Notes for reference:
Would you please disclose if you are editing under any other accounts? Please be aware that if you are using alternative accounts deceptively, both will be indefinitely blocked under the WP:SOCK policy. If you were unaware that this is not OK, the situation can be resolved by disclosing and using only one in the future. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 03:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Reference on Electromagnetic Page 21:17, 16 May 2018 Jytdog (talk | contribs) . . (9,640 bytes) (+3,172) . . (→Effectiveness: add content COPIED from this diff which in turn was COPIED from sandbox, which had been copied from here diff. made refs in-line per current ref style) (undo | thank)
Hi Nestek.
A belated friendly welcome!
I came here to offer some comment re the goings on at David Ames (researcher), and found the above too!
Does the above count as incivility.. If I understand the context properly and have seen everything you may be referring to, then I cannot see anything that is specifically incivil. However, Jytog seems to have been very unnecessarily aggressive and certainly unconstructive and unhelpful.
..found this disturbing.. I do too. No, I would suggest it was not an acceptable interaction by an administrator (unless you had been warned peviously) or any editor.
..pursue this.. I would suggest not on this one instance. Take a deep breath and move on. There is so much to do in Wikipedia that there is no point in wasting time on one interaction with a non constructive fellow editor. However, if they start to stalk you, ie, follow you through your past or future edits in a similar agressive manner rather than a collaborative constructive manner then yes I would consider taking it to WP:ANI or such.
..pulled me over.. Yes. Jytog has been banned for their bahviour before, and non trival bans too. Wikipedians are supposed to assume good faith. It seems Jytog believes this too, but I do not see it on this occasion. Jytog also accepts they get it wrong sometimes, and apologises. You never know, you might still get an apology.
..packing it in.. Yep, but they are not worth it. We need good editors, and you were starting off in the correct direction with David Ames (researcher), so please stay. (See my comments still come on that article's talk page.)
Regards. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Most editors in Wikipedia are not like the above at all. The one below is a good counter example of the above. Cheers. Aoziwe ( talk) 10:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I notice you removed a few wiki-links recently with the comment "Removed broken links". Just in case you're not aware red links are not necessarily "broken" - they could be there deliberately to indicate that an article should exist but hasn't yet been created. See WP:Red link for details.
Of course some red links really are "broken", e.g. because someone has spelt or capitalised a name incorrectly - i.e. the article does actually exist, just with a different name - in which case ideally the link should be fixed rather than removed.
Without explicitly checking I don't know whether any of the links you removed should have been removed or should have stayed or been fixed, but at least you should we aware of why red links might exist. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I noticed in
this edit that you removed some items from a list you had posted earlier. If you had done this immediately, before anyone else had responded, it would have been okay. But after a response, it's generally necessary to be more careful in editing our own or someone else's posting. A better way to have handled this would be to apply a template like {{
done}} or {{
not done}} or to strike out the text with <s>
markup. It's a small thing, and a curious person could go back into the page history and get a better idea of what was done, but it's best to not disappear things. More details at
WP:REDACT.
— jmcgnh
(talk)
(contribs) 04:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
strikeout</s>
Notes for reference:
Would you please disclose if you are editing under any other accounts? Please be aware that if you are using alternative accounts deceptively, both will be indefinitely blocked under the WP:SOCK policy. If you were unaware that this is not OK, the situation can be resolved by disclosing and using only one in the future. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 03:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Reference on Electromagnetic Page 21:17, 16 May 2018 Jytdog (talk | contribs) . . (9,640 bytes) (+3,172) . . (→Effectiveness: add content COPIED from this diff which in turn was COPIED from sandbox, which had been copied from here diff. made refs in-line per current ref style) (undo | thank)
Hi Nestek.
A belated friendly welcome!
I came here to offer some comment re the goings on at David Ames (researcher), and found the above too!
Does the above count as incivility.. If I understand the context properly and have seen everything you may be referring to, then I cannot see anything that is specifically incivil. However, Jytog seems to have been very unnecessarily aggressive and certainly unconstructive and unhelpful.
..found this disturbing.. I do too. No, I would suggest it was not an acceptable interaction by an administrator (unless you had been warned peviously) or any editor.
..pursue this.. I would suggest not on this one instance. Take a deep breath and move on. There is so much to do in Wikipedia that there is no point in wasting time on one interaction with a non constructive fellow editor. However, if they start to stalk you, ie, follow you through your past or future edits in a similar agressive manner rather than a collaborative constructive manner then yes I would consider taking it to WP:ANI or such.
..pulled me over.. Yes. Jytog has been banned for their bahviour before, and non trival bans too. Wikipedians are supposed to assume good faith. It seems Jytog believes this too, but I do not see it on this occasion. Jytog also accepts they get it wrong sometimes, and apologises. You never know, you might still get an apology.
..packing it in.. Yep, but they are not worth it. We need good editors, and you were starting off in the correct direction with David Ames (researcher), so please stay. (See my comments still come on that article's talk page.)
Regards. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Most editors in Wikipedia are not like the above at all. The one below is a good counter example of the above. Cheers. Aoziwe ( talk) 10:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I notice you removed a few wiki-links recently with the comment "Removed broken links". Just in case you're not aware red links are not necessarily "broken" - they could be there deliberately to indicate that an article should exist but hasn't yet been created. See WP:Red link for details.
Of course some red links really are "broken", e.g. because someone has spelt or capitalised a name incorrectly - i.e. the article does actually exist, just with a different name - in which case ideally the link should be fixed rather than removed.
Without explicitly checking I don't know whether any of the links you removed should have been removed or should have stayed or been fixed, but at least you should we aware of why red links might exist. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I noticed in
this edit that you removed some items from a list you had posted earlier. If you had done this immediately, before anyone else had responded, it would have been okay. But after a response, it's generally necessary to be more careful in editing our own or someone else's posting. A better way to have handled this would be to apply a template like {{
done}} or {{
not done}} or to strike out the text with <s>
markup. It's a small thing, and a curious person could go back into the page history and get a better idea of what was done, but it's best to not disappear things. More details at
WP:REDACT.
— jmcgnh
(talk)
(contribs) 04:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
strikeout</s>