User talk:LongTermWikiUser

Talkback

Hello, LongTermWikiUser. You have new messages at Talk:APL (programming language).
Message added 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

APerson (talk!) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Links in APL (programming language)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --APerson (talk!) 13:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Input at DRN

Please provide a response at the dispute resolution noticeboard within 24 hours concerning your position on the issue of external links, or the case may be closed for failure to respond. (Participation in dispute resolution is not required, and failure to participate will not result in any sort of sanctions, but, as noted above, may make editing difficult.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Moderated Discussion of APL

If you wish, you may file a new request for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not promising that it will be accepted. You might be better off to follow the advice that I gave in closing the thread, however. If you really think that there should be an exception to the guidelines of external links for APL (programming language), you may post a Request for Comments on the article talk page concerning that article. If you really think that external links should be encouraged (rather than discouraged) in article bodies in general, you may go to Village pump (policy) to discuss changing the guidelines, but I doubt that you will be likely to prevail. As to your complaint that you were not given enough time, the other participating editors did submit their responses in a timely fashion, and WP:DRN is intended for quick resolution, not extended resolution, of content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, It is nice to have a voice of reason involved in Wikipedia, that would be you AND anyone else who helps moderating discussions re Wikipedia. Do I, LongTermWikiUser, believe that external links in Wikipedia should be encouraged, rather than discouraged, yes, with sincere encouragement, absolutely. Do I have free time to engage in short-term Dispute Resolution regarding a topic to which I personally believe the solution is OBVIOUS? Unfortunately, at this point, probably not. I did want to convey my incredible distaste at the current editing environment at Wikipedia. There seem to be too many Wikipedia editor-chiefs and too many Wikipedia policies which heavily promote Wikipedia editors brow-beating other Wikipedia editors, with a consequential loss in individual research contributions. I for one will probably entirely stop using AND inputting anything into Wikipedia entirely because the editing climate is so toxic, meaning too adversarial, non-educational, and not conducive enough to the aggregation and communication of useful encyclopedic information for other people to view/read. I possess a Master's Degree level of education, was editor for several college and graduate level publications, and am generally highly enthusiastic about education and learning generally. However, personal experience as a Wikipedia editor leaves me with the distinct impression that something is terribly wrong at Wikipedia, re the toxic editing environment. Frankly, I do not believe you and I should even have to have this discourse. I have other, more intellectually rewarding challenges with which to engage my mind, unfortunately Wikipedia not being among those challenges. It is hard for me to believe anyone of any college level or higher education would WANT to be a Wikipedia editor. There is no compensation to be a Wikipedia contributor and until a pressing need might arise, why be involved? I am therefore and unfortunately suspending my personal Wikipedia involvement. Frankly, I'm tired arguing the issue(s), for me it's a no-brainer. Thank you for your time and involvement. I have significant research and input elsewhere which needs my attention and is rewarding to the mind. I doubt I'm the only educated Wikipedia editor having undergone this type of scenario. There seems to be a rule by numbers, not by quality of the input, nor is there apparently any toleration for alternative Wikipedia reader-centric views. Best of luck to you personally. LongTermWikiUser (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional clarifying comments from LongTermWikiUser: Multiple knowledge-bases estimate - that human knowledge is doubling roughly every year, i.e. human knowledge is expanding geometrically. If most Wikipedia editors are spending their time disagreeing with other Wikipedia editors - then when are those potential information researchers spending time helping Wikipedia's knowledge-base roughly double in size every year? The simple answer is they are likely not expanding the knowledge base. Wikipedia itself has policies it uses to limit article lengths, stifle innovation (different styles are discouraged), limit external links (promote solely internal links) etc. Wikipedia editors follow these guidelines to the detriment of Wikipedia generally, this editor believes. There are multiple limitations to creating a new page, or so it seems; it is not acceptable to just create a new page - some sources indicate Wikipedia approval must be garnered first and approval could take months. Then even after approval and an editor begins to input the "new" knowledge, other Wikipedia editors will likely step all over that work. In short, Wikipedia's policies and those policies' focus appears to heavily promote article conformity, uniformity, brevity, conciseness, and internal-centric(Wikipedia governed) primacy. These policies, although geared to improved article quality, are not mindfully knowledge-centric, nor are they reader-centric, in the aggregate - again, this editor believes. It is difficult to believe Humanity's knowledge-base is being properly represented, properly and rapidly expanding via Wikipedia. LongTermWikiUser (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ununpentium, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Your changes to Ununpentium

Your paragraph is certainly some very fascinating observations, but just like before (when it was reverted once), it is still very speculative and unreferenced:

• It's an observation that you could make about most Super Heavy Elements, so It 'might' belong better in the Neutron–proton ratio article.
• the fact that it seems to approach the Golden ratio may just be coincidental. We might find with better models that it approaches a value that is close to the golden ratio, but may have nothing to do with it. So it is speculative.
• why do you think that this N/Z ratio approaching the golden ration is "non-coincidental"?

I don't feel it's my place to revert your changes, but someone might for the same reasons than earlier... Well, someone reverted your changes while I was writing this. Dhrm77 (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ununpentium. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)