Welcome!

Hello Duxwing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

At Wikipedia, new Users do not automatically receive a welcome; not even a machine-generated welcome. Welcome messages come from other Users. They are personal and genuine. They contain an offer of assistance if such assistance is ever desired.

I suggest to everyone I welcome that they may find some of the following helpful — there’s nothing personal in my suggestion and you may not need any of them:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Avoiding common mistakes
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dolphin (t) 07:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you trash huge sections of it???? Tony (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been thinking of doing a thorough review of that page, which I haven't properly maintained for years. If you don't mind, I'll buzz you when I do. Just one thing: dashes are required for interrupters at the clause level. Please see WP:MOSDASH for more information. Cheers. Tony (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duxwing,

I undid your recent edit to the page vector space. In several cases, you changed wording in a way that affected the meaning, or were just very awkward. For example, the sentence "Scalars are often taken to be real numbers, but some vector spaces include scalar multiplication by complex numbers, rational numbers, or generally any field" is very misleading (a vector space does not "include" scalar multiplication). I would be willing to discuss this further on the talk page if you wanted; I don't object to every part of your edit. --JBL (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. An edit as large as yours probably should not be marked as minor.

Hi. In general your edit here seems constructive, but could I ask you two little things?

• It is considered bad form to make such a large amount of changes in one single edit. This makes it very hard for other editors to review and discuss them, in case. Split your work in a number of small, separate edits (e.g. an edit per each paragraph)
• Do not mark such a massive reword as a minor edit! See WP:MINOR. Even if it's just rewording, a lot of rewording is a major edit -meaning can be unwillingly changed, etc. In general just mark as minor stuff like typo fixes.

Thanks a lot! --cyclopia^speak! 11:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duxwing. You will have noticed that I reverted your copy edits over at Identification (psychology) again and I have provided an explanation as to why over at the relevant talk page. I just wanted to stop by here though and ask that you follow Cyclopia's advice and copy edit in smaller chunks. As Cyclopia pointed out, this makes subsequent editing and discussion much easier. Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are now on WP:3RR over there, use the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You removed some instances of passive voice from an article with the edit summary "See the Manual of Style to understand why." Which aspect of the MOS are you referring to here? The only mention I can find of passive voice is where WP:YOU says that it "may sometimes be used" in place of inappropriate second-person pronouns. --McGeddon (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me at a clearer piece of policy, or is the inference from WP:YOU the strongest guideline you can find? Combing MOS talk pages, there seems to be no consensus either way, and an instruction to avoid passive voice has been removed from MOS in the past. I agree that editing out of passive voice can often be a good way to improve the clarity of a sentence, but if it starts bumping against WP:TONE ("follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable"), tone should take precedence. --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arbitrarily large may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ]" cannot be inferred that any infinitely long arithmetic progression of prime numbers exists (none do, nor that any particular arithmetic progression of prime numbers in some sense is "

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Counterpoint may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Part (music)|voices]] that are [[harmony|harmonically]] interdependent ([[polyphony]]) and [[rhythm|rhytmically] and [[Pitch contour|contourally] independent. It has been most commonly identified in [[classical music]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• <ref>[http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920631000264 ]. FarsNews, 22 September 2013]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Garrett TFE731 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of [[geared turbofan]] engines commonly used on [[business jet]] aircraft. [Garrett AiResearch]] originally designed and built the engine, which due to mergers was later produced by [[
• leave the parameter blank (do not delete it). For additional lines, end your alt units with )</li> and start a new, fully-formatted line with <li> -->

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Auld Lang Syne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The song begins by [[rhetorical question|rhetorically questioning] whether old times should be forgotten and is

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Auld Lang Syne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• "Auld Lang Syne" is commonly sung is a [[pentatonic]] Scots folk melody, probably originally a [[tempo|sprightly] dance.<ref name="electric" />

