User talk:Leprof 7272
Preparing for departure
This is setting context for all notes that might appear in the interim. (Le Prof)
Scabeba posting
Please do not edit my edits on the buddy rich page...I am his daughter and know a lot more about him than you. Leave it alone!!!
- Posting traced to Scabeba, and cordial reply left; attribution of edits to me was mistaken. (Le Prof)
Thanks for your note
I appreciate your kindness and wish you well on your retirement. I highly recommend it! I retired last October and have resisted making "plans" because I just want to let this next chapter open on its own. My husband and son are both physicists working on the ATLAS experiment at CERN that announced the Higgs Boson last July. Like you, they both have sought opportunities to explain scientific subjects to the general public, but it's a steep climb. Best, Grand'mere Eugene — Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank You :)
Thank you for all your advice. I will be sure to follow up on EVERYTHING. It's a great start for me to finally get some usable guidance.Lgkkitkat (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for
Le Prof, Thank you for the compliments on my userpage art and hometown! Here's hoping that you're having a better day today and thank you for the kind words! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 09:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
An invitation to look at a couple links, suggesting
that with a little looking, even close to you (@Doc James), you'd see we are on the same side of the secondary referencing principle. See here, in your Talk, for our shared conviction on secondary sources… [1]. And here for guidance given new editors on the same, [2] and [3] and affirmation for how I do it (see also Barnstar above it); And then for the articles I am working on, see [4] (this section only, vis-a-vis referencing), and [5] (note no refs. in lede, because all material mirrored and ref'd in main body), and for an article in process (6 of 13 secondary, remaining primaries take from secondaries, and no bare URLs, etc., [6]. And see here for an invited analysis of referencing at an article: [7], at request of another editor, followed by 30 day wait since not my area of expertise, then by posting of tags. I could go on forever. This is not something we disagree about. I am sad we had to have this falling out over this apparent issue. Le PRof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that we agree on the importance of secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Substituted alcohols
I just started Substituted alcohols but It needs improvement from a chemist (see Talk:Substituted_alcohols). I also started Alcohol (drugs) recently, and Alternative psychoactive alcohol use long time ago. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
My Talk page
has not received any new messages from you, can you please quote the text for me as I cannot find anything from you by searching for "28 June" and "19 June". --David Hedlund (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Carpanone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Phenolic
June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Polycyclic compound may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Polycyclic compound may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- for [[red tide]]s. The R group at right refers to one of several possible four-carbon side chains (see main [[Brevetoxin]] article.]]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polycyclic compound, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bridged, Spiro and Tetracyclic (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) 08:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Cochrane
Hey Leprof, could you please fill out this form so I can process your request for Cochrane access? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Apology
You stepped into a mine field. I blew up. I'm sorry. This was an extraordinarily difficult interaction and the person involved exhibited some of the worst behavior I have encountered as an editor. We spent thousands of words debating a single sentence in which Bob was clearly defying consensus by every means in his disposal without any regard for the rules whatsoever. I'm not capable of discussing this issue rationally, so it will be a lot easier for me if we don't rehash that episode. If you can accept that I'll appreciate it. Formerly 98 (talk)
- Response made at editor's talk page. All good. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Paracetamol and asthma
Hi Le Prof, I agree with your assessment that the important thing regarding the paracetamol article is getting the content accurate [8]. Considering request to stay off the editor in question’s talk page [9], I’ll discuss content related concerns here. [Content already appearing here, [10].], deleted. Le Prof.] On the behavioral issues raised, I disagree with many of the statements made regarding me personally, but one good thing about WP is everything is documented. Here are all the relevant discussions, if you are at all interested in any of that: [11], [12], [13]. To tell you the truth, the edits on the paracetamol article were actually my first edits ever on WP, and I was surprised by what I encountered from the editor in question and a few others. His statement that I was blocked is accurate. I was reverted then later blocked by an involved admin and stated reason was “copyright violation”, but then I was still reverted when significantly reworded to remove any hint of copyright violation, so this was confusing for a new editor. I was disappointed by the editor in question’s lack of response to your statement regarding refraining from threatening discipline action/sanctions during important debates. I was driven away from that debate and the article by his threat, and I was almost driven away from WP entirely by earlier fiasco. I’m still interested in improving the paracetamol article, but honestly, I’m concerned regarding associated threats and concerned that attempts to improve article would result in a non-productive time sink, and unfortunately my time on WP is limited. Thanks again for addressing this concern with the editor who made the threat. Regards.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Discussion redirected to article talk pages, and personal response made at this editor's Talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Alcohol and health
Hello, Leprof! I'm trying to remember: were you one of the people who dealt with the alcohol related articles created by David Hedlund? I can't remember who all contributed to fixing the "Alcohol (drug)" and similar articles, and I can't go back and look because the page has been deleted so its talk page is gone. But if you are interested in dealing with those poorly-written anti-alcohol articles of his, I just discovered another one: Alcohol and health. It was called to my attention by a new addition someone added (which is also problematic). But then I noticed the section "Pregnancy and alcohol" which is horrible: it cites a single study instead of a review article, and mis-states the results of the one study it cites. Then I looked at the general tenor of the article, noticed its strong anti-alcohol bias and partial incoherence, and smelled David Hedlund. Sure enough, turns out he contributed most of the content. If this area interests you, I'd appreciate it if you would take a look and maybe discuss on the article's talk page. My question: Can the article be fixed, or would it be better to simply merge any salvageable content to some other article? Also, who else should I contact about this? Thanks for any thoughts. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to User Study
Thank you for your interest in our user study. Please email me at credivisstudy@gmail.com. Wkmaster (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marine sandglass, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Columbus and Chronometer. 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) 13:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Bruce Rauner
