User talk:Fjozk

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Fjozk! Thank you for your contributions. I am FoCuSandLeArN and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fjozk. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 06:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi

I'm Dennis, I've been here around 6 years and started the Editor Retention project here, and try to help new editors when I can. I also do a little admin work. If you have any questions, issues, problems, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. My talk page is pretty much a clearinghouse for, well, everything, so feel free to ask, vent, or offer an opinion. I still remember what it is like to be new, too many buttons and links and policy quotes and such, and just wanted to welcome you to the neighborhood and offer any assistance I can if it is ever needed. Glad to have a new face around here. Once you get used to the dysfunction that is Wikipedia, it can be a fun place to do good things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if someone is looking over my shoulder and editing the article I am working on. I edited on Wikipedia many years ago as an IP editor (with user Josh Grosse, I started many of Wikipedia's early plant, algae, and geology articles about 10 years ago, then went mad expanding them about 6 years ago), and I love seeing an article I wrote improved by additional text, well-aligned images, filled out info boxes, formatted references, copy-edited, spell-checked. I want to bring the whole group with me back in time to English class.

But that was a bit cowboy; my article wasn't an attack piece, it could have sat for ages improperly formatted, because it was sourced, accurate, encyclopedic, and linked to and from other articles.

A little behavioral common sense up front would go far in editor retention, but no one supports acting sensibly; instead, if someone asks for a little consideration, the cowboy diplomacy is fluffed up by all concerned and the person who suggested sanity is bashed by the feudal overlords for doing so. I pointed out, "Hey, you could have waited a few minute." This was responded to by a recitation of all the evil attack pieces posted on Wikipedia and the need to deal with them quickly. My article isn't an attack piece. Then, because I was annoyed by this inappropriate response, in come three other Wikipedia editors to beat me on that user talk page, my user talk page, your user talk page, and God knows where else. It's so feudal.

Even the NPP advises editors, for this very reason, to patrol from the back of the queue. The community already thought this through and made a recommendation to deal with it. But, instead of supporting community consensus, you pointed out that the aggressive NPPer was not in the wrong by acting against community consensus, thereby, unnecessarily creating a hostile editing environment. I disagree with you, and I don't see that I will be dropping by your talk page with a note. I suggest we call it a day. -Fjozk (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinle Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lacustrine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BATTLEFIELD and WP:AGF

Judging by your comments to Dennis up there and your comments elsewhere, I suggest you read these two. Dennis is only trying to help, and Allen was expression his opinion. We're all entitled to them, but that doesn't mean we get to hammer anyone who we disagree with into oblivion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following Dennis's links and discussions elsewhere, it appears he fully supports the battlefield mentality, so we're going to be disagreeing here. The fact is, getting scientific nonsense and copyright violations onto the main page is a daily occurence, removing them an impossibility.

I am tired of it. And, yes, I have seen my own material plagiarized into Wikipedia articles, so sometimes writers get a little steamed about a Google search result that returns their words as a Wikipedia article to the top of the results, when they didn't write the Wikipedia article, and the editor who did is running for adminship. Although at least Wikipedia has a system to quickly deal with the author saying remove my material from your article.

I've been hammered into oblivion enough, that I suspect it is the norm. -Fjozk (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A guy who offered to help you if you have any questions or comments is not assuming good faith? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been an Assumption of Good Faith if it had not been accompanied by his discussions about me elsewhere. -Fjozk (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhlenbergia

You may already know this, but I hadn't realized until now that FNA vols. 24–25 (Poaceae) is online here, including of course treatments for Muhlenbergia. I thought I'd toss that out there if you're reworking M. pungens. I could work it in myself (although I'm no great hand with graminoids) but I don't want to interfere with whatever you have planned. Choess (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't know, and my grass manuals are in boxes. I don't have anything planned, and I work more than full time, so feel free to edit the temp article. I marked where I had edited up to. The article is simply a bunch of pasted, out of order, phrases and sentences copied from the ten sources, so pretty much everything must go, but putting together a tidy article describing the grass and its habit should not require a grass expert. My claim to knowledge is a single summer keying out the grasses of California, learning respect for those who dabble in grasses, but not much else.