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duxwing, although I agree with many of your 'grammatical' edits to the Wikipedia page, I find that a large number of them subtly change the meaning or emphasis of the phrases in question. (For example, I feel that several of your transformations from passive- to active- voice have the effect of mis-directing the emphasis in a sentence, and some of the resulting text is very difficult to parse.) Additionally, while I admire your dedication, I find that using large 'omnibus' edits to the page renders the many changes made more difficult to examine and evaluate. Though I apologize for the rudeness, I have reverted your edits for the time being. I look forward to working with you to refine this page more carefully from here. Supasheep (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Schizotypal personality disorder may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• causing the schizotypal individuals to withdraw from most social interactions and thereby become [[asociality|asocial].<ref name="Roitman"/>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Excited delirium, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your current copy editing activities. Every example that I have looked at so far has resulted in a much poorer style of English which is often difficult to understand and often grammatically wrong. You may well mean to help, but this really isn't helping. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Velella,

If you want me to improve my copy-editing, then please tell me how: I will until you do continue copy editing because however much you dislike it I and others like it. :)

If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest reading this and this for starters. In particular the change from passive voice to active voice changed the meaning of Water treatment completely and made nonsense of some sentences. I note that I am not the only one to raise such issues and I seem to be in agreement with JBL, McGeddon, Supasheep andAndy Dingley. I am therefore at a loss to understand your assertion that "others like it.". Many of Wikipedia's technical articles have had major contributions from many experts in their field and have been rigorously scrutinised to ensure that they convey an accurate and appropriate encyclopaedic content. There is, of course, always room for improvement but not by using the sort of copy-editing approach that you have been practicing.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From your edit history it looks like some of your edits are causing problems when you're copyediting a reasonably well-written article which lies outside your area of expertise - fixing obviously ungrammatical sentences is fine and useful work, and there's a lot of Wikipedia that needs it, but when you simplify a technical detail for what you perceive as readability, there's a real danger that you'll change its meaning and detract from the article.

Checking your most recent edit, you correctly fix the ungrammatical "smaller and unique in shape over the other ESPs", but stray beyond mere copyediting by removing details both intentionally (the fact that ESPAD's attachment is "unlike ESP-1" is lost, as is the detail that ESP-1 was carried "into orbit" by a Cargo Carrier) and accidentally ("The Unity Module it like ESP-1" seems to be missing some words, and no longer refers to the platform's power source). (I'm assuming that these changes in detail were unintentional, since you described it as just copyediting - if you know about ESPs and were making corrections, removing details is obviously fine!)

Perhaps it's worth you focusing more on fixing flat-out bad grammar and typos, and being careful when touching content which is already accurate and grammatically correct, and merely inelegant? --McGeddon (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure I see your point about "inferring dissimilarities" - if the article doesn't mention Platform A's load capacity, but mentions that of Platform B, there's nothing to suggest to the reader that the two load capacities are explicitly different. Platform A's capacity may simply be unknown. Similarly, although a reader who knows what an Integrated Cargo Carrier is will understand that whatever it carried must have been carried "into orbit", a reader unfamiliar with the technology wouldn't be able to infer this without clicking through to read a second article. There's no harm in including such small details if they help the reader to understand the subject; a word in a sentence might be "implicit and therefore omittable" to an expert, but Wikipedia readers are not all experts.

You say "I likewise copy-edit many other works and thereabout receive almost no complaints" - eight editors taking the time to leave a message on your talk page with concerns about your copyediting style over the past year is a significant amount. And even just glancing at your most recent edits from the past week, you have four different editors reverting your copyedits with concerns over accuracy or style ("edit mostly obscured meaning", "rvt to version before copy-edit - much clearer", "Sorry, but copyediting also needs to preserve subject accuracy", "Previous version had better grammar and spelling"). There is clearly some kind of problem here! What do you think this difference of opinion is down to, and how do you think it can be avoided? --McGeddon (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had to revert two more of your copy-editing forays and I regret that if you are either unwilling or unable to heed the advice being given here, on my talk page and in many edit summaries, then I shall to file a request to have this account blocked for disruptive editing. Please do take urgent note of the advice being given.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From your comments on my talk page about Men of Harlech, it sounds like you may be unintentionally working against the stated tone of Wikipedia; articles should use English in a "businesslike manner" and "follow the style used by reliable sources" (ie. newspapers, non-fiction books and academic journals). The Wikipedia-friendly rewrite of Men of Harlech would, I'm sure, sadden the heart of any Welshman, but Wikipedia was never intended to be poetic.

