This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nerd271. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Newslinger was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Introduction to Electrodynamics and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Introduction to Electrodynamics, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Introduction to Electrodynamics, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your recent edit of this article improves the phrasing. You have also edited the formulas, by transforming html into latex. Generally such a systematic change is discouraged by MOS:FORMULA. For simple formulas, it is much better (and faster) to enclose the formula inside a template {{math}}. For that, it suffices to select the formula and click on the button {{math}} in the "Math and logic" menu of the edit window; when "=" occurs in the formula, one must also insert "1=" just before the formula
I could revert your edit and/or fixing these things myself, but it is better if you do this yourself. In particular, I do not want to be implied too much in this article. D.Lazard (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
April 2019
Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
@MrX:@X1\: Greetings! Perhaps I was not clear enough. My issue with Buzzfeed is that they doubled down after publishing a story which the Special Counsel described as inaccurate. Nor am I alone in thinking that Buzzfeed is not the best source to use. The distinction between Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News is immaterial as the latter is published by the former. As for the book on the "complete history" of the Trump-Russia affair, I have already stated my reason for removing it. This is on-going, so it simply does not make sense to write a "complete history."
The argument that "long standing" links should not be removed is logically unsound in the same manner that an appeal to tradition is. Just because it has been there for a while does not mean we should keep it. Nerd271 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Mediabiasfactcheck.com has been discussed a various times and is not deemed authoritative (see WP:RSP#Media_Bias/Fact_Check). It's basically one person's opinion. BuzzFeed News is considered generally reliable (see WP:RSP#BuzzFeed News). Keep in mind also that further reading sections are not subject to the same reliable source guideline as references. If you disagree with any of the listings, it's fine to remove them, but then if another editor reverts it, you should open a discussion on the talk page so that consensus can be determined. My comment about longstanding material is best explained by WP:SILENT. When material has been in a article for a long time, there is a presumption of silent consensus, especially for an article as active as this one.- MrX 🖋 01:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Mediabiasfactcheck.com is not one's person opinion. It is an organization. I checked them for various sources and found we are in agreement most of the time. For example, we both consider the Associated Press and Reuters to be some of the most trustworthy sources out there, and that for Asian matters, the South China Morning Post is excellent. That is why I decided to use it. I have read some Buzzfeed articles, and decided to avoid that site like a plague. Way too much editorializing. In fact, even Wikipedia acknowledged they should be used with care after the recent staff firings. If they are such a successful--read, trusted--news outlet, why would they need to cut their staff all the sudden?
I am not convinced that silence is tantamount to tacit approval. How many people reach that far down in an article? Even if a person does, that does not mean they approve of everything that is in there. I just happen to be one person who speaks up. Nerd271 (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@X1\: I am not joking. I know Buzzfeed owns Buzzfeed News, and that is why I do not trust it. The recent incident I mentioned above is another reason why I think we should avoid altogether.
Please explain why you thinking my justification for deletion is "superficial." I really don't think that sort of language is appropriate for such a respectable source of information, namely this website. If you go back in the history page, you will find that I replaced it with a link from the Associated Press. You get neutral reporting and no inappropriate language. What's the problem? If you visit our page for "don't judge a book by its cover," you will find that the example they use is about a person's appearance, which is perfectly valid because it is something one does not have a lot of control over. But the title of a book or a webpage? I really don't think so. We live in an age where click-baits and sensational materials are as common as dirt. Caution is in order.
