Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
:::The relevant article talk page is the place to discuss improving the [[Minimal subtraction scheme]] article. [[User:A.K.Nole|A.K.Nole]] ([[User talk:A.K.Nole#top|talk]]) 07:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC) |
:::The relevant article talk page is the place to discuss improving the [[Minimal subtraction scheme]] article. [[User:A.K.Nole|A.K.Nole]] ([[User talk:A.K.Nole#top|talk]]) 07:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::No, you copied a section of one article out of context into another. That |
::::No, you copied a section of one article out of context into another. That was a very ill-advised thing to do and is not how wikipedia is edited. Why are you adding unsourced material and unexplained notation to an article? That is extremely unhelpful and disruptive. The normal way is to find the material in a book, e.g. Collins' Renormalization, paraphrase it and then cite it. I hope you understand this. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::BTW as an example of how to edit wikipedia, I prepared this article on Dame [[Janet Trotter]], the founding Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the [[University of Gloucestershire]] in [[Cheltenham]]. The same process applies: locate the sources, provide the references and paraphrase the material. It might be a useful exercise for you to try creating an article from scratch like this yourself, just to get the hang of things. You've spent so much time adding citation tages to other articles, that I quite surprised that you don't understand how to add material properly yourself. Good luck. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 07:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC) |
:::::BTW as an example of how to edit wikipedia, I prepared this article on Dame [[Janet Trotter]], the founding Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the [[University of Gloucestershire]] in [[Cheltenham]]. The same process applies: locate the sources, provide the references and paraphrase the material. It might be a useful exercise for you to try creating an article from scratch like this yourself, just to get the hang of things. You've spent so much time adding citation tages to other articles, that I quite surprised that you don't understand how to add material properly yourself. Good luck. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 07:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:18, 30 June 2009
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, A.K.Nole, 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
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
gENIUS101 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
gENIUS101 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
gENIUS101 19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Re. Phrop
Whoops, I must have mistaken them as part of the article text, my bad. ベリット 話せます 21:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Re Claudia (List of Doctor Who spin-off companions)
"Unsourced" I'll give you. Lance Parkin has in fact said this explicitly, but I can't find an online source. I can't see why it's "irrelevant" -- nothing's known of "Claudia" as a character other than her name, and this gives a context for that.
And "implausible"? That's just rude. Phil PH (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Your edits to Jeremy Dunning-Davies are problematic. If you continue reverting sourced content, your editing account could be blocked. Before future blanking, please carefully justify yourself on the talk page of this article. Mathsci (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let's analyse this in detail. I have copied here one entire posting from the article talk page:
- What you say is quite inaccurate. The sources show the contrary of what you state. On a personal note, looking at your editing record, you seem to be a somewhat inexperienced wikipedian editor. It is not a very good idea to continue pushing a point of view contradicted by multiple sources, unless you wish to be blocked indefinitely. This will happen very soon if you don't bother checking things, To see how wikipedia functions in this particular area, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science, which directly involves JDD. Look at the video cited here before wasting any more time.
- First, the weasel words.
- "Problematic" = disagreeing with Mathsci
- "Revert" suggests that I blindly reverted as opposed to editing. It was in fact Mathsci who reverted.
- "Sourced" = largely unsourced. Sources did not support the claims made, and other sources requested were not forthcoming.
- "Blanking" = removing contentious and inadequately sourced material in accordance with WP:BLP.
- "Please justify" suggests lack of justification, ignoring multiple comments and the four-point reasoning I placed on the talk page together with edit summaries referring to talk page and invoking BLP.
- At the talk page: "pushing a point of view" = disagreeing with Mathsci
- At the talk page: "quite inaccurate" = comments on Wikipedia policy disagreeing with Mathsci
- At the talk page: "sources"/"multiple sources" = only one source supplied and unsurprisingly it does not address Wikipedia policy
- At the talk page: "the video cited here" = a video not cited
- Second, the behaviour.