User:Nimbus227's suggestion that you are "stylistically rewriting" articles is worth taking to heart, I think - if a paragraph is already clear and grammatical, I'd recommend either leaving it alone, or editing it with a very clear edit summary about what you thought was wrong with it, so that other editors have an idea of what you're trying to do. Describing an edit as "copyediting" should be limited to the bread and butter of WP:COPYEDIT, of fixing typos and broken grammar - if you feel that an artile needs both, it might be best to make them as separate edits with separate edit summaries, or a single edit whose summary mentions both. --McGeddon (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant that a blandly copyedited version of Men of Harlech would disappoint a Welshman, compared to the poetry of the original.

If you're concerned about split infinitives and prepositions at the ends of sentences and that kind of thing, Wikipedia's attitude (as reflected in WP:MODERNLANG) seems to be that although some archaic language rules may be helpful, they aren't by themselves the way to fix a problem, or a sign that something needs to be fixed. --McGeddon (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

Issues you might consider:

• How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
• Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
• How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
  • Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
  • How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
  • How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
• The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
• Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
• Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from User talk:Jim1138 talk to here)
Jim, why did you do that?

If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning was added to the edit summaries. Some of the reasons were: awkward phrasing, bad English, and changing the meaning of a sentence.

This edit to stepped nozzle along the inside of the nozzle are straightenings the nozzle contour's curve is very difficult to understand. "straightenings" is not an English word.

Your edit to Ryan Firebee one of the most widely used target drones ever built. to the most widely used target drones. changed the meaning.

I did not revert everything btw. As you may have noticed, I am not the only one involved in "Carpet Reversion". One could conclude that a number of people hate you for no reason or you are doing a poor job of copy editing. Please stop this kind of editing, it is not constructive. Jim1138 (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. :) I intend not these errors and, disturbingly, I notice them only when someone shows them to me: I wonder if I hallucinate non-existent words.

-Duxwing

That's called "creative spelling" :o). A browser with a spell and grammatical checker helps. BTW: I really have a bad time with 'creative spelling'. Without a spell checker, I would be in bad shape. Probably would avoid writing anything. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out the Teahouse? There is stuff about learning to edit. I haven't looked as my problem could only be solved with a brain transplant. Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Signatures#Length says: "Keep signatures short, both in display and in markup." Please reduce your display length greatly. It's supposed to show either your username or a nickname, not a 17-word sentence. A signature should make it practical to refer to you in a discussion with multiple posters. See also Wikipedia:Signatures#Dealing with problem signatures. If you like the sentence then you can display it at User:Duxwing. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Cadair Idris. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. I reverted your edit as it made no sense Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I send you an email? You can enable email from wiki users through your Preferences / User profile (at the bottom). See Wikipedia:Emailing users Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I replied again. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've moved our conversation on my talkpage to a subpage of my talkpage which is just for the two of us. You can find it here. Hope you don't mind. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading and sometimes re-reading the above reverting editors' comments and having for a month without editing waited for replies, I want to return to copy-editing with a clear vision of what I should do. I therefore propose the following consensus:

1. Archaic words should not be used
2. Logical operators like "therefore" should not be repeated
3. Rewrite a page only after article-talk discussion
4. Rewrites should not be called "copy-editing"
5. Copy-edits should be fully explained
6. "... like ..." should replace "such... as..." where possible
7. What is obvious when editing may not be obvious when reading

I encourage and welcome its discussion.