Thanks for the information. I did not do a taxonomy check. The DYK writers often get the taxonomy wrong, Wikipedia uses APG II/III. -Fjozk (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous copyright infringements

Thanks for your help in tagging copyright infringements. For articles which are obvious copyright infringements and do not contain any non-infringing text at all, you can simply tag them for speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio}}. The {{copyvio}} template you have been using starts a more lengthy process which is intended for articles where it's uncertain whether an infringement exists, or for articles which mix infringing and non-infringing text. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, probably both articles I tagged yesterday, then, should have had db-copyvio. -Fjozk (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not remove the text; so, do I remove all the copyrighted text then replace it with this template? -Fjozk (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can just add the template (with the proper parameter showing the source URL, if appropriate) to the top of the page. Then the pages usually get deleted by an administrator within a few hours, so there's no need to blank. If you'd like you can revert your changes to the two articles you tagged yesterday, retag them with {{db-copyvio}}, and then update the corresponding entries at Wikipedia:Copyright problems once they've been deleted. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Psychonaut. I replaced the copyright investigation with copyvio speedy deletion for both, as they are simply copy and paste promotional material. This is easier and more appropriate than the other template. The articles can probably meet notability, but I will let the authors do that. -Fjozk (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

Hi Fjozk. I tried to help you when you first raised the matter at WT:NPP. You were spot on with your caricaturisation of many of our New Page Patrollers, and that should be a big enough hint that replying in heated aggrieved tones isn't going to calm things. Dragging you before the Admin noticeboard was also unnecessary, over enthusiastic policing. From reading your editing history I'm sure that you are mature enough to rise above such occasional over-zealous 'managing' of articles. We all feel intimidated and bullied sometimes, but yelling back doesn't help. Take care. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit it was pretty hard to even pretend to outrage at the whining subpoena (yes, yes, it's too hard to resist the digs, and, yes, I am too mature for it, but it's like a free for all, here). Thanks for the common sense closure. -Fjozk (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rift

Hi Fjozk, I've been expanding the rift article, something I've been meaning to do for ages. I would appreciate any feedback on how I'm doing so far. It's nowhere near complete and almost certainly betrays the fact that I started on it without a clear plan, but sometimes I just feel the need to get on and do something - I have plenty of half-written articles or expansions that I've failed to finish off, so I find that it can be better to just start writing. I have a few more diagrams in mind to create, but again suggestions about what's missing would be great. Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleidoic egg

Well, thank you for your message. I will think about it, and decide what approach to take. I had a look at the Egg article, which has just a small section which overlaps. That's OK, because when we put up Cleidoic egg, we can go back to Egg and put a "main" flag there.

Obviously one of the issues is the lack of references in the Simple article. Another is that it connects with the evolution of amniotes in the Carboniferous, and that I have explained on other pages on Simple. I think my amniotes page is actually a better article, but of course it is not needed here.

I've had to double up on Simple as a kind of self-taught Earth sciences expert (I'm qualified in the biological sciences). While you're waiting for me to do something on Cleidoic egg, you might like to cruise round our geology articles, and see if you can find any real gaps, or articles that are just rubbish.

For Cleidoic, we could set up a sandbox either here or on Simple. You might like to consider registering as a user over there. I see you've learnt what life is like nowadays on English wiki!! On Simple it's easier to create sensible pages without half the world jumping on your head... Regards, Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

read again

I didn't call you whiney. I said it "makes you look whiney". And you are totally misreading NPA. Just because it says not to engage doesn't allow it. It means don't engage in non-productive, back and forth insults. You simply report it to the appropriate noticeboard. The fact that the user was blocked is clear evidence that the conduct is not allowed and the you did not read the policy correctly. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this is clear evidence that your entire purpose for saying anything at all was to be one of the crowd of drive-by daddy-gets-to-scold-you's that populate AN/I and so many other places on en.Wikipedia. You were praised by an admin for your attempt to enflame the situation. Why isn't that enough? Now Stop. -Fjozk (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fjozk. You have new messages at Hajatvrc's talk page.
Message added 02:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

hajat vrc @ 02:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an attack page; it is a prep area for my AN/I thread against you. You have ordered me off of your talk page, you then stalked me into article space, and now you are harassing me on my talk page for planning to take you to AN/I? Really?

Wow, not thanking you was the cardinal sin of the universe.

If your quotes constitute an attack page, you are the one who is in the wrong. -Fjozk (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fjozk. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 04:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your dispute with Drmies

Hello Fjozk. I know you don't know me, but please listen to my advice concerning your dispute with Drmies. I recommend that you take a short break away from the computer. When you come back, consider whether this matter is as important as it seems now.

