User talk:WillNess

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, WillNess, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks! WillNess (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Avatar (2009 film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"your" articles? "YOUR"??? Why am I excluded exactly? Sheesh! Demand sources, demand attribution by all means. But saying it is "YOUR ARTICLE"? That's rich. WillNess (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think by 'our articles' he meant Wikipedia's articles, he never said it was his. You did some nice edits on the content I wrote in Roadside Picnic article! Keep up the good work. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Nick

Thank you very much for your words of encouragement! Thank you for the article on Alexander Pechersky too. WillNess (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sieve of Eratosthenes

Hello there! I hope you're well. I can see that you've been very busy editing Sieve of Eratosthenes. It's really good to see an editor with such entuhusiasm. Looking at the article's edit history it seems that you've started to disagree with another editor. It can be very frustrating when that happens. The best thing is to discuss any future changes on the article's talk page. It's best if you try not to conduct creative disagreements on the article itself; keep that to the talk page. I can see that you've already started to engage on the talk page. That's good. Remember that there's the very serious issue of the three revert rule. Please make sure you read the link WP:3RR. It's a policy on Wikipedia that says if you revert an article more than three times in 24 hours then you will be blocked from editing. And no-one wants to see that! So, take a deep breath, relax, and go to the article's talk page. All the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement and warning. Problem is, the other person refuses to engage in any discussion on the talk page. They just ignore my arguments and do whatever they please - to the detriment of the article's quality IMO.

What can be done in such a case? WillNess (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WillNess. You have new messages at Fly by Night's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Three Revert Rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sieve of Eratosthenes. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Appearances may be deceptive. I did continue to make some edits on the page, but they were not reverts of anything the other editor did. They were edits in good faith. For instance, I removed an OR section which I myself wrote. This is how I know it is OR. So that removal was not a revert. Cheers.

Moreover, it is the other editor that makes disruptive and unilateral changes without any consensus, and refuses to engage on the talk page. WillNess (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like an acknowledgement that 3RR warning was issued in error to me; and possibly have it removed from my talk page altogether. I removed my own material in that last edit when sourcing was requested and I had none. Thank you. WillNess (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no such things as using it in error. I was reminding you of WP:3RR. It's impossible to wrongly notify someone of relevant policy. If you're actually blocked then that's a different matter altogether. Also note that you are free to remove it from your talk page; removal simply signifies that you have read it. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for your explanations. It's just that I'm no Wikilegalist, and I don't like being forced by the circumstances to become one. :) Thanks again. WillNess (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a case of being a "Wikilegalist". (In fact that term can have negative connotations, see WP:WIKILAWYER.) It's just that the English Wikipedia has more than 3.6 million articles, and has at least ten times as many editors. As a result there are many house rules that are intended to keep the peace. As an attempt at a humerus example: Imagine you shared a flat with someone and you took a pee in the kitchen sink. If your flatmate raised an objection then you wouldn't think that they were being legal or pedantic. I can see that you're very enthusiastic, and I admire that; but it's important to step back and remember that it's a communal project. (Believe me, I know how hard it can be. We've all fallen foul of the rules.) — Fly by Night (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I did intend it with negative connotations. I'd rather prefer my roommate not piss in a kitchen sink. :) But I'm much cooled down now. I've read on WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT and see that I'm not without protection now. Yet the other editor claims I was in the wrong, claiming exactly same fouls. Funny thing, perception. (Of course I did loose my cool and allowed some harsh language, and he/she did not; but that was out of feeling of helplessness on my behalf, and I'll admit probably being too possessive (there's some policy for that too I gather) ).

But all is well now, and thank you again for the pointers. WillNess (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You did or you didn't intend it with negative connotations? I've been reading your comments to people on various user pages and talk pages, and it seems you have a very good grasp of Wikipedia policy. The possessiveness policy that you mention is WP:OWN. I would suggest to you that people's knowledge of policy is not a case of Wikilawyering, but simply a reflection of their time spent and their experienced gained. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did. I'd much rather not have been forced into reading the stuff. If only the other editor would respond to my arguments on the talk page, point me to WP:CONSENSUS etc., I'd not feel myself ignored and pushed aside and (hopefully) wouldn't have blown a fuse as I did. Maybe it was all just miscommunication, it usually is. Incredibly, they claim being hurt by me, and claim trying to engage me in a "productive discussion". But doesn't matter, I know perception plays tricks with the mind, and written communication (especially so much dispersed as it is on WP) is difficult. Let's open a new page and see how it goes. If they will be dismissive etc., I know how to cry foul now. :) Probably won't have to, will just take slower pace.

Have you looked into my replies on Salix alba talkpage? I'm thinking of posting some interesting idea (IMHO) there shortly, about OR. What if it's the next big thing, like Google pagerank once was, and has a big money potential? Should I post it, or try to sell it to Google, or is it too presumptuous of me to think that? What's the status of communications on talk pages, copyright-wise? Cheers! WillNess (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As for calling me enthusiastic, thanks! You could say, obsessive. :) WillNess (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to denigrate others who do know their policies, in any way shape or form. See what's written communication is? I meant it in a sense, it's too bad we have to, but when we do have to, then we do. It's not that the person who refers to policies is automatically lawyering. I never intended it that way. I'm saying, it's too bad we're sometimes forced to. It's good to know the rules; it's even better never to have to know them. See what I mean? It's too idealistic and impractical, I know. Cheers. WillNess (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As for my knowledge of WP policy, I don't know about that. I did took a glance at few pages that I was pointed to, and it's mostly common sense, when one believes in cooperation and mutual respect. It somehow got imprinted on me in my younger years, the expectation that all ppl should be nice to each other. Simple, huh? :) WillNess (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You did? Okay. Regarding the rest of your lengthy posts: WP:TLDR. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk Back

Hello, WillNess. You have new messages at Salix alba's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.