User talk:Jwy/Archives/2010/October

Hello....my response to good advice
Point taken, but there's also a real problem with the other person's actions and content, and when someone one (arguably) is in violation of certain principles and policies of Wikipedia, it should be (boldly and bluntly) pointed out and stated....yet with certain deference too, which I displayed. (I did NOT personally attack, per se.)

And later on what he did was basically give a non-response response, with no details on what specifically was supposedly wrong with the edits... Why? He didn't address any specifics, but instead was DISMISSIVE. Also, in his revert comment about the dictionary reference source, all he said was that it was "misleading" or something. Maybe it was, I don't know....but he didn't exactly explain how.

And still didn't really explain anything on the Talk page, but said that articles like that are best left to "professional mathematicians", which reeks of a certain elitism, in further violation of WP:Ownership, Etiquette, Neutrality, etc, arguably, then that's elitism, and suppression, and not really any longer a true "wiki", at least not with certain articles. The edits were not only good-faith, but accurate. And even if the other one was contended against for whatever reason, the other edit dealing with just a reference source, per the tag request, has still not been explained to me, by anyone, how that website was not reputable. Why is there a tag request even on that article then? Why haven't the "professional mathematicians" then put some needed references, per the tag requests?

The point is, to be frank, your "discuss content, not the user" remark is not really necessary, as it can be plainly seen (by honest ones) that that's exactly what I did, discussed specifics, and asked what specifically was the issue with the edits. (All I got were assertions of general "not helpful" or "misleading", with no elaboration of the assertions AT ALL....and evasions.)  But I also had to point out that it's wrong to summarily "revert" good-faith and accurate things, simply because you personally don't like the edits, with no explanation, or for elitist (only professional mathematicians should edit articles like this) reasons.... peace out...ResearchRave (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (to your last comment on my talk)


 * There's just one problem with what you're saying...I DID lead with the question of "Why did you revert the change" in the editor's talk page etc... I did NOT "lead" with "you're violating policy".....that came AFTER. In my remarks.   My overall thrust was "what SPECIFICALLY was wrong with A) the edit, and B) the sources, and also C) how was it all supposedly "not helpful" or "misleading"?    They gave NO specific details, on anything.   But rather just general assertions, and evasions.  Yes, I said WP policy is this and that (with links and actual proof), but that was NOT first what I said, but was later on and sprinkled through the MAIN point of my comment was "What was wrong specifically with the edits, and source, etc?"....


 * Also, to be honest, you're assuming a bit here, that I have not gotten far along... Most of the time, things are just fine...as they basically should be.  But every so often, there's possessiveness, or disagreements, or issues, and things.  In fact I had a situation with an Admin on another article, who reverted my edit (on another one of these math articles...), who I was very respectful and cordial with, and he responded in kind, and was cool with another edit of mine on the same article...  It depends. Your analysis (though I appreciate your concern) is not totally correct.  About me, or about the situations. But thanks for your concern and attention....ResearchRave (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)