Stephen B at USDA

Welcome!

Hello, Stephen B at USDA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mike V • Talk 04:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

How I handle page moves

Basically if I look at the talk page and the contribution history of the article itself and see no activity for a long time, I feel ok to move it. If it's an active page, either start a discussion on the talk page or use the procedure at WP:RM. Saves a lot of hassle. Your reason sounds good, but, as an example, I did find an editor making numerous page moves because he disagreed with the spelling of the titles. Some of these were quite active articles. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Question about an edit summary

I am somewhat puzzled by your edit summary when you tried to move 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. You wrote "This is not a conflict; it is civil unrest". However, there are people of different views opposing one another, taking action against one another, in some cases even killing one another. Why isn't that conflict? It looks to me as though people are very much in conflict with one another. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It is because the actual warfare is thus far only occurring in two far eastern oblasts, which appears to already have it's own article (2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk . The other pro-Russian regions are just rioting, which doesn't really constitute an armed conflict, but rather civil unrest. The page I was trying to rename is covering all the pro Russian unrest as a whole, not just the armed revolt in the east. That's why I was trying to rename the page. Stephen B at USDA (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• There is an ongoing move discussion on the talk page of the article about this. One doesn't move the page until the requested move discussion is finished. It isn't finished, therefore, we don't move anything. RGloucester — ☎ 01:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, no one has ever said that these were unhelpful edits. Doesn't the site encourage you to be bold? I saw that somewhere, but I can't find it now (sorry). I apologize if my edits were really that bad :-( Stephen B at USDA (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

To be WP:BOLD is one thing, but it is also important to be pragmatic. When an WP:RM discussion is taking place on the talk page, that means that the title of the page is contested. In that case, being WP:BOLD is not appropriate, as we make decisions on titles through WP:CONSENSUS. RGloucester — ☎ 01:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So I'm supposed to be bold and make edits, yet no one here will actually let me do so? Is that how wikipedia really works? Stephen B at USDA (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. There is a cycle called WP:BRD. It means "Bold, revert, discuss". What happened in this case, is that I originally boldly moved it back to the "unrest" title, but someone else reverted. Hence, we started a discussion on the talk page to see if there was consensus for my change. That discussion is ongoing, and moving the page during that discussion is considered disruptive. It is always best to read the talk page before making WP:BOLD edits, to make sure that what you are doing doesn't conflict with ongoing content disputes or discussions. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was never informed of that discussion. I always thought that you just changed a blatantly wrong thing on Wikipedia. I mean, what's the point of an open-natured wiki if you can't really make changes that need to be done? That doesn't make any sense. Stephen B at USDA (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got to "educate" yourself, by reading the article talk pages to become "informed". That's the responsibility of the editor. We can't just have anyone making any edit, as we need our articles to adhere to the WP:FIVEPILLARS. That's why we have to discuss, and form WP:CONSENSUS. We work together collaboratively to build this encyclopaedia, not in a vacuum as individuals. You can make bold changes. If someone disagrees, they can revert you. That's the nature of wiki, and that's why we discuss such disputes on the talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 02:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so there is more to editing an open wiki than a lot of people think? Okay, then what do I need to do to make this change without it getting undone? Stephen B at USDA (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Participate in the discussion at Talk:2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 02:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't be guaranteed of making a change and not having it undone. We proceed by consensus, not by unilateral action. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, which means that all sorts of people do - our aim is to arrive at something that reflects the sources in a way that we can agree on. For example: RGloucester and I clearly disagree about the title of the article that you're also interested in. But rather than just play a duck-season-rabbit-season game of renaming it, we're discussing the proposed moves on the talk page. You can't be sure of getting your way; but you may be able to influence the discussion and help us reach a consensus that reflects your concerns as well as it does our own. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)