I want to apolgize for the edit tonight. I have not been on here editing for a few months and its 1 in the morning so half awake, but i did it because i was worried and from my view that it was becoming bias and vandlism, (again maybe because im half awake) I revert it to that version so that it would be a clean start if u can understand. Anyway, it was all in good faith and in no way did i meen for all this to happened. I sincarally apolgize for all the trouble that was cause tonight. and i ask for forgiveness. Nhajivandi (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Western culture
Thank you for your edit at Western culture. Generally, it's best to follow WP:NOCITE when dealing with unsourced material that you believe is doubtful, especially in an article that is largely unsourced. Actually, I'm surprised that the information was controversial at all, but I guess everyone has an opinion. I put a {{cn}} tag on the claim about equality of women as happening during the Medieval period -- I'm pretty sure that's not true; that movement didn't really get going until the 19th century. Anyway, good luck with your sourcing project on the article. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Reply from Georginho
Hello Le Prof, please see a reply to your message in my talk page. Thanks. Georginho (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Reply from George_M._Church
Hello Le Prof, please see my reply to your message in my Talk:George_M._Church talk page. I'd greatly appreciate your help in fixing this. George Church (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your edits and requests for dates and secondary sources. I've suggested a few on the talk page. George Church (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- George, this is a good venue to place brief notes, to keep it out of the general bulk of commentary at the article talk page. As for edit suggestions, keep appending them there, with citations as simple content bullets (without templates or other html markup)—in the two "existing" or "new" categories. I will then keep facilitating their review and addition. Please, though,have patience: the rush to work in response to your initial effort was intentional, in good faith, and its pace cannot be maintained. Further work will come as life permits. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You have a great deal of integrity
...unlike certain other people. I didn't realize until now, how bad it was. --FeralOink (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Thank you very much. I will soon move this to a selected accolades area on my User page. Thankfully, those most important in this NPOV and COI situation have been amenable to reason, and we are making good progress. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: Checking in
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 4:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Just so you know
I'm gathering together evidence against against DePiep if he gets taken to ANI as it seems there are some WP:CIR and WP:THERAPY problems here. I'm hopefully someone with a hat there can tell him to start being more mindful of keeping a civil tongue and assuming good faith. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19 Adar 5775 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for this. I can also be short/curt in dialog. My bottom line is that the discourse be reasonable, aimed at expertise, and largely impersonal. See also the following: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#I_would_ask_general_attention and Talk:Oxygen#Discharge_tube_prose_edited_strongly. Cheers.
- No worries, if I may though, it's best to try and keep your cool in situations like this and allow the other person to dig their hole if you feel they are refusing to be reasonable. I'm not sure you could bring a claim of ownership against them, but civility wise, DePiep is in deep. I don't know about alchemist, though I'm unfortunately having a lot of trouble understanding everything he's written (and I can understand some pretty bad English). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19 Adar 5775 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dora Maar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lloyds, Douglas Cooper and James Lord (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) 08:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
New message
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your recent edit of an AN3 archive file
[User removing content because discussion long over.]
Discussion regarding the proper response to an editor deleting unsourced material in a BLP article
[User removing content because discussion unproductive.]
Kittens for you!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Kitten-stare.jpg/150px-Kitten-stare.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Red_Kitten_01.jpg/150px-Red_Kitten_01.jpg)
...because sometimes one kitty is just not enough! :) --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are so very kind, and Madam LeProf is endeared to you for the gesture. Smiles. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Kitten_in_a_helmet.jpg/150px-Kitten_in_a_helmet.jpg)
Thanks for your citations! Now create an account or the kitten gets it! PureRED (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Explaining
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply, responded at your Talk page, and all is (as said there), understood. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chemical substance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purification (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) 09:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Pyrrhotite and non-stoichiometric compound
I've removed the tags from those articles. As stated on the talk pages: the articles are not contradictory. The pyrrhotite article discusses the basics without using the term non-stoichiometric in the crystal structure section. If you want to add to that section, please do - improvement always welcome. But the contradictory tags were not accurate -- so removed. Vsmith (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Non-stoichiometric compound, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solid state (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) 08:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Avoid Widefox
Nothing more to be said. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
I (finally) just read your reply concerning the B.bergdorfi(sp?) article. Your message really gave me pause, and I appreciate your patience in pointing out my errors. Feel free to critique any of my other edits, it will only make the encyclopedia better. Best Regards,
Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Methylene (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) 09:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
List of cosmic microwave background experiments
Hi, I have been working on bringing List of cosmic microwave background experiments up to date. Since you added various improvement templates a couple of months ago, I thought you might be interested in helping, or discussing inclusion criteria on the talk page. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent help
I appreciate your support and editing help on PBC Foundation and your kind comments. Did you intend the last post on Talk:PBC Foundation to be there? I have lttle time or enthusiasm at present but will see if I can manage further comments. Now -- would you like to help me in part of my day job and write a biomedical grant -- that is probably just as frustrating! Jrfw51 (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your edits and advice. A battle lost. Once the professional "dogs" get their teeth into you and your less-than-perfect creation, there is no hope for a part-timer like me and a charity for a disease I expect they have never heard of. I will look out in the upcoming months for further evidence of the greater-than-other notability they demanded and may revisit the entry then. Do you have any enthusiasm to suggest a full overhaul of other health charity pages to bring them up to the standard we had created? Jrfw51 (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the editor error in the Template:New International Encyclopedia
I have fixed it. Here is the diff so you can see how it was done.
