SuperFriendlyEditor
Welcome!
|
Welcome to Wikipedia.[1] Rothorpe (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha! I see what I was doing wrong. I thought for some reason it was this: <ref= references >
But really, it's this: [2] Thank you!
- Exactly. Let me know if & when you need any more help. And do sign your name with four of these: ~. Cheers! Rothorpe (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[3]
Ok, if you don't mind I do have one other referencing question. How do you do the thing with the quote, where the ref shows the quote or whatever you want prior to the reference. I can see that others do this but I'm not sure how. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Can you point me to exactly what you mean, on the Heidegger page perhaps? Rothorpe (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I just mean is there anything I have to do specifically to put a quote in the reference , rather than just a URL? I was confused on that.
Is the answer just this? [4]
am I supposed to be linking to the books I reference or just citing them like a standard academic article? that might be a better approximation of what I'm trying to figure out.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- I rarely do refs myself, but I find that nobody bothers too much about how I do them (format them). Just do what you think is best; someone will be along to fix it if necessary. Your example above looks good. Rothorpe (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
edit
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Martin Heidegger may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Martin Heidegger may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Edits at Martin Heidegger
editHello, SuperFriendlyEditor. Since you are a new user, you should read WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. If you want to make changes at the Martin Heidegger article, you need to discuss matters on the talk page and reach consensus there. Trying to force your changes through by making multiple reverts is unacceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
multiple reverts? I reverted your sole, uninformed revert. Have you ever read a single work of Heidegger's in full? SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- My revert was perfectly informed. Your version of the lead was quite clearly too long. Respectfully, if you cannot see that, that only indicates a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia. Additionally, insulting me in an edit summary by calling me a "liar", as you did here, is an offense for which you can potentially be blocked. Please read WP:NPA. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Name a single work of Heidegger's you have read in full if you would like to continue the discussion. I will even accept a paper you have read as an acceptable answer. Reducing the length is fine. Destroying content when you have no familiarity with the author is vandalism. You seem like an intelligent person; please edit pages where you have relevant knowledge. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, two other editors agreed with my edits. You are the sole cowboy here reverting my edits on the basis of zero familiarity with the topic at hand.
- Sorry, but as I explained on the Heidegger talk page, other editors not reverting you doesn't mean that they necessarily agree with your edits, or think they are improvements: it may indicate simply that they have no opinion about the merits of your changes. I have not the faintest idea how you would know what I do or do not know about Heidegger. You will find accusing me of vandalism is pointless: that accusation is just one more piece of evidence that you really don't understand Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I am a professional. I teach Heidegger for a living. I can smell bullshitters like you who have failed to do the assigned reading a mile away. You get an F, friend. Have you read a work of Heidegger's or not?SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you actually are a professional, then you should know better than to behave in this undignified fashion, or make insults instead of discussing issues in a civilized way. Since you continue to make personal attacks against me, after having been told this is unacceptable, I'm going to have to seek outside intervention. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
That may be, but at least I do not edit the pages of Wikipedia articles when I am unable to name a single work the author has wrote. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- I could name plenty of books Heidegger wrote. However, as I said to you on my talk page, I'm not interested in responding to game-playing behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
If you could name them, you would. QED. And your revert of my contributions en masse rather than selective removal indicates plainly that you felt insufficently secure in your knowledge of Heidegger to make selective edits, and likely have not finished any of his works, even if I grant you on your say-so that you can name some. And You are the one engaged in your ANI game-playing, not me friend. Can't we get back to improving this low quality, top importance article, one of the sole reasons for an encylopedia to even exist, rather than playing your nonsense schoolyard games? Enough!SuperFriendlyEditor (talk)
- No. No one with any sense would waste a second of his time on your absurd request for a list of names of Heidegger's books, which only diverts attention from your inability to make any serious case for your edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
So you waste both of our time with your completely baseless Wikilawyering case. I made an excellent case for my edits. 4 others supported my edits. No one supported yours. Remind me, old chap, what was the case for YOUR edits again? Please stop this harassment or I will be bringing a case against you for violation of No Personal Attacks, Harassment, Don't Bite the Newbies, Assume Good Faith, and at least 5-10 other violations that I could easily nail you on, but I am actually here to improve the decrepit Heidegger article. Please make selective improvements to that article if you have the knowledge and capacity to do so, old friend.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to ask, do you regularly spend your time on Heidegger and other philosophy articles, or have you only proceeded because of your harassment of me? I am in the process of improving this article as we speak (and as you waste one of your better's time with your childish games). What precisely are you doing?SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martin Heidegger. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Just stop and use the talk page, and try and be civil ----Snowded TALK 10:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to be civil, but what could be more uncivil than a mass delete? I would consider an insult far more civil. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment @SuperFriendlyEditor:: Please note that WP is a collaborative effort. Once an edit is challenged, you are supposed to discuss the matter on the article's talk page (please read WP:BOLD), not start edit warring. I have placed the article on my watch list. One more revert, and you will be blocked from editing. I will also place a "welcome template" at the top of this page, containing links to the most important guidelines and policies. I recommend that you read at least the more important ones, as this will make working here much easier for you. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