Duxwing (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even understand the point of what you're saying here. Whose consensus are you proposing this as a representation of? Your frequency use of "like" for "such as" is not a good thing; please stop doing it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, your not replying didn't have anything to do with it. I've simply been ill for a while, so I haven't been active at wikipedia at all. Not completely better yet, but mostly there. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, should be better again in a few days. Friday or so, I think.

Hello again. Just checking your edits to see how things were going, and I see you've been explicitly editing articles to change "passive voice to active voice". By itself, this shouldn't be a reason to rewrite a sentence - it's standard for Wikipedia articles to open by saying "Subjectname is...", and WP:REFERS explains why "Subjectname describes..." phrasings can be inappropriate. --McGeddon (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in! I have reviewed the manual of style, learning to use the passive voice where the object is more important than the agent or where the agent is not known or worth mentioning; e.g., Caesar's famously declaring that "the die has been cast" upon crossing the Rubicon.

Also, when reviewing my edits remember that old versions generally may seem better than new ones because they are more familiar and therefore easier to read: my vocal changes may increase each sentence's readability while reducing overall readability by necessitating restructuring. If you see this necessity, then please tell me of it lest good work should be lost. :)

Duxwing (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, unrelatedly to our disagreement on Waring's problem: You have what looks like the wrong word on your user page. "Callous" is an adjective, meaning "showing a cruel disregard for others". The word you want is "callus", a thickening of the skin. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Google, which says that "callous" is an alternate spelling of "callus". I will keep the original spelling because its poetry—simultaneously evoking idea and metaphor—befits its being in my talk page adage. I nonetheless thank you for your good intentions. :) Duxwing (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duxwing, I seriously think you should back off on the copyediting, as it seems that your edits are very often regarded as making articles worse. Your writing style seems very awkward; you change the meaning of things inadvertantly; you use odd word choices and constructs. It is not clear what drives you to change things in such directions, but if your copyedits are not generally seen as improving things, then you should not be doing them. Maybe find a different way to contribute? Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will request arbitration on this issue because I have already discussed my copy-editing with other editors and want to permanently resolve this issue. Duxwing (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is not the concept you're looking for. I suggest you ask at WP:TEAHOUSE, and/or read WP:DISPUTE. I have reviewed more of your edits, and the reactions of others to them, and I'd say the consensus is that your copyedits do more harm than good. I would be surprised if you could find an editor with the opposite opinion. That doesn't mean you can't productively contribute to Wikipedia, but if you want to do copyedits, you should do them more carefully, respecting the intending meaning, normal idiomatic English usage, and feedback from other editors. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted you again at Gravity turn for changing a correct "such as" to "like". Don't do that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is exactly "the concept" I am "looking for": rooting through someone's contributions and reverting edits faster than they can be reasonably disputed is not Bold-Revert-Discuss but Disrupting Wikipedia to Make a Point, which is that you believe I should be blocked lest I should further damage Wikipedia. These rapid reversions effectively block me, usurping the power to block from its relevant authority; if you believe that my editing is inherently flawed, then please instead seek appropriate administrative action.

I have already received a reply and begun building my case; I therefore will not speak to you unless administratively necessary until the Arb-Com rules. Have a nice day! :) Duxwing (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duxwing, I can fully assure you that ArbCom is not where you should be looking. I've just taken a read through your talkpage at the "warnings" (which are actually few) and suggestions (which are many). What I would actually suggest is that you take a few moments to review the very friendly attempts to guide you very gently. As examples:

• "callus" vs "callous" - we don't use a certain spelling due to "poetry" - this is an encyclopedia, and "poetic" has no place. Instead, we have WP:ENGVAR that specifies that the article should use the same variant of English throughout the article
• "like" vs "such as" - it is one of the unfortunate situations of our 3rd millennium laziness as a culture that we now believe that these are always synonymous terms. They aren't.
• Active vs passive voice - these can wholly change the meaning of a sentence. Unfortunately, I find our educational systems are very weak at teaching this important part of grammar these days