It may take a time to propagate through usage on some pages, but if you want to hurry up the process for a particular article, make a dummy edit on the page (edit the page make no changes and save it) no change will occur in the edit history but the templates used in the page will be refreshed.
-- PBS (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Repairs at Revenant
Please take your discussion to Talk. Consensus first seems to be the best route for the many numerous issues you have raised. Talk page first. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the note
that you left on my Talk page concerning DocJames. In my defense note that I did end my message to him by wishing him "Best regards all the same." And Best Regards to You, as well. Motsebboh (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
Thank you for all your work on the Jennifer Pritzker article! TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC) |
Yvonne Connolly Martin
Check out the new article at Yvonne Connolly Martin and feel free to expand or correct. - Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you going to be writing the "Methods and practices" section in this article? H Padleckas (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- And it would be good idea to write drafts of the other sections that you found lacking. You are an ideal author. Feel free to cut a lot of the material. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- @H Padleckas:@Smokefoot: Alas, I am not the best to write fully, and alone on these basic articles. I will always contribute to outlines, and write on bullet points in outlines, in the areas where I have expert knowledge and experience. But the person for this is a secondary school instructor, or a small team of college educators (e.g., one organic, one inorganic, one analytical, etc.). The key point of my earlier edits, was that simplistic, most basic textbook-derived statements, when filtered by the inexperienced, often come out simply wrong (example being focusing on axial chirality with spiro compounds, when Eliel et al. list at least three kinds observed).
- Moreover, I am more and more parting company at articles where tags are not accepted. The policies and guidelines allow them, yet I am routinely reverted and accused of bombing, when placing an article tag, and then noting which are the offending sections with section tags/and or marking sentences needing checking. Now, I am fully aware that this disturbs the appearance of articles. But so what, if the article is badly in need of attention? We here are far too devoted to appearance, and deny the utility—as is used in professional document preparation—of allowing working documents to have placeholders indicating where attention and work are needed. And I have no further time, case by case, to argue this point.
- Bottom line, based on my own research and experience, tags are honest, they are useful to readers (as I have queried), and they streamline followup work of all editors, down the road as time permits. The only down side is they make articles look awful. Well, I am more than willing to engage individual questioned edits, to remove and change as others suggest. But the carte blanche reversion represent a fundamental difference in values, and respect for our readership. (After learning about tags, one class was overwhelmed at the value they add in knowing whether to trust material, and asked me why they do not appear in all cases where there are problems. What was I to say?)
- Bottom line, I will give little more time of my life to fighting devotion to clean looking articles that have major, major problems. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Sicario
Just a neutral note that you might want to join the discussion at Talk:Sicario (2015 film) regarding the original-research tag in one section.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Intrinsic factor
The tags at intrinsic factor accomplished what they intended to; they called attention of experienced, expert editors to the article, and led to change. [Often, the extent to which at-odds differ, is that some editors seem to believe that once they have visited an article, sufficient expertise has been brought to bear—and that no other experts need look. I see this as simple, personal hubris. In no sane universe is a job done with a single editor's attention (nor should one win the highest prizes of at ones' entry into an endeavour, so much for the sane universe theory).] Moreover, my affixing tags is never the sole task I involve myself in, at an article. I always put in considerable time, on the content of the article, often hours. It is simply my conviction, not universally shared by others, that it is near to criminal to leave problematic articles appearing superficially fine. This is a dishonesty expressed toward our readers, especially the youngest, and those least experienced in differentiating content of quality from that which lacks it. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
March 2016
See status of Partition coefficient. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Article versus section and inline tags
There is no prohibition to having both section tags as well as article tags (and inline tags, for that matter). Each serves a different purpose (noting that the following description is not necessarily complete):
- Article tags, to call general attention to the article's need for editor effort, and to warn readers, especially young student readers, that there are issues with the article that they are about to read (as an educator, a purpose I find critically important to the encyclopedia's improvement and proper perception);
- Section tags, to point editors to the principle places in the article needing editor effort, that would allow removal of the article tag. Article tags can remain, if there are a plethora of inline tags, distributed broadly through the article, and not concentrated in one section. In such a case, a section tag is unnecessary. But if such needs are concentrated in one a section, a section's tagging hones other editors in on that section's need for attention (and, avoiding repetition of editorial review, thus saving editor time). Section tags also, if combined with other broad issues with a section, can signal a bold editor to move the section to Talk, and remove it from the main article space (i.e., section tags regarding sourcing—my main contribution—can have an important additive effect in conjunction with other tags, that can lead to outcomes in future editing that are positive for the encyclopedia). As well, a section tag can make clear to a reader linking directly in to a section that the section has quality issues, see prose above under article tags;
- Inline citation tags, to serve two clear purposes, one akin to those mentioned above, and one distinct: as above, to call reader and editor attention to a specific sentence needing attention. In addition, however, inline citation tags, in conjunction with appearing inline citations, can be the result of a careful line by line analysis of the text of a paragraph against appearing sources, and thus differentiate the text into two formal subsets—those sentences with content that has been sourced and verified, and those sentences still needing attention (i.e., that is, sentences not supported by the end-of-parageraph or other citation, and therefore still in violation of WP:VERIFY).
