Hello, OpticsPhysics, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Srleffler (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your edits at Optics introduced grammatical and factual errors into the text. This diff clearly shows a number of problems including subject-verb disagreements, lack of proper punctuation, and an inappropriate claim that all of optics can be accounted for by classical electromagnetism. This is why I reverted to the previous version. Please workshop your proposal and vet it for errors before simply reverting. Thanks!
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Optics. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please self revert and seek WP:CONSENSUS. I see no WP:RS or justification of your position on talk, just a rant.Verbalchat 10:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, in addition to those links above. I am aware I have reached 3 reverts also. I fail to see support for your edits and they introduce many typographical and grammatical errors at the very least. Verbalchat 11:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you have yet to answer properly on the discussion page. you have not provided any reasons. pls give proper reasons for your actions.OpticsPhysics (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to present you with a letter-salad, but you should have a look at WP:NOTVAND. In no way (wikipedia or otherwise) can my revert of your edit be viewed as vandalism. You have taken it personally, but wikipedia works using the WP:BRD cycle. We are also quite strict usually on having to assume that all other editors, until convincingly shown otherwise, are acting in good faith - per WP:AGF. I have give several proper wikipedia reasons for the revert: the undiscussed major change introduced errors and had not met with consensus, hence I reverted your WP:BOLD change (your edit and the revert are both normal practice), but then it went wrong when you continued to revert to your preferred version that you had produced, despite valid concerns being raised. Please don't edit war like this, and as you can see your edit does not enjoy consensus. You'll have to present reasoned arguments for your changes. Verbalchat 14:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear I've just noticed you reverted me again. This is silly. To show good faith, as you are not supported on the talk page and are clearly edit warring, I suggest you self revert. This would be a very good gesture, would save you from being reverted again, and might stop you from being blocked for this behaviour which is disruptive - as you will be showing a willingness to improve. Please self revert ASAP. Verbalchat 14:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal is right that you shouldn't be re-reverting to your version under these circumstances. According to WP:BURDEN, you have to justify your changes but Verbal can oppose addition of material without necessarily having to give a reason other than that you haven't justified it or gained consensus on the talk page. Nevertheless, Verbal did give reasons, for example, "In addition to prev. and talk, has grammatical errors and style is inappropriate" in an edit summary [1]. You may disagree with these reasons, but they are nevertheless reasons: you need to put arguments on the talk page refuting them, not repeatedly revert. Saying "no valid reason given" is not a refutation: you need to say things that recognize that Verbal has stated reasons and that might have a chance of convincing people of your position. On Wikipedia, we're expected to get along with others, including acknowledging that others have expressed their arguments, even if we disagree with those arguments. Maybe you hadn't noticed Verbal's edit summary: for future reference, you should look at such edit summaries before reverting. It's OK if you didn't realize that. Editors are encouraged to be bold and edit even if they don't know all the procedures, but as you spend more time here and learn the procedures then you're expected to follow the ones you could reasonably be expected to know. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
pls see the discussion page, i keep on giving reasons. i am trying to explain my point of view.
Thank you for trying to explain your point of view. However, you're supposed to wait until there is discussion and agreement before repeatedly reverting. You've exceeded 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. If I don't get interrupted, I'm now filling out a report for the edit-warring noticeboard. I request and advise that you self-revert your own last edit back to the version you don't prefer; doing so may prevent you from being blocked from editing. I would prefer to be able to discuss the material with you on the article talk page, which can't happen while you're blocked. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I neglected to check, just before filing the report, whether you had self-reverted. I see that you had, and I've requested that you be unblocked. If you're unblocked, or when your block expires, please wait until editors on the article talk page have come to an agreement on them before you restore the same edits again.
Normally when you're blocked you can still edit your own user talk page (this page).
I happened to notice that you archived some threads. Thanks for helping keep article talk pages tidy. However, previously when you had archived some threads, your archiving was reverted by another user: [2] Personally I don't particularly mind whether these threads are archived or not, but I really don't want to see disagreements about archiving worked out via archiving actions and reverts rather than discussion. Your current archiving action [3] is a revert and could be considered disruptive. Please don't archive any threads unless you're confident that your archiving will not be opposed by others. If in doubt, you can ask on the article talk page and wait a reasonable length of time for others to comment (usually at least 24 hours, and depending on the editing schedules of editors active on the page) before doing the archiving. If your browser has difficulty handling long pages, feel free to explain that. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your more recent archiving has also been reverted. [4] Therefore, please don't archive any threads on that talk page in the next few months without first getting agreement from others to do so. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re this comment: [5]: sorry, I missed your earlier comment. Could you please restate what you think is incorrect in the article (if you still think so, e.g. after this comment of mine) and why, or give me a link to your earlier comment? (e.g. state the date and time of your comment.)
Re your mention of "vandalism" which can be seen in this diff: When someone is making an attempt in good faith to improve an article, their edit is not considered vandalism, even if you disagree with their edits or the way they're doing them. For example, I accused you of violating 3RR, but I didn't call those reverts you did "vandalism". Please avoid use of the term in such contexts, per WP:CIVILITY. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, rather than creating sockpuppets (DarkGrammar (talk·contribs)), request an unblock here. I also suggest you admit to sockpuppetry and apologise. If it is not you, please also state that. Verbalchat 18:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, since you may not be aware of the policy: you may not edit while blocked. Just because you physically can create another account or edit from another IP address, does not mean that you are allowed to do so. Editing while blocked typically results in the block being extended. --Srleffler (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re getting unblocked: see the instructions in the template above, which say to put {{unblock|your reason here}} . For advice on what types of things to put as your reason, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and if you're open to advice from me, my essay User:Coppertwig/Unblocking. I'm sorry about the way this worked out and wish I had checked for your self-reversion before I filed the report. I've put a note on William M. Connolley's talk page requesting an unblock, but he doesn't seem to be editing in the past couple of hours.
