User talk:14.198.220.253

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history at Serge Lang 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring and BRD

It's clear that you are currently edit warring, but I want to point out why the community sees it this way rather than just blocking editing from this address.

You made a change on Scientific consensus to "improve wordings". When your change was reverted, you put it back with the summary "undo NewsAndEventsGuy's POV". First of all, when you make an edit with a summary like that, you really should go directly to the talk page and explain your reasoning. "POV" without any explanation or clarification is hardly a justification for anything.

When you were reverted again, the edit summary clearly explained that the editor reverting you believed you were going against the consensus that had formed regarding the article's wording, and pointed you to BRD. Instead of discussing it then, you reverted a second time with a summary "since when you become consensus" and pointed back to BRD.

This shows a clear failure to understand the steps laid out at BRD. You did step 1 just fine, you made an edit to the page. Great, we welcome your contribution. You also did step 2 -- someone reverted you. Instead of step 3, "discuss the changes you would like to make..." you just reverted again. The second time you were reverted, that was really a crystal clear signal that the editors interested in this article objected to your change. If you still want to make the change, you have got to explain it, not try to wear them out by repeatedly inserting your proposed changes.

Furthermore, you have expressed a clear lack of understanding regarding the policy against edit warring. You basically said right out that if people revert your changes without an explanation you accept, you're just going to keep putting them back in. That's not how it works -- the reversion itself is a message that the editor reverting you does not agree with your changes. That, intrinsically, is a reason to discuss the issue. Just because they don't explain their reason for reverting to your satisfaction doesn't make your continued re-insertions not an edit war. Bring it to the article talk page or the talk page of the editor reverting you (if it's just one person). If they refuse to discuss the issue, then there are steps available to you to encourage discussion without disrupting the encyclopedia by edit warring, such as using the dispute resolution noticeboard.

Now that I have hopefully explained the community policy on edit warring etc. clearly enough, This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Darkwind (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and planks

Thanks for selfreverting at Scientific consensus. I also noticed that in this edit at Planck_length you changed

"it is suggested that spacetime might have a discrete or foamy structure at a Planck length scale"

to (bold supplied)

"it is often guessed that spacetime might have a discrete or foamy structure at a Planck length scale"

Please see Wikipedia:Words_to_watch#Expressions_of_doubt and then restore "suggested". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

First, it is "often it is suggested" to "it is often guessed". Second, I don't mind if it is "Often it is guessed".

Lastly, I don't think you understand that policy well, it is not an expression of doubt, it is a doubt. That doubt is certain, because the discrete nature of universe is indeed a guess(or doubt) among physicists. --14.198.220.253 (talk)

Accusation of Wikihounding

As you pointed out, my contribution log does make it clear that I have been following your contributions. I have been doing so for the purpose of, to quote from Wikipedia:HOUND, "correcting related problems on multiple articles". I first came across your edits on Scientific consensus where I observed you attempting to eliminate references to the connection between peer review/consensus and science, apply idiosyncratic grammar preferences, and misunderstand the requirement to explain your edits when asked. As such, I was concerned that you had behaved similarly on other articles, and so looked over your contributions to check. I have not responded to all your edits, merely the ones that I saw as not making the encyclopedia better. I am sorry that you have felt attacked, and I'd be happy to work more cooperatively with you to improve articles assuming we find areas to do so in. If you wish to ask other editors to review our respective contributions, I'm glad for that to happen, although WP:DRN is actually for content disputes, not accusations of wikihounding. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

attempting to eliminate references to the connection between peer review/consensus and science

"eliminate"? It sounds like edit-warring to me. Attempting to *distinguish* the difference is my part, for me, it is just what it is, so that just makes my POV at worst.

apply idiosyncratic grammar preferences

That's your opinion, frankly, during the discussion I can't see you give a valid grammatical argument.

I am sorry that you have felt attacked,

You said right out that how I should make better use of my time. How could I not feel that way? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussing the addition to the Galileo footnote

As you suggested, I've opened a section on Talk:Scientific_revolution#Addition_of_greater_context_and_other_translations_of_the_Galileo_quote_in_the_footnote. I would be happy to hear any further thoughts you may have on the matter. Sorry for not having opened it sooner; I was honestly confused by your reverts (as I assume you have been over mine at times). 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: Manual of Style and article titles policy

Please carefully read the following notice:

This is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, which you may have edited. The committee's decision can be read here.

Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia or complies with applicable policies and guidelines. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.

In particular, please do not engage in edit wars, such as you did in November 2013 on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name).  Sandstein  12:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)