User talk:8digits: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:31, 9 February 2012

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 8digits, 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 and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
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! The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikihounding and 3rd law

I see that you're still wikihounding me, 8digits. Most edits you make are to pages I recently edited, usually pages that you've never touched before.

While I greatly appreciate constructive edits that improve the article, particularly to pages I've worked hard on, it seems that you often just change something for the sake of changing something on a page I edited. For instance, why did you - twice - edit the 3rd law of thermodynamics to say it's statistical, when it's not? I can only conclude (based on your edits) that you have confused it with the 2nd law. If you don't have much knowledge of a topic, which at least in this case you obviously don't (confusing two totally different laws of physics?), don't you think it might be better not to edit the content and insist on your point of view? I've occasionally seen you make good edits that stayed in the article, but perhaps putting a bit more thought into how you edit would improve things. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of vandalism

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Obviously this refers to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tachyon&diff=475215995&oldid=474966139 . Accusations of vandalism are taken very seriously. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your edits to the lede of Third law of thermodynamics - it's fine if you're having trouble to word it clearly, but so far as I can see the main body of the article doesn't seem to address the impossibility of reaching absolute zero, and the lede is meant to be a summary of the whole article.

It'd be useful if you joined in at the talk page discussion about your edits instead of reverting further - if you have a good point then I'm sure you can make it, but we should avoid unclear or ungrammatical text in the article while this is being discussed, and other editors clearly aren't sure how to correct your contribution. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit summary of "I may add that your case would be stronger if you corrected some other grammar in this page", I'd point you at WP:AGF and WP:GOFISHING. We're all here to help the project, and one mistake being overlooked does not mean it's okay to add another. --McGeddon (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting instead of discussing

Your recent editing history at Third law of thermodynamics shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.--McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported at the 3RR noticeboard

Please see WP:AN3#User:8digits reported by User:Waleswatcher (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

Possible wikihounding

I can see several examples where you only started editing an article after User:Waleswatcher edited the article. There are millions of other articles you can edit, it would probably be advisable to make sure this doesn't happen again. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning on multiple accounts

Hi. I've blocked your sock, Nexia asx. Going forward, remember that editors are generally restricted to one account. Using multiple accounts, especially to circumvent 3RR, is not allowed. If you continue this behavior, you will be blocked for longer. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN

The discussion there agrees it's not a reliable source. When you return, please respect that. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward, remember that editors are generally restricted to one account. Using multiple accounts, especially to circumvent 3RR, is not allowed. If you continue this behavior, you will be blocked for longer. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC) You have been blocked temporarily from editing for block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

8digits (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here 8digits (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Your reason here [[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits#top|talk]]) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Your reason here [[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits#top|talk]]) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Your reason here [[User:8digits|8digits]] ([[User talk:8digits#top|talk]]) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC) [edit] WP:RSN

The discussion there agrees it's not a reliable source. When you return, please respect that. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nexia asx is I think a person who studies with me at the same place that I do. I think I know who he is but I am not 100% sure. If it is the guy I am thinking of, I questioned him about some details on the three law of thermodynamics just to be sure that I was right. That probably got him interested in that page. The part that you are claiming I wrote is a section that I never wrote in before. Waleswatcher would be aware of that.

Also I do admit I have made mistakes but I do not believe I am guilty of what you think I am.

I had numberous complaints with Waleswatcher, and I thought we had a deal on wording which he uses that I think is inappropriate for the wikipedia. The word for example arbitary and massive have quite different meaning in physics to what a general reader of the wikipedia would have. I think he is wrong to use these words. He kept on changing them back, for example, even though he kept saying that instead of arbitrary, I suggested larger, he stated larger and larger which I accepted. He then kept changing it back to arbitrary. Hardly good form.

Another point is he complains about my grammar even in parts that are not wrong. He then removes it on this dubious ground, when surely he should ask he to either correct it or correct it himself. It is even doubly suspious what he does as the article is full of grammar mistakes and he never removes those parts that I did not write.

The next point is much of what he writes is often wrong. I put in cites to show that and he removes them. For example the third law is a statistical law. It was actually written up as such in a previous version of that page which he deleted, if you check. As such if an object at absolute zero was discovered this law of would still hold.

Lastly, he has engaged in hounding me for example check out the following pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war 8digits (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]