@X1\: Looked at the book you gave. If you insist on keeping it, fine. But you might want to replace it with something else in the future. It was published in May, 2018. It is now almost one year later, and a lot has happened. As I said before, this "story," if you will, is on-going. Writing a history book does not really make sense. Nerd271 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RoySmith was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
This is a content fork of Generation Z. Please see WP:FORK for why that's frowned upon.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Nerd271/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Nerd271/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
@RoySmith: Thank you for reviewing. But please note that I create this page in response to the criticism of the page Generation Z that it is too U.S.-centric and contains too much information from advertisers. Self-promotion is generally frowned upon here at Wikipedia. This page filters out materials that count as self-promotional or is not relevant to the U.S. I have also added further information using reliable sources. Please check the history of the sandbox to find out. You might have missed it if you only skimmed the page. Nerd271 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your note. If there's problems with the original article, they should be fixed there. If the article contains promotional material, it should be removed. That's not appropriate in any article. Please see WP:CFORK (I accidentally included the wrong link for this in my original review) for why we don't fork articles. -- RoySmith(talk)19:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
When this draft was last submitted, User:RoySmith stated that it was a content fork. It still appears to be a content fork. Therefore the primary question is whether the existing article should be split. The discussion of whether to split the existing parent article should be at Talk:Generation Z, and if necessary can be resolved by a Request for Comments. Discuss on the talk page of the existing article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Generation Z in the United States and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Generation Z in the United States, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Nerd271, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to J. B. Pritzker have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Diannaa: More paraphrasing was done. Please understand the that just because something read similar does not mean they are copies of each other. How do you accurately paraphrase numbers? Nerd271 (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The content you re-added was identical to the material that I had removed minutes before. It's not necessary or possible to paraphrase numbers, job positions, names of schools, names of companies, or things like that. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Diannaa: I'm afraid I disagree. Proper names are proper names. Numbers are numbers. If you are talking about sentences, I understand. But proper names and numbers are different. Please re-read carefully what I wrote. I paraphrased some more, but not those. I cannot sacrifice accuracy, however. This is an encyclopedia. We should be as accurate as possible; we can and should go as deep as possible, without getting too technical that few would understand, but there is nothing technical about this article. When it comes to numbers, it may be necessary to quote the whole thing. I have noticed what the total numbers of bytes I added and the total of bytes in the contributions from me you deleted, not reverted, deleted, are different. Please reconsider. Again, please read carefully. If you think there is a specific problem, please let me know. Nerd271 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's some specific problems from the current version of the article. Overlappiing content is highlighted in bold.
Chicago Tribune article titled "How much money are Illinois colleges getting in the new budget? ‘It’s definitely good news for colleges and universities.’" says:
It includes $78 million earmarked for emergency repairs and delayed maintenance. It will take some time for that money to materialize, however. Pritzker’s capital budget relies in part on gambling expansion and tax hikes on smoking — revenue not yet generated.
Article says:
This includes $78 million for emergency repairs and delayed maintenance. It will take some time for the money to materialize, however, as the capital plan relies on revenue from taxes from gambling and smoking.
for the Chicago Tribune article titled "Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed a $40 billion state budget into law. Here's a look at what your tax dollars are buying.", please see this copyvio report. Bits are copied from all over that article.
From the Chicago Tribuner article titled "Gov. J.B. Pritzker unveils graduated state income tax plan he says would give break to taxpayers earning less than $250,000":
Under Pritzker’s plan, a family of four with a household income of $61,000 would see $41 in income tax relief before any exemptions, deductions or credits, and a couple with an income of $250,000 would save $65, according to the governor’s office. A family of four with an income of $5 million would pay an additional $150,000 in state income taxes. The governor also proposes increasing the current property tax credit by 1 percentage point, from 5 percent to 6 percent. He would create a per-child tax credit of up to $100 for individuals earning less than $80,000 and joint filers earning less than $100,000. The corporate tax rate would increase from the current 7 percent to 7.95 percent, matching the top personal rate.
Article says:
According to the Governor's office, under this proposal, a family of four with a total income of $61,000 would see $41 in income tax relief before any exemptions, deductions or credits, and a couple with an income of $250,000 would save $65. Meanwhile, family of four with a total income of $5 million would pay an additional $150,000 in state income taxes. The corporate tax rate would rise from 7% to 7.95%, matching the top personal rate. In addition, Pritzker wants to increase the property tax credit from 5% to 6% and a tax credit of up to $100 per child for individuals earning less than $80,000 per child and joint filers earning less than $100,000.
That's better. It's something I can work with. Done! The link on potential plagiarism you gave says, "Violations unlikely." Among the highlighted items are "according to the Governor's office," the "Illinois Department of Children and Family Services," and "a $150 million surplus." After this, it's even less likely.