- Here and at the talk page: "Account could be blocked"/"unless you wish to be blocked". Apparently threats. Of course Mathsci is not in a position to actually block me, and even if s/he were, it would be grossly improper to do so.
- At the talk page: "On a personal note". Article talk pages are not the place for personal discussions of any kind and this is clearly a personal attack.
- At the talk page: "inexperienced". Irrelevant.
- At the talk page: "blocked ... if you don't bother checking things". Implied threats: impossible to check anyway since Mathsci repeatedly failed to supply the references which s/he claims support his/her case.
- Edit summary: "editor doesn't know what he's talking about". Simple insult.
- I do not propose to tolerate this sort of bullying behaviour. Mathsci, if you have an issue with my edits, and if we cannot reach consensus in an orderly way on the article talk page, take it to dispute resolution. If you truly believe that my behaviour warrants an indefinite block, take it to the appropriate forum. Do not attempt to bully me, do not harrass me, do not insult me. A.K.Nole (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#A.K.Nole_disputing_fringe_science_involvement. Mathsci (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I assume that you meant mathscinet. The correct trade mark is MathSciNet. I used that wikilink already on the deletion page of Jeremy Dunning-Davies. Please don't leave any more messages like that on my talk page. It counts as fairly serious harrassment and could result in your account being blocked, possibly indefinitely. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I said, and meant, Mathsci, which is the trade mark referred to here and here; numbers 2 and 3 on Google for the search term Mathsci. Since I supplied those links in my message your "assumption" is false. As the AMS press release here makes clear, MathSci is a database and MathSciNet is a web interface. It is hard to believe that you are not perfectly well aware of this. A.K.Nole (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm Lost
This may never reach anyone of note, but I can't figure out how to deal with the Wikipedia behemoth. I just want to take issue with the way erotic literature (e.g. Yolanda Celbridge) has been essentially erased from Wikipedia. I want to help, but I find myself in a Kafka-esque situation in which I need to know an answer before I can ask a question. Is there some way in this software bog where I could participate in a real discussion about what's happening. As I may not be able to use the software even to see your reply (assuming I've reached somebody, that is) perhaps I should give my email address: storm.wolf@btinternet.com. This may well be my last attempt at trying to support Wikipedia - my God you guys make it difficult!
John.
CliffordDorset (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)CliffordDorset
Hello. If you continue editing the talk page of this article as you have been doing recently, you can expect to be blocked. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Since my edits to Talk:Butcher group have been to suggest three improvements to the article, all of which have been accepted and implemented by yourself, this warning is incomprehensible and unacceptable. A.K.Nole (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- This edit [1] will be reverted because you copied and pasted material from one article into another. The problem with this edit is that it is not relevant to the stub and the material is completely out of context in this article. You are unwittingly using the notation of Hopf algebras but don't seem to have a clue that you're doing so. If you continue editing tendentiously like this you are probably heading for quite a long block.Mathsci (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- The relevant article talk page is the place to discuss improving the Minimal subtraction scheme article. A.K.Nole (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, you copied a section of one article out of context into another. That was a very ill-advised thing to do and is not how wikipedia is edited. Why are you adding unsourced material and unexplained notation to an article? That is extremely unhelpful and disruptive. The normal way is to find the material in a book, e.g. Collins' Renormalization, paraphrase it and then cite it. I hope you understand this. Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- BTW as an example of how to edit wikipedia, I prepared this article on Dame Janet Trotter, the founding Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of Gloucestershire in Cheltenham. The same process applies: locate the sources, provide the references and paraphrase the material. It might be a useful exercise for you to try creating an article from scratch like this yourself, just to get the hang of things. You've spent so much time adding citation tages to other articles, that I quite surprised that you don't understand how to add material properly yourself. Good luck. Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, you copied a section of one article out of context into another. That was a very ill-advised thing to do and is not how wikipedia is edited. Why are you adding unsourced material and unexplained notation to an article? That is extremely unhelpful and disruptive. The normal way is to find the material in a book, e.g. Collins' Renormalization, paraphrase it and then cite it. I hope you understand this. Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)