User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I've noticed several misguided, unsound, and irresponsible edits on your part. I have reverted some, but not al of them. Red-wikilinking anything that strikes you as odd and overusing the "why" template before thinking the point through is not a service to wikipedia--it's more like electronic littering. Please use the Talk pages to discuss, before you launch a red-lining attack on an article. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever, dude. Misguided, unsound, irresponsible? Whatever. I came here to read and understand, and when an article isn't clear, or can be improved, I do what I can to make it better. If that's misguided, unsound, and irresponsible, then it shows how far Wikipedia has come from its roots, where such "littering" as you call it was what drove this encyclopedia to be what it is today. I don't recall "attacking" anybody or any article with red links, but if you call however many I've created recently (can't be more than a handful) an attack, then you are too sensitive. I encourage you to "think through" why I made the changes I did before coming here to tell me what a horrible person I am for not understanding things. It might just lead to a better encyclopedia. (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm relieved you are well-meaning. You might even try to edit and clarify the obscure points in the Talk page of the article, the designated venue for this, to be discussed and improved, if something is confusing. Rushing to litter the article itself with annotations before thinking the point through is distracting to the rest of the readers who are confronted with invitations to now get confused too about the potential confusion, and gives WP the feel of a rambunctious newsgroup. I understand the why template is easier. The appropriateness or not of each particular confusion at the public, not personal, level can be hashed out in the Talk page, communicating with the editors, not the readers--not that a distinction can be easily made... Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, I have no interest in defending my edits in the long term on the talk page. I believe my edits stand on their own merit. I have no interest in getting into the holy wars I've been subjected to on the talk pages in the past. So, I live out the philosophy of the "Be Bold" policy as it was originally intended. If Wikipedia can't respond to good faith bold edits in earnest, then that is a problem with Wikipedia, not with me, and I will not force myself through holy wars to defend trivial points. I don't think it is appropriate that I'm told I'm "littering" either. What I am doing, I am doing in good faith. The kind of policy you are promoting is exactly why peole don't want to contribute to Wikipedia. (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I let my irritation get in the way of the message. My point is only that if anyone stumbling on something in a library book started red-lining or crossing off or sticking red question marks in the margin, very quickly the book would end up as an unreadable construction site. It would be far more constructive if you registered and actually put in the work to improve or clarify the points of confusion yourself. it is not true that anyone's confusions are a lavish bequest to the rest of the world. (If you were familiar with the unsalutary role of the T-cells in psoriasis, basically putting in "needs repair" red flags on sundry spots of a serviceable country road, you could see how irritating this can get.) I apologize if I appeared to you as a proponent of a specific party or mob, or policy, epitomizing unwholesome visions you may have about WP. As you may have noted, I took your confusions in chiral symmetry breaking seriously, even though they were not clear enough for me to be more specific in my edits, and I tweaked the passage in a way I imagined would confuse readers less; ideally they should send the reader to actual books, or other WP articles on symmetry breaking and QFT. But, re:"unfortunately for you", remember, WP is not about your feelings, sentiments, or thoughts, nor mine, nor anyone's. It is just a river of ideas swirling around haplessly influenced by silly little ants, me, you, and a few million others. Please do contribute if you know you can say something better−−but asking somebody out there to do it for you can be misconstrued. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I can and do contribute my knowledge where I find that my expert opinion is relevant. So, if you are accusing me of not being constructive, I'm sorry, that's not valid. I also can and do contribute on the other side of the fence, as a neophyte user. The biggest help IMHO the uninitiated provide is help in identifying where the flow is stilted, unjustified, overloaded with jargon, or simply unclear. Wikipedia has created templates to help identify where these problems lie, and I use them. I won't apologize for that. If you have a problem with them, then I suggest you take it up on the appropriate template page or red link page, or whatever, and not take it out on well-intentioned end users. I certainly have not added them in a way that I feel is abusive. I tend to add only two or three at a time to an article, to allow editors to think about how they have developed an article and about how they may or may not be answering important questions to the reader. When there are a lot, it is usually indicative of a poorly focused article. In that case, the quantity of flags and red links may make the article look unpolished, true. But then again, it is. What does anybody gain by suppressing the flags that bring attention to the problems?
I'm not asking anyone to do any work, either. I didn't come to you and say, Cuzkatzimhut, come fix this article, it's got a problem. So, if you somehow arrived at that position, then I ask you to re-evaluate why you came to be there. Why did you feel obligated to fix a problem I pointed out? This is a volunteer effort, right? So, presumably Jimmy Wales didn't beat you into submitting to do this to yourself. So all the irritation that you seem to be suffering from seems to be self-imposed. Don't put that on me. I'm trying to help. Only reason I'm having this conversation is because I can tell you want to as well. But the way to help Wikipedia is to continue to improve it, not by being defensive about the status quo. (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)