User talk:Shelbymoore3

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced material (see the Wikipedia policies on WP:Reliable sources and WP:Original research). Instead, please reply to my concerns on the article's talk page: Talk:Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem#Misinterpretation?. Thanks. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the Wikipedia policy on making same the edit over and over again in a short period of time: WP:Three-revert rule. If you make the same reversion again today, you will have exceeded this limit! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making ignorant reversions of edits that are fully-qualified by the cited quote of Shannon. See my rebuttal in the discussion page for proof. I will revert your reversion spam. If you choose to ban me for quoting the canonical Shannon, then more power to ignorance. --Shelbymoore3 (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your above verbage "please stop adding unsourced material..." and accusation that I am spamming (note the 3 revert limit does not apply where my reversions are legitimate, i.e. to undo your spam reverting). I have not attacked you. You are attacking me. I am defending myself. You should stop reverting my edit in Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem until our debate is concluded on the discussion page. Please stop attacking me by trying to characterize me on my orthogonal talk page with your authoritarian references, and kindly focus on winning the content debate on the discussion page for Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem.

You are the only one that has used the word "spam".
If you believe that about the 3 revert rule, then you have not read WP:3RR properly; it applies to essentially all edits.
Phrases such as "unbelievable nonsense", "ignorance", "slowness of mind", "you are not qualified" would all count as personal attacks or incivility on Wikipedia.
You have not yet provided a source that explicitly supports your notion of a "lower bound". Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not following the WP:3RR policy:

A number of experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse. Editors may wish to adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above

Apologies. You started it by attacking me by not following the "1 revert then discuss" policy above for my contribution to Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, and then false accusation here in my personal talk page, that I did not cite Shannon properly:

Yes I have. See my latest rebuttal on the discussion page for Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem. You have polluted (is that a more civil word than spam) my personal talk page with what should be debate in the discussion page for Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem. --Shelbymoore3 (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are still misunderstanding WP:3RR; what you have quoted is a voluntary approach.
I did one revert and then went to the talk page. You didn't follow suit, so I continued to revert. I'm now at my WP:3RR limit for the current 24 hours.
A user talk page exists precisely to bring the user's attention to matters where they are violating policy or requested to discuss a matter further. This is not "spam", by any definition! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 08:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the history comments for my Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem edits, I didn't know that you had added something to the discussion page. You finally mentioned the "talk" (but I didn't know you meant "discussion"), but it wasn't until your 3rd revert that you provided a link to the "discussion" page. Perhaps you can send a general statement to new user's talk page explaining that you will revert and the redirect debate to discussion page for the topic and provide a link to the section in the discussion page that you created stating your reasons for reverting. Instead from my perspective as a new user, all I was seeing was my edits being forcefully reverted and threats in my "talk" page-- not very nice welcome. Truce. --Shelbymoore3 (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk-page etiquette

Posting this here to avoid cluttering the talk page itself

Actually, it's not common practice to fork discussions like this. Usually we try to keep replies atomic, otherwise the history becomes impossible to follow. If the topic diverges too heavily, then the usual practice is to create a sub-section. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 21:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]