User talk:JoyceWood

JoyceWood, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JoyceWood! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, 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.

Template:Z33 Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Article talk pages

We have discretionary sanctions on these topics for a reason.

One place where people get into trouble is WP:BLUDGEONing talk pages - people have been topic banned (see WP:TBAN) under discretionary sanctions for doing this.

Per WP:TPG please use article talk pages to propose and discuss concrete changes to articles, based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am proposing and discussing concrete changes (on three on-going discussions), I am not bludgeoing the talk page as the discussions were opened in such way, they are discussed in such a way, and yet again you're misunderstanding my intentions and activity, even removed my reply.--JoyceWood (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You are new here; I am trying to warn you. You can continue as you have been, if you like. If you continue making statements like you have, you will find your self at WP:AE and topic banned quicker than you know it. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You're warning me in a way that my activity has a lack of WP:GOODFAITH. Then point me these specific statements so I can reconsider them and be more focused on the discussion. You basically threat me the right to discuss, to make a reply, it is unbelievable.--JoyceWood (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not what I am saying. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It became more than obvious that you did not read the on-going discussions at Talk:Anatole Klyosov (show by your second comment), misunderstood my activity in your first comment, went to remove my comment against WP:TALKO, warned me for discretionary sanction, warned me for BLUDGEON, and even warned me for AE and topic ban, for something I did not do nor I am doing. Do you understand that from my POV, in which I do propose and discuss concrete changes to the article (and RS of sources which could be used in other articles), your action, because of your lack of understanding of the situation, is simply not logical and perceived as a threat?--JoyceWood (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, it appears that his views in this area indeed have been described as fringe. That happens. It does not mean Klysov will not be respected for his work in enzymology. My very best wishes (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I really don't understand why you questioned and discussed the use of the word "pseudoscience", there is no issue that his work is fringe. The really issue is whether his articles (listed in the discussions; not publications) in the journals were also unreliable, and thus cannot be cited on Wikipedia? Also, firstly we need to resolve the "Analysis" discussion (i.e. the formulation of the sentence).--JoyceWood (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to cite his own works in this area on the page because they are not notable and "primary sources". We must cite 3rd party publications about him and his work. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. As you can see, your edits triggered a lot of changes on the page that you probably do not like. If you really want to improve something, find good references on his date of birth, immigration, his achievements in mainstream science, his awards in the Soviet Union, his involvement in internet development, etc. All of that was removed as poorly sourced or unsourced materials. And do not ping me anymore, please. I have had enough. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes Sorry, I must ping you as my edits triggered a lot of changes because that is exactly what I wanted, discussed and like to see happen.--JoyceWood (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, main JoyceWood's concern was whether all Klyosov's articles were unreliable. No more wording "pseudoscientific publications" in the new version, so we all may be happy (I hope). --Q Valda (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Q Valda Wrong. --JoyceWood (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

Have a look at this. You made your first edit to the Talk page on Jan 5. In the course of just three days, you have become the biggest contributor by bytes to that page with 28MB. The next biggest contributor has just 17MB. That is the kind of evidence that will brought at AE to ask for you to be topic banned, in this case per WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Only it won't because my edits were constructive to trigger neutral discussion and changes which are happening on the article.--JoyceWood (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

your walls of text (please read that) have not helped change the article. Please make concise comments on the Talk page citing reliable secondary sources and based on the policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

you again made a revert, of an edit in which summary I called you to do not before you read my comment, to which you did not respond (and then when did, not even properly), and instead you did with false substantiation ("tendentious"), and again made a false accusation with a warning about something I am not doing. You constantly do not allow me to make a constructive edit on the article, saying that mine "walls of text have not helped change the article". You implement WP:OWN policy, it's just insane.--JoyceWood (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What you do on this page qualify as WP:DE - agree with Jytdog. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It does not qualify as DE. Also, instead of needless comment on this talk, engage in the specific article talk page discussion about the content change where I asked you a question because you were not specific.--JoyceWood (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You are step by step getting closer to AE.

Your recent editing history at Anatole Klyosov shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Please understand that you could probably be blocked now for just making 3 reverts. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller I understand WP:3RR and I won't make any further revert, however, the on-going discussion was not finished and it did not reach any WP:CONSENSUS for the content change.--JoyceWood (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning, again

Your recent editing history at Anatole Klyosov shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)