Note: I am NOT calling you lazy or uneducated. I'm saying to listen to established editors - none of these people are trying to bully you, or undermine your work: they're trying to be friendly and HELP you to become an excellent editor. You're welcome to ask me questions here - I am an administrator on Wikipedia, and I'm a writer for a living DP 10:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seek arbitration not because of their suggestions but because Arb-Com is the next step in the conduct dispute resolution process I began two months ago. In the past six weeks I have been twice accused of incorrigible incompetence and twice threatened with AN/I report with little explanation or reason and today and yesterday had ten (three of them with only watchlisters’ knowledge and two of the three being recent consensus) of my past edits reverted by Dicklyon. This behavior, not the kinder editors’ suggestions, feels like overzeal at best or gang Wiki-bullying at worst. Unlike the administrator (Seraphimblade) I futilely contacted weeks ago, the Arb-Com can let me remove the messages and resolve the disputes.

By the way, why are you here? Duxwing (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia, we do not ask "why are you here?", however, like everyone else, DP is probably concerned that you are following the wrong path. Questions like that have no helpful answer, and are a repudiation of assume good faith.

The Arbitration Committee will never hear a case on this matter because the community can readily handle such problems—there is no protracted dispute between groups, and it essentially concerns one editor not responding to advice offered by many. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duxwing, I am indeed here because I am watching you personally derailing yourself. I've seen it before, and the path you're taking will burn you out quicker than pumping 240V through a 12W automotive lightbulb. If you honestly believe that you're here at Wikipedia to help (and I think you are) then you need to take a few minutes to realize that everyone you have met so far is trying to HELP YOU. Take a moment to read this. Does it sound familiar right now? You're running up against some brick walls right now, solely because it's you who are running against it - it will be easier for you if you stop and read the brick for a few minutes. Have you noticed that everyone who has commented on this talkpage is trying to HELP? Have you noticed that everyone who has commented on this talkpage has essentially said "you're doing something slightly wrong, but it's fixable"? For example, you're being unreasonably inflexible in your beliefs that your grammar is 100% correct, when unfortunately it is not (remember, that's due in part because this is an international project, and grammar can be different from article to article). You're being aggressively inflexible when someone who knows things actually tries to help you. Mankind's greatest gift is the ability to learn. I see you've opened up a poorly-planned ANI, and you're being told the exact same things there...did you think it would be different? You have backed yourself into a corner, and now have 2 paths out: the first is to say "I guess Wikipedia is a mean place and they don't want my help" and leave. The other is to say "maybe I should start listening to the community that I joined and accept the help of these also-knowledgeable people" and stay. Personally, I hope it's the latter - and I'll guarantee that everyone who has tried to patiently help you agrees. You do have a third option, by the way: continue down the same path you're currently on. As you've seen on ANI, that will get you labelled as "a timesink" and will eventually get you blocked as someone who refuses to follow the rules they agreed to on this private website. I've intentionally listed this "option" last, because I don't think that's your goal (nor is it a good option) DP 09:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. :) Some replies:

• I do not believe that all my grammar is 100% correct. I believe that I have never knowingly made any edit I knew was incorrect. I therefore believe that I have only knowingly made edits I knew were correct. I therefore further will not believe what I believe my knowing edits to be is incorrect. I therefore will dispute any non-obviously-necessary reversions of my work. I know that this pattern of behavior seems arrogant and owner-y and would like to know whether it is and, if it is not, how to make it appear neither arrogant nor owner-y.
• Not everyone on my talk page or AN/I was trying to help me all the time: they almost all helped almost all the time.
• I think I sought and accepted whatever little help was given; I think you were expecting something more. This question may seem paranoid: did you expect me to immediately believe all of them because of their experience and number? That seems to violate WP:VESTED and commit argumentum ad populum.
• Would you please write smaller paragraphs? Duxwing (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is unclear; are you saying that you know the edits that you make are correct no matter what anyone else says, and you will not change your mind? If so, that does come across as very arrogant and could be seen as disruptive. As an aside, "I therefore believe that I have only knowingly made edits I knew were correct. I therefore further will not believe what I believe my knowing edits to be is incorrect." is very difficult to read and understand. Ca2james (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of your ubiquitous changes has been to replace "such as" with "like". Im not sure you're aware, but the two phrases do not have the same meaning and cannot be used interchangeably. Using "such as" means "these things are instances or examples of but are not the same as that thing" whereas using "like" means "these things are similar to that thing."

