![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Might be another sock of Shannon1488. - Sitush ( talk) 08:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
In view of the reasoning expressed in your edit here, I have asked Feezo to mediate the persisting disagreement we have about the harm you caused with your contributions at Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972?
Regardless of what Feezo decides to do, I believe this is a worthwhile topic -- worth the investment of your time and mine. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Have I missed any developments regarding Rajkris and the Tamil Kshatriya merger proposal? The last that I see is a "something by end of July" type of statement. I do not have an issue with it being postponed etc but at some point it does have to move on, although where to is anyone's guess. - Sitush ( talk) 23:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you muchly :) Slovenski Volk ( talk) 06:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll be interested in Wikipedia:Help desk#Wikipedia Nazis on power trips who "dominate" and act like little Hitler's in determining content on some pretty important subject matter. Best, Chzz ► 13:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I have in the past seen instances where people have proposed "speedy closing" of an AfD. Is this ever in fact a possibility? Or is the de facto minimum seven day discussion period always applicable? I have been involved in one today where it is clearly a malicious nomination, including confirmed socks etc. - Sitush ( talk) 23:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi - Just saw that you considered the issues on the article to be a content dispute. I had the exact same situation on Caribbean Medical University a few days ago, and User:Orlady saw it as vandalism, because an SPA account with a WP:COI issue is persistently blanking verified, sourced information that is negative about his school and replacing it with an ad. Your thoughts on why it is not vandalism? Thanks. Leuko Talk/ Contribs 04:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
So whats up? U can never keep me down, I a G. You know this all could of been avoided if u left me alone and removed that CSD tag and didnt make a fuss, oh well live and learn 85.153.34.106 ( talk) 04:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you think Prisoners' rights should be merged into Prisoner? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A few of us who edit the Now albums articles liked the idea of starting to use the {{ tracklist}} template. It started with vol. 78, continued for 79, and another editor did vol. 77, with plans to do the others eventually. For some reason, this IP doesn't like it but refuses to discuss his reasons. He'll go through this rush of reverting these pages, while he gets warned and sometimes blocked, then comes back a few days later under a different IP to do it again. If there's a rangeblock that can be done to stop this, that would be great. Thanks for your help. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 08:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You may be unfamiliar with events of the
Keichō era. In the following illustrative example, Ieyasu's complaint was about words in a unique context.
This anecdote has features in common with our discussion at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Citation-supported introduction.
_________
_________
In other words -- in your words
Aha, yes? -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I am withdrawing from active participation in this subject.
Is it possible that my contributions are somehow "feeding" conflict?
One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while. -- Tenmei ( talk)
Qwyrxian: Response to everything here. You asked for criticisms of your definition. You've provided the criticisms yourself. Your definition is, precisely that: your definition. You've shown us that, in fact, it does not match the definitions found in reliable sources. If you want to write a research/philosophy paper arguing that the definition of physics commonly used in textbooks, dictionaries, etc. is wrong, feel free to do so, and then seek a place to publish it (whether that's self-publishing on the internet, in a philosophy of science journal, in a book, whatever). However, Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought/research. We can and will only write what reliable sources have said, not what we ourselves think is "good" or "true". Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC
Qwyrxian: Please don't remove talk page comments, even your onw--it disrupts the conversation (it makes my response make much less sense)
Saeed:
I didn't remove anything in my recent edit. I made the intermediate part hidden (because It was wrong and I was fixing it) and moved the last part to this page
I'm not removing anything from other users. The long subjective part is fully and carefully in the user's talk pages.( Example) and the compact objective part is linked to talk:Physics; because that's what all the people taking part in the discussion agree upon. Please allow me to remove and correct my own mistakes. This will allow all of us to reach a final best decision, and reduce the time necessary to do it.
