User talk:BeingObjective: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:37, 30 October 2023

Welcome!

Hello, BeingObjective, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!DueKinkajou4384 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I am being super cautious as a newcomer - I will read the provided materials... BeingObjective (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Rafael Advanced Defense Systems

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being Thoughtful

I make the assumption that people who write and contribute to English Language Wikipedia articles - write competently - to a basic level of 'business' English, perhaps HS.

If you cannot construct an acceptable HS level essay - and I correct your writing - many apologies, I am not even all that picky, but basic tense, grammatical usage and especially, word choice are really important - I often correct for clarity - please do not take it personally. BeingObjective (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Alastair Hugh Graham, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 23:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can do - I usually add verbose explanations in the edit history, but can certainly add additional data in this section - not a problem. If you review my edits - when needed, I am rather verbose and give details - did you read the article edit section before sending this? As to the commentary, please expand on your concerns as to edits on the Alastair Hugh Graham page. I do think the image is not him - I met the man, many years ago - I am very old. As to the content - I'm unclear what your concerns are - kindly expand - so I do not cause distress - kind regards BeingObjective (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is wrong, start a discussion on the talk page. A comment on its validity is not a valid image file, and can easily be mistaken for vandalism. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 00:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, and civility - it is very hard to take this seriously:

Three editors question the provenance of the image - one at some point in the long ago past - adds a notation in the infobox. BUT not the editor you targeted.
Another agrees and removes the image with a legitimate request for an image with provenance. REVERTING THE IMAGE does not improve this article - and you DO KNOW THIS.
You revert the whole thing, but miss the entry in the infobox - the error is pointed out then you change it - all this is audit trailed.
Then you hide the talk on your own page hiding the fact your revert caused the problem by missing the 'questioning' entry. Your revert now looks like vandalism!

I want this to be documented and I can go to the archive talks to prove you overlooked the ORIGINAL infobox entry and then blamed me.

With respect - not a good look for a likely good and very seasoned editor - respectfully BeingObjective (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing an invalid infobox parameter is hardly "not a good look". Now, repeatedly asking for an explanation you already got, that's "not a good look". Just discuss it on the talk page and stay off my user talk. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having the last word - and SUCH WIKIDRAMA when you made an error is very troubling - please cease commenting on my talk page when you made a well documented error. Then allowed the same image that is in question - how senseless. BeingObjective (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was resolved - when the aggressive combative editor REMOVED the image and replaced it with one that was more likely the individual in the article. He still made a gross error as the NEW image states 1904 - this date is not correct. He missed yet another critical detail - but I can live with this. This is great example of POLICY over QUALITY. BeingObjective (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Flattening the curve. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Yarrowfes21 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - okay - though I think the matter was as I actually describe it - I have no passion for debate on something so OBVIOUS to the medical community - as a a retired Physician - this was my informed perception - have a wonderfool day! BeingObjective (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for communication - it might be a better strategy to reach out to the editor before sending a template 'warning'.

Accusations of VANDALISM is overtly strong language for a minor word change!

I note this is a behavior from this specific editor - I'd like to know the motivations -- the change being disputed is fundamentally trivial - but it seems a nuanced requirement - BeingObjective (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Benzodiazepine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read in detail the why - have fun. BeingObjective (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a case of cyber-stalking - please see the talk sections. BeingObjective (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. You need to WP:LISTEN. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the information prior to accusations. Too funny. BeingObjective (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I there a threat here - I see this terse language as a threat and reported it as so - have a great day BeingObjective (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Rafael Advanced Defense Systems

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:BeingObjective reported by User:Clovermoss (Result: ). Thank you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and many thanks - I am fine being blocked - I added a lot in a short time - cheers - happy to leave - though the bullying and stalking should also be added to the ADMIN INVESTIGATION - see the talk section - I have been stalked and bullied from the get go. BeingObjective (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being bullied, you're being disagreed with, and you're edit-warring. Stop attacking other editors to try to win a disagreement. Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the changes made this is stalking. BeingObjective (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trace all of the articles edited by the accused - you are wrong - please block indef.

Dr. BeingObjective - MD. Ph.D.. BeingObjective (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No .If you continue to abuse this talkpage to attack other editors, I will remove your access to editing that too. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access revoked and personal attacks against other editors removed. Acroterion (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not clear - the original time line was 48 - then I was a sock, the block was lifted, now I am not a sock then the edit bock gets extended to 72 hours - why is this?

I suspect you can see why this seems odd - kindly explain. Many thanks. BeingObjective (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not clear - the original time line was 48 - then I was a sock, the block was lifted, now I am not a sock then the edit block gets extended to 72 hours - why is this?