As an example, consider the phrase "flowers such as roses have many petals." As written, it means that roses are an example of a flower that has lots of petals. If that sentence is changed to read "flowers like roses have lots of petals" then the phrase now means that flowers that are similar to roses have lots of petals. Using "such as" in the first phrase implies that there may be other flowers that are not like roses but that have many petals but meaning is lost in the second phrase.

The difference is subtle but important. Understanding this kind of subtlety, which is related to the connotations of word meanings and precision in word choice, is the basis for good copyedits. There's much more to making good changes but understanding the meanings behind words is fundamental (and not restricted to just this pair of words).

Now, would you please go and undo any and all edits where you substituted "like" for "such as" that have not been undone? Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for explaining. :) If we should use "such" and "as" to denote membership in sets, then would "such ... as ..." be better than "... such as ..."? Asking me to search my nearly five-hundred edits for inappropriate "like" use seems unreasonable. Duxwing (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not unreasonable at all. What's unreasonable is to expect others to always have to clean up your messes. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) If something already says "... such as ..." DON'T CHANGE IT. To answer your question, "such ... as ..." is often more difficult to read and parse than "... such as ..." and so is not usually a better choice.

As for searching through your nearly 500 edits, you made these mistaken edits in the first place and it's unreasonable to ask others to clean up your work because you think it's too much work to fix it yourself. Besides, doing it yourself would be an indication to other editors that you understand that you're not always right, that you're trying to learn, and that you're trying to work collaboratively.

Not all those edits were mistaken, and of the mistaken ones only a few contain the "such as" mistake, of those many have been further edited by others, and if I am so incompetent as you have alleged, then trusting me with searching 500+ edits to correct a few mistakes would help Wikipedia little. If you instead want an indication of my goodwill, then see my adoption request. Duxwing (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through your edits and quite frankly, many of them do appear to be mistakes in that they made the article less clear and less readable and - especially in the case of mathematical articles - changed the meaning of the text. I honestly think you should avoid copyediting and that you should find another way to contribute to the encyclopedia because although you mean well, your efforts cause more work for other editors.