Qwyrxian: First, you're not allowed to remove my response, period (which you did, perhaps by mistake). Then, the problem is that if you take all of that out, it makes my response look like I'm holding you accountable for something you didn't do, which is quite unfair to my comment. How about this: put the part of your comments that you don't think are relevant any more into a collapse box (see
Template:Collapse top), or strike through the parts of your text you no longer hold as necessary.
Qwyrxian (
talk)
04:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Saeed: Yes I did all the mistakes you mentioned. Even more:
I had ten years of elaborate work in my "not so free" time and I have come up with a solution. That's in my mind. and it takes effort to put it into actions.
But I still need you, your advice, your support, and your trust. here is my problem: I like to see Physics has become a good article. So I must copy-edit it. since the definition does not allow it, I must correct it. Since I'm not allowed, I must discuss it. While I'm learning how to do it, I must also learn to use the talk page. While doing that, I must move between different users' talk page. the mistakes I make, can cause reverts and edit wars in the talk page that I must resolve. and now I'm out of energy.
Much worse frustrating stuff exists for admins.
Suggestion:
In short: You'll be the Wiki specialist, I'll be the Physics specialists. this will unite us; and together, we respond to criticism from other users. If they are right, we will correct the mistakes. and if they are wrong, we will notify them.
If we succeed, we can improve a lot of top priority articles to a state they deserve. --Saeed
05:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwirxian: First, there's no need to retire. In fact, if you're actively working on this, you should do the work on wiki. Wikipedia articles are edited collaboratively; you shouldn't think of it as a process you have to or should complete all on your own. Now, there's nothing wrong with working offline, or working in a sandbox or talk page, if you think that the work you're doing takes time. But, know that, in the end, all changes you want to make will inevitably be altered, reverted, or otherwise changed by other editors over time. You can go ahead and start making changes to Physics right now. Ultimately, other users will trust you based on your conversations on talk pages and your editing behavior. Regarding your fourth and fifth points, there's no need to "obey my commands"; rather, I'm just pointing out to you the rules as I interpret them--I'm not even always right. In this case, regarding talk page changes I am :), but I'm not right every time, nor do I have any authority to command you to do something. Rather, all I wanted to do was to point out to you one of the rules regarding talk pages; now you understand, so now we're all happier. On your fifth point specifically, however, I won't stand as a defense between you and other admins, nor am I allowed to even if I want to. I am happy to provide you with any and all advice that you need, answer your questions regarding Wikipedia policy, etc. But I can't actually say, "Hey, no one gets to take administrative actions against this person except me." There is a formal process known as mentoring, but, even in that case, while the mentor can take on a more direct role and help act as a buffer, they can't ultimately prevent others' input.
Saeed:
"there's no need to retire."
But I can't actually say, "Hey, no one gets to take administrative actions against this person except me."
"If you're trying to spend 2-6 months figuring out a basic definition"
"In this case, regarding talk page changes I am [right about the rules]"
"And a question: do you want me to collapse that definition section on Talk:Physics?"
"If it's still a work in progress, it's fine to just minimize it for now."
Qwyrxian: Well...I'm not sure I can help. I want to, but you're so fundamentally misunderstanding the Wiki process that it could be a challenge. You're focused on gaining and proving your physics knowledge. Wikipedia certainly values experts, but one never needs to be or prove that one is an effort prior to editing. Furthermore, being an expert doesn't give a person any special rights or privileges in determining Wikipedia content. Even if you were able to prove to me that your a highly respected, tenured researcher in Physics, that wouldn't actually make your opinion more necessarily "right". In fact, I edit far more articles that I don't have expertise in than those that I do. How can I do that? Because I read sources, and report what I read. That's really all Wikipedia is--a glorified summary of what others have written (this is because that's what all good encyclopedias are). So, I'm not going to spend any amount of time challenging your knowledge. Instead, make or propose changes to the article. If they seem like an improvement, they'll stay; if not, others will revert or change them, in which case you discuss those changes on the talk page. If that isn't how you're comfortable working, then, yes, you are correct that Wikipedia editing is not right for you.
