| Revision as of 15:41, 27 December 2024 edit5.178.188.143 (talk) →Please stop edit warring: new sectionTags: Reverted New topic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:27, 3 January 2025 edit undoBusterD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,824 editsm →Aggressive, unilateral, territorial behavior: ce | ||
| (58 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| <!--- New sections go at the BOTTOM of the page ---> | <!--- New sections go at the BOTTOM of the page ---> | ||
| == |
== Fashion Week edits == | ||
| Not certain why you would knee jerk remove a couple of links that add information to the Fashion Week page, while leaving something called DN mag, which no one has heard of in this space, links to a schedule that is two years old, i.e. ridiculously outdated, and on top of that is simply a scrape of the official FHCM website that I tried to include. I think this is why people dislike Misplaced Pages, people have a tendency to revert things without knowing anything about the subject ] (]) 00:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Some text was removed and the reason was for copyright violation, but the text was not a violation of copyright so I undid it. | |||
| ⚫ | :See ]. If you think other links are bad, that isn't a reason to add more links that do not agree with Misplaced Pages's policies. ] (]) 00:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| You reverted my changes and said it was not nuetral, I would like to ask how it is not nuetral? | |||
| ⚫ | ::I've removed DN mag now as well, thanks for pointing that one out. ] (]) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | == edit wars == | ||
| this user seems to like to support the 'no no reverter' Vincent Lefèvre in 'edit wars', evtl. this is the purpose of this account, could some official pls. warn him to act less aggressive? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| :You should consider using talk pages and following Misplaced Pages's core policies such as ] and ], you would get reverted far less often then. - ] (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It is discussing the historical origins of aquaponics, the sentence you removed was specifically referring to the evolution of system designs of the flood and drain system. | |||
| Aaaaa4 ] (]) 16:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If it is not nuetral to say that todays flood and drain systems originiated from the work at NCSU, then why is the article allowed to say that the New Alchemy Institute laid the foundations for DWC? Why is it allowed to say that Rakocy's research had led to the adoption of deep water culture hydroponic grow beds? ] (]) 21:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This user seems to believe he is the policeman of the Internet. Likes to cite "Misplaced Pages's rules", ignoring that there is interpretation involved. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :For exactly the same reasons we discussed on your user talk page, in the section titled 'May 2024'. Please try to read and follow the relevant policies this time, rather than asking me the same question which will have the same answer. ] (]) 21:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, so the issue is with the wording and not the topic being discussed. If I remove the word "pioneering" it will make the statement nuetral. | |||
| ⚫ | :: |
||
| :::This is not about single words, this is about the consistent tone of your editing - which is exactly what I said last time you asked me this. ] (]) 21:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You said that "Your writing is full of value-laden wording: examples include 'significant', 'pioneering', 'visionaries', 'significant strides', and so on. Please don't remove just those words and put the edits back - those are examples." I am unsure what you mean by the tone of my editing. The one being discussed now was a direct quote from a non-copyrighted source. | |||
| ::::'''So instead of;''' | |||
| ::::"The evolution of the “flood and drain systems” adopted in backyard aquaponics comes back to the pioneering work of Mark McMurtry." | |||
| ::::'''I should replace it with;''' | |||
| ::::"The development of 'flood and drain systems' in modern aquaponics can be traced to the research of Dr. Mark McMurtry at North Carolina State University." ] (]) 21:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :: |
||
| ::::::This is why I asked why the references to the New Alchemists and Rakocy were allowed, is it not "puffing" them up too? | |||
| ::::::It's a factual history of the development of flood and drain systems, it informs the reader of the history, foundation and evolution of that specific system type. It is supported by a reference, it is not an opinion. | |||
| ::::::An possible alternative would be to say "The development of 'flood and drain systems' in modern aquaponics can be traced to the research at North Carolina State University." ] (]) 22:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not really interested in discussing unrelated sources or edits on my user talk page. The content of the sentence is promotional. There is no neutral way to word it because the promotion is the only thing there. ] (]) 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Replying to @]—If you wish to promote work being done by a scientist a university, being one, and having done such for years, the path is straightforward. | |||
| ::::::::*(1) Find a reputable secondary or tertiary scientific source—a review or text are examples—that makes a statement regarding the primary source research that you believe is pioneering. That is, it must be someone else that says this, in a reputable source, and not you or me (i.e., not WP editors). That review or book should ''not'' be by the individual on whom the accolade is being bestowed, nor should it by his research group, students, colleagues, collaborators, or university in any fashion (nor anyone else closely associated with him or the work). Otherwise, the individual making the statement has a ]. That is, as we say here, the source needs to be from an independent, third-party source. | |||
| ::::::::*(2) If possible, find a second source of the same type that says the same thing. | |||
| ::::::::*(3) Etc. | |||