And of course I can trust you with checking through your edits because other editors are checking your work and I know that if you miss things or don't do what you're saying you'll do, it will come to light eventually. So why not assume you can undo your own work? Ca2james (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If my copy-editing is bad, then I will improve it. Duxwing (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To check your edits, go to your Contributions, select (Article) namespaces and check the "Only show edits that are the latest revision" box (since if they're not the latest, someone else has probably undone or reverted them or has made other changes and left your edits in), and searched. For each article in the list, check the diff and if the like/such as change appears, edit the article. Easy. Ca2james (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! :) Duxwing (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've finished, finding no "such as" errors. Duxwing (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, checking "Only show edits that are the latest revision" isn't foolproof, because it misses the cases where subsequent edits have been made which did not address the incorrect copyedits. You can't rely on an intervening editor having checked an unrelated "copyedit".
See, for example, Extremely low frequency (permanent link to current version), where edits changing "such as NASA" to "like NASA" and "defined differently from the ITU radio bands" to "unlike the ITU radio bands", both survive, and both change or remove meaning - as do several of the other changes made at the same time.
See diff:[1]. The words "however", "established" and "recognized" were contextually important, the grammar and meaning is broken in "Two factors limit the usefulness of ELF communications channels: it transmits only a few characters per minute and, to a lesser extent, is one-way because installing the necessarily enormous antenna is impractical on a submarine ..." This is far inferior to what it replaced, and very tortured. The original was understandable, and flowed pretty well (you could trim and/or relocate/rephrase the parenthetical part at the end of the original, I guess, but not by mangling the existing structure and its use of singular/plural like this - maintaining comprehension and grammar is far more important than removing a few words for the sake of it). Basically, in a misguided attempt to "save" a few words, the article is made much worse. I'd tend to just undo both of those edits.
It took me only a couple of minutes to find this, and I did not continue searching, so I'd suggest there really is no alternative for Duxwing to going through all of the edits if the aim is to correct this properly. You can, however, make the Contribution list easier to process by selecting "Namespace:Article". I doubt it could take Duxwing more than an hour or two to undo edits like this, and it would help to show that his expectation is not that others should clean up for him. Begoon ^talk 04:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I erred in assuming that editors would have changed these when they first occurred. Thank you for the correction. Ca2james (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's a common error, which I've been guilty of myself, to assume that because an experienced editor has recently edited an article they checked all the preceding edits. If it's an article where that editor is a "regular" with some involvement, they may check recent changes. If they just went there to add or fix something else then they may have looked at nothing other than what they did themselves. Plus, the change may not be the most recent because the article was subsequently vandalised, or any number of routine, "gnoming" changes took place. I'm afraid there's generally no substitute for checking all edits concerned in a case like this. Begoon ^talk 12:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request immediate admin attention. Expect no more communications from me. Your behavior here has been worse than reprehensible. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, while this is a privately-owned website, it is quite publicly in view. No shit! None of us would be here if it weren't. You lose certain expectations of "privacy" when you edit here, especially under your real name. I say to those who want true privacy and anonymity: smash your computer, go off in the mountains someplace and live in a log cabin. Bring a pet or two. People won't bother you, and you won't be bothering them.

Secondly, "outing" is akin to, "Duxwing's real name is John Smith, and he lives at 1234 Fake Street." You editing as "Duxwing" on other sites is simply not outing you on anything. And a reminder that Dick Lyon is using his real name and image on his page here. Ballsy ;) Doc talk 08:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that principle could be used to prove any outing harmless because by its logic, if the outee "wanted true privacy," then they would not have come.

Secondly, outing is not just of real names and addresses, but of other information. Please read the appropriate guidelines about this subject before blaming me. Duxwing (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've made less than 750 edits in just under two years here (with this account). I've made over 19,000 in six years (and that's not a fantastic number at all). I'm going to go out on a limb: I know how it works here far better than you do. Including what constitutes "outing". It took me less than three minutes to investigate and close the case on your outing. After checking the link & your claim of it being something he must have dug up nefariously, I did a Google search for "Duxwing+Wikipedia". The third result is the thread he linked. There is zero basis for a claim of outing here. Thanks for the guideline-reading tips! Doc talk 12:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He need not have spent any time digging it up: posting personal information, this case username, not disclosed here violates WP:DOX. Duxwing (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." An internet handle that you use here and on other Internet forums is not your "personal information". Notice how it hasn't been oversighted, on one of the most viewed boards here? Please ask any admin of your choosing on this site if you think I'm wrong about this. Doc talk 01:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the definition's end is "or other contact information," which would include my coincidental handles. I am surprised that it has not been oversighted. Duxwing (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be surprised at all that there's been no oversighting of it. No one else is. How exactly would anyone contact you through that link? Join the forum and respond to "Duxwing"? It is not "contact information". Only if in that link were there actual contact information would it be outing. You clearly just do not understand this, and I'm done explaining it to you. Good luck. Doc talk 04:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Drop the WP:STICK Duxwing - you've not been outed, you have comprehend what you're reading before making statements like you are. Further unfounded accusations of outing are a Personal Attack and will be dealt with appropriately. Let me even recommend: don't reply HERE or on ANI, or even on some random external website until you have your reply approved by your mentor. DP 09:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've added spaces between some comments on AN/I and I'm guessing you've done it because you like the look better. If I may offer you some (more) advice, it might be better to stop doing that. These changes could be seen as changing other editor's posts (since if they wanted whitespace there they could have added it) which is generally prohibited, at least on talk pages. Even if this prohibition does not extend to AN/I, it might not be a good idea to give other editors more reason to think that you're imposing your own copyediting beliefs without regard to other opinions. Ca2james (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! :) Duxwing (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duxwing, you're supposed to be editing your adoption school, not mine. Mine is a template for you to copy to your own userpage (as you did correctly), and then complete the exercises from your userpage's version. I've fixed this, and nice job so far :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Bawhoops! >_< Thanks. I thought I was editing my copy. Duxwing (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the original adoption school was copied into Article space, not User space, and it was moved and the original deleted for you by other editors. Ca2james (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my adopter told me.  :) Duxwing (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know. I was apparently wrong in thinking that your adopter may not have known that the page was created incorrectly because they said above that you copied it to your own userpage correctly. AFAIK, a page created correctly would not have needed to be moved but perhaps I was wrong about that, too. Sorry. Ca2james (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the ANI discussion, I am enacting the following:

