User talk:Concerned cynic

''Featured article star 	Tsar Bomba is a good article, which means it has been identified as adhering to the quality standards leading to a featured article. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work please feel free to contribute.''

I hate to be the one to break this to you put this flag was put on the Tsar Bomba entry before you started re-editing it. It is sometimes best to discuss changes that you wish to make to articles like this on it's talk page or you might find your work reverted away by others who feel they have a stake in way it was before. DV8 2XL 22:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I log in under more than URL, a situation over which I have no control. Hence you cannot know when I first began modifying the Tsar Bomba entry.

Moreover, I don't read an entry, take notes, do some research, with the changes I propose to make finally emerging from the mists of my mind. Instead, I edit on the fly, by a thought process that would be destroyed if I (or anybody else, for that matter) attempted to document it. I nearly always find it impossible to summarize in a nice way what I have done during an edit session. I work in a large bureaucracy, and if there's one thing I despise, it is the bureaucratic mindset of directives, permissions, paper trails, verifiability, etc. It empowers dullards and gelds the creative. I accept the need for bureaucratic controls when working with such things as nuclear materials, but not when thinking and writing.


 * First please sign your entries in talk with four tildes, it avoids confusion.
 * Second, the history page gives me, or any other party a picture of how the page has been changed, as well as the two anon accounts that you use. We have been monotoring this article for some time.
 * Third, your claim that your 'thought processes' would be destroyed by writing an edit summary doesn't absolve you from the rules here.
 * Lastly, there are many articles that need work on WP. Jumping into one that was flagged as this one was with a flurry of these sorts of edits, and not backing them up with references, discussion, or stating reasons is perhaps not a good way to start editing here.

DV8 2XL 00:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * PS. Permissions, paper trails, and verifiability is a way of life on Wikipedia. Please read the rules.

Gottfried Leibniz
Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nothing has been 'removed', only 'moved' to a new entry. The move I have just made is one suggested by several contributors to the Leibniz discussion.Concerned cynic 17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I realize that's what you intended to do, but that was not the end result: check this and this. In both cases your browser chopped off most of the article, including all external links, categories and interwiki links. I realize this was accidental, but if your browser is faulty, it is your responsibility to ensure no damage is done. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am far from having finished. Hence "end result" does not apply.Concerned cynic 18:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be using a defective browser, which occasionally removes large amounts of text from the article you are editing. Please look into that before you continue editing. Thank you. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My browser is Explorer, running on an Apple iBook. My workaround is to nearly always edit sections only.Concerned cynic 17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to be taking me very seriously. You just truncated the article yet again. While this is not intentional, it is blatant recklessness. If you continue doing this I'll have to block you from editing. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Likewise, you seem to doubt my competence and good will. I am not truncating the article but only moving text from the Intro, which is much too long and contains debatable material, to the body of the article. I regularly check the bottom of the article for material my browser may have dropped, and restore as needed from History. This is not 'reckless' and I know what I am doing. The situation you have chanced upon is one I've been in a number of times in the past. Trust me, I've coped.
 * The real issue is that the Leibniz entry is a mess and needs major work. The problem stems in part from the scope of his accomplishments ranging far beyond the capacities of nearly all of us. Rest assured that a quality entry will require major input from persons other than myself. Another problem is contributors who read into Leibniz anticipations of their present day eccentric thinking. The Discussion is revealing in this regard. In particular, I have NEVER read Leibniz mentioned among the intellectual ancestry of the American Founding. I am beginning to suspect that Wikipedia is vulnerable to persons who use it as a platform for ideas that would never pass muster in a conventionally edited medium. This vulnerability is not without adverse consequences, because Google reveals that Wikipedia material turns up on many web-based information sources.Concerned cynic 18:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Concerned Cynic, you can edit articles without damaging them. Intending to fix things later is no excuse. When you move something, first cut it (in the edit session), then past it to where it belongs, THEN "show preview", and only when it is complete and correct, THEN "Save Page". If you can't make improvements a few at a time, then create a new article and submit it for review to replace an old article. But the editors won't tolerate defacing articles no matter what excuses you have. Pete St.John 21:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)