Saeed: I've made yet another GREAT mistake. I've posted to your talk page, what belongs to the strategy wiki. This is no place to criticize Wikipedia. And there was no need to explain why I must retire, or to reply everything!
" The path you are going down now is one of original research"
"If you wat to edit, and you need help, I am always willing to answer questions."
Question) How can I improve Physics to the state of a good article? I know what a good article is. and I've red the peer review.
Question) Can you please add Physics to your watchlist? so that you can notify me about my mistakes?
Question) Whenever I get reverted, I am somehow prohibited from editing an article anymore.
08:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian: The peer review really is the key. I think that the first thing to focus on is sourcing--the reviewer was right--a lot of the article is under or unsourced. No article will ever get to GA status unless all of its major and most of its minor claims are sourced (outside of the lead). I would definitely start there, because until you know what content will or won't be there, you can't worry about all the other stuff, like layout, reference formatting, stec. The article is already on my watchlist. I don't pay too much attention to it, but if you post specific concerns on the talk page, I'll do my best to address them. On your last point, I don't understand. When you are reverted, you can always keep editing the article. Now, that doesn't mean that you can just keep editing it in the same way. Basically, if the person gave a specific reason for the revert in an edit summary, its up to you to bring the issue to the article's talk page and then discuss it. I've had edits that have taken months to work on with other editors due to disagreements. This may, in fact, can be one of the difficulties in reaching GA status; if there are a lot of editors with disagreements about how to manage the article, it can take a while to sort those out. Sometimes it's actually impossible, though I'm not sure if physics is controversial enough for that to happen. As I said, I'll try monitoring the process. One final thing I do recommend: don't change too much too quickly. If you alter the entire text in one series of edits, it's very likely that the whole thing will end up reverted because people disagree with individual parts. Qwyrxian ( talk) 09:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Saeed:
"it's very likely that the whole thing will end up reverted because people disagree with individual parts."
"I think that the first thing to focus on is sourcing"
--Saeed
14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwirxian: Well, I took a look at it briefly, and parts concern me. Some of the tone is off (too conversational), and it definitely needs a good copy edit (there are a number of grammatical errors and typos). I'll try to get to it if I have time, but it's not a high priority for me right now. Hopefully other editors will join. I did, however, leave a comment about images on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Saeed: I added a lot of reference and asked someone to copy-edit Physics#Relation to other fields. Grammar ans spelling also rechecked.
Question) I wrote the first letter in the names of science fields like Math and Physics in CAPITAL letters. is it necessary? correct? wrong? I asked others too. they didn't know.
--Saeed
15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
A newcomer (CaptainScreebo): Saeed while appreciating that you have a lot of enthusiasm for the subject and, quite possibly, a lot of knowledge, I would suggest that you make major edits/improvements(?) to the article in your userspace and ask someone to verify them there before sending them live. I have just spent the afternoon copyediting the small section, Physics#History, that you copyedited. I initially was going to reply to you about CAPITALS, see my edits or this article; disciplines, theories or beliefs do not take capitals unless they are at the beginning of the sentence (first word) or they contain someone's name, e.g. Newton's constant. To copyedit correctly:
Please do not make further edits to this page without discussing here or on the talk page, and I would strongly advise you to make a draft in your userspace first. Thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
This is to report that the user LEUKO violates the WP:OR on several Caribbean medical schools pages by stating that the schools are unaccredited with providing material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which reliable published source exists. The following pages have been affected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_University_School_of_Medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_Medical_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalon_University_School_of_Medicine This action doesn't comply with the core content policies: Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability. You have shown a neutral point of view on ANI therefore I believe you can oversee the issue in order to come to a reasonable consensus. Thank you Rlewkowski ( talk) 14:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Blackvisionit has resorted to personal attacks on Talk:Floppy_disk_hardware_emulator#Bottleneck. If you could take a look at it, I'd appreciate it. Falcon8765 (TALK) 22:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I added an RfC to the Windsor University School of Medicine talk page and was wondering if you wouldn't mind adding your input. Thanks. SGMD1 ( talk) 00:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a chance you may be interested in this [3]. There are hints of OR, POV, and COI, especially with [4]. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 07:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Qwyrxian. Hi.