This has been added to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 03:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your kind message of 3 April. I hope your squadron did well - I'd hate to think of KillerChihuahuas not doing well! KillerChihuahua 20:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and we were a scourge. :) Got any new projects? Duxwing (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. :-D

No new projects online or onWiki, if that's what you mean. KillerChihuahua 14:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:( Too sick? Duxwing (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems better to keep discussion on-wiki so that other editors can refer to it if they need to. You don't seem to be doing much editing and I don't really have any sense of your "normal" editing style (as opposed to the "how can I make this short sentence even shorter" edits), so I'm afraid I don't have much to say at this point.

Are you planning on returning to editing non-scientific articles now that your restriction two sections above this one has expired? --McGeddon (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering, and sure, we can talk on-wiki. :)

I have edited little for fear of another fiasco. After the AN/I dispute, doing most anything on Wikipedia--even writing here--makes me fear another calamity will ensue. User adoption eased my concerns until my adopter left for the summer about two weeks after adopting me; I became largely-quiet thereafter.

Wow, I never thought I edited like I believed sentences should be "as short as possible at any cost": Writing Better Articles says that "articles should use only necessary words," but removing too many like I did is bad.

I'm trying to improve my editing enough to edit scientific and technological articles again, but I think I need more practice before I could. Do you know anyone willing and able to teach me? Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it'd be fine for you to seek adoption from another editor, if your original adopter has left the project. Just mention the context and given them a link to the previous adoption page when you ask a new user for adoption, so that they know what's already been covered. --McGeddon (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for interrupting, but the original copy-editing topic ban says:

Should the current mentoring relationship end prior to a successful completion, these timeframes will be reset, and a new mentor must be approved by the community via ANI discussion.

Given this statement, maybe the disappearing mentor situation should be brought up at ANI? Ca2james (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My adopter--Newyorkadam--went to two months' summer camp soon after adopting me. He has, fortunately, not left Wikipedia, and I have e-mailed him about resuming adoption. :) Duxwing (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that's confusing. I've dropped User:Hahc21 a line on his talk page to see what the status of the editing restriction is, if the ANI thread concluded one thing but it was written up differently at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Perhaps Hahc21 intentionally removed the clause when applying it, for one reason or another. Let's see what he says and whether this needs to go back to ANI. --McGeddon (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely weird. Although going back to ANI if the mentoring relationship ended early was included on both Duxwing's talk page and the editing restrictions list, the clause about the timeframes being reset wasn't added. Ca2james (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hahc21 has responded here, so I'll leave Duxwing to either raise an ANI thread asking for a new mentor, or post a message for Hahc21 there. All the best. --McGeddon (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to continue mentoring Duxwing :) We're in contact over email, so he can either email me or contact me on Wikipedia if he needs guidance. -Newyorkadam (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]