# User talk:Zedshort

## Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Zedshort, 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:

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

## Dear Jimbo: Cease and Desist or...

I've often heard you tout the maxim, “There are no rules on Wikipedia.” I am sure you mean well, and I'm sure you genuinely believe what you say, but I suspect that Wikipedia (WP), has shifted, to the point that the reality of the situation and your hopes stand in such stark contrast as to be comic; there are in fact, many, many, many rules larding Wikipedia (WP).

There is another maxim I believe to be close to your heart, to the effect: “Break all the rules.” If you honestly believe these guidelines and you have recently applied them while patrolling WP I wish you would direct us to particular instances of their application by yourself while incognito. It will not do to point to instances where you are recognized by others as Jimbo Wales, as you might be allowed more elbow-room than would be allowed others with respect to the infractions of the rules (that don't exist). Surely there have been instances when you have shaved your beard and presented yourself as another (no doubt that would be against the rules of WP, of which there are none but there are many) in an effort to test the limits and by that means to see where things honestly stand?

If you have not done so, then shame on you. There has been a serious drift from those early principles, to the point that WP is now bound by rules, rules, and more rules. I've concluded that there are so many rules that only the few persons, obsessed with rules, could come to understand such a bureaucratic, Kafkaesque mass. Frankly, I feel that the quoting of rules to be low and repulsive and I want nothing to do with it. I find myself attracted only to the process of editing for the purpose of presenting the facts in an insightful manner, improving the readability, reducing the redundancy, clearing the turgidity, and eliminating the grotesque overwriting that I find almost everywhere on WP. Call me a simpleton, but isn't that the essence of contributing to WP?

To be completely honest with you, I've found myself in conflict with an “editor” who seems to believe his purpose here is to squat upon articles, lie in wait for others to perform an edit, and then to swoop down and pass judgment upon that edit, allowing those edits to his liking to remain but reverting those that do not jive with his weltanschauung. If such a person contributed to WP by way of constructive edits I would dismiss it as just more editing, but when the majority of his edits are simply reversions of others edits there is something seriously wrong. There is a growing crew of such persons whom act as if this is not Wikipedia but is instead the old Newpedia wherein the editors submitted suggested edits to a handful of auditors and those auditors would then reject the worst and keep the best. In this case the auditors seem to be expert rule-quoters and self-appointed WP police. I find this to be so obnoxious as to be ready to throw in the towel and bring my editing here to an end by my own hand or by the blocking from WP administrators as a result of my protestations. I will not back down from telling you and others the facts as I see them. If you and your crew here finds my frank manner and direct speaking to be offensive then please, by all means, do me the great favor of blocking me for life as I want nothing more to do with the growing body of trolls, vultures and their crew of selected, supporting administrators. I have invested to much honestly given effort here and cannot stand to think of associating any further with people with whom I would not want to occupy the same physical place.

If you genuinely believe the maxims of “there are no rules on Wikipedia”, and “break all the rules”, then you need to defend that stance and those whom you have lead along that path, otherwise you should cease and desist from that line and admit to us all that the development of Wikipedia has passed you by and that we, the simple minded editors who don't care one whit for all the rule quoting, should simply conform or leave. It won't bother me at all to leave as I really don't need the aggravation.

It is time to make a decision as to whom you will support. Either a growing body of rule-quoters and those that support them or those of us that pop in from time to time to make constructive edits to improve Wikipedia in a slow and sure manner who run afoul of the not-rules and the not-rule-quoters backed up by a few administrators that seemingly have no clue as to the tack Wikipedia is taking by their bad decisions. Take your pick.

Sincerely, Zedshort (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

## Introduction of errors through copyediting

Hi,

As I and others have noted before, too many of your copyedits to astronomy articles, such as your recent edits to star, change the meaning in such a way as to introduce errors. While I appreciate your efforts to improve the writing, the result effectively requires other editors to check every one of your edits if the content is not to be harmed. Please be more careful in your editing! —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 04:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Two steps forward, one step back. That is how progress is made on WP. No one should expect perfection on the first pass through that is why I go through these articles and do such heavy handed copy editing. More to come. Zedshort (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
That's the same response you've given before. The problem is that your edits tend to be one step forward and two steps back because you introduce so many factual errors and have so many edits (some of which certainly are helpful) that it's very difficult to identify and revert the backward steps. Please slow down and be careful in your editing instead of hiding behind your slogan. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I am an aggressive editor, I will admit, am not shy about that and I will go too far at times. But the amount of turgid writing that needs to be cleared up, the redundancy that requires cutting and convoluted expressions that need straightening on WP seems endless. The amount of time it takes a person to compare the changes with the former writing is about twenty seconds and if you know your stuff not much brain work. I am not hiding behind a slogan but living what I believe. If you find it to be too difficult then please leave the work to others.Zedshort (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

## Edits on Thermodynamic cycle

Example of P-V diagram of a thermodynamic cycle.

I had to step into your edit because you left one of the equations dysfunctional (you need to use the Latex /Delta). I like most of what you have done, but want to discuss a few things when you have finished. But BEFORE you finish, perhaps you want to address that fact that the same figure appears in three places. This is not something you did; the triplicate figure existed before you started to edit. But it bothers me to see the same figure three times. I can resolve one duplication by making a figure for work output that shows how $W=\oint PdV$ by illustrating two Riemann sums (going to the left and also the right). Many undergraduates don't quite get this concept, I would imagine. --guyvan52 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I will further comment on the article's talk page. (I never know where these conversations should go...)

I am reverting the edits where your changes change the meaning of the article in such a way as to make it unclear or incorrect. For example, your recent edit changed 'energy acquired that it moved' to 'energy acquired as it moves'. This changes the meaning from what was originally intended and means that earlier text doesn't make sense (when did the particle acquire energy? Why is it relevant that it's moving closely to the black hole?). You may see bad writing everywhere, but your introduction of obvious errors (this is by no means the worst example I have fixed) makes me wonder whether you are really competent to edit an article like this; maybe your perception of bad writing is simply a result of your poor understanding of the material? I will continue to revert or otherwise correct any edit that appears to me to make the article worse. Feel free to get someone else involved if you think that will help. Mhardcastle (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

In the above you said: "For example, your recent edit changed 'energy acquired that it moved' to 'energy acquired as it moves'." I don't know where you got that. The prior version was "...does not efficiently radiate away the energy that it acquired as it moved close to the black hole." I changed it to "does not efficiently radiate away the energy that it acquired as it moves close to the black hole." You have misrepresented my edit.Zedshort (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

## Need help

 This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have been attempting to add a new section to the Talk Page of the article Neutron Bomb but it will not take the change. I am logged in and sign with the tildes. I rebooted my machine and tried again but to no avail. I've tried several times

Zedshort (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Done! What happened is that an IP editor who placed ref tags in the article forgot to close them, which was making the rest of the page essentially disappear. Your edits actually took; it's just that the unclosed tag was preventing them from being displayed. I've removed the duplicate sections and fixed up some of the signatures, so you should be good to go now. Cheers! Writ Keeper  03:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much Zedshort (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)