User talk:76.31.201.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Alternating group on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Xantharius 16:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calculus talk page

I understand your frustration with the calculus article, and hope that you can find some way of coming to a resolution of your ideas with the ideas of the other editors who are improving the article. But I would, politely, ask that you refrain from commenting on the characteristics of other editors. I am giving you some friendly advice here, not because I support the edits that you've made, but because I don't want to see further misunderstandings occuring between you and the other editors.

However, saying that, "if your editors are not bright or capable enough to understand the material, then it is summarily removed," "141.211.62.20 is the Wiki-puppet judge," "You only have to look at how confused you all are and the discussions on these pages by so many 'educated' contributors and if you are smart enough (doubtful in my opinion)" on the calculus talk page is definitely not acceptable on Wikipedia, and now there is more than one editor who has mentioned personal attacks, which these surely are. I have already mentioned this once, and I am engaging with you here to avoid further unpleasantness.

I would like for us all to engage each other in a way which respects other people's opinions. If you do not want to do that, then it might be time to either leave the article for a while, or try to understand their point of view (I think they are trying to understand yours). Unless you feel you can do this, editors may refer this kind of language, which discredits and abuses other editors, to an administrator. I sincerely hope that this can be avoided. Let me know if you want to talk about this further. Xantharius 16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My response

It is a pity that you think my language is offensive. It may be direct, but offensive, I think not. It should not be offensive. I don't know anyone on Wiki personally and no one knows me personally. They are free to say what they like (and they do!), so why can't I? Is sarcasm not offensive? Of course it is (if I know and care about the person who is guilty of it). 141.211 is very sarcastic and believes s/he has me eating out of his/her hand. Do I care? Of course not. I do not know 141.211 - s/he can say whatever s/he likes. I hold nothing against 141.211. In fact I am glad he is so forthright. No one who is smart would take offense by anything written on these pages. As for the editors and contributors - they are fashioning Wikipedia according to their view of the world, which may be okay in most cases but very narrow-minded just the same. Don't ask me how I would run it. I don't know. Frankly I don't think anyone believes anything read on Wikipedia. All the same, I for one ALWAYS read the Wiki link for most subjects first. Why you might ask? Well, I look at the discussion section - it is where I learn to read between the lines. Then I look at other sources and evaluate all my findings. Most intelligent people follow these principles. So what's the big fuss about removing my edits. Frankly, my edits were about as sane as they get!! I provided sources (it does not matter if these sources contain some errors - all sources do) and a clear explanation that was rejected out of hand. Finally, some 'errors' are really ignorance or uncertainty on the part of the perceiver. Who gets to decide what is wrong or right? In the case of Wikipedia, it is obviously YOU and YOUR team. Why don't you let the world decide what is right and wrong? Imagine if Wikipedia existed in the time scientists thought the earth was flat. Suppose someone came along and edited your article to the effect that the earth is a sphere. According to my experience, you would have removed the edit just as you have removed my edits. I have nothing personal against anyone. Life is short. I don't have time to hate. I don't care for stupidity and I am brutally frank. Well, I hope you can accept this for what it really means. 76.31.201.0 04:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on Wikipedia it is the world who gets to decide what's right and wrong: you just have to get other people to agree with you that a certain way is the best way of expressing that. It is not the case that anything and everything that someone thinks is true stays for very long on Wikipedia. Since the longevity of an article depends on consensus reached by lots of different people (who, by the way, do not edit in teams as you seem to suggest) then the editors must come to an agreement about what the article contains. I do not decide, nor does anyone else. Everyone contributes as much as he or she can, and tries to reach agreement with the other editors if there are different opinions. I don't work as part of a team, but I do know that I have spent a number of years studying mathematics, as well as teaching it, and having some stranger tell me that he thinks that I (or the other people who spend their time trying to make these pages better) am not "smart" is trying, to say the least. I also feel that you did not foster an attitude to meet half-way with the way you wanted to go on the article. Editors don't have to work with anyone; I feel that you've made it very difficult to work with you.
One is not free to say whatever one likes on Wikipedia (see WP:CIVIL). I want a good article, but I do not want to do it while being attacked. Sarcasm and blunt opinions might work for someone if does not require consensus to reach to goal; on Wikipedia, however, these do not tend to get people very far. My above comments were written only to try and help encourage an atmosphere of civil editing, but, frankly, if you you think sarcasm is a good way of getting people to see your side of things, I don't think people will go out of their way to help you. Good luck, though: I hope it works out. Xantharius 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you read my response carefully?

