User talk:14.198.220.253

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit-warring[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Serge Lang shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MastCell Talk 23:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: No legitimate edit-war, here is my last legitimate edit, legitimately passed and improved. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and BRD[edit]

It's clear that you are currently edit warring, but I want to point out why the community sees it this way rather than just blocking editing from this address.

You made a change on Scientific consensus to "improve wordings". When your change was reverted, you put it back with the summary "undo NewsAndEventsGuy's POV". First of all, when you make an edit with a summary like that, you really should go directly to the talk page and explain your reasoning. "POV" without any explanation or clarification is hardly a justification for anything.

When you were reverted again, the edit summary clearly explained that the editor reverting you believed you were going against the consensus that had formed regarding the article's wording, and pointed you to BRD. Instead of discussing it then, you reverted a second time with a summary "since when you become consensus" and pointed back to BRD.

This shows a clear failure to understand the steps laid out at BRD. You did step 1 just fine, you made an edit to the page. Great, we welcome your contribution. You also did step 2 -- someone reverted you. Instead of step 3, "discuss the changes you would like to make..." you just reverted again. The second time you were reverted, that was really a crystal clear signal that the editors interested in this article objected to your change. If you still want to make the change, you have got to explain it, not try to wear them out by repeatedly inserting your proposed changes.

Furthermore, you have expressed a clear lack of understanding regarding the policy against edit warring. You basically said right out that if people revert your changes without an explanation you accept, you're just going to keep putting them back in. That's not how it works -- the reversion itself is a message that the editor reverting you does not agree with your changes. That, intrinsically, is a reason to discuss the issue. Just because they don't explain their reason for reverting to your satisfaction doesn't make your continued re-insertions not an edit war. Bring it to the article talk page or the talk page of the editor reverting you (if it's just one person). If they refuse to discuss the issue, then there are steps available to you to encourage discussion without disrupting the encyclopedia by edit warring, such as using the dispute resolution noticeboard.

Now that I have hopefully explained the community policy on edit warring etc. clearly enough, Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Darkwind (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: Legitimate edit-war, it is also my first time, I still disagree but it is admin's decision, I just cant say no. :3 --14.198.220.253 (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and planks[edit]

Thanks for selfreverting at Scientific consensus. I also noticed that in this edit at Planck_length you changed

"it is suggested that spacetime might have a discrete or foamy structure at a Planck length scale"

to (bold supplied)

"it is often guessed that spacetime might have a discrete or foamy structure at a Planck length scale"

Please see Wikipedia:Words_to_watch#Expressions_of_doubt and then restore "suggested". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

First, it is "often it is suggested" to "it is often guessed". Second, I don't mind if it is "Often it is guessed".
Lastly, I don't think you understand that policy well, it is not an expression of doubt, it is a doubt. That doubt is certain, because the discrete nature of universe is indeed a guess(or doubt) among physicists. --14.198.220.253 (talk)

Accusation of Wikihounding[edit]

As you pointed out, my contribution log does make it clear that I have been following your contributions. I have been doing so for the purpose of, to quote from Wikipedia:HOUND, "correcting related problems on multiple articles". I first came across your edits on Scientific consensus where I observed you attempting to eliminate references to the connection between peer review/consensus and science, apply idiosyncratic grammar preferences, and misunderstand the requirement to explain your edits when asked. As such, I was concerned that you had behaved similarly on other articles, and so looked over your contributions to check. I have not responded to all your edits, merely the ones that I saw as not making the encyclopedia better. I am sorry that you have felt attacked, and I'd be happy to work more cooperatively with you to improve articles assuming we find areas to do so in. If you wish to ask other editors to review our respective contributions, I'm glad for that to happen, although WP:DRN is actually for content disputes, not accusations of wikihounding. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

attempting to eliminate references to the connection between peer review/consensus and science
"eliminate"? It sounds like edit-warring to me. Attempting to *distinguish* the difference is my part, for me, it is just what it is, so that just makes my POV at worst.
apply idiosyncratic grammar preferences
That's your opinion, frankly, during the discussion I can't see you give a valid grammatical argument.
I am sorry that you have felt attacked,
You said right out that how I should make better use of my time. How could I not feel that way? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussing the addition to the Galileo footnote[edit]

As you suggested, I've opened a section on Talk:Scientific_revolution#Addition_of_greater_context_and_other_translations_of_the_Galileo_quote_in_the_footnote. I would be happy to hear any further thoughts you may have on the matter. Sorry for not having opened it sooner; I was honestly confused by your reverts (as I assume you have been over mine at times). 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: Manual of Style and article titles policy[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read the following notice:

This is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, which you may have edited. The committee's decision can be read here.

Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia or complies with applicable policies and guidelines. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.

In particular, please do not engage in edit wars, such as you did in November 2013 on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name).  Sandstein  12:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Thank you. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you IndianBio (and the previous others) for adding these red little icons all over my talk page, but it turns out that 1. you show no evidence and explanation on why the edits aren't legitimate(and you say "vandalism") 2. Not only you didn't respond in talk page, where your edit disrupt can be settled, you evade consensus by reverting my talk. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User:IndianBio, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Harassment? I am more scared than you, each time I talk to you now I am running into risk at blocking without further notice, as harassed by you, each time I edit, I have to suit your liking, because as harassed by you, I may be blocked without further notice.
That's why (unlike you) I added all the links on what you disrupted on your warning, so you can verify it. Now, you are playing blind by reverting my warning on your page, and by reverting my talk, you are stopping us from reaching consensus. So, let me ask a simple question, are you informed that you received a warning from me? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Discipline Page Revisions[edit]

I have never used the Wiki talk pages before and must say that I was reluctant to spend time on this, but I figure you deserve to know why someone rejected your revisions. The unsoftened answer to why I undid your revision is that I felt that your edits were not only unnecessary but that they removed value from the page. (Although your addition of an Academic Discipline section is good.) I will present my argument in the form of questions, facts, observations and a proposition. None of this is meant to be a personal attack or an insult but please really consider the following questions and data.

Why did you feel that the previous definitions needed revised?

Was the version you edited incorrect or did you simply not like the way it was presented?

What value did your edit add?

This will be the third time in the last five years that I have felt strongly enough to edit a Wiki page and the first time I have ever used the talk section. Until undoing your revision a couple of days ago I had not contributed to this page.

Fact: The sections you were revising had remained unchanged for almost a month. Your suggested edits were not only drastic enough to get noticed, but were enough to get a random wiki user (me) to reject them within a day.

Observation: Your edits seem more focused on the tone of a page than its meaning and value to the wiki community. Tone IS important to a degree, but not at the expense of the other. In other words, it is important not to miss the forest for the trees.

Observation: If I understand this “talk” forum correctly, you seem to have a less than flattering history with Edit warring. Although your intentions seem good, your edits seem to be less about correcting facts, but instead an effort to change wording to something you feel is more appropriate. (This in itself is not a bad thing, but it IS a subjective thing.)

Proposal: If you want real and honest feedback outside the wiki community, then copy and print the versions of this page pre and post your revisions. Then, without providing any indication of which edit is yours or which version you prefer, ask multiple friends and colleagues which makes more sense to them. Think "Blind Taste Test." ;)

-James 24.16.101.56 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The unsoftened answer to why I undid your revision is that I felt that your edits were not only unnecessary but that they removed value from the page.

So, where is your explanation? which argument is unnecessary, which value is removed, where is the problem?
Sorry I have read your talk 3 times and I can't find your reason to show that the edit is wrong, I feel that you have no prior knowledge and understanding on the edit before you edit(revert) too, and you are wasting my time.

Observation: If I understand this “talk” forum correctly, you seem to have a less than flattering history with Edit warring.

Except that I have no history of legitimate punishment and evidence from vandalism. So, the talk page here shows both illusion and evidence, the illusion that, thanks to the editors above, the desired/good-faith editor is labelled as edit-warrior and the evidence that, thanks to the editors above, they misuse the warnings and some even uses automatic tools to give out warnings even if they have no prior knowledge if the edit is vandalism. The effect is vandalism, such that desired newcomers or even regular editors do not get praised but harassed by these methods. Consequently, the desired edits shrink quickly since 2007.[1]

Your suggested edits were not only drastic enough to get noticed, but were enough to get a random wiki user (me) to reject them within a day.

So it is you. How about you explain your revert instead of engaging in the improvement or the edit, which is drastic enough to get a wiki user (me) noticed. Explain your vandalism ;) --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)



Your complaints are valid. I did not go into detail as to why the edits that you felt were an improvement were rejected. But then, you never justified your edits either. I still maintain that the specific edits you made were not needed and that they removed meaning/value from the sections being edited.


I would point out that in the case of a disagreement like this that the burden to explain and justify revisions would fall on the person who was actually making a change. You made changes to long standing definitions – I merely vetoed your edits. I agree with Demiurge1000 that this IS a “messy and badly sourced article,” but you have yet to present an argument as to why your edits made those sections better. For the most part they only made them worse.


