User talk:Cswquz

Welcome!

Hello, Cswquz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Science

I reverted your edit again on the science page again. Per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit, I reverted it, we then discuss. You are obviously new to Wikipedia, which is why I'm coming here to get you up to speed on this. So far, your intentions on WP have been positive and you have done a good job in alerting me to some of the errors found in the science article. That said, we do have specific policies and guidelines in which each of us is expected to follow. Among them is making sure that our edits are supported by reliable sources. I have been watching your back-and-forth discussion with Spinningspark on the science talk page from a distance as well as your recent responses and I noticed they have not been very consistent with our policies and guidelines. For example, you have not provided high quality reliable sources when reinserting robotics into the formal science section. Normally, the discussion would end there. Because without reliable sources, you really have nothing. Thus, it is really important that you get this part right. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:BRD. Normally, I'm very stringent when it comes to these issues. But because you are new here and have made positive contributions, I'm reaching out to you in a good faith so that we can continue to have productive collaborations in the future. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a newbie, but not very new. In fact, I am not a native speaker of English. I am from Mainland China, and have edited in zh.wikipedia.org for thousands of times, after more than a decade of browsing wikipedia. As for robotics, that was initially not inserted by me (in fact, it was inserted by a "Dr." about a year ago), and what I am against is only the reason of removing it. The admin spsp seems just reluctant to accept that he/she made a mistake.--Cswquz (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ps: It is quite common to put maths before natural science, so I cannot understand why just the change of place is a 'bold' edit. Cswquz (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that you were reverted shows by definition that the edit was bold. As Danielkueh says, this is a matter of following the conventions of behaviour for this site, which may be very different from zh.wikipedia. You need to learn the rules. SpinningSpark 11:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest to quarrel with you. BTW, I highly doubt you can read Chinese, because almost all the rules mentioned above were translated into Chinese long long ago. Cswquz (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new section in talk page of science to discuss the order of the 3 major branches. Cswquz (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that and will discuss the details there. As for your other points, I can only speak for en.wikipedia.org. I have made multiple edits to various articles on WP. Some of those edits have stayed while other edits have been removed or are contested. I myself get reverted all the time. And if there are no reliable sources supporting my edits, I usually concede the point, as painful as that may be. WP progresses by trial and error and none of this is personal. And yes, I have made many blunders. I can tell you from experience that "digging in," in spite of what the policies or sources say, is usually not the best approach. Just some friendly advice. danielkueh (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at science 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. danielkueh (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed. It seems you have no interest in collaborating with other editors or adhering to WP policies. Instead, you seem more interested in pushing your own agenda. The template above serves as a notice that you are really pushing it. danielkueh (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time to appeal. I just want to say, the one that defying rules is you. Over. Cswquz (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is violating rules?

Here I must point out, it is danielkueh (talk) that has violated the three-revert rule:

while in the same period all of my rollbacks are:

The discussion before the template 3rr above was posted on this page can be found at the talk page of Science: Talk:Science

Cswquz (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the annotation he added is more fit on himself. 这可真是恶人先告状。Cswquz (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but the third revert was done with respect to the lead definition, which is a separate issue from the one on how the various branches should be ordered. So that's only three. And the second reversion was done because you completely disregarded WP:BRD, which SpinningSpark pointed out above. Furthermore, I have consensus on my side. What do you have? That's right. Nothing. You make no effort to read my comments on the talk page carefully. You have no regard for our basic policies such as providing sources and verifying your edits with high quality ones. In fact, four editors, myself included, do not agree with you. And what do you do? Rather than provide sources and engage in good-faith discussions, you decided to push your agenda by editing the article anyway. And here you are, shamelessly keeping score. Guess what, The 3 edit rule is not just about making 3 edits in one day, read WP:EDITWAR. It is also about disregarding the policies and pushing your agenda, which is clearly what you're doing here. danielkueh (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK... May the God, Allah, and Budda be with you. Amen, الله أكبر, अमिताभ! Cswquz (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Science again

Your recent editing history at Science 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. danielkueh (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I surrender. Play by yourselves.--Cswquz (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you must not keep trying to revert to your preferred version of the article in this way. Controversial issues must be resolved on the article talk page first. Honestly, if I had not already been involved in the discussion I would be considering blocking you from editing at this stage. Please don't continue with this behaviour on the Science page, or anywhere else. We can always find an uninvolved administrator to take the necessary actions. SpinningSpark 08:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK.--Cswquz (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Guess who were the authors?