| ::::::::*(4) Then, summarise the opinion of the two or more sources, regarding the primary research, and cite the secondary or tertiary sources using Note, if one reliable source says something positive, and another reliable source says something negative, it is standard practice to present both perspectives (e.g., when there are competing claims made with regard to a discovery), unless and until a consensus appears in the secondary and tertiary literature—in which case, it can be said, "Most individuals reviewing this matter conclude that it was the team of Brown and Goldstein (and their collaborators) that made the seminal discovery in this area.". | |||
| ::::::::*(5) After this care is taken, as a courtesy, the primary source that all these sources point to as being important can then be added. And, | |||
| ::::::::* (6) As indicated, in making the statement, (a) titles like Dr, Prof, Nobel Laureate, etc. should not be used, (b) English given names are generally omitted (indicating only the last/family name, and leaving the citation to elaborate more fully), and (c) institutions are almost never indicated, because the affiliations of scientists are often complex (involving multiple institutions/departments), it often moreover takes tremendous careful historical work (or involves prohibited ]) to accurately determine with absolute confidence where a particular individual was working when they made a discovery, and/or the courtesy primary source citation just mentioned speaks for itself with regard to the individual's affiliation(s). | |||
| ::::::::That is how we have and would recommend accomplishing the edit that you appear to wish to make. Cheers. ] (]) 03:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That is a very thorough answer, and extremely helpful. Thank you. ] (]) 22:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a page to communicate with me directly, not to make unfocused personal attacks. See ] and ]. - ] (]) 20:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for December 20 == | |||
| An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. | |||
| == Linear Canonical Transformation == | |||
| (].) --] (]) 07:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, You undid contribution I made in the article "Linear Canonical Transformation" while these contributions were there for months and are based on the contents of peer reviewed high quality scientific journals as sources. Could you explain what is wrong with the contents (so that it can be corrected properly if necessary)? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| :For the reasons we discussed at length on your own user talk page. You know this. - ] (]) 12:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Dear, I have made the valid contribution in ] wiki page, please review it again and revert the valid contribution from my side. | |||
| She is an pornographic film actress. I have also added a valid cite too. | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 18:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
::The informations contained there, which are scientific fact and knowledege, are from peer reviewed paper. I just report these scientific content which are directly related to the wikipedia article. Where is the problem ? Have I reported something that are falses or wrong ? ] (]) 12:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::One my talk page I ask you to quote the text where you see a problem and explain clearly where in the text is the problem and you never did this ] (]) 12:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks Dear. | |||
| ::::You have asked the same question several times on your talk page, which I had already answered. When I told you there that I wasn't going to repeat myself that was not an invitation for you to come and repeat your question several times here as well, nor was it an invitation for you to continue adding COI self mentions to the articles in question. ] (]) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::h | |||
| :::::My question is clear here , do you find anything wrong in my contribution in "Linear Canonical Transformation"? that is based on peer reviewed sources. There nothing related to COI here. Is there scientific error in the text or anything else like that ? ] (]) 17:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::t ] (]) 19:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, the issue I explained on your user talk page. There absolutely is a COI issue. I will not respond to this question again. ] (]) 17:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Have you at least understand the contents of the text you removed before removing them ? ] (]) 17:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And you are mixing everything. The previous talk is about another article (which is now a draft under review). Here I am talking clearly about the contribution that you removed on "Linear Canonical Transformation" that were there months before . ] (]) 17:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The same issues have been present in all your edits. That these issues went unnoticed for a while (even a few months) does not somehow mean they can never be fixed. ] (]) 17:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I have made other edits with other references. Is there scientific errors in the text you removed ? And as I said they were based on "peer reviewed high quality scientific paper": Do you understand the meaning of this ? ] (]) 18:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Kindly do not post on my talk page again, I am not interested in seeing the same stuff over and over. ] (]) 18:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::So Please , next time try to understand the true contents of contributions before removing them. As other people also suggest before, You can also at least comment in the article discussion page before removing if you find something wrong after "serious review of the contents." . Thank you for your understanding ] (]) 18:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Aggressive, unilateral, territorial behavior == | |||
| ==Merry Christmas!== | |||
