User:Thecheesykid/Archive 5

First section
I think there is something malicious gooing on here - my recent edit cannot be construed as "unconstructive" as it is informational and factual. However, I am sorry to see that Wikipedia seems to have been hijacked by a bunch of vandals. If you really don't want my information available to the public so be it - I'm just not that bothered! 80.189.252.223 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit was concerning a "black arabian horse stud"? It has been reverted by 2 other editors as well. This information is unnecessarily detailed and also unverifiable. If you really feel strongly about implementing it, try talking about it on the talk page. It's possible, me, User:White Shadows and User:Simple Bob may have made a mistake. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 23:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Second section
Well, maybe number one, you could explain how to use this rather arcane system to communicate. I seem to have struggled here somehow.

Let's set the tone - Exford is a small village which has 2 hotels/inns - well publicised on Wikipedia on the Exford page. Great - visitors can go there and that's commercial or, in the best view, "of public interest". In the hamlet of Court is a black arabian horse stud. A bridleway (also footpath) runs right past this stud and those who choose to walk to Court hamlet can see the stud horses, speak to them, and generally interact with them. This is not commercial, no payment, just a delich for visitors and (often) their children. It's toallly verifiable (www.courtfarmarabianstud.co.uk) but the website isn't published on wikipedia because of commercial reasons.

Its a bit like walk down to Court hamlet, stand on the bridge and watch the fish in the River Exe.

What do I have to do to get the point across! - 80.189.252.223 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You should put some of this, more concisely, on the talk page. Just add a note stating that you wish to put this information in and people will put their comments as to whether or not they think it should be allowed in the article... It will not be allowed in until it has been deemed as acceptable. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 00:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Third section
Well - thank you for explaining so unclearly how I put this on the "talk page" for the world to consider as opposed to the "experts" who are so keen on deleting content without any reasonable explanation. WHAT "TALK PAGE"? I have always valued Wikipedia in the past - I didn't realise how censored it really was.

All I wanted was to provide some enjoyment for visitors to this area - last time I bother. Presumably you will now remove the references to the two inns/hotels on the page too as this is definitely commercial. 80.189.252.223 (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But... I've already linked you to the talk page...? Here it is again: talk page and I'll revert nothing that isn't vandalism. If you want an explanation on what to do... add a section: ==Your title== and place that you want to add this piece of info in underneath it... yknow saying... is it okay? It's simple. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 00:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Fourth section
All I get on the link is:

''This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: WikiProject UK geography [show](Rated Start-class, Low-importance) UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles United Kingdom portal v · d · eThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Somerset [show](Rated Start-class, Low-importance''

It makes no sense to me nor does the deletion of the few word I added. Never mind, let's just agree that Wikipedia is now run by a few paranoid individulals - its not my loss that the public can't find the information - did you bother to verify the website and assure yourself that the iformation is real? 80.189.252.223 (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's it. I've lost faith in humanity. Underneath those things is where you put discussion. Yknow to discuss things to do with the article. Put what you want to do  there . If you're still confused just look at the previous notes I've written to you. And if you're going to write to me again comment under the system I'm using please, it's getting tedious transposing all of your sections. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 00:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Fifth section
Like I said - it's too much trouble. Glad you feel you want to hide this information from the public and I don't think their website will help local visitors find it. Anyway, our kids just loved the horses. Pity you wnat to deny others from the same. Sleep well! 80.189.252.223 (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about this, but...
I'm old too but tradition has obviated the "cheesy" issue for me. You said:

'''You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.'Italic text''

In a comment above I just saw: "Don't Interfere in in these matters. Are you an Indian? If not don't interfere. Indian politicians are no better than donkeys." This goes a bit further than anything I said.

