User talk:Pooryorick

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

Welcome![edit]

Hi, Pooryorick, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the five pillars of Wikipedia. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page.


Additional tips[edit]

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

  • If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
  • If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
  • If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing.[edit]

Recent edits at Function (mathematics)[edit]

I see that you are new here. It is encouraged for everyone to just edit pages, like you did. I reverted your edits at Function (mathematics) only because articles should be written using complete sentences, like an encyclopedia instead of a dictionary. I also reverted your deletion of comments from the talk page. You shouldn't delete or edit other people's remarks (WP:TALK#Basic rules for all talk pages). It is common to just add a remark on the talk page saying that you have made a change. CMummert 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The second round of edits seems good to me. The definition is clearer now. I appreciate the desire to make things clearer; that's why I'm here, too.
By the way, you can leave replies to comments on the same page, and I will know about them because they will appear on my watchlist. And you can sign your comments by putting four tildes at the end, which the software will reformat like this: CMummert 02:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Programming language[edit]

Please stop vandalizing the programming language article. As you yourself point out, you are a lay person on this topic. Making naive changes to an introduction that has been scrutinized by many people is vandalism that uses up people's time to no other end than progressing your knowledge on the subject. While I appreciate your desire to learn about the topic and contribute to Wikipedia, making changes to an established article about a subject you know little about is not a good way to go about things. Please stop this behavior. Derek farn (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we keep the discussion on the talk page. That way other people can weigh in on whether or not my contributions constitute vandalism. Pooryorick (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
My comment was intended for you and I did not want to broadcast it to the world (I imagine that few people read talk pages). I would like to hear your take on why you continue to make changes after your initial, good faith changes, were shown to be very flawed. Derek farn (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you exposing the errors in my changes. After each of my failed attempts, I went away, did some research and thinking, tried to get feedback about my ideas, and tried to improve my next attempt. Most importantly, I have tried not to be dismissive of anyone else in the process. When someone takes an hour out of their day to try to explain their changes on the talk page, it's not vandalism. If you look at each change I made, you will see that it differs in some semantic way from the previous change. That's because I am continuing to make good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a lot of things to a lot of people. As Wikipedia matures, there is a trend by same group of experts who were responsible for the failure of nupedia to make Wikipedia articles more resistant to change. There is some interesting analysis out there about the strident objections Nupedia personnel had about Wikipedia. But in the end, Wikipedia won, precisely because it wasn't Nupedia. Your first comment makes it obvious that you feel a sense of ownership of certain Wikipedia articles. From time to time I have to step back from something I'm engaged in and recognize that I've slipped into overestimating myself, underestimating others, and thereby stopped being the team player I thought I was. It might be time for you to do that as well. Have you read this?: http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html Pooryorick (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not doubting that your initial changes were made in good faith or that you continue to view your subsequent changes as being in good faith. I am objecting that a group of people who know something about the subject are effectively having to give you a one-on-one tutorial. This is a waste of our time and you are abusing Wikipedia for personal gain with no benefit accruing to Wikipedia. The best term I can think of, without getting overly personal, is vandalism. Derek farn (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. We're having a nice discussion on the talk page where I have pointed out the flaws in the first paragraph, and they have been well taken. You simply haven't deigned to participate, because you have dismissed me as a non-expert who is not worth listening to. FWIW, I've been in the field longer than I let on (the true laymen haven't digested GEB), but I play the layman because that is our audience here on Wikipedia. The experts further their understanding by reading peer-reviewed journals. Pooryorick (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd sugest not to take these Derek farn's comments in too much regard. Your editions can't be qualified as vandalism by any of its definitions, and you don't even need to justify your edits in the talk page (this would be stubbornness at worse). Disagreement over your opinions doesn't make them vandalism, although this word is used as an expletive too often within Wikipedia.
Just keep trying, your idea has merit and if you can finally find the perfect way to convey it, it will be included (I have been through that process in this same article before). Defensive editors can be used as a challenge to express your ideas in a really great way to which anybody can raise objections. This can be tiresome, but if they act in good faith (and in this particular article, my experience is that they ultimately do) the result will be an improved article, thanks to the contributions of everybody. Diego (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Derek's feedback (apart from complaining about vandalism and having to give free tutorials) has had precisely that effect so far on my edits. I'm much more satisfied with my current proposal than with my first attempt. Diego, your encouragement is also greatly appreciated. 148.168.40.4 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

July 2009[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Intelligence has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. StormRider 03:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I believe that mathematics is more than just "study", and that the areas indicated are more than just "mathematics". I think these distinctions are important, so I'll take it up on the talk page, as suggested.Pooryorick (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Now, I remember this revert. If you, your edit changed a number of foreign language edits to ?. Did you do that on purpose or was that a function of your web program? None of the foreign language links should have been changed and the revert was appropriate for that reason. --StormRider 00:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You are right. I'm looking into how that happened. Pooryorick (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Mosher[edit]

You're going to want to complete the steps listed in the AFD template at Eugene Mosher if you want to have the article deleted. Click here and replace "cat=U" with "cat=B" (since it's a person), and then replace "Reason" with your rationale for wanting the article deleted. Then transclude it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 13. I add that, if you're alleging that the subject himself has posted the article and the various other bits of other articles, you'll want to substantiate that - it can be a fairly serious accusation. Be mindful also of Outing other editors. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Message, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Discrete (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) 08:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed[edit]

02:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)