| <div style="background:#9fddf2; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid #89CFF0; border-left: 3px solid #89CFF0; border-right: 3px solid #89CFF0; border-bottom: 3px solid ##89CFF0; 8px; font-size: 110%; font-family:Chalkboard; text-align: center;"> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| Dear {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br> <span style="color:red">MERRY</span> <span style="color:green">CHRISTMAS</span>!!! Best wishes to you, your family and relatives this holiday season! Take this opportunity to bond with your loved ones, whether or not are you celebrating Christmas. This is a special time for everybody, and spread the holiday spirit to everybody out there! ]<br> From a fellow editor, <br>--] (]) 09:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Dear Mr. Ollie, I will report you for vandalism if you continue to remove posts on the Turing Test page that cite the work of Gonçalves. This is substantial peer-reviewed academic work that has appeared in top history, philosophy, and science journals, including Nature, and yet you call it citation spam. You do not seem to care about the content and the subject matter. Apparently you are not here to learn or to help others learn, but to control Misplaced Pages pages, your rented 1m2 of power. ] (]) 12:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <small>This message promotes ]. Created by ] (] | ] | ]). To use this template, leave <nowiki>{{subst:User:Nahnah4/Merry Christmas}}</nowiki> on someone else's talk page.</small> | |||
| </div> | |||
| ] (]) 09:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It is even worse, as I've just seen. Now you removed other, years-old citations of the work of Gonçalves. If you remove it again, you will be reported. ] (]) 12:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Please stop edit warring == | |||
| ::I'm watching the situation and neither of you is covered in glory this morning. Work it out in ] I just created. ] (]) 12:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] you do realise that the account is adding their own works, am I correct? ] ] 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| ::::I was not aware of that until the discussion on page talk commenced. ] (]) 19:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::My edits are plainly not vandalism. Also, please don't refer to yourself in the third person, it is quite misleading. ] (]) 14:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | |||
| :::I agree with that assessment but in the moment I was reacting to the back and forth. ] (]) 19:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I' |
::::I can definitely understand that. I'll move to the article talk page faster next time, rather than getting drawn into back and forth on user talk. ] (]) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I value your edits and have reason to expect reasonable behavior when I see your date stamp. Thank you. Don't be shy to point out when I'm not seeing a situation clearly. I'd much rather have someone I know ''in my face'' than fail to comprehend their need for assistance. ] (]) 20:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:27, 3 January 2025
Hello, welcome to my talk page!
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Fashion Week edits
Not certain why you would knee jerk remove a couple of links that add information to the Fashion Week page, while leaving something called DN mag, which no one has heard of in this space, links to a schedule that is two years old, i.e. ridiculously outdated, and on top of that is simply a scrape of the official FHCM website that I tried to include. I think this is why people dislike Misplaced Pages, people have a tendency to revert things without knowing anything about the subject 98.173.239.180 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:EL. If you think other links are bad, that isn't a reason to add more links that do not agree with Misplaced Pages's policies. MrOllie (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed DN mag now as well, thanks for pointing that one out. MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
edit wars
this user seems to like to support the 'no no reverter' Vincent Lefèvre in 'edit wars', evtl. this is the purpose of this account, could some official pls. warn him to act less aggressive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.225.16 (talk • contribs)
- You should consider using talk pages and following Misplaced Pages's core policies such as WP:V and WP:OR, you would get reverted far less often then. - MrOllie (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Aaaaa4 103.122.253.26 (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
This user seems to believe he is the policeman of the Internet. Likes to cite "Misplaced Pages's rules", ignoring that there is interpretation involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgonc (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a page to communicate with me directly, not to make unfocused personal attacks. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. - MrOllie (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Linear Canonical Transformation
Hello, You undid contribution I made in the article "Linear Canonical Transformation" while these contributions were there for months and are based on the contents of peer reviewed high quality scientific journals as sources. Could you explain what is wrong with the contents (so that it can be corrected properly if necessary)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshon13 (talk • contribs)
- For the reasons we discussed at length on your own user talk page. You know this. - MrOllie (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The informations contained there, which are scientific fact and knowledege, are from peer reviewed paper. I just report these scientific content which are directly related to the wikipedia article. Where is the problem ? Have I reported something that are falses or wrong ? Rshon13 (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- One my talk page I ask you to quote the text where you see a problem and explain clearly where in the text is the problem and you never did this Rshon13 (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have asked the same question several times on your talk page, which I had already answered. When I told you there that I wasn't going to repeat myself that was not an invitation for you to come and repeat your question several times here as well, nor was it an invitation for you to continue adding COI self mentions to the articles in question. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- My question is clear here , do you find anything wrong in my contribution in "Linear Canonical Transformation"? that is based on peer reviewed sources. There nothing related to COI here. Is there scientific error in the text or anything else like that ? Rshon13 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the issue I explained on your user talk page. There absolutely is a COI issue. I will not respond to this question again. