User talk:Do better

Welcome!
Hello, Do better, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

February 2013
Thank you for your recent edits to International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. I have made two corrections.

Firstly you added a link to draft, but if you look at that article you will see that it is what is known as a disambiguation page, so I have changed it to link to Draft (hull), but piped it draft so that it appears as draft.

Secondly I removed your signature from the text; signatures are for talk pages & other discussion pages, but not for articles. The record of who changed what and when in an article is obtained through the "View history" tab at the top of the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

August 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at International System of Units. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Energy with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Bentogoa (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Bentogoa:

Subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Quantum_mechanics

Your comment: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Energy with this edit, you may be blocked from editing."

My reply:

If you have a problem with something please indicate where the problem is. Refrain from writing mails such as above because you don't understand something. What exactly is your problem?

On this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Quantum_mechanics

The following was to be seen:

"In results can be considered as a definition of measurement of energy in quantum mechanics"

And since this is not correct English, I added the comment:

(this needs correcting).

And in response you made the empty claim quoted above - why?

kk (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at International System of Units shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

annoyed
Dear Editor Do better, it is very annoying of you that you have written on my user page. Please do not do so again. I would have been ok by me if you had used the usual 'thank' facility.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

February 2016
Hello, I'm DatGuy. I noticed that you recently removed some content from International System of Units with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Table in R-value article
Hello kk. I read the message you left on my talk page. The units in the table of typical R-values in the R-value article are correct, although I appreciate that it may not be obvious. The reason for the presence of the inch unit in the SI unit-column is explained on the article's talk page. If after reading it, you still disagree, feel free to give reasons in the discussion. Pololei (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Non-us sites


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Non-us sites, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-US sites and other musings
Please stop creating articles containing your personal musings on search engine results. If you would like help filtering Google results, please ask at the reference desk, not by creating new articles in the encyclopedia. If this disruptive behaviour continues, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Yunshui 雲 水 11:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Morgan ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Kunstakademie_D%C3%BCsseldorf check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Kunstakademie_D%C3%BCsseldorf?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

October 2019
Hello, I'm Dhtwiki. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Julian Assange have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

International system of units – "in vacuum" vs. "in a vacuum"
Since you asked me to reply here, we can have this conversation here on your talk page. First, for context, I am copying your post from my talk page:


 * Hello Quondum,
 * thank you for your contribution. I viewed your suggestion and saw no discussion suggesting we use incorrect English because the source was seen to use incorrect English. "The speed of light in vacuum" is incorrect. "The speed of light in a vacuum" is correct, and it is also commonly used English in contrast to what you have suggested. Placing the "c" beside "speed of light" helps newcomers to see that the "c" refers to the speed of light and not to the vacuum. We wish to make the wikipedia useful for ALL users and that is why I made the initial change to standard English.
 * If you believe I have been mistaken please let me know on my "do better" talk page, perhaps you can explain your point of view.
 * Hoping you find this to be a constructive message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do better (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I provided this discussion link in my edit comment, to which you seem to be referring. You would need to substantiate your claim that "The speed of light in vacuum" is incorrect (or even nonstandard) English. I disagree (and so do a significant percentage of books on the subject, you may notice from the discussion that I referenced). Many months (actually, years) of revision by the many writers, reviewers and editors of the SI Brochure resulting in something that is clearly incorrect English is something that seems unlikely. Also, differences in phrase usage like this tend to be regional, so what might seem like more obviously correct to you may look like an awkward or even incorrect construction to someone else. The SI Brochure is also the primary reference for the article (and indeed for anyone dealing with the topic), and it is reasonable to take guidance from it. You will notice that on matters of language the Manual of Style places heavy emphasis on following the lead given by verifiable reliable sources.

With reference to the positioning of the symbol "c", it refers to the entire phrase "the speed of light in vacuum", though it was not me who reverted that change. You will however note that the 9th SI Brochure uses this wording: "the speed of light in vacuum $c$ is $299,792,458 m/s$" (p. 127). On whether the average reader would react the same as you (i.e. that $c$ it may refer to the vacuum only), perhaps you would like to open a discussion on the talk page.

Anyhow, it might help to try to get used to the idea that "the speed of light in vacuum" might sound correct to at least half the English-speaking physicists in the world. After a while, it might not feel so incorrect. —Quondum 19:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Moon landing conspiracy theories, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edits on Moon landing conspiracy theories
Some explanations why I reverted your 4 edits; Thanks -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Thanks for your update - it is appreciated. I have now included the source of my 'original' edit and hope that this is to your satisfaction. kk (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 2020 12 10 19:56 I am still learning
 * "of a heart attack at the age of 42 years" - unsourced. Please supply a cite for this.
 * "apparently", "maybe", "embarrassing", "young enthusiastic", - your expression of doubt, opinions not in the sources
 * "unseen", "(not available to the public)" - unsourced claims
 * "and having benefited from the best scientific education to date" - a claim not supported by the cite provided, apparently your own opinion, unclear relevance

November 2023
Please do not add or change content, as you did at International System of Units, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

You previously introduced the number 195 without providing a citation to a reliable source. I reverted you, and you re-added it. I intend to make sure the "Verifiability" policy is vigorously enforced.

[Manual of Style/Dates and numbers|This series of edits] contain some falsehood, some of which are:
 * 'Nevertheless, with this nearly universal level of acceptance, the SI "has been used around the world as the preferred system of units, the basic language for science, technology, industry and trade."' By deleting the word "nearly" you incorrectly indicate SI is universally used in the US, which is not true. It also suggests it is universally used in field such as medicine, but in reality units that are metric but not SI, such as millimeters of mercury for blood pressures, are still in use.
 * " The only other Other types of measurement system that still have widespread use across the world are the Imperial and US customary measurement systems". This change creates a grammatical contradiction. By eliminating "widespread" you claim that the Imperial and US customary systems are the only other types of measurement system still in use. Later the paragraph goes on to say "There are other, less widespread systems of measurement that are occasionally used in particular regions of the world." But the first sentence says there are no other systems. The paragraph, after your change, contradicts itself.

Any further introduction of incorrect or unsupported claims will lead me to bring this to the attention of administrators for appropriate resolution. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)