But you still have not answered why you deleted -- as in crossed out -- all the previous edits I made. If you check the edit summaries, some of the edits are on things you are not contesting, like abortion, traffic stops, and scholarships. Are you sure, for example, that what I wrote on Senate Bill 25 and AIM High are too similar to the original sources? Note that quotations are used. Nerd271 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
In order to completely remove the material from the page history, all the intervening edits have to be hidden, from the time of insertion of the copyright material to its removal. This means that in many instances, harmless edits have to be hidden. Thank you for taking the time to re-do your additions. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
List of textbooks on classical and quantum mechanics
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you are studying physics or have studied physics at an English-speaking institution of higher learning, chances are, you have heard of at least some of them. Some of these books even have their own Wikipedia pages. I linked to the ones I know to exist. Nerd271 (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Block evasion on the Millennials article
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
FYI, the IPs that are currently edit-warring on the Millennials article and the IP that you responded to on the talk page is a sockpuppet evading their block. Not sure if the discussion on the talk page should be hat-ed or not. Someone963852 (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
August 2019
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amish; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@Walter Görlitz: Careful. One person voiced an opinion but waited for others. I voiced my agreement and made the change accordingly. You then came and disagreed with us. Try to convince us on the talk page first. Nerd271 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Generations articles and User:Osrius
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please be careful not to edit war with Osrius. Even though they are being disruptive, I believe the proper procedure is to take them to WP:AN/I if they will not engage in discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Do not cry WP:SOAPBOX or Promotion when her first marriage was confirmed and her living in London was made public. It was known by all who knew her before the alleged divorce happen. Kay girl 97 (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Me? Crying? No, I am only trying to respect her privacy. It's her personal life, which is none of our business. We should leave her personal life alone. Please be aware of what Wikipedia is not. Nerd271 (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Her marriage was made public by numerous British and NZ sources long before she got divorced. It's not gossip or a lie or anything. Kay girl 97 (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I know that. But it's none of our business. Wikipedia is not a news agency. Just because something is mentioned in the news does not mean it should appear on Wikipedia. Nerd271 (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
On talk pages, please use a colon to indent. Please also learn how to add links without weird formatting, unless that was your intention. Yes, I am aware she is a public figure. But that does not mean we have the right to invade her privacy. Also keep in mind she's a living person. The desire of some individuals to know more about her personal life does not invalidate her right to privacy. Nerd271 (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Vassy Kapelos 2019.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Your edits on 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike article
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Nerd271, I have opened a talk section about your double reversion of my edit on that article. I would also like to say that I see you making a great number of edits to that article. I also see that this account has only been in operation for a little over a year. I wonder if you have the experience necessary to be making so many rapid edits on such an article. Oska (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your recent editing history at 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Mhhosseintalk08:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I believe this was a misunderstanding. El_C stated not all edits were necessarily reverts. Besides, I do give reasons for most of those edits. For example, the page 2020 Taji road airstrike has been redirected to the aftermath of the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike because the initial report by Newsweek, classified as unreliable by WP:RS is contradicted by multiple sources later on. Also see its talk page and its history. I believe I played a a role in that. See more here: [2], [3], [4]. The first edit in this list was to remove a phrase repeated twice, which as "Imam Ali Brigades denied the death of [sic] its leader." Nerd271 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You clearly violated 3RR, which is about the reverting itself, not the content of the reverts. As you don't concede you did anything wrong, there is no cause to lift the block, and I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You definitely violated 3RR (one, two, three, four, for example). The reasons why you did so are not particularly important — that there was a 3RR violation is what matters. El_C20:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
With regards to the comparison (third edit listed by El_C above), it was already resolved between other editors and myself on the talk page. See here. I have not touched it since. Nerd271 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
To violate 3RR, you don't need to make the same reverts. Just more than three reverts per 24 hours per page. El_C21:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
So look like you guys need to do more collaboration and research because how the fuck you’re going to change it from 1995 to 1997 because of Pew’s definition. Pew doesn’t define us we the people the culture do. Give me a break Bighead411 (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bighead411: Wikipedia has guidelines on civility. See WP:Civility. We are not basing our article entirely on Pew. If you read the 'Date and age range definition' in its entirety, you will find that the current tentative date range in the lead section reflects it rather well. Moreover, the Pew Research Center is a highly authoritative source. See WP:RSPSOURCES. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they are wrong. Nerd271 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Millennials
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yes, indeed. Baby boomers, too. Generation X is not the only parents of Generation Z. We mention them all in the introduction of Generation Z. Nerd271 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Older Generations
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Nerd271, can you please make edits on the following pages:
@Paleontologist99: Unfortunately, my time is limited, so I can only focus on a few demographic cohorts at the moment. I would like to cover the topics in a deep and professional rather than superficial way. And that takes time, not just to write but also to do research and to select reliable sources. But thank you for the suggestion. Nerd271 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nerd271: Can you please do at least Generation X? With CTA, can you also do 5000 series (new)? Thank you!