I don't know all the background, but you seem like a good editor who has a lot to contribute. Don't abuse AN/I and get yourself blocked (see WP:BOOMERANG). Take a break and come back refreshed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at the point of wanting to get blocked. Did you also tell administrator Drmies how bogus it was of her to order me off her page one minute, then head to article space to find a bogus reason to interact with me, then post on my talk page after ordering me to stay completely away from her talk page? Or do you have completely different standards for admins, that they can harass users and get away with it? I'm just not feeling it, Malik, without Wikipedia administrators calling their own off of editors. -Fjozk (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking it to ArbCom; she should not be an administrator if she is stalking and harassing users in retaliation for imagined slights. -Fjozk (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fjozk, I don't believe we have ever interacted, but I have just reviewed the recent ANI spat. First, I'll note to you that I have not followed anything off of ANI - and that's actually very important: it's because you didn't link to anything in your original complaint. Just like in an article where we all need to provide a reference to statements, when you make a complaint, links are vital. For example, you stated that you had asked someone to stay off your user talkpage - where exactly was that original request? If you linked to it, it would have provided proof. You then claimed that someone egged them on - you needed to provide a diff to that as well. You cannot expect the admin cadre to go searching for the evidence that you personally needed to provide in order to support your complaint and your position. Recognize of course that the admins in ANI will then look at the context around the situation and make recommendations or take action if required.

In my review therefore, you've shown nothing - nothing that ANI could have acted on, and certainly nothing that anybody else could ever act upon. Indeed - your original goal was to have someone stop posting on your talkpage - you appear to have finally made that formal request, and it's been granted. You've also asked a wholly-unrelated editor to do the same, and bravo, they have agreed to do so. Without any links/diffs, I have no idea what else you might be pursuing, so I cannot easily judge how wise/sane such a pursuit would be. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who asked you to review anything? In that hour and a half of feces slinging, culminating in Administrator Drmies going on a harassment rage of me into article space, you come here and tell me I didn't provide any diffs?

Did you bother to read it, or did you just decide two admins were having fun you couldn't have, so you'd come here and fan the flames so you could sling some feces at me too?

Please immediately provide diffs where any admin, in the entire time that was at AN/I requested a single diff from me. If you can't find that, and can't figure out why your not noticing the lack of requests for diffs is just throwing feces, get out of here. I am taking this to ArbCom; Drmies should not be an admin. You can check all the diffs that every one else on Wikipedia could find just fine, but seem to escape you, when it goes live there. -Fjozk (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite enough.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruption and personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Allright. This has gone on long enough. Regardless of whether your original complaint was justified (and, frankly, it doesn't appear to be especially substantial), you've had at least three of the most rational and supportive admins that came trying in earnest to help you, and you've been responding with nothing but bile, aggression and personal attacks. The gratuitous personal attacks on the AN/I thread just make matters worse.

I'm not going to attempt to guess whether you are incapable of working in a collaborative environment or you are simply trolling. The distinction is meaningless since the end result is the same: you are being disruptive and wasting the community's time and efforts. — Coren ^(talk) 14:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, collaboration to you means that Administrator Drmies orders me off of her talk page, stalks me to an article I edited, reverts me and instigates an argument over a policy she does not understand.

This needs to be dealt with at ArbCom, and that can be done via e-mail. -Fjozk (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, you can post a request on this talk page and I (or someone else) will copy it to the proper page. That said, your best bet to be unblocked is to take a break and return with a more conciliatory attitude; I've taken a look at the involved administrators' behaviour, and I'm hard pressed to find cause there for ArbCom intervention. — Coren ^(talk) 02:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in your edit summary, I won't get what I want. What I want is for Wikipedia editors to stop plagiarizing content for DYK articles, and for editors at DYK to stop putting biological nonsense on the main page. Too bad that should be what Wikipedia wants, and Wikipedia won't get that either. I will be dealing with ArbCom, please don't come here with badgering edit summaries. I am not requesting your help. -Fjozk (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we should facilitate a request for arbitration from a blocked user. When a blocked user is being discussed at ArbCom or at an administrative noticeboard, it's commonplace to repost messages to those places for the blocked user. However, that's quite different from helping a blocked user affirmatively complain about whatever. And, honestly, in this instance, a request for ArbCom intervention would be frivolous and would only continue the behavior that got Fjozk blocked. If the user wants to appeal the block to ArbCom, that, of course, they can handle themselves, as they apparently know.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't requested that you facilitate anything, especially I will not be requesting help from the administrators who are ganging up on me to retaliate against me to prevent me from filing an arbcom against their friend Drmies for stalking, provoking and harassing me.

