User talk:Greatwikiness

Welcome!

Hello, Greatwikiness, 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 talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

General Motors streetcar conspiracy article

Thank you for you engagement with the General Motors streetcar conspiracy article. With respect however... could I ask you to add, and/or adjust content with a view to finding wording that works for all parties and avoid focusing primarily on removing content you object to. Try finding better wording that builds on what was there already which is the best way we get to stable good content. For sure, some editors do take a combative approach focused on protecting their viewpoint against others and it works to an extent but is far from ideal. I am not saying that you are doing that, but it does feel a bit close at times, particularly as there is another editor who is also mainly exercising the revert button rather than contributing as I suggest at the same time. PeterEastern (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I now notice that I left a message earlier on this page with a similar request which was removed without comment within 12 hours. For the record it read" ==Repeated deletions of content on General Motors streetcar conspiracy article==, Please can you discuss your repeated changes to General Motors streetcar conspiracy on the article's talk page. Removing content twice that his is well referenced from a stable article without discussion probably isn't the best way to engage with the article and the subject if that is what you wish to do. Talk pages are great places to work things out. You may also wish to read relevant sections of the talk page, including Archive 1 and Archive 2 (see top right of the talk page) as the Cato institute content has been discussed a number of times already.PeterEastern (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)"

I am appreciative of the fact that you did then discuss your edits on the article's talk page for which I thank you, however it is probably better t0 leave messages left by others on your talk page and add your own response indicating that you did indeed take note of it and respond (see my talk page which contains many such sections).

Again, thank you for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia, this is just part of the process :)

--PeterEastern (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)