If for some reason you can't edit this user talk page, you might try emailing me and/or William M. Connolley and/or someone else. If you enter your own email address by clicking "preferences" above and confirm it using some code they email you or whatever, then when you go to someone's user page or user talk page, you should see a link "email this user" at the left, in the column under "Main page" but much further down, near "user contributions". Or you can just wait for your block to expire, or post comments on this user talk page (if you can) about the Optics article until your block expires. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His block allows for talk page editing. Nja247 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised that if you requested an unblock you might be unblocked; if you point out your self-revert, and apologise for creating a sockpuppet (with some discussion, making clear you knew it was wrong and to engage on talk after being reverted and then waiting, etc). See the appealing a block link above. Or, you can just take a break until the block expires and come back fresh and willing to work together. Verbalchat 20:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it was probably one of my friends because we have been discussing about this issue.
i think i have created a bit of confusion, what i should have said is that the "electromagnetic" wave model should not be in the beginning.
the chronological order is:
classical opitcs containing geometrical optics and physical optics (wave model of light)
then electromagnetic wave model with maxwell equation (the paragraph which is now in the beginning)
discussion of quantum optics.
and everything else as usual.
so in reality nothing much has changed except for the position of one paragraph and adding one or two paragraphs for explanation. i still dont understand why you keep on saying restructuring of the article?? when did i ever say that i want to fill the article with history or completely change the article.
the article is perfectly fine the classical optics should contain the geometrical optics and physical optics (wave model of light). the only problem is that the electromagnetic wave model of light paragraph which is now in the beginning should be put after the physical optics (wave model of light).
it is just changing the position of one paragraph, there is no history involved. it will be scientifically and chronologically accurate.
i will discuss more when my block time is over.OpticsPhysics (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, thanks for the self-revert.
It would be a good idea to somehow arrange your communications with your friends so that it doesn't look as if you're using sockpuppets. Note that if accounts act like sockpuppets, they're treated like sockpuppets; see WP:MEAT.
Re changing the order of paragraphs: I suppose that's probably OK with me. I might change my mind when I study it more carefully, but what you say here makes sense. If others don't object, I suggest doing an edit where all you do is move one paragraph (and state that clearly in the edit summary). Then it's easier to see what you're doing. If you want to make other changes, you can make them in a separate edit (if people haven't objected to them, etc.) If you're already done that, you can tell me the exact date and time of the edit so that I can look at it and see whether I support it.
One of the problems may have been that you made so many changes at once that people didn't have time to look at them carefully, and may have reverted because they opposed some of the changes even though there might have been other changes that might have been OK. I was even confused about what changes you were making: for example, the footnote added by Srleffler I thought was added by you, etc. If you want to add material, I would find it helpful if you would say on the talk page "I want to add this:" and then quote the exact words you want to add. That's not always necessary, but it makes things easier, I find. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you don't edit the article, but post an outline on the talk page and await discussion. I'm also rather disappointed with the response above. Verbalchat 14:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
coppertwig that is exactly what i am trying to say. as far as the structure of the article nothing much changes except for the placement of the paragraph after physical optics (wave model of light). i dont understand why you guys felt like i was ripping apart the whole article. i will give an outline later in the discussion page.
verbal could you clarify why you are disappointed with the response? i am not quite sure i follow if you meant my response or coppertwig response?OpticsPhysics (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. I may not have expressed what I meant very well. My response was not intended to encourage you to re-insert into the article any of the changes which have already been opposed (whether the opposition was expressed explicitly on the talk page, or by reverting or both) without first getting an indication of approval from others. Agreement from just me is not enough, since others have also opposed some changes. I think Verbal was disappointed that I seemed to be encouraging you to go ahead and repeat some edits. Try WP:BRD: if something has been reverted once, I think it's a good idea to discuss it and get consensus before restoring it. Often the resulting consensus will settle on some other edit that's been formed by interaction and discussion among editors. If anyone had explicitly opposed moving the one paragraph, I'm sorry if I hadn't noticed or had forgotten; and you would have to take that into account. Just because I myself don't oppose an edit doesn't necessarily mean I think it's OK for you to do it if others have expressed opposition to it. Verbal, if you oppose moving the paragraph, perhaps you could explain why or tell me the date and time of a comment on the article talk page that explains why. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, coppertwig I've been impressed with your efforts here, although I'd rather see OP go the talk page first with his suggestions - giving the outline I'd asked for on the talk page. At the moment I think having the modern, more correct, model first is better for an encyclopaedia, and for readers. OP should give his justification and outline on the article talk so more than just us few can discuss. My disappointment is with the rather poor explanation of another user, with a name related to this user, would edit this users posts to correct errors and add material. That doesn't seem reasonable. However, OP can rejoin the conversation when he is unblocked. This just leaves a bitter taste. Verbalchat 15:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes ofcourse i am going to discuss the outline first before making any changes.
verbal i think the person maybe corrected my discussion topic and grammar but he never edited the main article. i should have made it clear to him not to edit my changes. atleast its not something serious like editing the main article.OpticsPhysics (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Optics. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please self revert and seek WP:CONSENSUS. I see no WP:RS or justification of your position on talk, just a rant. Verbal chat 10:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