With your permission, I want to "move" that open letter to Wikimedia community to my user page on the strategy wiki, and replace it with something like: This part of this discussion have been moved to my startegy userpage. --~~~~
Can I? --Saeed
23:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
What is it with all this "I know it is no good but leave it in and I'll sort it out some time" stuff that is going on at Kurmi? I've just had to self-revert because I am concerned that I may be at 3RR but the entire article is becoming dragged down by ill-considered/half-cocked contributions. What are sandboxes etc for? Argh! - Sitush ( talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for that alternate edit while checking Powerlife account status. This account is awaiting for removal - used during transition from it.wiki to en.wiki. If you own proper rights you could also help in removal speedup. Be sure that any editing in the floppy page is clearly performed as blackvisionit, since there's no prohibition to bypass while doing constructive/unbiased editing. Blackvisionit ( talk) 03:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Asked another admin (Gfoley4) to unblock my fixed IP 93.58.106.114 since it was also blocking me :) Blackvisionit ( talk) 06:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Please could you post an update about our settlement in this new flame opened by Guymacon? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Blackvisionit. Blackvisionit ( talk) 06:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, just saw your edit. The citation for the United Kingdom does actually mention Windsor. And the citation for the United States and Canada states that "IMED listed schools" can get ECFMG certification...and Windsor is an IMED listed school (as cited earlier in the WP article). SGMD1 ( talk) 04:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
And here is the reference for what you tagged citation needed:
Please don't reply here. we are discussing them in Captain_Screebo's talk page. --Saeed
07:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, does it? I think I have just stumbled on a mess where a certain person has deleted a fair bit from an article on the grounds that they've never heard of this newspaper etc. Might leave it alone and retreat to William Crooke & Yadav but would appreciate your thoughts nonetheless. There are BLP issues at stake also but my gut feeling is that the removed uncited stuff could have been sourced.
It is turning out to be one of those weekends. :( Sitush ( talk) 04:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I found very interesting considerations about WP survival in Jimmy Wales talkpage. I've added some related thoughts - like an article stub - in my user page. Placing should be correct and material proper but I don't know what's the standard way to start interaction/invite interested users. RfC or { { help } } or ...? Thanks Blackvisionit ( talk) 00:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
In case you hadn't notice, these have become a lovely shade of red:
I have just nominated the last two items for deletion:
When those two are gone, I will remove cats and templates from the articles that have them (I have the list on my HD.) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Consider adding a simple search box to your archives. The one on my talk is the least intrusive one I could find. You're welcome to pinch it. Best, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
First off, I want to thank you for your advice and criticism. I appreciate the feedback and correction. Again, thanks.
I have a question about Blackvisionit's posts such as
This, which he sent to everyone who had edited the floppy disk article. Would that qualify as
Wikipedia:Canvassing? Or am I being hypersensitive because of previous bad experiences?
Guy Macon (
talk)
17:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Two issues: First, should Blackvisionit be changing the importance and class of Articles? [8] [9] [10] [11] I was under the impression that WikiProject Computing assigns those.
Second, I would like to request that Blackvisionit be instructed to refrain from personal attacks. They interfere with a collegial environment, and I am tempted to respond with bad behavior of my own. In the last 4 days Blackvisionit has:
In my opinion, I think a "no tolerance" policy towards personal attacks is warranted in this case. Guy Macon ( talk) 17:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
For ending the 'Green Ray' AfD war decisively and finally.