Can you provide an explanation --

I suspect you can see why this seems odd - kindly explain. Many thanks. BeingObjective (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating my SINGLE reversion of aseptic process in problematic?

If so what policy is the single revert violating - the chap who deleted my work - I have no issues with him the reversion was openly discussed there is a talk section - I am happy to send my CV to you - this is an area I am an expert on - I am definitely pondering what is going on here - are you targeting me? BeingObjective (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you need to BLOCK INDEF.

Clearly I am not adding any value - to some fairly technical articles - the aseptic processing article is actually very important and there is nothing pedantic about the changes.

The editor reverting - one does have to wonder - HE DID THIS TWICE - I thought the policy was 3 times - I only did it once on this article - I did not attack and I offered to debate the individual.

Yes - perhaps I do not get it - so please fold up this accounts - it would be a kindness - if you want truly awful technical and medical articles - keep tracking this way.

Then I will not be tempted to improves these more technical articles. I totally comprehend the WP ethos - BeingObjective (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You returned to edit-warring after a block for edit-warring. Going right back and continuing to do what you were sanctioed for is a nearly automatic block. Please wait to get concurrence from other editors on your suggested changes, rather than just editing as you wish. Edit-warring and returning to edit-warring are bright-line disruptive behaviors. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not perceive this as in the least 'EW' - in all sincerity.

I did honestly think the reversion by the other editor was rather bold and inappropriate - and I was indeed acting in good faith - I did think the policy was 3/24 -

The other editor did not discuss the issue with me - prior to his revert - I do not even think it was an article he had an opinion on - he simply looked for my edits - AS I AM APPARENTLY A SOCK AND TOALLY BANNED anyhow - give me an email - I will send my CV to you.

I have an impression you do not want expertise - I this is fine - but I do feel heavily targeted - perhaps rightly so - I think you should asses my EDITS - and then thoughtfully make a decision - do I want to help or am I simply being a jerk? BeingObjective (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will send my CV - You seem to be repeatitetly saying that, "I will send my CV", "as a biochemist, "as a physician", "MD PhD", "unless you're a pro in X Y Z, your edits are vandalism" (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). No one cares, even if you were the US president. Your significance on Wikipedia is based on the work you do on Wikipedia. I suggest you learn how Wikipedia works. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my typos - I am blind in one eye - seriously, it is a problem. Cheers BeingObjective (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking is permissible though.

01:25, 30 October 2023 diff hist −7‎ m Gastrointestinal perforation ‎ →‎Causes: ce markup current
01:22, 30 October 2023 diff hist 0‎ m Statin ‎ →‎Primary prevention: ce formatting current
01:20, 30 October 2023 diff hist −58‎ m Statin ‎ →‎top: ce grammar, formatting

BeingObjective (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 ::::The other editor did not discuss the issue with me - prior to his revert - I do not even think it was an article he had an opinion on - he simply looked for my edits - AS I AM APPARENTLY A SOCK AND TOALLY BANNED anyhow - give me an email - I will send my CV to you.
 ::::I have an impression you do not want expertise - I this is fine - but I do feel heavily targeted - perhaps rightly so - I think you should asses my EDITS - and then thoughtfully make a decision - do I want to help or am I simply being a jerk? [[User:BeingObjective|BeingObjective]] ([[User talk:BeingObjective#top|talk]]) 02:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
+:::::{{tq|I will send my CV}} - You seem to be repeatitetly saying that, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1182563728 I will send my CV]", "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leucines&diff=prev&oldid=1182057029 as a biochemist], "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drug-eluting_stent&diff=prev&oldid=1181285660 as a physician]", "[https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1182179260 MD PhD]", "unless you're a pro in X Y Z, your edits are vandalism" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flattening_the_curve&diff=prev&oldid=1181529116 diff 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propofol&diff=prev&oldid=1181843623 diff 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aseptic_processing&diff=prev&oldid=1182535815 diff 3]). No one cares, even if you were the US president. Your significance on Wikipedia is based on the work you do on Wikipedia. I suggest you learn [[WP:5P|how Wikipedia works]]. --[[User:WikiLinuz|<span style="font-family:Optima;color:#292928;">'''Wiki'''<span style="color:red;">'''''Linuz'''''</span></span>]] ([[User_talk:WikiLinuz|<span style="font-family:Optima;">talk</span>]]) 03:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 ::::Apologies for my typos - I am blind in one eye - seriously, it is a problem. Cheers [[User:BeingObjective|BeingObjective]] ([[User talk:BeingObjective#top|talk]]) 02:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 :::::Stalking is permissible though.