I will accept whatever judgement you have for me here but:

Acro claims an "Editing War". I have no aggressive impulses other that a desire that my grandchildren not be killed in their beds by crazed goy who some populist has managed to set aflame. It is history, over and over, and the Orthodox Rebbes at www.jewsagainstzionism.com will tell you in minutely referenced historical fact that this is exactly what the zionist's intentions will do. It is not my opinion. It is the terrified opinion of these Hebrew scholars. They do not disagree with the ambition, The Chosen, they disagree with the timing. It is too soon, they believe, G-d has not given the signs and G-d will punish all Jews (read worldwide pogrom)for the hubris of the zionists. That is my only issue here. That there are highly credible Authorities that, while not endorsing the Protocols, present compelling evidence that the substance of the Protocols is being pursued. Aero censored my comments which were not particularly infammatory (I hope quoting here does not constitute a 'third' posting but I believe Aero's issue is just agenda versus agenda and, on a level plain, mine is as valid as his (it is, I see now, a bit critical of Wikipedia but I think that was just my disappointment bringing out my inner D.I. voice as Aero and I danced)):

This article is a fraud Having had experience with the persnickety editorial policy of Wikipedia when trying to quote Russ Baker, the investigative reporter, in his assertion that the koch (katch, please) brothers had been stealing oil from poor Native Americans and enjoying a good laugh over it, I'm a bit amazed to discover an article that is unfounded opinion from start to finish. There is nothing in this propagandistic 'defense' of the Protocols as fraudulant that is any less OPINION than what the Protocols proponents themselves present. Truth be told, if the 'appearance' of truth can be any guide, such as the 'appearance of a terroristic act' being prosecutable in the United States Code (e.g. 18), the 'appearance' of truth here is stronger than any personal opinion by any 'authority'. There is no "PROOF" of falsity in this political statement on Wikipedia representing not an explanation but a political agenda. You are afraid of the TABOO, folks. Look in the mirror./ /

This article should have simply described the document, mentioned some of the controversies surrounding it, and left it there. Instead, it is a full volley of mud cannons with nary a FACT in the entire doc. This is murdock press, folks. This is not an explicatory overview of an issue, it is a flat political diatribe whose vitriol says more about the actual sense of the Protocols that people hold than their molerat-like slavery to an implanted TABOO. This article completely undermines the 'independent' authoritative image of Wikipedia by presenting a completely unbalanced SHOUTING type argument, loud voices versus hard fact, and absolutely NO BALANCE at all. You guys are as full of crap and hypocracy as fox news./ /

Humanzees live in 'identity groups'. These 'groups' are what we describe when we say Japan, or Russia, or America, or even Catholicism (unit multiplexing). We are, in our group identities, groups of heads who all salute the same symbols, respond to the same cues, and generally act in concert as an organised system distinct to its 'units' from all other systems. These groups (systems) are primitive biological organisms whose ONLY external collective behavior is to try to eat the group next to it. That is us, H. hubris. What of such a group that lives internal to other groups? What do THEY eat? And what measures does the 'guest' use to feather their nests? If you study real physical host/parasite relationships, the parallels are perfect. Convince an organism that what is in its worst interests is the best policy. Why are a people who claim to want Peace involved in wars all over the planet? Money. Gelt! Power. Conquest. Does Conquest always require armies? Ask Christianity. "Give me control of a Nation's money, and I care not who makes its rules." -Rothschild (see 'The Fed')./ /

Incidentally, if you would like another view that, while not specifically naming the "Protocols", document every assertion in the Protocols with public references such as The NYT, Life Magazine (with pix of the articles!), and many other unimpeachable FACTUAL sources. Bunch of Nazi zealots? No. They are a bunch of very scholarly Rebbes who live in Brooklyn and are absolutely terrified of the zionists and their ... 'plans'. These Rebbes define "Orthodox". They believe. What should I do? Not believe them because they are not PC? Call them liars? Claim they are antisemitic? (www.jewsagainstzionism.com) You've locked the article so truth is locked out. This is the usual state in this matter. The TABOO insists that I must remain silent with any criticism of an inherently sociopathic plilosophy. You too, I see, since the article is just people who agree, en mass, that the world is flat without any discussion of alternative interpretations. Antisemites are not the only ones who know a good plan when they see one. Very disappointing, Wikipedia, you have failed when you most needed to be TRULY opinion neutral. The level of "proof" here is profoundly lower than most other places on your site. Hmmm. Even here. Sad. Can't even trust Wikipedia! GO IRGUN AMERICA!/ /

