User talk:Autumnalmonk

This page is being developed. --Autumnalmonk (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Autumnalmonk! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Pigman☿/talk 05:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

May 2012

Your recent editing history at Andrew Nikolić shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• It really is poor form for you to edit the article given recent event. My suggestion is you self-revert and express your views on the article Talk page in an effort to achieve consensus on what's appropriate to include in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's disappointing . . .

. . . but not altogether surprising---because it's commonplace now---to read the sysops' hostile responses to your post at O2RR/YRC's talk. The way I see it, you openly---and in a notably temperate tone---expressed your feelings about various attacks on you. I think it's unhelpful to try to debase your honest expression of those feelings by inventing ulterior motives (when nobody can possibly know what goes on inside your head other than what you disclose), accusing you of picking a fight (an accusation which itself is clearly picking a fight), and closing with the schoolmarmish put-down "I'm sure you have better things to do with your time." There are a few sysops around who consistently exhibit maturity and neutrality in the use of their time; but many, unfortunately, who don't. Anyway. I just wanted to honour your openness in communicating as you did, and to let you know you have the support and respect, for what it's worth, of at least one of the hoi polloi. Happy editing! Writegeist (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and support. I admit that I'm a little surprised at the reaction, but I was raised to understand that if one wrongs another, on realizing it one should offer an apology. Obviously O2RR/YRC does not see that making baseless and belligerent accusations at another is wrong, and neither do a couple of other supposedly positioned users. I feel I had every right to express my personal dissatisfaction with behavior towards me and request an apology. If others are too dense to see that, then it says far more about them and about the culture that is being promoted among editors than it does about me. But it is very helpful to know that I'm not alone in my perspectives. Thank you. Autumnalmonk (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize if I didn't communicate well, so let me clarify. YRC knows he screwed up, and he has volunteered to take part in mentoring. I didn't argue against your points that he was rude. As a matter of fact, the mentoring is designed to address those very points and "fix" the underlying issue. I didn't take your comments as strongly as TParis did, but they were a bit strong, even if fully justified, and I was simply trying to stop an argument before it started. When I said "I'm sure you have better things to do", I probably should have parsed that better, as something sound different in type than in voice. I meant that a forced apology from YRC wasn't going to make it sincere and not likely to be very satisfying, and that eventually he will come around and hopefully make things right on his own. He was already blocked and forced to accept 1RR restrictions and other sanctions, so everyone agrees that his actions toward you were inappropriate. I wasn't disagreeing with you in any way, I was saying that your timing was not good, as he had just come off block and already had to submit to a lot of things he would rather not. He is already eating crow, and I just didn't see how the conversation on his talk page was going to end well. If my lack of clarity caused you distress, please understand that it wasn't intentional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

However, you have obliterated mention of the SA Police commendation ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks for pointing that out. Autumnalmonk (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

warning

Hi... I just got a warning from you on my on my talk page for this edit. I'm pretty sure it was made in error. It happens. Your revert of mine put the vandalism back which I've removed again. :) I'm going to remove the warning unless you have objections. Cheers! Wikipelli ^Talk 14:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry about that. Yes, it was my error so please remove the warning template. I'm trialing some vandalism detection tools for the first time this evening and must have gotten turned around on that one. Thanks for letting me know and for reverting my erroneous revert. Autumnalmonk (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been there a bunch of times. No harm done. Wikipelli ^Talk 14:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Autumnalmonk, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki Comparison to other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

The Neopaganism sidebar

I was hoping for a a bit more input from people. Unfortunately, that and other Paganism pages aren't getting a lot of traffic. You're the only person who moved to restore the old colours. Of the only other two involved, one said the minimal look is better and the other doesn't care so long as the code stays clean.
I've avoided editing the template further until there is some sort of consensus. Every subsequent edit makes it more difficult to revert to snapshots I left in the edit history (or something based on one of them). So, do you have anything else you want to add?
—Sowlos (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's sadly not nearly as much traffic on Paganism topics as there used to be. Thanks for bringing the template revision to my attention though. I don't think there are any other additions that I'd like to make to it at this point, as small tweaks can and will be on-going. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 04:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Witchcraft_(contemporary)#Currents_and_traditions vs Witchcraft_(contemporary)#Traditions

You beat me to the punch with this. The problem was and is I'm unsure how that should be worded. They're not all 'traditions.' Take Hedgecraft. It's better defined as a current or approach.
I was considering splitting the section and adding a few more currents/approaches, but even 'Wicca' can be considered a current within Witchcraft (with Gardnarism and such being the traditions). Paganism doesn't have the conventional divisions between 'religion' and 'sect' present in other faiths making things a little difficult to pin down and categorize.
—Sowlos (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I was just bothered by the use of the term "current" in that context because "current" has a very specific meaning in many pagan/magical frameworks. I think the term "tradition" is sufficient of itself for the intended usage, although I would agree that not all those paths listed under that heading follow the strict definition of the word. I think the term has been somewhat generalized in common parlance and as an umbrella term in such a context it is acceptable. If others feel it really is necessary to have a second term to encompass those listings that are not specifically "traditions" in the technical sense then I would suggest the relatively unencumbered term "paths" would be the best choice. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 23:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Stress_concentration

