User talk:Kharon

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geremy.Hebert (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im editing in the project since 2006 Geremy.Hebert. Instead of trying to teach me how things work i would recommend you try learn a thing or two from me. --Kharon2 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given all your experience, you should appreciate the need to learn that Wikipedia advocates civility. It looks like Geremy.Hebert was just trying to help.LesLein (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So i should follow his example of civility? You both should take more care when judging other people, i think. --Kharon (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonhard Miksch

Hi, I've restored the article here. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Kharon (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Neoliberalism, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will follow your advice in the future! Nevertheless, just for documentation i disagree about my edit was wrong:

I deleted the source "Christian L. Glossner: The Making of the German post-war Economy: Political Communication and Public Reception of the Social Market Economy after World War Two]." I.B. Tauris, London, 2010, ISBN-10: 1780764219, ISBN-13: 978-1780764214." because there is no reception and nothing "new" or "better" in this source. Also there is some account User:Christian L. Glossner pushing (very likely his own work) into multiple articles repetivly (just check out this accounts activity (btw. similar active in german wikipedia)).

The source "Philip Mirowski, Dieter Plehwe, The road from Mont Pèlerin: the making of the neoliberal thought collective, Harvard University Press, 2009, ISBN 0-674-03318-3" is already in the article for the same purpose of being source for the basic knownledge so there is no need for review realy. --Kharon (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on Glossner! I have posted a notice on his talk page about WP:SELFCITE. In any event, Glossner is a lecturer at Oxford so he probably will qualify as WP:RS. – S. Rich (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I still struggle to find my way around here because of the many organisational differences between german and english wikipedia. --Kharon (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Just want to thank you for your awesome answer at the Reference Desk[1].

If you don't mind me asking, how did you managed to find the answer? Did you managed to Google it with the right keywords or was it thanks to professional experience? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was a professional in that field, so i roughly remembered "N" as a standard for something altho these are not used that much (mostly P, M and K). Also i saw your link to sandvik, which i remembered as company selling cutting tools and inserts.

Both info combined made it an easy answer for me. I didnt have to use google for :). Its a to specific field for google anyway or you would have to be a professional to know and search with the right terms. --Kharon (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning WP:TALKO

I refer to this edit of yours in which you deleted a diagram with the explanation "bad picture. cant[sic] read anything on that". Your editing of others' comments is vandalism that leaves the sentence "This diagram shows..." floating without meaning. The graph to which you object is currently in use in the article Thermal conductivity and you should put comments about it on the article's or graph's pages (comments have been requested there!). Blooteuth (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it and saw that it is absolutely unreadable at the resolution of 500px you chose. I did not change your text because of the rules altho i wanted to, to fix the "floating" reference. Taking out bad pictures is no vandalism. Besides i already linked the article Thermal conductivity, which contains that picture, in my own answer befor you did. Go check! --Kharon (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that the graph is "absolutely unreadable" does not stand up to any honest inspection. I posted the same resolution as is displayed in the article Thermal conductivity. If you were aware of a higher resolution version, you could have said so without violating WP:TALKO. Understand that this is a warning intended to stop you from editing others' comments. Your defiant and self-serving response to my complaint that "Taking out bad pictures is no vandalism" is unfortunate and makes certain that if you do this again, the next complaint will be to ANI without warning. Blooteuth (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a minor change and my explanatory note was clear. Besides that, since for my impression you are trying to splitting hairs with your argument, i think you should be veeeery precise in the process. But unfortunately to the contrary you seem quite unprofessional, to put it diplomatic, since your referenced ruleset clearly states at its begin: This page is about talk page etiquette. This here is a talk page. The Reference desk/Science has its own rule set. Among the rules i found a fitting sentence under WP:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing others' comments: ...except to fix formatting errors that interfere with readability.