Hence, as I have elsewhere argued at greater length—where I have analogized the discernment just stated to the different types of notes used in multi-author documents in review, in corporate document-control settings—all three tags are, for different reasons, distinctly informative and reasonably non-redundant (depending on how they are applied), and properly applied, make the degree to which attention is needed at an article clear, and further clarify where attention is and is not needed. The proper combined use of tags, therefore, allows both clearest, most direct communication with our readers, as well as prioritization of limited editor time to do further work on the articles in question.
Otherwise, any specific discussion of what I have done, at a specific article, is encouraged, as is follow-on combining of tags—the latter generally being appreciated if I have not done it already. If I have not done it, it is often because the tag content sometimes is critical to reader perception or editor follow-up. Sometimes non-combined tags, though less sightly, constitute the better tool to move an article toward quality. (And as I have repeatedly said, appearance is not my concern; rather, encyclopedic quality, and a properly informed readership, are.) Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
[Keeping this as a closed section, except for specific WP policy/guideline-driven comments about this mini-essay content. Cheers, Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)]
April Fools? Nope! Welcome to the Women Scientists worldwide online edit-a-thon during Year of Science
Join us! | |
---|---|
Women Scientists - worldwide online edit-a-thon - ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage
Look
look Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Seen. But irrelevant to cladograms, and to the issues raised. But thanks, it was a fun diversion. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion at ANI
The following addition to my Talk page was just found, as it was added, not as a separate section, but as an addendum to an unrelated section, above. It is moved here, in part to keep the whole of this matter in a single place, but also to help explain why the initial communication of the matter was missed by yours truly [signed Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)]:
Extended content
|
---|
@NinjaRobotPirate:, @Liz:, @KrakatoaKatie: — I cannot find the ANI to which you refer. Could you please re-insert it here? Katie, my edits are never flyby, and always involve hours of work, and are aimed at warning readers about serious problems that remain at articles. They are generally placed only after I have spent long periods reviewing, repairing, and enhancing available sources. If you wish to peremptorily ban, and if it is in your power, I cannot stop you. But I am doing a service here, prompted (not by editors), but by student readers and users of the encyclopedia—one of whom recently said to me, "I have never found anything lacking in a Wikipedia article," so clever and careful we are about hiding the true status of things here. Rsvp here? cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Hi, Leprof. Please respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Leprof 7272. This is kind of important. An administrator has indicated that she is considering blocking you for disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie: please unarchive the ANI thread, I think there are at least seven editors, including myself, who have all experienced the same thing with Leprof 7272. The fact that Leprof waited so long that the thread auto-archived shouldn't stop them being open to appropriate punishment (if deemed necessary). XyZAn (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Constructive continuation of earlier tag-related discussion
To continue this is in a constructive way, @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Liz:, @KrakatoaKatie: @Jytdog: here are examples of recent editorial visits:
Extended content
|
---|
[I will add others as I have time, feel free to stop back periodically.] Please feel free to pick one, and give specific feedback to indicate what I have done—per specific policies, please—that is prohibited (versus not to another's tastes), and more importantly, to address specifically, how the edits were not consistent in moving the article, and the encyclopedia, in the direction of becoming a more reputable venue for real learning. Reading my earlier posts at Katie's Talk page might also be of interest, as they address the differences between the utility of inline, versus section, versus article tags. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Julian (meteorologist) has been accepted
The following was posted long ago at User talk:Leprof7272 (note mis-spacing) by User:Chris troutman:
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/AFC-Logo.svg/50px-AFC-Logo.svg.png)
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Chris Troutman (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Just importing it here for housekeeping. DMacks (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vonnie Quinn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Keene (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) 09:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cracking (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) 09:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Wachowskis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gadfly and Mark Miller (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) 09:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Leprof 7272. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
A note about AFC notes
I saw a few of your AFC draft comments and thought I'd mention something. MOS violations and small editorial issues are never a reason to decline a draft (I'm specifically referring to the opening bits of this post). If the only thing negative about a draft is the formatting (lack of headers, style, etc), then fix it yourself and accept the draft (or just accept it, it's up to you). New editors frequently don't know every formatting trick, so it's acceptable for thing to not be perfect. Declines should be for content reasons (promotion, lack of references, notability, etc). Let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and welcome to AFCH. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Also, just as a note, I assume you weren't planning on accepting your own draft. I'm not saying that you would have, or that you should; I tell this to every new AFC reviewer who has personal drafts in the Draft space. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- There is a discussion relevant to AFC (and this discussion) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants#LeProf. Primefac (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Reviewing Concerns
Some concerns have been noted about your reviewing. In particular, you changed the instructions for reviewing. The instructions for reviewing are the result of consensus. Do not change them unilaterally without discussion, even if you think that those changes will help to work off the backlog. Your changes have been reverted, but raise questions as to whether you understand the review process. Also, specific questions have been raised, in particular about tagging. Please address the concerns before doing any more reviewing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion taken up at the appropriate reviewing pages. Cheers, and thanks for drawing me there, Robert. All respect. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Editing while logged out