Thank you! — Safety Cap ( talk) 02:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Might be another sock of Shannon1488. - Sitush ( talk) 08:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
In view of the reasoning expressed in your edit here, I have asked Feezo to mediate the persisting disagreement we have about the harm you caused with your contributions at Talk:Senkaku Islands#U.S. Control prior to 1972?
Regardless of what Feezo decides to do, I believe this is a worthwhile topic -- worth the investment of your time and mine. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Have I missed any developments regarding Rajkris and the Tamil Kshatriya merger proposal? The last that I see is a "something by end of July" type of statement. I do not have an issue with it being postponed etc but at some point it does have to move on, although where to is anyone's guess. - Sitush ( talk) 23:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you muchly :) Slovenski Volk ( talk) 06:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll be interested in Wikipedia:Help desk#Wikipedia Nazis on power trips who "dominate" and act like little Hitler's in determining content on some pretty important subject matter. Best, Chzz ► 13:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I have in the past seen instances where people have proposed "speedy closing" of an AfD. Is this ever in fact a possibility? Or is the de facto minimum seven day discussion period always applicable? I have been involved in one today where it is clearly a malicious nomination, including confirmed socks etc. - Sitush ( talk) 23:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi - Just saw that you considered the issues on the article to be a content dispute. I had the exact same situation on Caribbean Medical University a few days ago, and User:Orlady saw it as vandalism, because an SPA account with a WP:COI issue is persistently blanking verified, sourced information that is negative about his school and replacing it with an ad. Your thoughts on why it is not vandalism? Thanks. Leuko Talk/ Contribs 04:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
So whats up? U can never keep me down, I a G. You know this all could of been avoided if u left me alone and removed that CSD tag and didnt make a fuss, oh well live and learn 85.153.34.106 ( talk) 04:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you think Prisoners' rights should be merged into Prisoner? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A few of us who edit the Now albums articles liked the idea of starting to use the {{ tracklist}} template. It started with vol. 78, continued for 79, and another editor did vol. 77, with plans to do the others eventually. For some reason, this IP doesn't like it but refuses to discuss his reasons. He'll go through this rush of reverting these pages, while he gets warned and sometimes blocked, then comes back a few days later under a different IP to do it again. If there's a rangeblock that can be done to stop this, that would be great. Thanks for your help. -- Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 08:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You may be unfamiliar with events of the
Keichō era. In the following illustrative example, Ieyasu's complaint was about words in a unique context.
This anecdote has features in common with our discussion at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Citation-supported introduction.
_________
_________
In other words -- in your words
Aha, yes? -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I am withdrawing from active participation in this subject.
Is it possible that my contributions are somehow "feeding" conflict?
One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while. -- Tenmei ( talk)
Qwyrxian: Response to everything here. You asked for criticisms of your definition. You've provided the criticisms yourself. Your definition is, precisely that: your definition. You've shown us that, in fact, it does not match the definitions found in reliable sources. If you want to write a research/philosophy paper arguing that the definition of physics commonly used in textbooks, dictionaries, etc. is wrong, feel free to do so, and then seek a place to publish it (whether that's self-publishing on the internet, in a philosophy of science journal, in a book, whatever). However, Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought/research. We can and will only write what reliable sources have said, not what we ourselves think is "good" or "true". Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC
Qwyrxian: Please don't remove talk page comments, even your onw--it disrupts the conversation (it makes my response make much less sense)
Saeed:
I didn't remove anything in my recent edit. I made the intermediate part hidden (because It was wrong and I was fixing it) and moved the last part to this page
I'm not removing anything from other users. The long subjective part is fully and carefully in the user's talk pages.( Example) and the compact objective part is linked to talk:Physics; because that's what all the people taking part in the discussion agree upon. Please allow me to remove and correct my own mistakes. This will allow all of us to reach a final best decision, and reduce the time necessary to do it.