And, for you who deleted my original comment, another piece: During the 1700's and 1800's, many if not most slave markets in the West Indies, America, and elsewhere were closed on Jewish holidays...no sellers (www.hebrewisraelites.org/jewsandslavery.htm). Should I change my handle to "Self-hater"? Or maybe my cited sources are too...prejudiced? Or maybe they just represent the MORAL side of Judaism which detests zionism./ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjornsonw (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.
Thanks for your help on removing all that vandalism from those Romanian soccer players. :) Bluefist  talk  00:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, ironic, I've just thanked you too. ^___^ That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 01:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ooooh thanks. It's very shiny! That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 01:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

CSD of Mosell`e Royal
The content of the article was perfectly understandable. I am letting you know I changed it to a G10. -- The Σ talkcontribs 01:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I considered that, but it didn't really seem like an attack, it said he was a photographer and a tri-force nerd. Not exactly offensive. But fair enough, I agree with your decision. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 01:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Attack?
Cheesy, I'll readily acknowledge that my tone was not the most civil (I was simply shocked by the brazen slothfulness by that editor), but do you actually believe that I "attacked" him? I hardly see how. (By the way, I've tried to include a dif, but apparently it is impossible to link a dif when the edit (yours to my talk page) is the only edit to the page.) 98.82.191.160 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You accused him of acting like a two-year-old showing his mother a turd. Doesn't seem too polite to me. I understand what you were/are trying to say, but could you not have expressed it in a better way? That way, Zarcadia might be more prone to listen to you and take in your advice. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 02:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything in your post on this page. I was just disputing the characterization of it as an attack, which I felt constituted unwarranted slander on your part (hyperbole completely intentional). 98.82.191.160 (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Semanticize at your leisure, it is only a warning. Try not to repeat your mistakes. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 21:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No Assistance
Hello, you've reverted a change I made and stated I gave no reason. I did give a reason, I wanted assistance in putting a 'request for deletion' header up, there's absolutely no documentation that tells me how to do this. Rather than warning me, why not help me out? Aidyzzle (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think WP:DELETE gives pretty good information. The problem is how you did it.  Under almost no circumstances do you replace the text of an article with "request for deletion".  Even our articles for deletion process adds a tag to the top of the article that links to the discussion.  As such, you had to be gently warned not to do it that way, because it was theoretically vandalism.  You simply could have begun a discussion on the article's talkpage, if you thought something about it was wrong, or use help on your personal talkpage to ask a question.  If you still have questions after reading WP:DELETE, let someone know. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate the help! ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem and thanks for responding to this fellow above while I was comatose with the fairies... That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Heads-up
It doesn't matter if it's a blocked IP editor, or an established user, or what have you—but comments like are unhelpful and unbecoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that now. I've also been given a warning about it further up the page where I apologized and I shall further state that I won't do it again. Thank you for understanding. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

THE LOBBY
I see. You work for THE LOBBY. But I understand you. Everbody must earn his life one way or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectortr (talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sheleam

