User talk:Dukon

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Dukon. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! 220  of  Borg 03:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Response of DS
I'm sorry, I think there's been a misunderstanding about watchlists and sandboxes etc. I'll explain in greater detail at some point when I'm not on the verge of being asleep. Sorry. DS (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Response of 220 of Borg
Re a few things mentioned by DS, in case it hasn't already been answered:
 * "Watching pages allows any logged-in user to keep a list of "watched" pages and to generate a list of recent changes made to those pages (and their associated talk pages)."

See wp:watchlist and wp:subpages. Hope this helps. 220  of  Borg 03:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The 4-tilde Signature Timestamp on Wikipedia
You add the timestamp and generate your signature by adding, ~ , or four tildes, at the end. JodyBtalk 00:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Response of Dukon
Thank You! I needed this reminder (more than once so far) :) Dukon (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caesarion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cleopatra Selene. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bitsie Tulloch, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grimm and David Walton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Robin Williams number of Grammys
Hello, I'm Winkelvi. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Robin Williams because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Response of 220 of Borg
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! 220  of  Borg 03:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Melvin Greenberg


A tag has been placed on Melvin Greenberg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Amortias (T)(C) 22:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Melvin Greenberg


The article Melvin Greenberg has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Minimal context although an assertion on the talk page claims notability. The article is sourced and a direct quote is the majority of the article. That is concerning but not an unambiguous violation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JodyBtalk 22:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Response of Dukon
Thank you for your addition.

Firstly, I only wanted to propose that SOMEONE ELSE complete and write a Bio page for this Miami Melvin Greenberg, not that I wanted to write it.

I merely provided a detailed webpage which could act as a launch point for any OTHER author who decides to take up the writing project for a Melvin Greenberg bio page.

Secondly, the reason the "article" is incomplete or currently unworthy of remaining is that it is not in any way shape or form at this time a real biographical article. It is again merely a launch point for someone else to write more about this notable person.

I simply thought that the existence of a sports writer Mel Greenberg if that is enough for him to have his own page, that surely this other Melvin Greenberg who founded a significant company employing 1100 lawyers and impacting the Miami community, deserves his own page.

To repeat, I am not interested and I will have no interest down the road in writing this page more, or completing it more, or doing more research to make it more complete. I simply wanted to ask Wikipedia to create the page since there is a Wikipedia link to click if a reader "wants a page to be created" about any new topic. I guess my error was to actually start the article first by providing what I thought was a launch point webpage for this other author's effort. Maybe by creating a page myself I gave the wrong impression that I care enough to write it myself which I do not. No, I only care enough to want to ask Wikipedia to create it.

What I found was that the Wikipedia offer to the public to click here if you want Wikipedia to create a page on a topic really means don't start it yourself since the Wikipedia monitors will think that you are the author. I would therefore suggest that Wikipedia create two links one that says click here if you want Wikipedia to create the article or click here if you want to start a page and give a few hints for someone else to write the article since the first link apparently assumes that the proposer is the writer but in this case I am the proposer but I do not wish to be also the author :) Dukon (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wm. Robertson Smith
I saw your addition of a Dictionary to the works of this author. The website seems to say it was written in 1848, but not published until 1873.

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology was edited by "William Smith".

Our author called himself William Robertson Smith. He was born in 1846, and was a professor of Hebrew at Aberdeen Free Church College starting in 1870.

WRS was was a scholar of the Bible. He was student of languages, but primarily of semitic languages, Hebrew and Arabic.

I don't find this book listed, as are his other books, in the index to the 1912 biography of WRS by Black and Chrystal.

Thus, I conclude that it is very unlikely that the Dictionary was edited by the article's subject, William Robertson Smith. There are similarities, but not a match.

Your colleague at Wikipedia, Elfelix (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Goldman
Hi, and a belated Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Ronald Goldman, as we really appreciate your participation. However, parts of the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept uncited material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, material obtained through personal knowledge, or which constitutes the an analysis, interpretation or speculation by the editor that is not found in cited sources. Specifically, the following two passages:

This statement is merely declared by the writers and not footnoted. The rest of the article, however, does quote direct friends of Goldman one who knew him from childhood in Chicago before they both ended up in California, and another who met Goldman at a prior waiter job. Presumably, the LA Times writer's opinion is supported by notes from conversations with the direct friends of Goldman as to his prior relationship with Nicole Simpson.

......

While Goldman is cited by his childhood friend as more than likely willing and in fact eager to have shared with all his friends his romantic liaisons, this by itself does not appear to rule out a change of characteristic behavior causing Goldman to exhibit extreme discretion, even to his closest friends, in the case of a romantic more-than-platonic relationship with an unusually high profile celebrity like the ex-wife of O. J. Simpson.