Qwyrxian: First, you're not allowed to remove my response, period (which you did, perhaps by mistake). Then, the problem is that if you take all of that out, it makes my response look like I'm holding you accountable for something you didn't do, which is quite unfair to my comment. How about this: put the part of your comments that you don't think are relevant any more into a collapse box (see
Template:Collapse top), or strike through the parts of your text you no longer hold as necessary.
Qwyrxian (
talk)
04:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Saeed: Yes I did all the mistakes you mentioned. Even more:
I had ten years of elaborate work in my "not so free" time and I have come up with a solution. That's in my mind. and it takes effort to put it into actions.
But I still need you, your advice, your support, and your trust. here is my problem: I like to see Physics has become a good article. So I must copy-edit it. since the definition does not allow it, I must correct it. Since I'm not allowed, I must discuss it. While I'm learning how to do it, I must also learn to use the talk page. While doing that, I must move between different users' talk page. the mistakes I make, can cause reverts and edit wars in the talk page that I must resolve. and now I'm out of energy.
Much worse frustrating stuff exists for admins.
Suggestion:
In short: You'll be the Wiki specialist, I'll be the Physics specialists. this will unite us; and together, we respond to criticism from other users. If they are right, we will correct the mistakes. and if they are wrong, we will notify them.
If we succeed, we can improve a lot of top priority articles to a state they deserve. --Saeed
05:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwirxian: First, there's no need to retire. In fact, if you're actively working on this, you should do the work on wiki. Wikipedia articles are edited collaboratively; you shouldn't think of it as a process you have to or should complete all on your own. Now, there's nothing wrong with working offline, or working in a sandbox or talk page, if you think that the work you're doing takes time. But, know that, in the end, all changes you want to make will inevitably be altered, reverted, or otherwise changed by other editors over time. You can go ahead and start making changes to Physics right now. Ultimately, other users will trust you based on your conversations on talk pages and your editing behavior. Regarding your fourth and fifth points, there's no need to "obey my commands"; rather, I'm just pointing out to you the rules as I interpret them--I'm not even always right. In this case, regarding talk page changes I am :), but I'm not right every time, nor do I have any authority to command you to do something. Rather, all I wanted to do was to point out to you one of the rules regarding talk pages; now you understand, so now we're all happier. On your fifth point specifically, however, I won't stand as a defense between you and other admins, nor am I allowed to even if I want to. I am happy to provide you with any and all advice that you need, answer your questions regarding Wikipedia policy, etc. But I can't actually say, "Hey, no one gets to take administrative actions against this person except me." There is a formal process known as mentoring, but, even in that case, while the mentor can take on a more direct role and help act as a buffer, they can't ultimately prevent others' input.
Saeed:
"there's no need to retire."
But I can't actually say, "Hey, no one gets to take administrative actions against this person except me."
"If you're trying to spend 2-6 months figuring out a basic definition"
"In this case, regarding talk page changes I am [right about the rules]"
"And a question: do you want me to collapse that definition section on Talk:Physics?"
"If it's still a work in progress, it's fine to just minimize it for now."
Qwyrxian: Well...I'm not sure I can help. I want to, but you're so fundamentally misunderstanding the Wiki process that it could be a challenge. You're focused on gaining and proving your physics knowledge. Wikipedia certainly values experts, but one never needs to be or prove that one is an effort prior to editing. Furthermore, being an expert doesn't give a person any special rights or privileges in determining Wikipedia content. Even if you were able to prove to me that your a highly respected, tenured researcher in Physics, that wouldn't actually make your opinion more necessarily "right". In fact, I edit far more articles that I don't have expertise in than those that I do. How can I do that? Because I read sources, and report what I read. That's really all Wikipedia is--a glorified summary of what others have written (this is because that's what all good encyclopedias are). So, I'm not going to spend any amount of time challenging your knowledge. Instead, make or propose changes to the article. If they seem like an improvement, they'll stay; if not, others will revert or change them, in which case you discuss those changes on the talk page. If that isn't how you're comfortable working, then, yes, you are correct that Wikipedia editing is not right for you.