 * I'm sorry that you have been offended by my reversions, but you have cited no reliable references or sources for the provided content and for that alone it can't be allowed. Secondly you are providing links to websites that could resemble spam, which also cannot be allowed in edits. If I hadn't reverted it, someone else would have I'm afraid. If you wish your content to remain, try to provide references and to not post links to Facebook or the like. They are not reliable. Thank you. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 04:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I posted the links, along with other more substantive citations, as evidence of a disparity in claimed release dates for a particular song.  I also provided links to music reviews and journals, to substantiate information regarding both pop charts and film release info.  I posted Amazon and consumer links to demonstrate the varied 2004 and 2006 release dates of the artists best known song.  How can I do this without it looking like spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheleam (talk • contribs)
 * I'll do it for you. ^__^ That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 05:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Sorry about the frustration. I've had bad experiences with moderators in other types of forums, and I needed to get this done for class.  The new formatting looks great.  I had a huge list of other external links, but I guess those aren't necessary.
 * If you feel like you wish to add more references, you certainly can: This is the referencing format: <:ref name="f">{:{cite web | url=http://yoursite | title=Title of link | publisher= | date=Date published | accessdate=June 07, 2011 | author= Author of article}}<:/ref>}} Remember to get rid of the :'s they're just so it doesn't turn into a reference on this page. For more (probably better) information, go to Referencing for beginners. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 05:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should also refer your teacher/professor to our advice on using Wikipedia for school and university projects. – ukexpat (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Aristolochia
I reviewed your DYK nomination at T:TDYK and found that large parts of the article were plagiarized from the sources, so that the article violated the sources' copyright. I removed the text, but found some of the same problems in Aristolochia acuminata. Please be more careful with pasting text into articles, and check that there are no copyright problems in your earlier articles. Ucucha 14:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Retort to be found on your talk page. Thanks. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?
I am trying to fix a typo in the 'Raven's Gate' article by changing Tom 'Burgers' to Tom 'Burgess', but you keep changing it back to Burgers. Why are you doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.247.104 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I've made the edit for you, sorry about the reversions. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Give opinion
Hello,please take a look at the article with references thoroughly and my talk page,and give your fair opinion.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which article? I don't know what you are referring to... and I don't know what you want me to comment on... That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 04:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I got the same request on my user talk page. It appears that he's talking about Ehsan Sehgal - autobiographical article. — Brianhe (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thanks. And my thoughts are that this article breaches WP:AUTO and should either be rewritten or put up for deletion. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 07:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Usage share of operating systems
No doubt you have a reason for reverting my edits to this article. I'd be very grateful if you could share them with other editors who have sweated blood over this article over many years. I'd also love to know why you think you can make carefully-judged edits to several articles per minute.--Harumphy (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your stated reason for deletion of content was inadequate. The information was historical rather than current, such as "In October 2010 Steve Jobs of Apple claimed that" (with a ref) and "Microsoft's CFO Peter Klein stated in July 2010 that" (also reffed). If you and your fellow editors have indeed "sweated blood" over the article, perhaps you should be more careful what you delete from it. Also, if you'd care to check my contributions, I doubt you'd find that the edits I am making are poorly deliberated upon. I revert vandalism, yours wasn't vandalism, but it did delete a great portion of the article. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 09:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. My stated reason was inadequate. Yours was non-existent. I think we can all learn something from this.
 * I deleted the Jobs quote because it related to a single country and was thus out-of-context in a piece about worldwide usage. I deleted the Klein quote because Windows 7 now has about double the share he cited nearly a year ago, and is thus out of date. While both of the items I deleted were true as far as they went, and cited, they were anecdotes that did not aid comprehension of the present, worldwide position. Had you spent more than a few seconds considering these matters you might have realised this. (You edited it at 09:33 having edited several other articles at 09:32).--Harumphy (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize that for worldwide coverage, you would need to mention most countries... create a section for the country and put the information in there. Also, as I've mentioned, the information was historic. It does not say "currently these are the statistics", it says "back in 2010... stats". If Windows 7 does indeed have double its share, find a reference add it to the section, but make it so that it says... "In 2010, Windows 7 had this share. In 2011... this share." Don't just delete the content because it is one year out... it is still useful.
 * If indeed you do wish to delete the given information, why don't you find more recent sources? You can't just delete info because it's one year out. Especially when that info is in utterly no need of updating.
 * PS: My stated reason is that your stated reason was inadequate. See above. And... it's easy to spot vandalism which is why I make said edits in a minute, but how long do you really need to make a decision about something? That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers in the Vince Masuka article
why did you revert this edit please? no way there should be blatant spoilers in this article.ElectricRay (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You had removed the entire paragraph, which was unnecessary. I reverted your edit and removed the one sentence spoiler that you were talking about. Thanks. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 13:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Michelle
Hi! My name is Michelle and I am currently editing articles about Hittite kings. You wrote that wife of the king Zidanta II was Yaya. Do you have any source for this? (talk)
 * Hello there, that was a while ago but I seem to recall getting that information from a Wikipedia on a different language. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 14:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