Bbb223, you, like Drmies, told me to get off of your talk page, common sense says that's a two-way street. I will include you in the ArbCom.

Don't badger me. Read some of your own rules about how to deal with disgruntled editors.

-Fjozk (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rules that do apply to admins

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

(a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities; [1] Drmies' removed racist remark.
(c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;
(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap"); "In the meantime, you'll just have to play by the rules ("consensus"), like the rest of us, and for the sake of redundancy I'll point you to Wikipedia:Orphan."[2] Unlike Drmies, I had actually read the policy page she quoted to me, and I quoted the community consensus back to her.n [3] Niteshift36 "cleaning up the droppings of a paranoid troll"

2. Other uncivil behaviors

(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own behavior in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken;
(b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings; [4][5] Drmies wikihounding.
(c) sexual harassment
(d) lying;
(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them;

In addition, lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong.

Assume good faith

Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that editors are trying to help, not hurt the project.

The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence; however, do not assume any more intentional wrongdoing than the evidence clearly supports, and given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one.

Harassment and disruption

Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project.

Wikihounding

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

...

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.(see racial attacks above)

What is considered to be a personal attack?

Shortcuts

There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.) [6]

Etiquette

If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is unpleasant. Following someone you dislike around Wikipedia—Wikihounding—can be disruptive. If you do not get along with someone, try to become friendlier. If that does not help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them.

Non-notification of AN/I discussion by admin

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. [7]

Apparently I was blocked after Bwilkins reopened the AN/I for my calling admins "incompetent," he failed to notify me that he had reopened the AN/I, then Coren apparently permanently blocked me in response to an AN/I post by an admin who doesn't know they are required to notify people of AN/I posts.

[8] [9] [10] [11]

Proceeding

Fjozk, first of all, it seems to me you got screwed over. You were subjected to snark "appear to enjoy playing the victim. Good luck with that sport. ", "clean your droppings", a bizzare reversion (uncharacteristic for that editor) went to get help at the shark tank and got chewed up because you don't understand how things work. Although your edit summary of reverting the editor's comments made it clear you didn't wish further posts from them, you didn't say the magic words "Please don't post on my talk page." Your referencing of Drmies was just totally wrong and sidetracked the legitimacy of your request. And after everything could've (should've been) settled down an admin has to come to this page to preach at you; given the pattern of escalating frustration implicit in your posts, your reaction was predictable as was, unfortunately, the outcome. Had this occurred six months ago, you likely would have started, or been encouraged to go to, WP:WQA, which was more tolerant of newbie faux pas's. Unfortunately that venue was misguidedly shutdown.

What is probably not really made clear, depending on which part of the massive volumes of WP:This and WP:that you read, is there are both written and unwritten rules, and you've just plain violated bunches of 'em. Antagonist behavior, personal attacks, calling another editor's edit vandalism, (which is narrowly defined here), et. al. The bottom line is WP doesn't have anything approaching a justice system, as I've previously essayed about. In fact, ArbCom has already noted:

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

What I'm telling you here about how you got shafted is definitely my own personal minority opinion, and it's not unlikely some folks will be along to tell me and/or you how horribly wrong I am. I'll be mostly ignoring them, you should too.

At this point, you have pretty much three choices.

Give up find something else to do. This sounds like I'm telling you to go away or you're not welcome; it's not. WP is a voluntary activity and I don't think anyone should be contributing unless they're having fun. It doesn't seem like it's been fun for you. If you need strict compliance to rules and fairness, you just not going to be happy here.
Pursue your appeal to Arbcom, or request unblocking based on the unfairness of the block in the first place. Both these will fail. You're just going to be wasting your time and getting frustrated.
Blow it off, do a sufficiently groveling unblock request where you don't mention any other editors or past actions, and simply assert you now understand the rules and won't be disruptive in the future. (Typically folks will now take exception to my use of the term "groveling," but we both know that's what it's going to feel like to you). NE Ent 15:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks for being a human being. -Fjozk (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much realized what you write, although, looking at your essay, I think you underestimate the social networking and overestimate the importance of the encyclopedia to the majority of editors (by number). Many people are here to be snarky and social network, looking at the high number of posts and high approval of posts and editors devoted solely to antagonizing me into getting the block in the first place, then being blocked by an admin who doesn't edit articles at all after being harassed into article space by an admin who doesn't know article policies. Editing articles is very low in the value scheme on Wikipedia.