@Paleontologist99: It seems to me that the momenta behind many of our projects and articles have petered out. It is unlikely that one person can simply revive or rejuvenate them all, even if he is a full-time and paid editor. In short, I cannot make any guarantees. But I appreciate your enthusiasm for my contributions to Wikipedia. Nerd271 (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
March 4, 2020
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Nerd271-
You seem to be an experienced editor, so I have to say I'm astonished by your most recent revert of my edit instead of taking up the discussion on the talk page. Since I'd really rather get along with everyone I'll give you a chance to revert your edit (removing that paragraph again), take a deep breath, and we can try starting over. If we can't agree on this I'll report you for violating the the three-revert rule and resolve things that way. Please let me know.
You don't seem to be editing on Wikipedia at the moment, so I won't report the 3rr violation in your absence. No reply to this message is needed. Dan Bloch (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@Danbloch: I have indeed been relatively inactive for the last several days or so. I will continue to be inactive for the next few weeks for some business of my own. I will reply on the relevant talk page some time in April.
In the future, do not assume people accepted your arguments just because they have not replied within 24 hours. I have tried to engage you as politely as possible, never resorting to threats. I would appreciate it if you reciprocate. Like all other good-faith editors, I prefer adding relevant (and hopefully interesting) contents to being involved in a protracted talk-page dispute. It is not really a problem that you disagree with me. But threats?
Anyway, I can compromise on a lot of things, but not on the principle that unless a consensus is reached, the status quo should remain. You cannot just change something that was there for a while then demand a talk-page consensus to restore it. Having said that, since I have not been active, I will return to the talk-page next month and start from there. Nerd271 (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I too, have tried to engage you as civilly as possible. Note, however, that there is no Wikipedia rule or guideline that says that the status quo should be preserved, certainly not in the absence of an argument against a change. If you're aware of one, by all means let me know what it is. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Generations
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Nerd271! I would like to inform you that I would like to volunteer for WikiProject Society, focusing specifically on all cultural generations. I have noticed that cultural generations are your main interest. Happy editing! Paleontologist99 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@Paleontologist99: It looks like the Project Demography is still categorized as inactive even though I re-categorized the page, added the link to this Project on the talk pages of various cultural generations articles, and the two of us added our names to it. Hmm. Perhaps more activity on the page itself is needed. I'm not going to be active for the next several weeks. Maybe you and I could try something in late April. Nerd271 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Paleontologist99: Did you mean WikiProject Sociology or WikiProject Demographics? WikiProject Society does not exist. I checked. There is something called WikiProject Society and Medicine, however. Nerd271 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Twinkle
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Nerd271, please self-revert your edit to Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump. Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." I have disputed this and other content on the article talk page, explaining in detail why this excessive "background information" that constitutes original research/synthesis. No consensus exists to include it. Per ONUS, I request that you self-revert. Neutralitytalk21:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Important notice re: post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
These are standard messages given to all those who edit regularly in the topic area to make sure they are aware. (Sorry for the impersonal nature of the note, but they have to be placed on talk pages exactly as given.) I see you received the note April 9, 2019, but I believe they have to be given within the last twelve months to be effective, so this is the renewal. Thanks. Neutralitytalk22:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Removing tags from articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Please restore the tags to the Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump article that you removed. I've identified a specific problem with the page and explained in detail what those problems are. The tags serve an important purpose of alerting readers and editors and per policies (like this one) they should not be removed while the problems persist or discussion is ongoing. I would strongly prefer not to take this to noticeboards, but this is not an acceptable thing to do. Neutralitytalk