On Hart Skis
Hello Cheesykid, I am an investor in the Current Hart Ski Corp and helped revivie the brand. I recently made some changes which you reverted, even though I had referenced the article by Dick Youngblood in the St Paul Paper that has the interview with the Grandson of the founder of the company- Myself. I am interested in keeping straight the names of the principals in the line of succession of the brand ownership. Since I am new to Wiki editing I realize I may not have done something correctly, so please feel free to let me know at bill@hartskis.com, but what I have posted is factual and verifiable. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.19.59 (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

George Demos page
I removed that content because the section cites multiple unreliable sources and relies on original research that has not been reported elsewhere. Wikipedia policies require original research (such as unpublished court records) to be backed up by publication in secondary, reliable sources. Sdavi410 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed on the talk page and the verdict was that the information should stay. Also... do you have two accounts? User talk:Brookster22 seems very similar to you... That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Love and Other Drugs
Stop threatening me! The edit is neither unconstrucive or vandalism, it is sourced! STOP UNDOING IT FOR NO REASON! 77.100.25.31 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Moviola
Why the edits for Moviola? That's the name of the book. It was spelled incorrectly. I'm reading it right now: http://www.amazon.com/Moviola-Garson-kanin/dp/0671827944 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miselainis (talk • contribs) 18:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, well my mistake. I'll change the name of the article and revert to your revisions. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on George Demos. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 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. please also see WP:DOLT --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * The man is removing entire paragraphs, this is a case of anti-vandalism rather than warring, but I desisted about 20 minutes ago and allowed his edit to go through. He has been reported to the Administrator intervention against vandalism and there is a sockpuppetry case going against him. Also the content he is deleting has been discussed on the talk page and has been deemed genuinely acceptable and sourced. But I'll stop editing on the article and move off to somewhere else hoping its resolution is imminent. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 21:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a case of anti-vandalism. From WP:Vandalism - "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Blanking that could be legitimate includes blanking all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and unbiased information on the living; blanking may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material."


 * One thing I would recommend is that you slow down a little; there seem to be numerous recent instances of where you've been rather over-eager to revert edits where it may very well not have been justified or the best solution. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted revert
hi. I don't appreciate the meat-puppeting. Even if it was not intended that way. I mean, if a genuine discussion and consensus is done, then so be it. But blatant reverting of good faith and accurate things is frowned upon by Wikipedia policy. By doing what you did, you were arguably in violation of WP:Bold and WP:OWN. And the general recommendation of simply NOT reverting simply because you personally don't like it or "don't think it's necessary." If it's a) good-faith, b) accurate, and c) sourced (I was planning on putting references to that soon), then technically just blatantly reverting just because of personal taste is arguably a violation of WP policy. The suggestion is simply NOT to revert. Especially without discussing it. You don't own this article, so it does NOT MATTER that you don't think a table or timeline is "necessary". It's already understood that the facts and and points are in the rest of the article. NO KIDDING. So what? I'm well aware that they're all in the rest of the article itself. But for a quick run-down and reference, for casual readers, or those who may not have time to mill through whole article...something like that is arguably useful.  What's the big problem with it, to warrant disrespectful deleting of hard work in putting it there?  The fact is deleting is actually against WP policy without talking first... Thank you.Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a rundown for casual readers, it is encyclopaedic . I have violated no rules, especially not BB or OWN! I don't even understand how you could think someone could break those rules? If anyone is claiming to own the article, it is you, several other editors have contested your edit, but you continue to add the content. The edit was not good faith (good faith is an assumption on the part of the reverter), the fact that it is accurate does not mean it is acceptable because it was reiterated information and just planning on adding references is not actually adding references, but even with refs, it would still be unacceptable content because it is unencyclopaedic in its format. And deleting is not against Wikipedia policy, in fact there is an entire class of Wikipedian dedicated to it: They are called deletionists. I really do thank you for your edit however and please continue to contribute, but know that the rules are not there so that you can bend them to your will, they are there for you to conform to. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 22:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence doesn't fit well with the fifth pillar. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm perhaps not, but when beginning it is best to try and keep to the rules, your edits are less likely to be reverted by some more scornful experienced editors. Best to get a handle on the guidelines before you start breaking them. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 22:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * number one: it WAS good-faith, so I'm confused how you could say that my adding that was not good-faith. You think meant the article harm?