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Have you at least understand the contents of the text you removed before removing them ? Rshon13 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- And you are mixing everything. The previous talk is about another article (which is now a draft under review). Here I am talking clearly about the contribution that you removed on "Linear Canonical Transformation" that were there months before . Rshon13 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The same issues have been present in all your edits. That these issues went unnoticed for a while (even a few months) does not somehow mean they can never be fixed. MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have made other edits with other references. Is there scientific errors in the text you removed ? And as I said they were based on "peer reviewed high quality scientific paper": Do you understand the meaning of this ? Rshon13 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Kindly do not post on my talk page again, I am not interested in seeing the same stuff over and over. MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- So Please , next time try to understand the true contents of contributions before removing them. As other people also suggest before, You can also at least comment in the article discussion page before removing if you find something wrong after "serious review of the contents." . Thank you for your understanding Rshon13 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Kindly do not post on my talk page again, I am not interested in seeing the same stuff over and over. MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have made other edits with other references. Is there scientific errors in the text you removed ? And as I said they were based on "peer reviewed high quality scientific paper": Do you understand the meaning of this ? Rshon13 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The same issues have been present in all your edits. That these issues went unnoticed for a while (even a few months) does not somehow mean they can never be fixed. MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the issue I explained on your user talk page. There absolutely is a COI issue. I will not respond to this question again. MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- My question is clear here , do you find anything wrong in my contribution in "Linear Canonical Transformation"? that is based on peer reviewed sources. There nothing related to COI here. Is there scientific error in the text or anything else like that ? Rshon13 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have asked the same question several times on your talk page, which I had already answered. When I told you there that I wasn't going to repeat myself that was not an invitation for you to come and repeat your question several times here as well, nor was it an invitation for you to continue adding COI self mentions to the articles in question. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- One my talk page I ask you to quote the text where you see a problem and explain clearly where in the text is the problem and you never did this Rshon13 (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The informations contained there, which are scientific fact and knowledege, are from peer reviewed paper. I just report these scientific content which are directly related to the wikipedia article. Where is the problem ? Have I reported something that are falses or wrong ? Rshon13 (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Aggressive, unilateral, territorial behavior
Dear Mr. Ollie, I will report you for vandalism if you continue to remove posts on the Turing Test page that cite the work of Gonçalves. This is substantial peer-reviewed academic work that has appeared in top history, philosophy, and science journals, including Nature, and yet you call it citation spam. You do not seem to care about the content and the subject matter. Apparently you are not here to learn or to help others learn, but to control Misplaced Pages pages, your rented 1m2 of power. Bgonc (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is even worse, as I've just seen. Now you removed other, years-old citations of the work of Gonçalves. If you remove it again, you will be reported. Bgonc (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm watching the situation and neither of you is covered in glory this morning. Work it out in the talk thread I just created. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BusterD you do realise that the account is adding their own works, am I correct? Doug Weller talk 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was not aware of that until the discussion on page talk commenced. BusterD (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BusterD you do realise that the account is adding their own works, am I correct? Doug Weller talk 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- My edits are plainly not vandalism. Also, please don't refer to yourself in the third person, it is quite misleading. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with that assessment but in the moment I was reacting to the back and forth. BusterD (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can definitely understand that. I'll move to the article talk page faster next time, rather than getting drawn into back and forth on user talk. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I value your edits and have reason to expect reasonable behavior when I see your date stamp. Thank you. Don't be shy to point out when I'm not seeing a situation clearly. I'd much rather have someone I know in my face than fail to comprehend their need for assistance. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can definitely understand that. I'll move to the article talk page faster next time, rather than getting drawn into back and forth on user talk. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with that assessment but in the moment I was reacting to the back and forth. BusterD (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm watching the situation and neither of you is covered in glory this morning. Work it out in the talk thread I just created. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)