As I explained in the edits, that was a bit much. Dropping some tags in the beginning should be enough to make your point. Nerd271 (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
More work needs to be done because the introduction currently reads like an advertisement; this is why removing tags haphazardly is problematic. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why you think it "reads like an advertisement." Anyway, like almost all Wikipedia articles, it is a work in progress. Drive-by templating is ill-advised. If you think there is a problem, please specify what it is on the talk page. Nerd271 (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Cusper
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Do you mind adding Cusper to your list of articles to watch? There's an IP hopper who keeps adding unsourced/poorly sourced content and the article is in need of more patrollers. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Nerd271, Thanks for inviting me to join the discussion. When I came on, I found it already closed. I suppose the problem has been resolved. I understand that I jumped straight into making the graphic without considering that different sources have different dates. I'll be more careful next time. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ22:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I don't see anything wrong with someone repeatedly reverting himself – I'd actually applaud someone who admits his mistake and corrects it – unless it's a method to game the system which I'm not aware of.
@Cmglee: No, you did fine. The timeline is pretty informative and useful. It uses the most common date ranges. In the past, we have had disputes because (1) somebody had a sociological theory they really liked or (2) somebody really wants to or does not want to identify with a certain demographic cohorts. I would not worry about them, to be honest.
As for the IP, that person was found to be a persistent disruptive editor and got banned. Reverting oneself once in a while is one thing. Doing that repeatedly in a single string of questionable edits is another. People like him are not good-faith editors. During my time here at Wikipedia, I have seen people vandalized a page than reverted themselves right after. Yes, I do really mean 'vandalize' given the nature of the edits. Nerd271 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Relativity of simultaneity
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
The speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames. This postulate led to the prediction of the loss of simultaneity. Anyone who has studied special relativity knows this. Nerd271 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
conventionality of distant simultaneity
Please excuse me, but you do not understand, that conventionality of distant simultaneity is well - known concept. Einstein knew that perfectly well; here its is directly from Einstein 1905 article:
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an " A time " and a " B time." We have not defined a common " time " for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the " time " required by light to travel from A to B equals the " time" it requires to travel from B to A.
First, please sign your talk-page comments with four tildes (~~~~). Second, you seem to be semantically confused. Because two different inertial observers cannot agree on the set of events that happen simultaneously, we get the relativity of (or loss of) simultaneity. Nerd271 (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe that it is you, who was confused. It is senseless to teach me thing I know perfectly well. Two different observers may disagree, or may agree. That purely depends on clock synchronization procedure in each frame of reference. They can introduce relative simultaneity; they can also introduce universal (some sort of "absolute"), which is also self consistent. Second, Wikipedia is about sources and my source (Einstein's 1905 article) is yhe primary one, which clearly states, that simultaneity even within one given reference frame is conventional. I recommend you to read Norton's article first:
There are many secondary sources by Reichenbach, Grunbaum, Janis e.t.c. I believe hundreds of articles that you have apparently missed. 185.71.245.255 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Eh, one of the key tenets of special relativity is that one cannot established a universal clock, a universal inertial frame of reference, hence the relativity of simultaneity. Once again, that is a philosophy source, which is not appropriate for a physics article. And before you question my understand of special relativity, keep in mind that the loss of simultaneity is a well-established consequence of special relativity and has its own section within the article and its own Wikipedia page. Check out a physics textbook (something on advanced classical mechanics or electrodynamics would do) and you will see. Nerd271 (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory simultaneity is absolute; Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity.[1] The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation (see the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory as an example). Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both, it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.