Saeed: I've made yet another GREAT mistake. I've posted to your talk page, what belongs to the strategy wiki. This is no place to criticize Wikipedia. And there was no need to explain why I must retire, or to reply everything!
" The path you are going down now is one of original research"
"If you wat to edit, and you need help, I am always willing to answer questions."
Question) How can I improve Physics to the state of a good article? I know what a good article is. and I've red the peer review.
Question) Can you please add Physics to your watchlist? so that you can notify me about my mistakes?
Question) Whenever I get reverted, I am somehow prohibited from editing an article anymore.
08:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian: The peer review really is the key. I think that the first thing to focus on is sourcing--the reviewer was right--a lot of the article is under or unsourced. No article will ever get to GA status unless all of its major and most of its minor claims are sourced (outside of the lead). I would definitely start there, because until you know what content will or won't be there, you can't worry about all the other stuff, like layout, reference formatting, stec. The article is already on my watchlist. I don't pay too much attention to it, but if you post specific concerns on the talk page, I'll do my best to address them. On your last point, I don't understand. When you are reverted, you can always keep editing the article. Now, that doesn't mean that you can just keep editing it in the same way. Basically, if the person gave a specific reason for the revert in an edit summary, its up to you to bring the issue to the article's talk page and then discuss it. I've had edits that have taken months to work on with other editors due to disagreements. This may, in fact, can be one of the difficulties in reaching GA status; if there are a lot of editors with disagreements about how to manage the article, it can take a while to sort those out. Sometimes it's actually impossible, though I'm not sure if physics is controversial enough for that to happen. As I said, I'll try monitoring the process. One final thing I do recommend: don't change too much too quickly. If you alter the entire text in one series of edits, it's very likely that the whole thing will end up reverted because people disagree with individual parts. Qwyrxian ( talk) 09:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Saeed:
"it's very likely that the whole thing will end up reverted because people disagree with individual parts."
"I think that the first thing to focus on is sourcing"
--Saeed
14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwirxian: Well, I took a look at it briefly, and parts concern me. Some of the tone is off (too conversational), and it definitely needs a good copy edit (there are a number of grammatical errors and typos). I'll try to get to it if I have time, but it's not a high priority for me right now. Hopefully other editors will join. I did, however, leave a comment about images on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Saeed: I added a lot of reference and asked someone to copy-edit Physics#Relation to other fields. Grammar ans spelling also rechecked.
Question) I wrote the first letter in the names of science fields like Math and Physics in CAPITAL letters. is it necessary? correct? wrong? I asked others too. they didn't know.
--Saeed
15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
A newcomer (CaptainScreebo): Saeed while appreciating that you have a lot of enthusiasm for the subject and, quite possibly, a lot of knowledge, I would suggest that you make major edits/improvements(?) to the article in your userspace and ask someone to verify them there before sending them live. I have just spent the afternoon copyediting the small section, Physics#History, that you copyedited. I initially was going to reply to you about CAPITALS, see my edits or this article; disciplines, theories or beliefs do not take capitals unless they are at the beginning of the sentence (first word) or they contain someone's name, e.g. Newton's constant. To copyedit correctly:
Please do not make further edits to this page without discussing here or on the talk page, and I would strongly advise you to make a draft in your userspace first. Thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
This is to report that the user LEUKO violates the WP:OR on several Caribbean medical schools pages by stating that the schools are unaccredited with providing material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which reliable published source exists. The following pages have been affected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_University_School_of_Medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_Medical_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalon_University_School_of_Medicine This action doesn't comply with the core content policies: Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability. You have shown a neutral point of view on ANI therefore I believe you can oversee the issue in order to come to a reasonable consensus. Thank you Rlewkowski ( talk) 14:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Blackvisionit has resorted to personal attacks on Talk:Floppy_disk_hardware_emulator#Bottleneck. If you could take a look at it, I'd appreciate it. Falcon8765 (TALK) 22:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I added an RfC to the Windsor University School of Medicine talk page and was wondering if you wouldn't mind adding your input. Thanks. SGMD1 ( talk) 00:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a chance you may be interested in this [3]. There are hints of OR, POV, and COI, especially with [4]. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 07:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Qwyrxian. Hi.