I am Rajen Merchant, living in Toronto, Ontario. I saw you deleted my edits. If it was due to use of capital letters or other formatting issues, please correct it and post it for the benefit of other users. A PAPER PUBLISHED IN 1994 PROVED THAT THE STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTOR DEPENDS ON CURRENT (NOT ORIGINAL) VALUES OF a AND b. The article on wikipedia is way out of date (2013-1994=19 or at least 18 years). Use of original a and b values leads to infinite stress at the tip for a sharp crack. I am way ahead in my research and preparing to write a book on elliptical/circular holes in thin plates. My mathematical tools prove that final values of a and b also depend on material properties, far field stress, and initial values of a and b. Furthermore, it also depends on definition of stresses and strains (published by wikipedia in related articles). I encourage you to have an open mind and correct the errors in that wikipedia article yourself. IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF WIKIPEDIA AND OTHER READERS. I want to provide the benefit of my research to wikipedia - that is my contribution to wikipedia. Rajen Merchant (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rajen, Giving time and knowledge to Wikipedia is laudable however it must be properly formatted for readability and it must be properly referenced (see WP:NOR). I hope you take the time to understand the policies required to successfully edit and go on to add many valuable contributions. Fraggle81 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There are only two ways. Either I edit it after a long time OR you edit it now. I started working on this project in Fall 2007. Until April 2011, I was on the wrong track. Finally, I found out the right way. There is only one reference (that 1994 one) on this topic which had tried in the right direction - the current configuration. Even that had some errors. Hence, it ended up with wrong conclusions. Since April 2011, I have worked very hard on various aspects of this topic. I am extremely busy right now, preparing videos on this topic. For example, search for "Stress Concentration Factor" or "Elliptical Hole in a Thin Plate" in youtube. You will find my first video. The second one is almost ready. My research goes very deep into the topic - non-linearity, strain definitions etc. etc. It will take me a while before I learn your policies. In the meantime, I request you or someone you know can edit and let readers know the right approach. Otherwise, readers will still be behind almost 18 years. It is your choice.Rajen Merchant (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, you guys will develop a consensus and edit the page which, as I mentioned earlier, is at least 18 years behind.

By the way, what are your real names and where are you people located? Why do you use pseudo-names? Is this wikipedia culture - to hide behind masks? [[User:Rajen Merchant|Rajen Merchant] (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your edits were deleted. This is because they did not comply with WP:POLICY. First, you should not use all capitals when making edits to Wikipedia (see WP:ALLCAPS). Second, the material that you are attempting to add is what Wikipedia considers "original research" (see WP:NOR) and therefore is not permitted. Further, regardless of the value or "truth" of your findings, they do not belong here (see WP:TRUE) and you are not permitted to post them (see WP:COI).

Repeated re-posting of the material will result in repeated deletions of it because of the multiple policy violations inherent. Additionally, repeatedly re-posting of material that violates wikipedia policy could result in you account being banned (see WP:BAN).

Finally, you will find that nearly ALL editors use "account names" and are reluctant to disclose their off-Wiki identity. Pursuit or disclosure of such information, unless it is freely made public by the person themselves, can actually be considered harassment (see WP:OUTING). Ideally our work on Wikipedia should stand on its own regardless of who we are as individuals. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 09:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it is my original research which has a strong mathematical foundation. Even this part of mathematics is developed by me. That development helped me solve this problem. In my videos I will show that my results are better than any other results. Unfortunately, if wikipedia does not accept original research then it will be just reprinting what has been printed elsewhere - even if it may not be right. And in this case, what is on that page is NOT right. Readers of that wikipedia page will go to my website or elsewhere where I will publish my original work (a book perhaps which will show complete mathematical details behind those conclusions). Eventually, you people will recognize its value, accept it, and print it, to correct that page. It is already being accepted by some experts in the field. I will continue writing my book.

As I mentioned earlier, the fact that a and b are from final (and not initial) configuration was published in 1994. Leaving aside my research which develops that concept to an incredible variety of solutions for various scenarios, the current wikipedia page is at least 18 years out of date. Someone should correct it. I brought it to your attention. Now, I leave it in your good hands. Rajen Merchant (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your warning

Hello, yesterday I got a warning from you on my User talk:AdVal page. That comedy of errors both from me and fellow editor Sionk was not "edit war" over a paragraph of inappropriate stuff placed (and removed) by somebody else. It was just a result of misunderstanding and hurry, and it became clear very quickly.

Another thing is that there is genuine disagreement between me and Sionk (who is quite an experienced editor; I am not but have a lot of editorial and journalistic experience in real life) over edits (and more widely - about editorial manners) of Tom_Holland_(actor) article. Unfortunately, the discussion on Talk:Tom Holland (actor) wasn't by any means successful... Best, AdVal (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In response to your message

I received your message claiming my edits to be biased. You did not provide any evidence for that claim and I do not agree with it.

I agree with you that neutrality is of utmost importance, as is adherence to Wikipedia policies. If you can demonstrate that I have breached any such policy, I encourage you to point it out to me and/or rectify the breach. Veritas Fans (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My post on your talk page simply suggested that you familiarize yourself with WP:policy, specifically in relation to WP:NPOV, WP:SPA, and WP:COI among others. Your edit history speaks for itself, as it is a picture of a single purpose account focused solely on inserting material critical of, or embarrassing to, the Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society, while removing material critical of, or embarrassing to, its opponents. Further, you have repeatedly used biased terminology, misrepresented references, and removed referenced material contrary to your bias. The effect of this is to insert bias into the relevant articles in general. Continued edits of this nature will necessitate my escalating these concerns to the admin community. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 04:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, you have failed to provide any evidence to substantiate your claims regarding my alleged bias. If you have an example of any edit I have made that is misleading or not impartial, then please present it. Veritas Fans (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)