The ether has been abandoned thanks to special relativity. Simultaneity is relative rather than absolute. How you measure time depends on your frame of reference. A universal clock cannot exist. This is a standard feature of not just special but also general relativity, both of which have been tested on their predictions numerous times. Nerd271 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Please be aware of the following Wikipedia policies: neutral point of view WP:NPOV; your claims should be supported by primary sources wp:PRIMARY. Again, Albert Einstein clearly states, that equality of speed of light in different directions can be established only by definition (convention) and another article in Wikipedia clearly states that Lorentz Ether theory is empirically equivalent. Hence, relativity of simultaneity is a convention, which cannot be experimentally confirmed even in principle. I recommend you to read the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation. Please note, that the article clearly states, that one way speed of light relatively to the Earth surface is anisotropic. since the Earth rotates. 185.71.245.255 (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like a fundamental misunderstanding of special relativity. One of Einstein's postulates states that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames. The Earth is not an inertial reference frame because it is rotating and moving a long a curve rather than a straight line at constant speed and direction. Not sure why you would bring up Einstein's synchronization because it is not essential to understanding the predictions of special relativity. Nerd271 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Talk-page archiving
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Angle trisection; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@Joel B. Lewis: Issuing threats and profanities is not convincing. If you read the edit, you would realize I actually made a compromise. I bumped it up from three months to half a year. Nerd271 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Millennials RFC
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I would like to continue with the RFC on modifying the lead in the Millennials article. The previous RFC had very little activity, with only two votes, and ending in a draw. Should I contact a moderator to restart the old RFC, or should I start a new RFC myself?--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Partial fractions in Barrow and Weierstrass sections
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I'm sorry, I discovered I unwittingly started a so called edit war, I only saw the possibility of sending you a message after I undone your edit. I added some explanations which I hope will make things clear. If you still have have questions or doubts about my edit please send me an email to sraianu@csudh.edu. Thanks, Serban RaianuSraianu (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, no! Don't worry! I perceived no hostility from you. It was just a disagreement. Anyway, I started a conversation on the talk page of that article. Nerd271 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I will answer here because it is easier for me, after I type this here I will try to go and see if I can copy this on the talk page of the article. Partial fractions has a precise meaning, it is actually a theorem in abstract algebra and the proof uses arithmetic in the ring of polynomials, you can see a proof of it in my book on my webpage (just google my name, then search for partial fractions in the pdf, or use the index, clicking on the page number in the index will take you there). In North America partial fractions are usually taught in Calculus II, Integral Calculus, right after trigonometric integrals and substitutions, see for example Stewart's book (any edition or version), or Thomas Calculus (or Finney and Thomas, or any combination, any edition). Sraianu (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Baby boomers. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Yes, I wrote and slightly modified those passages. If you check the history pages, I am one of the recently active contributors to said pages. Nerd271 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Would You Like To Help Me Improve The "Treatise" Wikipedia Page?
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello @Nerd271:, I've noticed your edit on the Wikipedia page titled "Treatise" and checked out your profile. You seem like someone who is quite knowledgeable in this field and I would like to ask for your assistance on improving the "Treatise" page as it is in need of some dire help. Unfortunately, the previous users have failed in the providing a well referenced and well defined idea for the page. Please either respond to this section or respond to the Talk:Treatise page if your are interested. W.C Cross (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Generation Z. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.