Please compare precisely with my Edit summary: "bad picture. cant read anything on that"

So i assume im clearly in the follow rules universe nomatter what. Anyway, you where right that i could have fixed it but i only saw later it had other resolutions. Sorry for that! Are we good? --Kharon (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D*-Apostroph

Hallo Kharon,

kleiner Hinweis re [2]: Das Aprostroph-s kommt in der Pluralbildung im Englischen eigentlich nie vor. Und wenn man die besitzanzeigenden Form bildet, dann schlägt zumindest The Elements of Style konsequent "'s" vor [3]. Nix für ungut - habe ich früher auch reichlich falsch gemacht, und mache es immer noch gelegentlich, wenn ich nicht aufpasse! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal and minor edits

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Berlin#Recreation, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

Please sign your messages and spare me with these fancy big icon picture buttons next time IamNotU. Thank you in advance. --Kharon (talk)

WP:AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice. I tried to explain my view on the case there but i did not see the need to address all the points you made there. From my experience i fear the admins will not act on your or my behave at the current state of dispute and instead just put the article on their watchlist. --Kharon (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kharon, it looks like you've engaged in a pattern of edit warring at Mont Pelerin Society. In particular, you insist that the Economics prize is not a real Nobel prize and you would like that to be indicated in the text. For instance, you want to use quotation marks. It appears nobody supports your view. If you make any further reverts at Mont Pelerin Society without getting talk page consensus first you may be blocked from editing. I am noting this warning in the ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. As you could have verified befor writing here i already edited the article again in between and did not re-add mentioned quotation marks, who where deleted again, again! Also i was the one who initiated the talk page section for my edits long befor L.R. Wormwood addressed this on your Administrators' noticeboard. --Kharon (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: You reverted the same content four times in 24 hours. If I’d taken you to WP:EWN you’d have been blocked straightaway just for that. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that since i already stopped the Editwar myself befor you started to "call for help", as i already pointed out in my answer to the Admin who warned me about consequences above. If you had complained there the admins more likely had closed your request because the editwar was already over. I have even seen cases where the admins became pretty pissed about the complainer when it looked like they are used just to make an additional point/strike in a case that is already solved. --Kharon (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for attacking you on the ref. desk

From now on, I'll attack you on your talk page, as I have been told: your posts are destitute of any insight or scientific thinking. They are useless and a waste of time, ours and yours (which apparently doesn't matter since you seem to have a lot of time).--Doroletho (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention waste of time.. I like Aikido. I think it could be a precious inspiration for you as well. --Kharon (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science...

and sorry that I initially deleted it. I had the page open possibly in two tabs. In some sequence I refreshed one of these tabs to see Graeme Bartlett earlier suggestion. However it happened I then got to think that this suggestion had been removed and, seeing that you had made a later edit, wrongly concluded that you had deleted that edit. My bad. Greg Kaye 09:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have seen far to much real hostile reactions to posts with best intentions, so i just wondered, about what category of wikipedians to put you in, for a moment. Thanks for clearing this up. --Kharon (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kharon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RefDesk_regular_giving_unsourced_(and_incorrect)_answers

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RefDesk.

Howdy Kharon. In relation to the above mentioned ANI, I took the liberty of checking over your editing history. Of your last 500 edits alone, a vast majority of them are to ResDesk. It's possible you may be addicted to RefDesk & that might be a core of you current troubles. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, i simply take my freedom to chose where i want to contribute. Far as i know there was never any restrictions, obligations or edit quotas, apart from getting full edit rights. So even if my last 1 million edits had been on Refdesks, there is no single rule nor convention against that, There is however one very, very essential rule you may have forgotten.

Its called "Assume good faith". Read under WP:FAITH to refresh your memory (i bet you know it perfectly tho and almost never forget about it like when blaming someone of being addicted...) --Kharon (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you sage old advice. You can either take it or leave it. PS: You're overusing the minor edit button. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And i responded extensively and friendly so why exactly do you think i did not value your advice? --Kharon (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories.

Subcategories in Wikipedia take precedence over their parent categories. See: Subcategorization.

"Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category".

If you see a subcategory listed alongside its parent/parents, it is the parent that should be removed. Now stop playing games and do something productive. Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atleast you looked up the rules now! Its still your duty to change the cat-entry correctly without leaving the need for someone to clean up after you, aka your duty to delete the primary cat if you add the secondary.

And please put your self-righteous lecture somewhere where the sun does not shine. Contrary to you i knew the cat-rules all along but i obviously had to give you a strong motivation to check the rules, which obviously was successfukk. LOL productive! --Kharon (talk) 18:30, 21 February 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) 00:16, 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) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]