I can tell that you did not read my response carefully because I did not state anywhere that I think sarcasm is good in any way. In fact, I am accusing your editor 141.211 of being sarcastic. I don't like it but it won't make me lose any sleep. The world does not get to decide what is right and wrong on Wikipedia - YOU and the editors/sysops do. Who are you trying to fool? How can you make such a false statement? Please explain to me how the world decides. I remain unconvinced. You accuse me of being 'trying'? How about the number of fools that 'try' me? Now as for 'needing help', let me explain that I do not need help. I volunteered information that is more important than anything written in your article. It was deleted two days later by some fool without any justifiable evidence; only ignorance and prejudice. Should I not feel annoyed? I took the time to carefully prepare the edits without infringing on the authors' copyrights. An encyclopedic article may not necessarily be understood by everyone. Chances are that it won't be understood by most, especially if it deals with this kind of material. Why, half your PHds don't understand it! I myself do not fully understand every aspect BUT just because I don't fully understand it, does not mean it is untrue or that it is unencyclopedic. Add hypocrisy to your list of bad characteristics I say. Sorry my friend, you are making many unjust accusations and you need to reconsider your attitude. I don't have a personal problem with anyone - not even Michael Hardy, in spite of the fact that I know he sits pretty high on the Wiki heap if not on top. By deleting my edits, you are robbing many thousands of others of the chance to learn new knowledge; to break away from the narrow confines of the current article; to realize new truth; to improve on the machinery that has been used to operate calculus for so many centuries. 76.31.201.0 18:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

By all means replace the deleted content if you feel that it needs to be included in the article (it's still stored in Wikipedia). It's your right as a Wikipedian, and no-one is stopping you. You might need to convince more people that it needs to be there, though. And I stand by what I wrote: everyone gets to decide what goes on Wikipedia; but, conversely, everyone gets to decide what doesn't stay on Wikipedia too, and there the problem lies: you need to explain your position carefully enough to gain consensus. Otherwise, it gets deleted. I might note at this stage that, although many, many of the edits I have made on Wikipedia (in fact, almost all of them) have been edited by others, none has been deleted, because I tried to work with others to convince them that the content was worthwhile. It's in this area that you seem to be having the problems, and is exactly the area that I was trying to help you with.
I'm afraid that deleting content which appears to be unsupportable by the majority of references, and which the editor is unable to convince others is beneficial to the article, is the way Wikipedia works. Feel free to explain your system of averages in the article, as well as how it relates to a standard viewpoint: in fact, I encourage you to do so. Be prepared to have those edits "mercilessly edited" or deleted if they do not pass muster with the other Wikipedia editors: you have as much right to make your changes as they do. Yes: you do actually have to work with other people here. If you don't like the system, perhaps you need to campaign to change it: Wikipedia is not perfect, and no-one claimed it was (that’s why we edit the articles . . .). Xantharius 23:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Good Lord guy! My edits were not studied or edited by others. They were summarily deleted! I was not even given a chance to explain anything. After refuting a few criticisms by 141, the edits disappeared. I did not save what I inserted into the article. It's all gone forever and I sure as heck will not waste my time again. Do you think I am stupid? If you are so sincere, why don't you replace the deleted content and let others edit it 'mercilessly.' They love 'editing' and it shows. 76.31.201.0 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Every change to an article is saved under its History section: you can retrieve your edits from there and replace, change, or otherwise do whatever you like with them. I don't want to replace the deleted content because I don't think it improves the article, but that doesn't stop you from doing so: it's your right to do it. Xantharius 03:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
All the same, whoever removed it should replace it. 76.31.201.0 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is not how it works on Wikipedia. No-one else feels strongly that this should be replaced. If you do feel it should go back up, then feel free. Otherwise, it's no-one's responsibility to replace your deleted content other than you. Also, your content does not belong to you (see WP:OWN for more details) since you agree to have it edited, deleted, and otherwise changed according to the GFDL license. It's in the history section if you want it: have at it. Xantharius 15:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)