You really should try to make sure you're always logged in when you're editing. While it's not specifically prohibited (see WP:LOGOUT) it makes it less likely someone will think you're trying to avoid detection with your edits (and also makes it easier to point to specific edits that you have made). Primefac (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Point taken. I always make clear who I am, regardless of being logged in or not. As you say, what I am doing is not prohibited, and since I go out of my way to make clear there is no sock puppetry, I am not in violation of policies or guidelines. That said, within a discussion with other editors, I will try always to remain logged in, so as to not confuse. Otherwise, if we lived in a more perfect world, I would be glad to speak to you at length why IP editing at times is inevitable here, and can be thoroughly sensible in given situations. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: A Prairie Home Companion with Chris Thile has been accepted
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/AFC-Logo.svg/50px-AFC-Logo.svg.png)
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Discretionary sanctions notification
Hi, because you are editing in a bit of a hot spot:
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Regards, Sandstein 20:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sro23 (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Jahn-Teller page
Dear Le Prof, thanks for your message to Ppzjld. I am part of the community of users who remade the JT webpage with her. While we agree that there may be many ways to improve that entry, we feel the page in its current state is much better than the previous version. We are willing to discuss the content and, in time, add extra references. We would however like to point out that citation is much better now than in the version before we added our edits as we have added a large selection of the most important articles, reviews and books on the subject. We think that threatening with going to a previous version is deleterious to everyone. In order to open the discussion, is your criticism of the complete article or is it directed particularly to certain sections, like Jahn-Teller effect#The JT Hamiltonian? If so this can be solved easily without any harsh measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P garcia fernandez (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see evidence of plagiarism. Lack of sourcing alone isn't enough, esp. when it concerns older content. Please be specific. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Original Keetoowah Society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Oneida
- Red Sticks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Arms
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Cristina Vee
Looks like YOU seem you're the one who's "bias" on not having Facebook posts and Tweets allowed on the voice actors pages, including the Cristina Vee page. I mean really, what is wrong with having Facebook posts and Tweets on the pages, don't you realize that every online article in the web and end credits from a video game or a certain TV show (mostly an English dub version of an anime) may not credit or better yet even mention the voice actors and the roles they play in, that why the tweets and Facebook post were placed here!!!!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- AnimeDisneylover95 (and Leprof), it might be worth reading through WP:SELFSOURCE, which gives the very narrow and specific criteria for when FB and Twitter can be used as a reference. In the future, if someone removes a source that you may think is valid (or adds one you think is invalid), take it to the talk page and discuss it, or go to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Edit warring over something silly like this is just a good way to get blocked. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
- Wait you lost me on what you said on edit warring, who's edit warring?!??!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- AnimeDisneylover95, no one is edit warring (yet). However, I've seen it play out too many times when person A thinks that they are right, and person B thinks that they are right. I simply meant that discussion should happen before things get out of hand, a.k.a. BRD. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wait you lost me on what you said on edit warring, who's edit warring?!??!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Need a critique
Hi!
I liked your reasoned comments on Talk:Introduction to general relativity and was wondering if you could offer some critique of the rewrite that I did over the weekend to the lede and Introduction of Spacetime.
I started with this undeniably dreadful version and converted the "Explanation" section into something that I hope that a High School student should understand. This is a reasonably well-watched article, and since nobody has reverted any of my edits (except nitpicking details of how to format my references), I presume that I haven't committed any gross errors. :-)
Given the awful starting point, it's hard for me not to have improved the article (or at least, its Introduction) tremendously. But writers in general are poor judges of their own work. What I need is some advice on how to take this from "better than what I started with" to being actually a good Introduction, and in what directions that I should take this work in the future. (I'm well aware, by the way, that I don't yet have enough in the way of references. I'm working on it...)
Thanks!
Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I've managed to solicit the critiques that I needed to improve my Introduction. Thanks anyway! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Odd userpage box
I see you keep updating {{User Wikipedian for}} to the current date. Seems unusual that you, a user who has been here since 2012 would claim to have been here for only a few days. DMacks (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Born again Wikipedian? Just curious. We may need to create a new WP:USERBOX ;-) . Boghog (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Tagging, a last effort
Hi Leprof
I have spent the last hour preparing an ANI case, to seek a TBAN to stop you from placing tags in articles. I am sharing the case with you here first. If I post this at ANI, I have little doubt that the community will place a topic ban on tagging. They might take that further.
You do some good work here, and I would rather avoid this kind of drama. Would you please simply agree to stop tagging articles?
Extended content
|
---|
This is not a happy thing. Le Prof can bring a lot of value and improves articles, but keeps tag-bombing articles like this:
I get it (I do!) that there are parts of WP that are really bad, but tag-bombing this way is not OK. Leprof has been asked to stop doing this many, many times (Leprof selectively removes or overwrites stuff from their talk page, as you can see in its history). The list below is just some of the discussions people have tried to have with Leprof over this. The list starts with recent and goes backward in time -- start from bottom if you want chron order.
