simply re-add the material at any time in the near future, as that would make it very difficult for anyone looking at the history of the article to assume that you are editing in good faith, versus simply trying to force your edits through. I hope this is helpful. DonIago (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But at this point, what is the point? @John from Idegon: will complain on the talk section and just undo any edit I make in the future. I've now asked several questions and he has yet to respond. I'very explained my reasons for adding it and he has explained his reasons for deleting it. What more can either of us do? He seems to think his opinion is fact.

The point is that Wikipedia works by consensus. In the case of adding new information to articles, if that information is contested, it should not be added until there is a consensus to do so. Ideally you've explained your side, John will explain his, and you'll either reach an understanding between yourselves, or pursue a third opinion or other form of DR. If nobody chooses to contest your arguments at the Talk page within a reasonable amount of time (I'd give it at least a week), then you're welcome to consider that an indication that nobody has significant opposition to your inclusion. DonIago (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]