 * Number two: you're wrong when you say a timeline is "not encyclopedic" as plenty of WP articles have them.  And there's NO RULE that says "encyclopedias" can never have timetables.  So fail on that...  That's just your own personal opinion and taste that you're imposing on the article and on me.  No actual rule anywhere.


 * Number three: the way you (arguably) violate "NoOwn" is that again simply because YOU (or maybe someone like you, there were only two so far, not "other editors", just you and someone else) may not think it's necessary or may not like it, does NOT give you the right per WP policy to simply remove the whole thing, willy nilly, like that. That's uncool and even disrespectful.


 * Four: It's already understood that the points and facts are in the rest of the article.  That's a "duh" point, and not even the point.   Summation timelines etc are simply there to supplement FOR THE PURPOSE of a quick reference, and contrary to what you said about "casual readers",


 * Five: I don't know where you get this nonsense that just because it's an "encyclopedia" that means that quick readers or people who may not have so much time at the moment should never go to Wikipedia to get quick basic points or facts of a situation, topic, or whatever.  That sounds more like just what YOU would have it be, rather than any actual "rule" or anything. Not everyone necessarily thinks like you do.  (In fact, it was also ME who went to the article looking for just a timeline thing maybe in the article for quick yet meaningful reference, saw there of course was none, so I in good faith and hard work, put one together from references I have, etc, to maybe aid other readers who may not have time to read the whole article to get those quick and KEY FACTS AND POINTS, and dates, of this historical event.)  Thanks for removing something that could come in handy to some readers.     Again, imposing personal tastes, in violation of both WP:OWN as well as WP:ZERO-REVERT.   Seriously check out WP:ZERO-REVERT ("Zero revert rule").


 * Six: I did not break or "bend" any rule or policy. By simply trying to add a good-faith and accurate edit.  Nor by reverting two unwarranted reverts, in keeping with "3RR".  So you saying that is utter nonense, and what's called in psychology "projection." Cuz YOU, cheesy, are the one who violated "NoOwn". And other things.   So your last sentence (about "conforming to rules") is arguably something I could say to YOU...and the difference is, it would be more applicable in your case.