|
-- Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- I could take this series of diffs as a "no, i will not stop", but I would prefer a yes or no before I escalate this to ANI. Would you please reply? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog, they've been asked this before, in multiple locations, to no effect. I gave up pursuing the matter, but I'm glad you're sticking with it. I say file and let the chips fall where they may. This last diff can be used as their reply to this thread. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I hear you but there is no deadline and I would like to give them a chance to respond. I can file it tomorrow as well as today - the diffs aren't going away. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'm just expecting them to either not respond or give you six paragraphs that ultimately boil down to "this is how I do things". Primefac (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Or not edit for a while. This is what happened back in March 2016, and when they came back the ANI was over. (the ANI was closed as LeProf was not around to respond and not causing more trouble, so there was no ongoing disruption to address). Am looking for a reply and engagement so that if I need to bring this to the community everybody knows that LeProf was given ample opportunity to reply already. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'm just expecting them to either not respond or give you six paragraphs that ultimately boil down to "this is how I do things". Primefac (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I hear you but there is no deadline and I would like to give them a chance to respond. I can file it tomorrow as well as today - the diffs aren't going away. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog, they've been asked this before, in multiple locations, to no effect. I gave up pursuing the matter, but I'm glad you're sticking with it. I say file and let the chips fall where they may. This last diff can be used as their reply to this thread. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you write in disscus of art, what You see too most wrong in article ihi? It is true, Newari girls have 3 weddings, it is old and common situation. Indu (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
SHOUTING, bolding, and attention banners
As with excessive, inappropriate use of attention banners, this edit is also suboptimal. The proper way to handle your concerns is with a normal sentence case explanation on the article's talk page. As a followup on Jytdog's concerns above, do you agree to stop adding attention banners to articles? Boghog (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog, looks like they're not interesting in talking to you. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- ugh. i have too much drama going on now. But OK it is time to post at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
ANI
As as I said I would do above...
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Topic banned
Per community consensus at the administrators' noticeboard ([14]), you are banned from tagging articles with cleanup banners. This includes adding, removing, or editing any cleanup banner on any article. Violations of this ban will lead to you being blocked from editing. In addition, the multiple accounts policy forbids editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny, and as it is apparent that you have continued editing while logged out after having been warned to stop, I have blocked the IP 73.210.155.96 that you have been using to edit. If you have questions about these actions you may ask here and/or appeal at the administrators' noticeboard. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have reverted (twice) the post you just made at ANI. That discussion is closed. As noted above, the place to address questions about the sanctions is here on your talk page (by pinging the closing admin), or you may appeal at the administrators' noticeboard. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- In the post that you made at ANI and reposted at Jytdog's talk page, you claim that you did not see the discussion until after it was closed. However it is clear from your edit history that you were logged into your account after the case was filed and well before the case was closed:
- 21:15, 16 April 2017 – initial communication of concern by Jytdog
- 21:17, 27 April 2017 – notification that an ANI case had been filed
- 13:16, 28 April 2017 – edit from your account
- 01:41, 30 April 2017 – notification of topic ban and ANI case closed
- Hence I find it difficult to believe that you were not aware of the ANI case before it was closed. Regardless of whether you were aware or not, this is just one more example of why you should always login before making edits. Logging in insures that you are alerted to communications from other editors in a timely fashion. Furthermore, because of your topic ban, it is doubly important to make sure you are logged in to remove any suspicion that you are trying to evade your ban. Boghog (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Tagging acknowledged, tag-bombing and other misrepresentations belatedly denied; reply to the foregoing, on learning of it
Discussion moved from User talk:Jytdog Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog:@Ivanvector:@Primefac:@Sro23:@Softlavender:@L3X1:@Beyond My Ken:@Obsidi:@Doc James:@XyZAn:@Kudpung: I am sorry, real life does not allow me to pay much attention to the discussions that take place here. I simply saw nothing of this, until it was past, being alerted to it by failure of an IP address to work as a place from which to edit. I take responsibility for this ignorance, see following. However, the litany of cases, and the long span of time from which the cases were chosen, and further facts about each that are not given, hide the accurate conclusions that (i) these examples were always earnest, scholarly, high level sets of edits, generally over many hours or days, and (ii) that I have repeatedly responded at article Talk pages and elsewhere, to tagging objections, and that I have modified my behaviour substantially over time. In this regard, the emphasis on the 2015-2016 history, and the failure in any way to represent the responses I have given in any of the cases that are cited can only lead me to describe it as largely a misrepresentation of the facts of the matter.
But, that I continue to irritate many is clear, and so I will summarise the case I have made, again, here.
As a former academic, and a professional, I have argued that making clear to readers the shortcomings of article content is an improtant contribution, and one WP should encourage. Had we 20 top academics, in high traffic/visibility fields, just noting errors and shortcomings, our articles would be all the better for it. Even so, this is not what I do—contrary to the example cases offered and representations made, I do not just come in and tag. I challenge all voting editors above to go to each case given, and look at the total time spent editing the articles, and the changes made. (I will give an example of the clear misrepresentation involved in the limited description of the cases, in closing.) Generally speaking, I would be surprised if a fair-minded case can be made for anything other than "hours of editing, often completing and repairing/adding citations, ending with tags in place to indicate continuing shortcomings of the article." Bottom line, the tags were placed when I had done all I could, in a session, or in an article. And I would remind the assembled, august company, that at present the articles that are of "B class" (some issues remaining) and better amount to <3% of all of WP articles (2.7% by my last reporting on the matter). In light of this fact, and the easily verified fact that essentially none of my edits are on A, GA, or FA articles, one cannot conclude that I am calling attention to nonexistent issues. Rather, the problem must be that I am calling attention to real issues in unacceptable ways.
The tagging acknowledged and the tag-bombing misrepresentation laid to rest—yes, I am aware that we have differences of opinion on the matter of tags, mine being that readers deserve to know the truth about articles, the predominant contrary opinion, as far as I can tell, being that too many tags are bad, regardless of state of article, and thus that appearance of articles—that they appear better than they are—is the surpassing priority and interest here at WP. I have explained my understandings and motivations, case by case, at length, in reply to objections. But here they are again in summary.
