User talk:Freeranging intellect

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Freeranging intellect, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "5:2 diet". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdann52 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You are NOT allowed to edit other peoples talk page contributions![edit]

My comments are my comments! You are not allowed to change them, so as to make it seem that I have said something that I didn't!

What you did is an act of vandalism and is unacceptable!
Do it again and I will report you, and have you blocked.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I was correcting your incorrect reference. I was not changing your comments - Look at my change and the article and you will see why your reference was incorrect. The contents of your square brackets was simply wrong.
You were, quite clearly and unambiguously, changing my comment. You can claim that I am wrong in a reply. You are not allowed to change my comment.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Please do not modify or delete other users' comments on discussion pages. You are welcome to participate in discussions; but remember that, unlike articles, comments left on these pages should not be edited. Thank you. Blackguard 19:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Sobo 1909 589.png
  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Lastly, why not try and strive to create a good article! Anatomical articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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. Yobol (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Rather than demanding that others start a discussion...[edit]

If you want a discussion: Start it!
You tried to get your edit through and you got reverted. The next step is to discuss (see WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) ...not to re-revert (see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert). That is to edit war (or at least edge close to edit warring). Also, please note that we've already had this discussion in 5:2 diet ...and you were in that discussion! Furthermore, the evidence that you are referring to is the exact same evidence as in that discussion! You have absolutely no kind of moral high-ground here. The mere fact that you are trying to repeatedly inserting the same material looks bad, and the fact that this is an issue that you have already discussed and lost and that you are not presenting any new evidence or argument, but rather making the exact same case as before... That looks real bad. I wouldn't talk of edit wars, if I were you.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you've actually violated the The three-revert rule. You do realise that any editor in violation of that rule, can be blocked straight away, right?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

mistaken notice[edit]

what you did in this edit - you put it on Yobol's user page, not his Talk page. you are not supposed to mess with other people's User pages; while i am sure it was an accident i suggest you move it to the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry - thanks. That explains why it was blank. I will move it now. Freeranging intellect (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
good! you are off to such an unhappy start here at WP! oy. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Tell me about it! This article rings so true for me. I won't be here for much longer I think. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ Freeranging intellect (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
want a word of advice? Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Well sure, as long as it's constructive. The most demoralizing thing here has been in the past writing a long paragraph of well sources material to have it just deleted completely by a 'wiki-god' (as I've heard someone say). I don't mind it being changed (even radically) but full deletes without improvements / talks. Ugh. Freeranging intellect (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ok here goes. i took a quick look at your Talk page and at your contribs, and although you are pretty new here, you jumped right into disputes with that whole 5:2 diet thing, edit warred (not blocked tho!) and went to the drama boards. A rocky start! So here is my take. Discussions on WIkipedia can really get under your skin. I know that. I am sorry about this, but if you really want to get involved, it turns out that Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that over the years, Wikipedia has developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that form a foundation for rational discussion. Without that foundation, this place would be a wild west - a truly ugly place. But with the foundation, there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it. One of the hardest things for new people, is to understand not only that this foundation exists, but what its letter and spirit is. (I emphasize the spirit, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering") The more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various drama boards and administrative tools, but their spirit - the more impressed I have become at how, well ... beautiful this place is. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Wikipedia's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!). I don't think the people who wrote the Technology Review article, understood this at all. Also, people come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which is really destructive. WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments. And one of the hardest things that happens, is when simple disagreements over content and different understandings of policy, turn into accusations of bad faith editing (e.g. accusations of COI). There are many ways to go wrong, and a narrow path to go right. the wrong paths lead to misery for those who take them, and misery for those around them too. I don't know if you can find a way to "reset" at this point, and choose a different path, but i hope you can. WP is a very very human place - very beautifully designed, sometimes beautiful in execution, and too often ugly too. much depends on how you carry yourself. anyway, good luck! that is my advice. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write that. It is both thoughtful and well written. I will take some time to digest this. Wikipedia undoubtedly has a steep learning curve and perhaps this prevented the Technology Review author from getting to the point you are describing. As a new (and scarred) editor I think this is a bit of a weakness, but you certainly argue well that it is worth overcoming. Thanks again. Much to digest. Freeranging intellect (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
you are welcome, and thanks for listening. i wish you good luck! Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 5:2 diet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)