User talk:Ansgarf

Notification of request for formal mediation on Zeno's Paradoxes

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Zeno's_paradoxes has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zeno's_paradoxes and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Steaphen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zeno's paradoxes.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Zeno edits

I have replied on my talk page --JimWae (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look like a mediator is going to show up this decade or even much later. Steaphan has abandoned the talk page. I do not think the article needs to be frozen while we wait. I do not think the paragraph in contention need be frozen either, and I think the alternative I previously edited it with is an improvement from any viewpoint.--JimWae (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, you are right. We should discuss the changes, and then just go ahead.

Arbitration called

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Zeno's_Paradoxes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Talkback

Hello, Ansgarf. You have new messages at Paradoctor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There were two contended statements, not one.

Steaphen refers in his statement to an edit to which there was general agreement, and that I kept reverting. This is not quite according to the change log. There were two contentious edits.

The first is the one to which some editors agreed in my absence. It was implemented by Paine on 26/02 9:12 [1]. I proposed an alternative on 28/02 07:42 [2]. I did not edit the contended statement until 01/03 13:28, when I implemented the proposal [3]. This edit of mine was not reverted by Steaphen or anyone else in the meanwhile [4]. To claim that I reverted an agreed upon edit is incorrect.

Steaphen refers to a second contentious edit. He proposed it on 27/02 02:56 [5] after the "agreed edit" by Paine. Jim told him on 27/02 5:38 that he should wait on my input [6]. I proposed a compromise on 27/02 15:21 [7]. Steaphen went ahead and implemented his proposal on 27/08 22:41 [8]. I added sources to address Steaphen request, and edited the statement accordingly [9]. Steaphen reverted, asking for better sources [10]. I provided better sources [11], Steaphen reverted [12], after which I offered to wait for the input of others [13]. An offer that I had later to repeat five times.

My next edit was to fix a problem Steaphen's edits introduced [14] but I did not touch the contentious phrase. Later I updated a reference. I made a new proposal [15] on 28/02 07:42. After positive feedback from others I edited the statement again on 1/03 13:25 [16], which was reverted by Steaphen [17]. The contented phrase "high accuracy" was later tagged as unverified by Jim [18]. Which is the current status.

The logs show that contrary to Steaphen's claim I did not revert an agreed edit in the "Proposed Solution" section, but we had competing proposals for another statement in the introduction. We couldn't come to an agreement, but I agreed to live for the time being with a version I consider incorrect. Ansgarf (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration, etc

Since Steaphen has been indef blocked and has indicated that he is retiring from Wikipedia, the request of arbitration will most likely be considered moot and the case declined, at least for now. I'd like to offer a bit of unsolicited advice. Like Steaphen, you have been involved in editing one article only, namely Zeno's paradoxes, since you joined Wikipedia in October 2009. Technically this makes you an SPA user for the moment. While you are, of course, free to decide which articles you choose to edit, I would recommend that you proliferate your editorial interests and start editing other articles, on a broader range of topics. SPA users are often viewed with some degree of suspicion in relation to editorial disputes. Also, getting too involved in and too concentrated on a single article, especially in case of a long-running dispute related to such an article, even if done in good faith, can often become counter-productive and not good for one's psyche. It is usually a good idea to take a break and edit some other articles for a while, see WP:DISENGAGE. Anyway, just a suggestion. Nsk92 (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I spend too much time on one article. I checked today and I made more than 500 edits in just a few months. Even if you count that I usually have to fix a fair number of spelling mistakes, this is still a lot. While it is not an excuse, it probably happened because Steaphen tried to drag me right from the beginning into mediation and then on to arbitration. I am and was actually for most of the time fairly content with the article, and with how it evolved, hadn't been there one editor who wanted to take it into a very different direction. If it hadn't been for the long winding content dispute, I would probably just have added the paragraph on system design and moved on. BTW: There were one or two other articles I edited, both on system design. No heated discussions there. There are indeed probably other topics than Zeno that would actually suit me better. Thx. Ansgarf (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has its charms, too, especially if you own a camera. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Werner Bonrath (October 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Werner Bonrath and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ansgarf! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Greenman (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Werner Bonrath

Hello, Ansgarf. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Werner Bonrath, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Werner Bonrath (September 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Scope creep was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Checked Scopus. Doesn't seem to be sufficient coverage for standalone article. More secondary sourcing is needed.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Werner Bonrath and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

scope_creep^Talk 14:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]