- Readers are our "clients," we exist for them, and not for ourselves.
- Many of our readers are young, and are ignorant on the subjects about which the come to WP. To quote one, "I have never found anything incorrect in a WP article" (14 yo male student). Our being forthcoming with regard to the actual quality and verifiability of article content is very important to our readers.
- Article tags function to call attention of editors to broad general problems in articles, and place articles in lists for further editorial attention. They also warn readers, "beware, dragons here" — that there are potential issues in the content they are about ready to ingest. They should, from my perspective, be placed, if an issue occurs not in one section, but in several. In summary, the issues are real, and article tags are critical for the foregoing reasons given.
- Section tags function to honour editor time, by making clear where within the article the issues exist, to which the article tag is referring. It also acknowledges the fact that some readers arrive at articles sections via links, without ever viewing the top of the the article. Hence the reader service is again a motive here, as is clarity with regard to follow-on editorial work to correct issues. As well, section tags make very clear, when there are several article tags (the very common "multiple issues" article situation), which article tag applies to which section, thus saving time when I or others return to add further to article quality. Thus, section tags are critical for these distinct, and separate reasons.
- Inline tags serve the same very specific function as section tags, but do so more specifically; moreover, they allow an editor to make very clear the progress of checking and editing problem sections. Specifically—and this is very often the case, where, in my edits, you see repeated inline tags in a given section—this process will begin with a read of a paragraph that has a single citation at the end of a paragraph, or citations at end of individual sentences. The red flag is raised when I find that a particular fact within the sentence or paragraph is not contained in the cited source. I then begin a start to finish review of the material in the paragraph, clarifying what is and is not found in the cited sources. This often results in a back and forth between inline citations, and [citation needed] tags—because this is an accurate assessment of the state of affairs in the paragraph. If this one paragraph is the only place of issue in the article, only the inline tags will appear, with a section tag. If the refimprove issue is present in more than one section, then it will appear as an article tag as well. Thus, inline (sentence) tags are critical for these separate reasons.
To put this together, I have repeatedly, in different venues, made the following case. I have in past authored manuscripts with multiple authors at multiple institutions. And I have jointly edited multi-contributor regulatory documents submitted to the US government on health related matters. These are both cases of professional production of high quality, rigourous content, by multiple editors. In these cases, regardless of the editorial tools used, there is never a case, in these professional, multi-author/editor efforts, that one only flags a specific issue at a specific point in a work product by placing a message at the head of the document; likewise, it is never the case, in such work, that on noticing persistent patterns of problems throughout a document, that one only annotates the issues inline, without calling the matter more broadly to the team's attention, by placing a note at the top of the document. That is, in short, I am attempting to apply best practices, in the production of quality content, to my work here. Whatever those accusing me of malfeasance might otherwise say, it would be nice to hear, at the very least, those involved here acknowledge the foregoing, and the derivative conclusion that a commitment at WP to disallow this—for reasons of appearance, or otherwise—is at odds with the way that such things are done in the best, most important of places in the real world, and so arguably contrary to the best ways to move WP articles on to true higher quality.
To summarise, I argue that the foregoing description of my work misrepresents it, both in failing to make clear the long and productive effort involved in my editing, with focus on sourcing—here is one illustrative diff, of >35 edits adding 17 kbytes over 6 days, misrepresented in the opening diff list. I again challenge the editors participating in this noticeboard to argue that this is not the norm of my work; in addition, the arguments misrepresent, in failing to make clear I have explained the foregoing article/section/inline tag purposes and utilities, and motivations, repeatedly to people.
However, for failing to be attentive to my Talk page, I am guilty allowing this noticeboard to continue without response, and for that reason alone, I am deserving of the ban.
Otherwise, three closing comments. First, Primefac's contention that I have ceased editing while logged is simply untrue, as is her/his contention that I have never given reason for the back and forth (I repeatedly have, even if not to her/his satisfaction). If the reasons do not satisfy say so, but do not deny the reality of my having repeatedly responded. Second, User:Ivanvector's contention that I use IPs when I get in "hot water" is completely specious, apparently based on the fact that I edited today, before I new about this noticeboard, or the ban. The Talk section from me at your Talk page, earlier in the evening, should make completely clear, that I was clueless that this was going on—first notice coming as I attempted to edit, was logged off, found the IP block, and went to you (Ivanvector), to ask what was going on. Bottom line, assume good faith my friend, and/or do your thorough research before accusing. There is no clear case of attempts to deceive here; your association of today's edit as an example of such is a mis-association.
Third, as others have repeatedly noted, and policies clearly state, there is nothing wrong with IP editing. Persuasion is given to always log, but IP editing by registered editors is only prohibited if it is an attempt to sockpuppet or otherwise deceive. And as annoying as the appearance of my IP edits — claimed as most sets are, with Le Profs abundantly sprinkled through many if not most — are alongside my logged edits, the assessment is rightly made that I go out of my way to always identify. Any argument for malicious or deceptive practice (thank you for those carefully making this point), and any case for sockpuppeting (by definition, where the aim is deception), are ill-informed and specious to the actual facts. I will not go into another long defense, but just say, I simply haven't always presence of mind or time to re-log if in the midst of a long editing, finding (at time of save, generally) that my systems have logged me off. What is key is that I identify, and do not attempt to deceive. If you do not believe this, ask those rising somewhat to my defense—you will find IP edits signed Le Prof alongside logged edits identically signed. And this is the norm, and not the exception. Sloppy, perhaps. Less considerate of others than of my constraints and time, yes. But arguments mis-casting aspersions to my motives for this duality of work are clearly less informed by relationship/experience with me, or by thorough research, and so are just that, mis-cast aspersions.