The first paragraph appears to be your own personal assessment of the Los Angeles Times article's quality, while the second appears to be a personal viewpoint of yours in which you speculate on Goldman's behavior. This is not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. Material that is not found in those sources cannot be added to Wikipedia articles on the basis of the editor's viewpoint, as this violates Wikipedia's policies on Original Research and Neutrality. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH NIGHTSCREAM. MY RESPONSE TO THIS IS THAT I AM NOT ADDING SPECULATION. I AM REPORTING FACTUAL INFORMATION. THE LA TIMES ARTICLE DOES CITE TWO FRIENDS OF RON GOLDMAN. WHERE ARE PERSONAL OPINIONS? THE ONLY PERSONAL OPINIONS ARE DIRECT QUOTES OF GOLDMAN'S TWO FRIENDS AS THE LA TIMES ARTICLE REPORTS THEM. I AM NOT ADDING ANYTHING OF MY OWN. I AM MERELY SUMMARIZING OTHER PARTS OF THE LA TIMES ARTICLE TO GIVE BACKGROUND FOR THE QUOTES EXTRACTED FROM IT. THE EXTRACTS I PULL FROM THE LA TIMES ARTICLE ARE THE ONES WITH THE VERBATIM COMMENTS OF THE GOLDMAN FRIENDS. NOW MAYBE YOU OBJECT TO THEIR OPINIONS BUT I AM NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPINIONS AND I WROTE WHAT INDEED WERE OBJECTIVE FACTS NAMELY THAT THE TWO FRIENDS SAID WHAT THEY SAID. WHAT THEY SAID IS A FACT. WHETHER WHAT THEY SAID IS TRUE OR NOT MIGHT NOT BE OBJECTIVE BUT IT IS THEIR OPINION (AND THEY KNEW GOLDMAN AND BROWN NOT ME). CAN YOU SEE THIS? CAN YOU RESPOND TO THIS?

Generating formulas
Please see Help:Displaying a formula. It is very hard to read your messages about mathematics and physics because you are not using this. Also please make sure to sign your messages with four tidles. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Generating Formulae: My response

Thank you. I need all the help I can get! I do not recall however where I tried to deploy formulae. And hence where did I ask this question? It is not clear from your msg to me what or where was my original question on this.

Thank you again for help Dukon (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice
 Acroterion   (talk)   01:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
To add on to Acroterion's notice to you: Dukon, you must stop doing the following: (1) marking non-minor edits as "minor"; (2) edit-warring to restore challenged material to a page; (3) inserting WP:SYNTH or WP:OR content (we report what reliable sources say; we must not draw connections independently where reliable sources do not do so; (4) linking to commercial websites to promote a book (that is promotional); or (5) failing to assume that other editors are acting in good faith (we look dimly upon edit summaries like "factual prior edit removed for partisan reasons" when, in fact, other editors explained precisely that they were removing your addition because it lacked relevance). Neutralitytalk 14:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I assume you did not read my earlier comment above. Let me be really clear: don't re-insert challenged content absent consensus and don't mark non-minor edits as minor). If you have any questions you can ask me, but "I don't hear you"-type behavior is not permitted on this site, and it is sanctionable. I would rather not pursue that path, so please knock it off. Neutralitytalk 15:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Dukon responds: 


 * You are correct that I did not see your "OK..." additional comment until after I wrote the below comment to your initial comment. As my comment below indeed covers the points you repeated in your "OK..." comment, please find the below as addressing your "OK..." reemphasized concerns. Thank you for keeping me informed on Wikipedian culture as there are many minutiae here still unknown to me.

Please forgive me for not knowing where the Wikipedia area was for editor discussions; my knowledge of how to interact within Wikipedia was limited to just adding edits but not discussing them, so I am happy to now have finally found more tools on my own Contributions page (which led us to my Talk page). This said, I might in future not remember how to navigate here in future even if I happen to know this well today. I forgot the number of tilde to end my responses but today was able to figure out how to remind myself.

Essentially Thank you for explaining what is going on. I still do not know to whom I am communicating or who is or how many are viewing my comments, whether viewers now are same as the reverters of my content. Either way I'm happy to respond to above points. Thank you for making them, so I can understand what the policies are and thus how to better and best abide by them.

Thank you for numbering the points. This is extremely helpful.

1) I think adding a link to an already existing Wikipedia page is minor. So in the sentence that "Trump has a history of claiming election fraud", I think adding a link on the word election fraud to make it "Trump has a history of claiming election fraud" is minor. Is this not minor?

2) Never heard of edit-warring, and as my prefatory comments above attest, I never knew where to conduct editor discussions. In my defense, I thought adding my edit back in, to get an edit comment line again, was my only way to explain reasoning behind disputed edits. That page you placed in 2) is extremely helpful for my Wiki-education on this. I will not conduct edit-warring now that I know it is a thing, Thank you.

3) I will not step beyond sources. Thank you. I do feel compelled to raise the issue about what constitutes reliable sources, given Concentration_of_media_ownership. Is there any ongoing discussion in Wikipedia where this discussion is taking place, regarding whether Wikipedia ought to permit corporate media articles as final justification for various notions reported?

4) Link to the commercial book site on Amazon was not intended as commercial plug. It was my ignorance of how in Wikipedia to refer to a book which actually exists. I still do not know how to refer to a book which merely exists as published without linking to its Amazon page, or its own book website, all of which will be commercial pages. If someone can inform me of this, that would be a help. I also checked for a Wikipedia page for Andrew Gumbel and see it does not exist, and yet references to his journalistic activities appears on dozens of Wikipedia pages in isolated quotes, snippet forms. I do not know the author and am not in any way trying to plug for him, but just pointing out that someone whose work is cited on dozens of Wikipedia pages I think constitutes worthiness for his own Wikipedia page, as for example exists for Matt Taibbi.

5) Thank for the AGF page as it too is extremely helpful for my Wiki-education on this. Thank you. I do especially identify as still a newcomer (even if I have been here some time) as they are defined in the section "AGF and Newcomers" unfamiliar with Wikipedian culture.

5a) The Election of 2020 being an election characterized by public disagreement over whether election fraud exists at all or not ever, justifies relevance for posts reminding the public about historical facts about the former (justified within Wikipedian culture by the very existence of the Wikipedia page for election fraud) specifically in Wikpedia pages which assume & imply the latter.

Dukon (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)