User talk:GoneWithThePuffery

February 2024
Hello, I'm Relativity. I noticed that you recently removed content from William Blake without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your 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. ‍ Relativity  02:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Relativity, I think I explained my changes pretty adequately, why is it so hard for you to understand? I said: "Never heard of Turner?" Implication being of course that a statement like "far and away the greatest artist Britain has ever produced" is utterly absurd if you compare him to other artists; and not to mention MOS:PUFFERY. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @GoneWithThePuffery Regarding your newest version, after hearing your explanation, I see that you were correct. Sorry, I just didn't understand your edit summary. ‍ Relativity  02:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hooke
I wonder if you have over-interpreted Microorganism? It means a lot more that just bacteria or even protozoa. "A microorganism, or microbe, is an organism of microscopic size, which may exist in its single-celled form or as a colony of cells"

"The microscopic scale is the scale of objects and events smaller than those that can easily be seen by the naked eye, requiring a lens or microscope to see them clearly." Hooke studied the spores of fungi, so of course he knew what he was looking at. Yes, after he had read Micrographia, van Leeuwenhoek moved the dial further on to observe protozoa. That is how science works. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello JMF, thank you for explaining to me how science works. Now to explain you a few things. Hooke studied the microscopic world indeed, but to study it in the sense of looking at it, is one thing, to actually comprehend it - i.e. in the sense of interpreting it 'correctly' - is an entirely different thing. What Hooke observed were dead walls that had been created by living cells. In other words, Hooke did not realize that he was actually looking at microbial life (i.e. organisms). I'm afraid science is more than just 'looking' (or how they say it in Milton Keynes apparently: σκοπέω) at things; more importantly evidently is (correctly) interpreting an observation. Science thus works a little different than you initially thought. The fact that interpreting is more important than just looking, is probably also the reason why the source (this is Jacqueline Gase) for the contested sentence writes: "Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, one of the greatest early microbiologists–probably the first to observe microorganisms which he called animalcules and who discovered protozoa and bacteria (...)" (this is the only occasion where Gase writes about 'microorganisms' in her article). This is quite different from what we read in the sentence of the Wikipedia article, namely: "He is credited as one of the first two scientists to discover microorganisms". Now, I explained to you how science really works, I don't think I have to explain to you how Wikipedia works, or do I? In any case, thank you for reaching out to me. GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * First, the correct response would have been failed verification, because the Gase citation was not relevant to the statement as written. I agree with that assessment, indeed I am annoyed that I missed it [or was misdirected by it] when I went through a process of verifying (or rejecting) all the citations I could access.
 * Hooke's work on [botanical] micro-organisms preceded the work on "animacules". It is also worth noting that his work on that aspect is not particularly notable since (as he made clear) he was checking van Leeuwenhoek's work –  a practice that we would now call experimental reproducibility.
 * Hooke was an experimentalist. Unlike his predecessors, he concentrated on identifying phenomena first and then seeking to explain it. The norm at the time was to publish experimental results first, analysis later. [Hooke's failure as a scientist was to concentrate on the first and not get round to doing the second, then complain when someone else did it.] It would be a long time indeed, long after his death, that microscope technology was sufficiently advanced to peer inside these creatures – the lenses the Hooke and contemporaries used were no more that a millimetre or two in diameter.  Science at the time was about ridding itself of medieval pseudo-science (theory first, find evidence that supports it, discard evidence that does not). It was about identifying phenomena first and then seeking to explain them.  Modern experimental science does much the same thing though is more likely to propose a tentative explanation. Take for example the recent work in the news about microgravity: quantum gravity may or may not exist; the experimentalists report how much closer to quantum level they have got. But they just report their results, they don't leap into premature inference.


 * I intend now to reinstate the original text but this time with a source that does support the text as written (which will mean of course removing from the lead any suggestion of seeing automata; I will also add a note in the #Microscopy section about verifying van Leeuwenhoek's work, to clear up that misunderstanding). I welcome your critical examination of the article because I might propose it for wp:Featured article review and would be very embarrassed by such silly errors. May I suggest that it would be more productive to use the article talk page?--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * PS I don't get your reference to my home city? Is it this? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @𝕁𝕄𝔽, what a tiresome response. You talk about clearing up misunderstandings, but what you call misunderstandings are nothing more than errors in your conception of what Hooke really discovered and above all ignoring what your own sources really say. Apart from that, I see you changed the sentence into something completely different ('living things at microscopic scale' is obviously not the same as 'microorganisms'); so why are you talking about 'reinstating the original text'? The original quote of Gase contradicted what you wrote in the article. And moreover, why are you talking about a failed verification? Surely you mean a failed quotation in combination with ignoring what the source is actually saying. What you are doing is bordering on own research; you take the source that suits your own opinion, and you ignore all the others.
 * Last but not least. I don't know if you do this to other users as well, but why do you feel the urge to bother me with your take on 17th century scientific practice and even quantum gravity(?!)? Not only are those matters completely irrelevant to this discussion, but what makes you think I'm interested in what you have to say about it? GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

May 2024
Hello, I'm Wikaviani. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Snell's law that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * LOL!! I made a comment that is not civil? What do you think about your false accusation on the same page that you made first, you unbelievable muppet! Why don't you piss off very quickly!! GoneWithThePuffery (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors, as you did at Talk:Snell's law. This has gone far enough, and that's not even counting the "unbelievable muppet" comment, above. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

 * Hey, I hope you're doing well. Just a question, I filed a SPI that was handled by you about this user, you told me that they were not a sock and to apology for the incorrect accusation, what happened ? How is this user a sock now ? Thanks for clarifying. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  14:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , there were not socking at that time, in early May, as the SPI indicates. The block came a month later, after User:Nico Gombert, which was created a few days after the SPI was done. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks very much for clarifying. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)