Based on the overwhelming evidence on this page alone (your responses included), I have to believe that your abundant wiki editing is not about objectively trying to improve any given wiki page. Wiki editing is obviously something you do for personal gratification. Still, those two things are not mutually exclusive and as long as you put the good of the page before a desire to put your personal stamp on something, your actions could be a good thing. If I am wrong – if you truly care about this pages content being the best that it can be, and have the courage to answer the below questions objectively and/or honestly, I will do you the courtesy of a point by point reasoning behind my veto. Maybe we can find a common ground and add value to the article.:


Why did you feel that the parts you edited needed revised? (Some did, but what is your take?)


Why do you feel that you are qualified to make these edits? What are your qualifications/sources on this topic?


Were the sentences you edited incorrect or did you simply not like the way they read?


What value did your edit add? How?


Why do you spend so much of your time editing wiki pages?


How much time did you spend on your initial edit of this page?


Once there was resistance to your edits did you re-read and reconsider some or all of your revision? If so, which parts and why? If not, why not?


Given the overwhelming number of pages you edit, why do you feel that you are an authority on so many topics?


Why does it bother you so much when a revision of yours is rejected by someone in the community?


Why do you feel that disagreeing with your unsupported opinion is vandalism? By that logic wouldn’t your actions be equally culpable if not more so?


-James 24.16.101.56 (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your complaints are valid. I did not go into detail as to why the edits that you felt were an improvement were rejected.

So, what do you want? Conformity? Tell you that I feel my edit is not an improvement? Please WP:FOC.

But then, you never justified your edits either. I still maintain that the specific edits you made were not needed and that they removed meaning/value from the sections being edited.

I didn't justify my edit? I made solid contextual contribution, where one can challenge and discuss, I present the rationale on content on each edit summary, this is what Demiurge1000 and I did and what you didn't do.
I note that you still didn't explain your content disrupt, given the fact that I am waiting for you to present arguments against the edit.

--14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about capitalization of parenthetical subtitles of songs[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Capitalization_of_song_parenthetical_subtitles. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ah, I plan to open a talk on Madonna or relevant page so they can quickly check the titles, I don't care what people say on WikiProject Songs, perhaps they have experience and made some very good guidelines, but the final decision is on the official title. Also, it is evident that the rvs by those editors are not consistent anyway. (eg. why don't u change the case once and for all? All they did is rvs.) --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring / Trolling[edit]

I am required to notify you that I have put in a recommendation that you be blocked on the administrator noticeboard. It is clear that the reasons for this have been explained to you by multiple people multiple times. Someone has even commented on this one already. For some reason you have made a hobby of editing wiki pages these last few months and when your “improvements” are rejected you attempt to force them on the community. You give no argument or justification as to why your own opinions should be accepted but demand an explanation or justification when your edits are reverted by the community. You even claim vandalism when your opinions are not shared. You obviously seem to thrive on the conflict. This is not only edit warring but trolling, and it is disruptive. Wiki is not your personal blog. Stop making a nuisance of yourself. 138.163.106.73 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

your “improvements” are rejected you attempt to force them on the community.

By engaging in discussion and improvement? How mean, am I not part of the community?

should be accepted but demand an explanation or justification when your edits are reverted by the community. You even claim vandalism when your opinions are not shared.

Let's take a look on your rv, you didn't even present an argument to rationale your revert, knowing that I have been engaging in discussion with other editor. Anyway, your rv is rv'd, your rv isn't shared by the community either. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

List of academic databases and search engines[edit]

If I understand correctly, you are edit-warring to change "discipline" to "subject" and "multidisciplinary" to "general"? This is a list of academic databases, where we distinguish databases by discipline and where we call databases that cover multiple disciplines... surprise! "multidisciplinary". Perhaps you can take your argument to the article's talk page and explain your reasoning (i.e., no use responding here). If no justification comes within a reasonable amount of time, I will revert and treat subsequent changes as vandalism. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, I do not (or have yet to) enforce you to accept anything(i.e. edit-warring), we have informal discussion over edit summary and the WP:BRD procedure is only an essay.
This is a list of academic databases, where we distinguish databases by (don't be surprised) "academic subject" and this is the phrase that is 0. academic 1. everyone understands. 2. Does not necessarily require classification of discipline.
A minor argument to respond your argument, one cannot deny (unless investigated) that an academic database or search engine is for general subject or given an academic database or search engine, it is for general purpose. It is also the clear and concise version that 0. academic 1. everyone understands. 2. Does not necessarily require classification of discipline and how it interplays. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Richard Feynman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, we have informal discussion on edit summary and i didn't hear you disagree. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for long term disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

As described on the ANI thread, you have been edit warring and supremely argumentative for a long while, and don't seem willing to take criticism onboard. In order to limit your disruption of other editors' work, I've blocked you from editing for a month. I hope your approach changes when/if you come back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)