User talk:Viggoodin

Welcome

Hello, Viggoodin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Niels Bohr have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Niels Bohr, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Niels Bohr. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cite a verifiable source for your edits per Wikipedia:Citing sources or stop adding. Thank you GcSwRhIc (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niels Bohr

Hello, Viggoodin. You have new messages at GcSwRhIc's talk page.
Message added 14:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Viggoodin. You have new messages at GcSwRhIc's talk page.
Message added GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Niels Bohr. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Favonian (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2011 (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 could 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) 16:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Niels Bohr. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Niels Bohr – again

In your recent sixteen edits to Niels Bohr you have only completed four edit summaries. This is simply not good enough and makes it very difficult to guess what you have done and why. If it takes longer to find out what and to guess why than it would to read properly completed edit summaries, your edits are quite likely to be reverted. There are substantial problems with at least some of those edits:

this adds unsourced information to the article. Your edit summary says where it came from but as you have already been told you must add inline references to the content, not detail the sources in the edit summary. (edit) I've now checked the latest article text and you (I presume) subsequently added two inline refs. Well done.
here you remove properly sourced content for the second time after another editor had restored it. Please stop edit warring. Your edit summary for this change basically says "I do not agree with that source". Wikipedia is not a record of what you (or I) think, but of what reliable sources say. You cannot just remove properly-sourced material because you do not like it. I will certainly restore this unless someone else has by the time I finish writing this.
here you seem to have removed a closing ref tag left behind by a previous edit, however you left no explanation and the change is tagged as suspicious, which could cause someone to roll back all your unexplained edits. This is another reason why edit summaries are important. Your last five edits do in fact have new inline references, well done.

How to deal with dubious content

Instead of removing reliably sourced content which you believe is incorrect or misleading, you can use the {{Dubious}} tag, which works rather like {{Citation needed}}. You should at the same time start an article talk page section to explain why you think the content is problematical. Others can then contribute and, one way or the other, better content will be produced (or of course consensus may be to remove it anyway.) You can also look for reliable references which enable you to add content which makes the article more comprehensive or puts the other content in context.

You can ask me (or of course others too) if there is anything you do not understand. I imagine that trying to make high quality contributions to a foreign-language wiki is quite daunting. I have not tried to do that even in German which I can speak reasonably well. --Mirokado (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

updated --Mirokado (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the editors!

I understand use of summaries are nice for the editors and recommended strongly by editors. Thanks.

And I understand signature can be fixed using signature mark.

Thanks!

Viggoodin - Denmark

Like this: --Viggoodin (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Mirokado.

Your comments are very clear and friendly.

You understand, I am a newcommer, but ask me to respect a general morality at Wikepedia!

I guess it is not my intention to continue editing.

But the play written by Michael Frayn: "Copenhagen" got my interest and I did study through your page about Niels Bohr and his meetings in 1941 and 1944.

I know the historical background as a Dane myself born in 1944.

I could see it was wrong to write, there was no texts from Bohr and Heisenberg about their meeting in 1941.

I understand - with your friendly and strong help - that such discussions (maybe) can be solved, on my own or other talk pages.

Or just dropped by some general respect for disagreements.

But nobody contacted me, when I changed the text - at four small places with simple - (and in my view) correct information.

Another guy told me I could comment shortly. During "editing".

And you advised my "friendly" (Thanks!) to use the talk pages.

And not wait for others to contact me?

When they (Undoo?) my information?

I dount care - and will take up discussion (maybe) about the few points of rather small disagreement.

Thanks for your eagerness to help me.

I did'nt know of a "3 strikes and your out - rule"!

You are not allowed to edit more than 3 texts a day?

And I will maybe create some discussion

About Bohr's meeting with Heisenberg in 1941 and with Churchill and Roosevelt in 1944.

The topics I have studied directly from the sources allready at your homepage.

I think I had put clear references to the sources behind all my statements now.

And described that Bohr (case two) described several times in the notes published on your homepage, that the two german visitors under military command (!) (his former students) in 1941 was convinced, that Germany would win the war. And nobody could think Bohr - a scientist in an occupied little country - could create peace between Germany and England. I described Bohrs note - but agree discusion on an open page is the way to solve any disagreement. Thanks for your friendly advice.

I am learning.

Thanks to you!

Viggoodin - Denmark

--Viggoodin (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]