RandyKitty, none of these "collaborators" did anything. I welcome their collaboration! Let them add a single line, or even delete a line that they think is unimportant! Mass deleting is not a "collaboration" and you are abusing language to make your point. I am the only one who collaborated on here. Take a look at the record, and you shall see I collaborated with at least 4 other editors before 2 "collaborators" (who are collaborators in the sense that the French were collaborators with Hitler) simply mass deleted contributions, rather than selectively keeping what they liked or approved of. Please stop abusing language. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting to see yet another Wikipedia contributor more interested in showing off the deep knowledge of their WIkipedia J.D. degree rather than improving a page with more falsehoods and distortions than I can count. This is almost certainly the worst page on Wikipedia, although that abortion of the Sigmund Freud page I was just shown as an example of a "good" page comes rather close. Am I the only one here with eyes? SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)- Comment Whether you recognize it or not, I am here trying to help you improve the Heidegger article. Unfortunately, you keep ignoring my advice. And comparing editors with people collaborating with Hitler is a really outrageous personal attack. This is not how we deal with people here. I have blocked you from editing until you apologize and take that remark back. --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Randy, I am not apologizing to you for an obvious joke, so you will have to somehow manage to go on without one. What is truly outrageous is how little you care about the "embarrassing" state of the article (not my words, but those of several editors above), but you care a great deal about making sure there are indents, and tildes, and every one of your trite, nonsensical, kangarroo-court rules has been followed. I am sure your mother is very proud of your Wikipedia J.D. law degree, but you are not getting any more of my time to contribute to your project and correct your obvious falsehoods and text that does not clearly appear to have been written by an English speaker familiar with Heidegger and able to name even a few of his main concepts. Please point me to the place in the article where even one of H's primary philosophical concepts are reasonably explained, so that a reader may have any idea of what he is after. The current page leaves everyone less intelligent and knowledgeable than they were before reading it. I promise you, that you are not getting even one minute more of my time in any event. This article is so bad that it needs to be gone through paragraph by paragraphy and replaced my new content. Nearly every paragraph in it leaves the reader knowing less true things about Heidegger than the reader knew before. If you would like to actually know something about Heidegger, read the article I wrote. I managed to explain in the lead the main ideas which one needs to know about Heidegger. The current article does not even succesfully explain Heidegger's thought or his importance within the entire article, and inculcates a number of gross and vulgar misconceptions. It would be almost impossible to imagine a philosophy article that was filled with more sophmoric drivel, and reads like a machine-translated text of an undergraduate who has never read the author, and wishes to spread as much misinformation as possible. If you prefer reading an article that seems to claim that Heidegger has only been read in France and is unable to successfully name or explain EVEN A SINGLE ONE OF HEIDEGGER'S CONCEPTS, please by all means, waste your time on doing so. I am finished with this. Adieu. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- See also: Godwin's Law. Once you compare someone to nazis or Hitler, you automatically lose the argument. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
That might be the single dumbest thing I have ever read. Is this editor intellectually disabled? Does he have any actual idea what the word "argument" means?SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Here, from the talk page, three other editors confirming my judgment of just how "embarassing" the current article is, and which contributes to the common conception among academics that Wikipedia is primarily written by intellectually disabled kindergartners and high-school dropouts on a power-trip: 'm sorry but the introduction is an embarrassingly crass articulation of what Heidegger's project is about. It is embarrassing and needs to be fixed!
I agree, especially with sources. From what I understand of Heidegger, the three paragraphs in the introduction are roughly accurate, but they require edits to become smooth and easily understandable. But most importantly, there are no references!! I find the biography and following subjects are for the most part thoroughly cited, but the intro is not? I will keep my eye out for references, but anyone who is knowledgable and wellread on the subject should consider adding references to the introduction. Jdanbeck (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I'd say the second paragraph is inaccurate, and in fact absolute nonsense. It neither reflects Heidegger's position, nor is coherent in itself. There used to be a decent intro. Revert to it? KD Tries Again (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)KD Tries Again
And then, have a look at the fact that 4 editors supported me, before a single WIKILAWYER arrived at the scene, to mass delete. How exactly can I "lose" an argument about Heidegger by calling you Hitler? Whether or not you or I or anyone is an idiot or a Nazi or whatever has no reflection on whether or not the current article ACTIVELY SPREADS MISINFORMATION, as I have repeatedly stated and showed. Goodbye. I hope someday you all have the experience of reading Heidegger, as it is an electrifying experience which I hope no one will deny themselves due to this abortion of a 3rd grader's Wikipage. Truly sad to see how little you actually care about your pages being informative, true, or approrpriate to their topic's importance. Despicable, in fact.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Q: "Name a Heideggerian concept the Current Wikipedia Article on Martin Heidegger successfully explains..." A: "There is none."
- I have removed your talk page access because of your "intellectually disabled" remark above. Be glad I didn't also make the block longer. However, if you continue this kind of remarks after your block has expired, you will be blocked again for a week. After that, an indefinite block will follow. Be civil and collaborative or go away. --Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your block has been extended because of your attempt to evade your block by using a sockpuppet, MyEsteemedColleague. --Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Following the mail I just received from you, I have now also blocked your access to WP email. I am tempted to make you block indefinite, per WP:NOTHERE, but am giving you a final chance to show your good will once your current block expires. --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I have extended the block to a week, as you have been editing while logged out to evade the block on this account. Please re-think the way you have been interacting with other editors, or your next block is likely to be indefinite. Any more editing while logged out or creating additional accounts will also likely lead to an indefinite block. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I have now extended the block to indefinite, as an additional sock, user:HermanHeidegger, was created immediately after my post. -- Diannaa (talk)