If you make a bold edit, as you did at Science, and someone else reverts you, the onus is now on you to go to talk and discuss your addition and try to get consensus for it. This process is called Bold, Revert, Discuss, and is a pretty common editing pattern on Wikipedia. The key, though, is that you can't insist that your edits automatically stay until after someone else discusses on talk first. Thanks. 23:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already done that (discuss on talk page). If you read the page that you sent me, you will see that it says "Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can:....." Furthermore, that page is a guideline and not a code of law. So please, spare me the unsolicited wikilawyering advice.

As for editing the science page, I, along with many other editors, have been editing this page for quite a while now. I don't ask for special privileges but I do not just simply edit pages without careful thinking. I am after all, a scientist. And when I do edit a page, I never insist "that my edits automatically stay until...." What I insist is that whoever decides to revert a major edit of mine at least take the time to be thoughtful and provide a reasonable explanation rather than just a short terse comment.

For the record, unless you're trying to be provocative or start an edit war, I don't appreciate you reverting my good-faith edits "on principle." It's actually quite obnoxious and most unfriendly. See Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.

02:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I replied over there before seeing this here. I just don't like the idea that your edits get deference requiring that others consult you on talk first before reverting you--and that has nothing do with whether or not you are a scientist. To me it is presumptuous, and I wanted you to know that if it is a stance you attempt to put forward at a great many article, it will earn you the enmity of other editors. As for WP:Revert only when necessary, you're the first person I've ever seen refer to that essay, and I'd be inclined to say that its acceptance is much closer to a "minority viewpoint" than a "widespread norm". I agree with the idea that we shouldn't edit war; I don't think that has any connection to whether or not we should revert. In fact, I would argue that reverting isn't the hallmark of edit warring, it's the reinsertion of disputed material after it's been reverted that is the hallmark of editwarring. I also know of only one or two editors who voluntarily hold to 1RR.

So, upon thinking about it, I probably shouldn't have reverted you "on principle". Instead I should have come here to tell you why your reinsertion of the material was wrong and asked you to consider self-reverting instead. That would have been a kinder, gentler way to go, so my apologies. I do hope you consider my position, and consider modifying your own re-reverting behavior in the future. 04:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I find your tendency to lecture me and selectively impose certain wikipedia policies as if they were code of laws to be very tiring. Last I check, Wikipedia does not appoint police officers. And if you're going to cite policies and rules, at least be fully knowledgeable about them. For example, there are a lot of nuances in the BRD process. It actually encourages other editors to edit rather than revert if possible. Besides, these are just guidelines. What's more important is the spirit of these guidelines.

Also, my comment on needing a discussion was a side one (it was just one sentence) and was not even directed at you. Paine asked for an explanation when he reverted my edit and I gave it. I suspect my comment would have been ignored and the issue would have passed. If he had a problem with my reversion and/or explanation, he can reply or do the revert again by himself. It is quite arrogant and presumptious of you to act as an arbiter or as Paine's legal attorney by highlighting my comment as a problem without even having the decency to ask "what's going on?" or to look at the context and history of edits that have been done to that page.

You can pick and choose/cite any wikipedia policy and I could probably do the same. We can then see which policies represent the majority or minority viewpoint. But personally, I don't care to play this wikilawyering game. Finally, I'm amused at the fact that you have the audacity to size someone up and then tell him to "consider modifying his behavior." Just who do you think you are? If this is how you typically interact with other Wikipedians, then this will, as you say, "earn you the enmity of other editors."

So if you want me to consider your position or to bring attention to a particular process, which I am willing to do, you're certainly not succeeding. 04:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, I'm just trying to give helpful advice. As I said, my revert on principle was wrong—an action done in haste. That was the action of a, as you called it, police officer, and was inappropriate. Giving advice to other editors about editing behaviors, though, I think is entirely appropriate--the goal is to prevent problems down the road. To me, that's the way that we pass on knowledge as a community, rather than relying on journals and conferences as occurs in the sciences and other "learned" fields. I'm not trying to lecture you, or engage in wikilawyering, and I'm sorry if I came off sounding that way. 05:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You can provide suggestions and give advice, that is not the issue. The issue is doing it in haste or in a somewhat authoritarian/condescending manner. It's not what's said but how it's said. Don't believe me, try reading one of your sentences out loud such as "consider modifying your own re-reverting behavior in the future." It sounds like something a disciplinarian would say to a child in school. It may not be your intention, but that is how it comes across.

Anyway, I'm glad we're in agreement. Upon reflection, I realized that I too acted in haste when I reverted Paine's edit. I was just furious that I had spent a lot of time combing through the article to "fix it," only to have it undone so quickly. That's fine, I just wish he was not so dismissive or terse, especially since I have accepted his pass edits with little to no fuss. His reversion gave the impression that his edits are fine but mine aren't. 05:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cswquz (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Outline of formal science for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Outline of formal science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of formal science until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

- car chasm (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]