With your permission, I want to "move" that open letter to Wikimedia community to my user page on the strategy wiki, and replace it with something like: This part of this discussion have been moved to my startegy userpage. --~~~~
Can I? --Saeed
23:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
What is it with all this "I know it is no good but leave it in and I'll sort it out some time" stuff that is going on at Kurmi? I've just had to self-revert because I am concerned that I may be at 3RR but the entire article is becoming dragged down by ill-considered/half-cocked contributions. What are sandboxes etc for? Argh! - Sitush ( talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for that alternate edit while checking Powerlife account status. This account is awaiting for removal - used during transition from it.wiki to en.wiki. If you own proper rights you could also help in removal speedup. Be sure that any editing in the floppy page is clearly performed as blackvisionit, since there's no prohibition to bypass while doing constructive/unbiased editing. Blackvisionit ( talk) 03:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Asked another admin (Gfoley4) to unblock my fixed IP 93.58.106.114 since it was also blocking me :) Blackvisionit ( talk) 06:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Please could you post an update about our settlement in this new flame opened by Guymacon? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Blackvisionit. Blackvisionit ( talk) 06:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, just saw your edit. The citation for the United Kingdom does actually mention Windsor. And the citation for the United States and Canada states that "IMED listed schools" can get ECFMG certification...and Windsor is an IMED listed school (as cited earlier in the WP article). SGMD1 ( talk) 04:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
And here is the reference for what you tagged citation needed:
Please don't reply here. we are discussing them in Captain_Screebo's talk page. --Saeed
07:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, does it? I think I have just stumbled on a mess where a certain person has deleted a fair bit from an article on the grounds that they've never heard of this newspaper etc. Might leave it alone and retreat to William Crooke & Yadav but would appreciate your thoughts nonetheless. There are BLP issues at stake also but my gut feeling is that the removed uncited stuff could have been sourced.
It is turning out to be one of those weekends. :( Sitush ( talk) 04:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I found very interesting considerations about WP survival in Jimmy Wales talkpage. I've added some related thoughts - like an article stub - in my user page. Placing should be correct and material proper but I don't know what's the standard way to start interaction/invite interested users. RfC or { { help } } or ...? Thanks Blackvisionit ( talk) 00:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
In case you hadn't notice, these have become a lovely shade of red:
I have just nominated the last two items for deletion:
When those two are gone, I will remove cats and templates from the articles that have them (I have the list on my HD.) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Consider adding a simple search box to your archives. The one on my talk is the least intrusive one I could find. You're welcome to pinch it. Best, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
First off, I want to thank you for your advice and criticism. I appreciate the feedback and correction. Again, thanks.
I have a question about Blackvisionit's posts such as
This, which he sent to everyone who had edited the floppy disk article. Would that qualify as
Wikipedia:Canvassing? Or am I being hypersensitive because of previous bad experiences?
Guy Macon (
talk)
17:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Two issues: First, should Blackvisionit be changing the importance and class of Articles? [8] [9] [10] [11] I was under the impression that WikiProject Computing assigns those.
Second, I would like to request that Blackvisionit be instructed to refrain from personal attacks. They interfere with a collegial environment, and I am tempted to respond with bad behavior of my own. In the last 4 days Blackvisionit has:
In my opinion, I think a "no tolerance" policy towards personal attacks is warranted in this case. Guy Macon ( talk) 17:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
For ending the 'Green Ray' AfD war decisively and finally.
Thank you! — Safety Cap ( talk) 02:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
.