Finally, I have copied everyone here except editor Boghog, because, in this case, I have found the editor at times to stalk, to be heavy-handed with regard to his (granted, likewise academically well-informed) scientific views, and also unable to be self-reflective or self-aware about his admixing in, personal sentiment/motivation, into specific editorial disagreements. So, I simply do not relate editorially to him.
In summary, my work and reasoning were mis/unrepresented, but are now properly summarised, my purposes and motivations are argued to be in-line with best practices for multi-author generation of high quality content, but I accept the ban/block as I was "AFK" with regard to engaging User Talk, and so did not see any of this developing.
Long term, this may be the beginning of my ultimate departure here. If it really is true that one cannot edit for 6 days, adding 17 kb of material and quality to an article, then honestly state how the article clearly remains short of our policies and guidelines (and set the article up for improvement, by noting clearly where the issues lie), then this simply is not an academically honest or intellectually tolerant place. The history of WP — e.g., in making our article assessments harder and harder for general readers to find, in seeing tags essentially hidden from mobile users, etc. — seems to be arguing for an emerging interpretation clearly over-emphasising appearance over reality, as the trajectory of the encyclopedia.
So, from the time-stamp and signature here, I will comply with the ban/block for its duration. Because articles at WP cannot, to any honest academic, be edited without noting their clear violations of WP policies and guidelines, I will enjoy this vacation from WP. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- I hope Jytdog does not mind that I answer to you here (doing so as an uninvolved editor). @Leprof 7272: I have looked at some of the diffs. I would not say that they were vandalism or voluntary disruption, but I did find the tagging overzealous compared to what I usually see here. It may be that what you did would work fine on articles created and edited by your students, with a term to fix the annotated issues before the end of the activity. However, Wikipedia in general is always a work in progress, which I think many readers also know when reading the articles. The tagging templates are also there for that, although they have to be used gently and may sometimes remain a long time as part of live articles before someone can improve them. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 09:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Leprof, it is regrettable that much of this situation could likely have been avoided entirely, had you acknowledged and responded to these many posts on your talk page rather than removing them (which I will address in a moment), thus I feel it's appropriate that this conversation be moved to your talk page from where you originally posted it. This code will ping PaleoNeonate as well, as a courtesy since they already replied elsewhere. If you have not configured email in your Wikipedia account then I suggest you do so, as a post like this one on your user talk page will then notify you via email.
- By longstanding convention here, user talk pages are the accepted standard venue for conversing with users, and for resolving issues when they arise as they are expected to from time to time in a worldwide collaborative environment (see WP:OWNTALK). It is understood that when a user removes a notice from their talk page, it means that they have read it and acknowledged it. What I observed is that you were asked repeatedly to stop tagging articles, which I assumed you had acknowledged by removing the notices (rather than simply deleting them without reading as you've described), but you neither responded to this criticism nor stopped tagging. You were also advised (on your talk page) that there was a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard regarding your disruptive tagging, to which you did not reply. When you don't respond to procedurally correct notifications, then there's not anything more we can do to seek your input on the matter, and the result is that you are topic banned.
- Further to that, you had also been asked and later warned not to edit while logged out. You again did not respond but removed the notices, which I took as your acknowledgement and lack of objection, then you continued editing while logged out. Ignoring warnings to address or stop an undesirable behaviour is disruptive in a collaborative environment, and so your IP address was blocked. I would also have blocked your account for the same reason if there hadn't already been a community discussion leading to a different sanction. The nature and timing of your logged-out editing also gives the impression that you are deleting warnings from your user talk and then deliberately logging out to continue editing so that you can avoid scrutiny of your edits, and that is specifically not allowed. As it happens, had I not blocked your IP address it seems apparent that you would never have become aware of any of these discussions nor the topic ban at all, ignoring as you had the notices on your talk page. I dislike "attention-getting" blocks and did not intend this one for this purpose, but as it now seems you are aware of all this, I will unblock the IP address.
- Now I woke up to 9 Wikipedia emails and 41 pings this morning all but one related to this, so while I have to run now I may have more to add later after I get some coffee into me. I would appreciate your acknowledgement of the discussion occurring here, given the present issue of you not reading your own talk page, and please keep discussion related to this issue on this page from now on. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- As is obvious from your contribs in this account, you edited under this account several times after I posted on April 16 and before the ANI closed early on 30 April. There appear to be four episodes of editing under this account.
- Why you didn't respond here or at ANI during that time, no one can say. But some failure of the system, it was not.
- The rest of the post just repeats things you have said before, and boils down to: "I do not care what the community says." As does ignoring your own Talk page.
- Working in this community means you have to listen to and be responsive to others.
- The tree that doesn't bend, breaks.
- In Wikipedia, "breaking" means you leave the community angry and baffled, or that you get indefinitely blocked for violating your TBAN (which would eventually happen after a series of escalatingly longer blocks).
- It is clear you have chosen the "break"path by leaving. Too bad, but that is how things are with some people. I am sorry it came to that. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)