 * Seven: Yes, I was gonna put the refs literally minutes later, but of course in your rude WP-violating uptight narrow-minded hastiness, you never gave me the chance. And according to what you already said, it would not have mattered anyway, cuz you don't like a timetable in the article at all, in any sense, even though it's handy and useful.  WP has its pluses and minuses, but when people such as you try to bully things, and think you own the article, and remove good-faith accurate and useful edits and run-downs etc, those are just some of the minuses with Wikipedia, sorry to say. At this point I don't care that much anymore.     But again, check out WP:ZERO-REVERT RULE.  Click it and see what it says.  Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, firstly, please try to stay calm through this, I realize that you may be upset, but it's best to keep a cool head. I really do have nothing against you. We are not enemies, we are both working to make this website better. Here are the rebuttals to your comments... Firstly, I never claimed that you meant harm, I simply stated that good faith is assumed, by the person who reverts the edit and I assumed it. Second point... there is already an article that does exactly what you want to do: it is called Timeline of the French Revolution, this article is already incredibly long and adding more would just decrement from the article. Thirdly, I don't know what your point is here, but you seem to be taking this personally, this is not an attack on you and I implore you not to see it that way. Fourthly and onwards, encyclopaedias are not for quick references, especially not Wikipedia, and we can't really start turning it into one. As I've already said, the information you want to put in has already been covered in more detail in a different article. Thank you however for your contribution and I'm sorry that I had to revert you. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 22:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, well you make a good point about the article Timeline of the French Revolution. I was not aware that one existed like that.  I should perhaps maybe add or edit on that a little bit.   But let me ask you.  IF a timeline article did not exist, regarding the F.R., would that MAYBE have caused you to think twice about removing it from the actual main French Revolution article?   Again, obviously even encyclopedias are for some kind of "quick reference" as opposed to a WHOLE BOOK on the French Revolution.   But some people like timelines to get just the key and main points and dates.  Maybe (lol) if you had said in your edit comment "Timeline on French Revolution already exists...go and re-work that one instead"...lol...I probably would not have reacted the same way.  But again, just curious.  If one like that did not exist, would that make at least a little bit of a difference?  Timelines do have their use, in other words.Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm (ponders...), I still think I would have declined your edit (soz), I've read the entire article and it is already very long, initially that is what the main summary is for, to chronicle the content in a short space of time for the users who have slightly less inclination to go into full detail (or who want a sum-up), had the article been smaller, I would frowningly allow it but recommend that (had the article not already been created) that you move the content to a new article called Timeline of "...". Because timeline articles are slightly different. But please feel free to add loads of great content to the Timeline article, that'd be really good, it looks like it could do with some work anyway. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 23:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, bro, just letting you know that I put in the "See also" and "Related pages" section, the article link "Timeline of the French Revolution". Since that wiki link was missing from the whole article I noticed.   I'm not sure why it wasn't there in the See also section.   I HOPE you think it's alright.  It definitely is related to the article, and arguably should be in the See also or Related pages section.    (And also, I did touch up and elaborate a wee bit on the Timeline article yesterday, on some dates, here and there.)  Anyway, let me know what you think. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All edits look fab. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted revert of Quantum field theory
This is in response to your revert of my edit of the introduction to quantum field theory, which you explained via the edit summary "Previous revision provided more detail and summed up the content better," but did not address any of the points I made on the associated talk page. The previous introduction was incoherent and clearly written by someone without expertise in the field. Although my new introduction may have been terse, and I don't dispute that it could be productively expanded upon, the page is much better off with a terse introduction as opposed to one that says incoherent things like:

“In summary, the classical visualisation of "everything is particles and field", in quantum field theory, resolves into "everything is particles", which then resolves into "everything is fields".”