@Liz: Before you make such accusations against me, I advise you to take a good look at the situation. I specifically removed information concerning definite statements on the date ranges of Generation Z in the introduction to avoid an edit war. Over on the Millennials page, we have had such problems in the past. I am keen to not have that here. Moreover, there is a note for editors (invisible to readers) warning against making changes to the date range without reaching a talk-page consensus first. Nerd271 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Introduction to Solid State Physics
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I remember we talked about this before; I have created Introduction to Solid State Physics after I was blown away by its historical notability and coverage. This textbook played a fundamental role in defining the field of condensed matter physics, I did not realize that. Also, I found 13 foreign translations and then gave up on looking for more because it was finally enough to say it was translated "over a dozen" times. It may be one of the most notable textbooks on Wikipedia. Anyways, as we talked about it before and you are active in editing physics books, I wanted to invite you to join the party. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding [5], I included the issue date and page number. That is sufficient to identify the source. Feel free to help improve the citation, but you should not revert it for reason. Benjamin (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Benjaminikuta: You're gonna need to do better than that. See how other citations are formatted? It is not against policy to cite a printed resource. But we need the article name for verification. Nerd271 (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
No, policy does not require fully formatted citations. It only requires sufficient information to identify the source. I have included sufficient information. If you pick up that issue, and open it to that page, you will find the article. I have included the title now, as a courtesy, but in the future, per WP:PRESERVE, this is not a good reason to revert the edit altogether. Benjamin (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Benjaminikuta: No, since you made the edit, it is your responsibility to provide sufficient information for verification. The formatting does that quite nicely. Regardless of whether or not you use the Visual Edit, the key combination Shift+Ctrl+K will launch a dialog box that allows you to fill in the information. You cannot just cite a magazine article from yesteryear without giving the name. Nerd271 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Don't edit war. When your edit is challenged by reversion, you go to the talk page and discuss it, not try to force your preferred content into the article. Issues of inheritance, genetic component of intelligence, etc. are quite clearly biomedical and WP:MEDRS applies. You need high quality secondary sources to support such content. --RexxS (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be pursuing an agenda of attributing various human traits to inheritance based on single primary studies. If you can't find good quality secondary sources for the content, please don't add it. WP:MEDRS explains where to find ideal sources for biomedical information. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Please refrain from making accusations; they are not convincing. I encountered BBC and Guardian articles mentioning those so I thought I should find the original articles for myself. But I already know by now that popular press sources are not considered reliable for scientific reporting, though they might be useful as a start.
You might want to look at the sources used first. They are all peer-reviewed research journals, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, explicitly listed as a reliable source in the link you gave. Nerd271 (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Peer reviewed does not equal secondary. Please read WP:MEDRS and try to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, because we need secondary sources to support our medical content. You are quite right that we don't use news media to write our medical content, but interesting as the original (primary) articles are, we don't use those either. You need to find good quality scholarly reviews and mainstream textbooks that discuss the theories about inheritance that you are interested in, and use those as the basis for writing article content. --RexxS (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infrastructure policy of Donald Trump until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Peter Gill
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I suspect he is Australian given his early education and his current post, though I doubt that piece of information is particularly important. Nerd271 (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
December 12, 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Please stop your edit war on J. B. Pritzker. I asked for page protection to stop it, obviously it didn't. If you would like to change the photo, please open a discussion on the talk page. I see that a few weeks ago you were warned about edit warring, please read WP:3RR before continued editing. Thanks, Andrew nyrtalkcontribs07:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew nyr: Try to understand the situation before you accuse people of something. If you could be bothered to check the history page, there was an older photo there. A fellow by the name of TDKR Chicago 101 changed it. I thought it did not look serious. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a satirical publication, so regardless of what editors think of the subject of the article, there ought to be a serious photo. The one I changed to is a direct frontal photo, as you can see for yourself. Nerd271 (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
While I understand there might have been good intentions, it still developed into an edit war. The accusation holds true when you look at the edit history. And yes, I did see the original photo, but you were still edit warring. I really don't care which photo is used, I just wanted to stop the back and forth edit warring on the page. Thanks, Andrew nyrtalkcontribs15:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
So you'd better try to understand the situation first before committing what psychologists call the fundamental error of attribution, something they satirize on "Tom and Jerry." Just because you saw something does not mean what you saw is all there is. Oh, and please don't drag previous incidents into this. It undermines your attempt to present yourself as a third and neutral party. Nerd271 (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
A colon (:) at the start of a line marks that line in the MediaWiki parser as the <dd>...</dd> part of an HTML description list (<dl>...</dl>). The visual effect in most Web browsers is to indent the line. This is used, for example, to indicate replies in a threaded discussion on talk pages. However, this markup alone is missing the required <dt> (term) element of a description list, to which the <dd> (description/definition) pertains. As can be seen by inspecting the code sent to the browser, this results in broken HTML (i.e. it fails validation. The result is that assistive technology, such as screen readers, will announce a description list that does not exist, which is confusing for any visitor unused to Wikipedia's broken markup. This is not ideal for accessibility, semantics, or reuse, but is currently commonly used, despite the problems it causes for users of screen readers.
