Talk:Usenet

Excessive Formality?

The article makes sense if you already know what Usenet is. Sometimes words have different meanings in different contexts, and it seems like here people don't use the right word because it means something else in another context. (??) For example perhaps; "forums":

"Users read and post messages (called articles or posts, and collectively termed news) to one or more categories, known as newsgroups."

To me, "categories" here has zero explanatory power. How about: "...to one or more forums, known as newsgroups." Or "areas of interest?" While "categories" is 100% not false, it does so be being excessively vague, almost meaningless in this context. (Being 100% not false, is rarely a compliment.)

Consider the rest of the article similarly. Wiki's goal is communication and explanation, not "100% not false."   Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without — Confucius,— or Perfect is the enemy of good. Excessive formality seems to be hindering clarity.   Usenet was/is used by ordinary people using loose, ordinary language, lace on a pig seems counter to Wiki's goal: communication. Engineers should not explain ditch-digging.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:E454:D78D:E92F:E1E6 (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Replaced my addition/correction

The article says; "reading the messages requires not a mail or web client, but a news client." That was true decades ago. I corrected by adding:

However, it is now possible to read and participate in Usenet newsgroups to a large degree using ordinary Internet browsers since most newsgroups are now slightly modified for copying to specialized Web sites.

That was deleted without discussion by a bot that seemingly thought I was using search engines as a source, rather than as a tool. I chose a dynamic tool rather than a source in part because of the fading and dynamic nature of Usenet. For example, while their were once tens of thousands of newsgroups, and those lists were published, many if not most of those newsgroups are inactive. Further, they applied to Usenet, not all the internet adaptations.

I replaced my addition without groups.google and my planned sci.physics.narkive.com reading examples to avoid confusing Twinkle bot, but explanation has been degraded. I hope somebody can figure out how to do that.

Part of my goal was to tell the Usenet newbie (Wikipedia's "general user",) that: "NO! You CAN read Usenet without learning or installing new client software! It's NOT DEAD and defunct!" ...which is also what the tone of the article says.

Frankly I see such deletions of other's helpful efforts, —with zero attempt to correct nor to communicate, nor improve the article — as vandalism, not by intent, but by moral negligence and abuse of authority. What possible excuse is there for that, to spit on me like that? That it's legal!? Please note that Guidelines say challenged, then deleted, not just ZAP!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:E454:D78D:E92F:E1E6 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Reinstating edits after undo

I just spent hours trying to improve the article, and it was ruined by another inconsiderate bot-powered speedy-user's Undo when I tried to update a now-invalid article. I dont know how long it will take to re-assemble the remaining parts, so please don't undo my undo, which I had to do to post my fixes and additions. IOW, how about some time? I may need to sleep and etc...

You might consider creating a temporary sandbox page for preparing larger edits. That way, the intermediate edits don't pollute the article history and don't invite actions from others. Rp (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, I need to change my evil ways. Odd, I just got the second "Conflict" message of my life adding here. I'll add it below, I need to sleep now.

OK, I re-added what I could from the melted "Edit conflict: Usenet" page: "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it," and seemingly one of the thoughtless reverts had disappeared, so I couldn't undo it. As in "Buggy Wikipedia." Still a work in progress, This could take a few days, please do not delete. Thoughtful manual improvements or suggestions are welcomed in the mean time. I notice there are wiki-bots for WARNING VANDALS, what's the deal, Brownie Points for Twinkle-bot hatcheting good-faith users 500 handmade bytes, 11 minutes after we post? Or as Twinkle users brag; "This user reverts...in the blink of an eye with Twinkle!" Like notches in a gun handle? There's something seriously WRONG here. All over Wiki Guidelines etc, it's implicit, assumed, over and over that smash-facing is not done without at least discussion. As in good faith. Anybody want quotes?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cfce:1ee0:e454:d78d:e92f:e1e6 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts - using four tilde's - otherwise when there is a thread it's very hard to tell who is saying what, in what order. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The edits are not vandalism, but there has been a tendency to introduce original research and personal analysis. There should be secondary reliable sources that support the material added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Swift reverts of bad edits are good things. Left too long, other editors make good edits on top of poor ones like your unsourced revisions, and it's harder to untangle. You left the article in the poor state for almost a half an hour before I reverted. There's no way of knowing that you intended to eventually come back and work on it further, and besides, that's the role of the sandbox. If you intend to edit like this, please register as a user so you have your own sandbox to edit and prepare revisions in.

If you absolutely must edit as you proposed to do, please use the templates {{Under construction}} or {{In use}} to signal your intent; don't make us guess. Note that {{Under construction}} is when the article is actively undergoing editing; {{In use}} is for longer-term, where longer term means up to two hours.

I wouldn't have reverted you at only twenty-four minutes if you'd used {{In use}}. TJRC (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You claim I made a bad edit, the logical equiv of "Yukky I dont like it!" And I'm pretty sure you that's your best. Unsourced revisions are harder to "untangle?" Oh really? You mean harder to spit on wiki philosophy and users with an Undo button, don't you?

You don't seem to get it. According to Wiki guidelines, philosophy, and tone, I did absolutely NOTHING worthy of your Undo revert, temporary or not. Why don't you get with the program? It is your habitual inconsiderate, rude, bullying behavior that is out of line. 2¢ says taking away your overpowered, over-used Cop-Bot would cure that. You broke so many Revert rules with your arrogant rudeness, it's not funny. Here are some of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting

Shortcuts WP:RV WP:REV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting#When_to_revert When to revert WP:QUO

Revert only when necessary Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus.

Explain reverts Shortcut WP:REVEXP Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.

A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.

Frankly, I think the idea of using a cop-bot to seek out technical errors, rather than the Article's natural authors and contributors is a cruel, destructive joke, and in need of severe regulation.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:E454:D78D:E92F:E1E6 (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)E1E6