In particular, in response to your comment that the old introduction "summed up the content better," I would note that actually the old introduction had very little bearing on the content of the rest of the article, and that it read more like an essay. I would encourage you to take a closer look at the edit you reverted.--Evanescent7 (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I read your summary before reverting and while it seemed accurate, it didn't summarize the content as well. I am not proficient enough in the field to be able to discern whether the previous information (now reverted to) was inaccurate. But if you do indeed feel that the content is insufficient and still wish a rewrite, your edit should expand more upon the subject than the prior, should explain in small detail the content of the remainder of the article and should maintain any accountable information that is already there, preferably you should also keep the references that are in the summary at the moment and the obvious: keep your style of writing neutral, precise and unemotional and obviously take out any errors you feel the text may contain. I'll watch the article and if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 23:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The content was removed because it was incorrect and it in fact does not summarize the remainder of the article. None of the paragraphs beyond the one that I retained have any place in the introduction. Importantly, a lack of content is better than incorrect content. If you are not proficient in quantum field theory, you should not be editing the article in a manner that affects its scientific content. I don't dispute that it would be nice if my introduction were expanded upon, but that in-and-of-itself is not sufficient justification to restore incoherent and incorrect content. The best thing for the article would be to restore the admittedly terse introduction I made, and put in a request in the talk page for an expansion thereof. --Evanescent7 (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my point though. If the information is incorrect, then remove it, but you can't just remove it if you wish your edit to remain, you need to expand upon it.
 * I'll explain why here: Please understand that while you could be a quantum field genius, you could also be a paperboy, just as I could be a maths freak or a roadsweeper. This is Wikipedia, a website anyone can edit, including idiots. Don't get me wrong here, it's obvious that you're not an idiot, you're probably very efficient in this area of study, but without confirmation that your edit is "more correct" than the former, no-one (including but not exclusively including me) can let it proceed. The best way to go about this would be to post a new summary on the talk page and await its review by an editor experienced in quantum mechanics (someone who most certainly is not me) and try to have it implemented in that fashion. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 23:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. If by your own admission you're not experienced in quantum field theory, then you should not restore material that someone else claims is scientifically unsound. You're simply not in a position to make that judgement. If you're concerned about it, then you should bring it to the attention of a third party who has the necessary expertise. Reverting it, however, is not the appropriate course of action. Note: WP:Revert_only_when_necessary. --Evanescent7 (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone else will revert you... I'm just trying to be reasonable, providing advice on how to go about implementing this. If you ignore it, you won't get your edit across... at least, not the way it is. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 00:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only people who should be reverting a change in the scientific content of the article are people who are capable of judging the scientific content. To those people, it should be clear that the change is positive, or at least a dialogue could be held on the basis of the scientific content of the edit. Maybe you're right in believing that someone else will simply revert the edit because they see large blocks of text disappear, but such a practice is still nonsense, and inconsistent with WP:Reverting. It's impossible to make significant scientific changes to an article if you're constantly second guessed by people who don't know if the changes are appropriate. --Evanescent7 (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is why discussion is necessary. That's what I've been telling you. You could be anybody, and I just don't see what qualifies you to be above the law in this matter. The person who wrote that content is obviously very scientifically adept, how can anyone qualifiy your content to be better without proper discussion? I'm not saying I don't want this edit and I'm not overruling you and the only reason I can make this call is because any other editor would say that you need to discuss such a change before implementation. If you discuss, you have a possibility of getting your content added and the other content removed, if you don't and you continue to add your content in the place of the previous, I promise not to do anything, but someone else will revert you, because it needs to be talked about, people need to make a decision on whether your edit is better or not. This is a joint effort. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 00:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am able to judge the scientific content of the article, so I removed the content that seemed wrong or incoherent. If someone else who is also able to judge the scientific content comes along and reverts my edit for a scientific reason, that's fine. And I agree, discussion is important. You should have posted on the talk page (like I did) as opposed to simply reverting changes that by your own admission you simply lack the expertise to judge. I'm not saying I'm "above the law"; my point is that you shouldn't revert a change because you simply can't tell whether or not it's right. Again, please see WP:Reverting. Note in particular: "If you are unsure whether or not a revert is appropriate, then first propose the reversion on the article's talk page." --Evanescent7 (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The reversion did not need a due judgement of science, any major addition or removal of content should be discussed on the article's talk page. Thanks. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 00:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to touch the article, but I'll impress upon you one last time the importance of not making substantive edits to scientific articles if you can't judge the scientific content. I can't help but think I'm not the only technically minded person who has been dissuaded from improving these kinds of articles because of situations like this. You're not doing Wikipedia a service by second guessing scientific changes you don't understand... And the claim that major changes should be discussed first is bogus. Wikipedia encourages boldness, remember? The simple fact that a change is significant is not justification to revert it. Read WP:Reverting. Take care. Evanescent--Evanescent7 (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you... not listening? I've read it... have you? Read your own article postings for god's sake: "If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives." Consensus. Write it on the discussion page. Please. I've been willing you to make this edit from the start. It'll require a little more work, but if you feel that it is more scientifically accurate: POST IT, I can't caps lock that enough (but on the talk page). Take your entire edit that you made, post it on the talk page and put that you wish to remove the current content and add yours, the discussion will yield other people's opinions and it may be instated, judging on how people take it. Please take this advice! I'm just trying to work with you. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 00:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)