Blank lines must not be placed between colon-indented lines of text – especially in article content. This is interpreted by the software as marking the end of a list and the start of a new one. If a blank line is needed, place the same number of colons on it as those preceding the text below the blank line
@RexxS: Hang on a minute. If you checked the code of this post of yours, you will realize there is a line gap between your paragraphs. Am I not allowed to do the same, then? Nerd271 (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Unindented posts are not list items. They are paragraphs and they require a blank line between them for the wiki-text markup to create paragraphs.
As is explained in WP:LISTGAP (that I've asked to to read four times now), indented posts are not paragraphs. They are items in a list. Each indent is another list inside a list. When you break the lists by leaving a blank line, you force a screen reader user to hear the lists being closed down and new lists being started every time. The deeper the indent, the more verbiage the screen reader user has to listen to.
Placing the same number of indent markers (usually colons) on an otherwise blank line does not break the list. It allows you to make your posts easier to read without causing problems for the visually impaired. Do you understand what I have been asking you to do now? Are you willing to promise not to cause the same problem for screen readers in future? --RexxS (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Readability is important to me because my parents drilled it into me when I was a kid, hence my insistence on line breaks (or at least indentation), and large fonts (or zooming in).
Could you have gotten me to cooperate? Of course you could. For example, you could have added the appropriate number of colons in the right places, pointed me to them, and asked me to do the same instead of removing the blank lines I added as line breaks.
Could you get me to cooperate now? Yes, indeed. You can do so by dropping the threatening and condescending attitude and removing the block. Some of us are here to get things done rather than playing with bureaucratic language or taking orders. To paraphrase a professor I had the pleasure to meet back in the day, being pushy could be a great way to get people to ignore you.
If you want me to respect your eyesight, then please respect mine. I do not add line breaks out of spite but for the sake of everyone reading the code. Adding colons instead of blank lines sounds like a reasonable compromise. In the interest of good will and cooperation, I am willing to add the colons in future conversations with you if you remove the block. Nerd271 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for making a compromise. I accept that you now understand the issue and will respect the guidance in future, so there is no reason for you to be blocked and I've therefore unblocked you.
I'm sorry you find me condescending, and I'll try my best not to give you that impression in the future.
@RexxS: Thank you for reaching an agreement. As I mentioned earlier, some of us are here to get things done rather than being lawyers or bureaucrats. So it would be best to link people right to the section with guidelines on indentation rather than the whole thing. We were not voting or making a list; we were just having a conversation. Colons were being used, not asterisks. Nerd271 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand your point entirely. Nevertheless, the problem I've had with directing people to just the the subsection MOS:INDENTGAP is that they sometimes don't see the bigger picture, so I've fallen into the habit of pointing them to the entire section at MOS:LISTGAP, which lays out the problems in full. Unfortunately, exactly the same problem exists when participants in discussions use asterisks, so there wasn't much point in having guidance just for colons. It seems I probably need to mention both. I also wrote the WP:Colons and asterisks essay to try to cover the interaction between colons and asterisks, as I know that is also a regular issue with some talk page discussions. It is a pity that developers chose to misuse list markup to produce indentations, but the consequences for the visually impaired were not appreciated 20 years ago, and we've been having to play catch-up ever since. --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I suspect it is going to have to be context-dependent. So in a regular talk-page discussion, it is probably enough to point people to the guidelines for indentations. It voting or listing is involved, let them of of the guidelines for the asterisks, too. It might also be a good idea to take the time to correct the formatting and let people know how things are best done (or ask another editor who understands your needs to quickly do it for you). Examples are a useful teaching tool. Nerd271 (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Titania McGrath. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Nerd271, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to J. B. Pritzker have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amish; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
@Walter Görlitz: Careful. One person voiced an opinion but waited for others. I voiced my agreement and made the change accordingly. You then came and disagreed with us. Try to convince us on the talk page first. Nerd271 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Kay girl 97 (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Nerd271 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Nerd271 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