However, I am not interested in an unblock, so your advice is a bit off-target, but because it was done without ill will, I see why you posted what you did. So much of the other advice I was given was done with ill will and with the intent of being able to get in a snarky remark or a snarky scold in the guise of advice.

I have found an exposure venue for the bad science and plagiarism, which will be more effective than beating my head against a wall trying to change the articles and having to fight snarky social networking editors and non-editing admins in order to do so, so my purpose for editing is accomplished, finding a way to get bad science and plagiarism off the main page. Although, many editors do create good articles on en.Wikipedia, and, I appreciate their hard work, and I would have rather worked in the community to change the articles than gone the publicity route, it is clear this is not a community of article editors, and bad science on the main page does not matter to them. Making snarky remarks to me and about me does. and getting to scold other people with a cheering posse does. It seems the press is starting to pillory Wikipedia lately. And editors are leaving. But the community remains in the dark. You are right that any appeal I attempt will fail, because the community does not want to edit articles, it wants to make snarky remarks.

-Fjozk (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your perspective, although I disagree with parts of it. It's kind of a myth there's a Wikipedia "community" -- there's actually multiple overlapping sub-communities. As an editor who's been told more than once how worthless I am do to my low mainspace edit count (<1000), let me assure you there are many editors who consider article editing the most important metric for contributing. Science articles are difficult because of the editing structure: by requiring reliable sources Wikipedia avoids the impossible task of evaluating the quality of contributions by anonymous editors; unfortunately there are many things practioner's know that just aren't written down in published sources, and many published sources consist of graduate students generating content (e.g. homework problems) for professors in simplified, "easy to understand" terms -- and therefore not actually correct. Apparent weight (which doesn't exist) was a piece of junk and it took me six months off and on to get it to be the halfway decent article it is. If I want to look up some general science thing, I'm going to Science News, not Wikipedia; likewise if I need info on a medical condition Wikipedia is the last thing I read. Mayo clinic is good for that. In any event, thanks for your efforts and sorry it didn't work out. NE Ent 19:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for science Wikipedia should be the last place you go. Google acknowledged this in the area of medicine with their new search results giving priority to non-Wikipedia medical results. Unfortunately, K-12 students tend to do google searches and the early results are science articles from Wikipedia. I'm in academia, and this concerns me, hence, it seemed valuable to try to correct and eventually stop the bad science being put on the main page. I have not run across "the editors who consider article editing an important metric for contributing," or so it seems. The group I pissed off is far more interested in the social aspects of the community; the editor who blocked me, for example, appears to have stopped editing in article space a year ago.[12] I suspect he didn't even look where Drmies followed me into article space to antagonize me and disrupt article space simply because he doesn't participate in writing articles and doesn't consider disrupting those who do write articles to be a problem, while those who interfere with others' social networking are a problem.

I think my alternative method for exposing the bad science and plagiarism will prove to be better in the long run; from reading Jimbo's talk page, it seems that bad publicity is something that editors wind up having to pay attention to, and this will be the means to getting as large and capable group of editors, as is possible, to tackling a serious problem. It is clear that every editor who comes by to correct the problems on the main page will run into the same problems, an antagonistic social networking community running around like chickens with their heads cut off going on about lack of expertise and editor retention problems while simultaneously driving away editors who come here to create good scientific content, but have lives outside of Wikipedia.

Shaums' outlines? Never thought of that as a source, but I bet it is a great outline guidance for articles. Maybe someone will take it to the DNA article which was badly written, promoted, then left as is for years. There are lots of tricky topics which need to be tackled by editors with expertise, and these are generally people who are not using Wikipedia for social networking, and they will have small edit counts and take lots of time to produce the final result, and they will be subject to criticism and antagonism from those who are here for the social networking.

I have met some excellent editors on Wikipedia; but they are a bullied minority. -Fjozk (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly 9-12 students should be taught how to critically analyze information found on the Interent. I heard/read an interview with Jimbo Wales many years ago about how Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and readers should check the references of articles (second sources). Incidentally, physicist Richard Feynmann wrote an essay years ago about his review of published science textbooks, which were rife with errors. So it's a fairly common problem. NE Ent 01:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, teachers who allow students to submit papers sourced to Wikipedia are more at fault than Wikipedia is for uploading a bunch of bad science written by random and variously qualified to unqualified volunteers. 'Surely You're Joking, and everythim\ng else he wrote, is marvelous. -Fjozk (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]