User talk:Logger9/Archives/2009/June

TeX
Hi Logger9. Formulas should be coded as TeX. It is not necessary to upload images for this purpose. See Help:Displaying a formula and Commons:User talk:User A1. --Leyo 09:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Kinetic theory of solids
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Kinetic theory of solids, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Kinetic theory of solids and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later and Creative Commons Share Alike (CC-BY-SA), versions 3.0 or later, under CC-BY-SA, versions 3.0 or later, or that the material is released into the public domain'' leave a note at Talk:Kinetic theory of solids with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA, and note that you have done so on Talk:Kinetic theory of solids. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Kinetic theory of solids saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! User A1 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that ! I will try to rewrite the article if I can find the time. -- logger9 (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

glass transition
Hi logger9, I would like to invite you to discuss with you on Talk:Glass_transition. By the same token, I kindly request that you don't revert my edits without any explanation. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Email
Hey there; I sent you an email about 10 minutes or so ago. Could you please respond back as quickly as possible? Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 03:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yepsters. These folks are obviously out for blood. But we'll get through it. We always have ;-) -- logger9 (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh. I'll hope that everyone has the best intentions at heart, and I'll be spending additional time on this tomorrow afternoon if it doesn't get resolved tonight. As for Kinetic theory of solids (above), I have sent you a relevant email; hopefully you can read the really long and annoying title. NW ( Talk ) 03:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverts and deletions
Dear Logger9, let me briefly explain my past and future actions. After stumbling over your contribution to glass transition, I looked a bit closer into your activities and I found them incompatible with the aims of Wikipedia. We are here to build an encyclopedia. One principle of an encyclopedia is to treat one subject in one article. If the subject plays a role in other articles, a link is set, and possibly a brief summary. It is therefore not admissible to paste more or less identical chunks of text in various places, as you did again and again.

Nontrivial contents should be supported by sources. This requires judgement. Lists of 5, 10, or more papers are not suited to support anything, lest you suppose fellow editors and readers are willing to invest disproportionate amount of time in checking them.

In the past, exceptions of the rule "one topic - one article" have been tolerated. This was a foul compromise, designed to keep you out of important articles like glass or phase transition. Side articles like physics of glass, glassy state, phase transformations in solids were left to you as an unimportant playground, and you got habituated to regard them as your property. In my view, this has been the wrong approach from the beginning. We are not a web hosting service. Therefore I am urging the community to end this practice, and to replace some of your side articles by simple redirects.

I succeeded in generating some attention, and I foretell from now on your edits will be under close scrutiny. Encyclopedic contributions will be welcome, theory finding not. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is continuing to revert your only reaction to this ?? -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, actually no. Breaking a wide field into subtopics is a widely accepted practice; see for example: Physics, Outline of physics], and [[Index of physics articles. NW ( Talk ) 19:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning
Hi, I'm leaving this note as a courtesy to inform you that you are approaching a WP:3RR violation on Glass transition. You currently appear to have made the same revert at least 3 times in a 24 period. If you revert again you will be temporarily blocked. That being the case, please take your concerns to the article's talk page and try to achieve consensus before making further changes to the article. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the editor in question for a 3RR violation, and you were on the way to a similar block until the page protection prevented it. Frankly, neither one of you did a very good job of working cooperatively.  If you don't want to, or are unable to, work with other editors in a collaborative, consensus-driven environment like Wikipedia, then you should start your own website or write a book.  If you want to contribute here then you need to work with other editors civilly, and accept that you will not always get your way.


 * Now then, on to the article. Contrary to what you posted on my talk page, you are not "powerless to do anything" because the article is currently protected.  You can -- and should -- still post to the talk page where you can build consensus with other editors about what information should be presented in the article and how it should be presented.  If there is agreement among editors that certain information needs to be added or removed from the article sooner rather than later, then any administrator can do that.  Otherwise, you can simply make the agreed-upon changes in 7 days when the protection expires.


 * In the meantime, I also suggest that you review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and begin using the edit summary box to explain your edits. These things will go a long way towards preventing similar problems in the future.  I also strongly suggest that you avoid getting involved in revert wars such as the one that was raging at Glass transition; they are never helpful in solving problems.  Exploding Boy (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you're right. I should have just rolled over and let her waste the entirety of my original contributions to the article via blanket deletions with no objections. -- logger9 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:Wikiquette alerts for some discussion about you. As I say there, I am not convinced that there's much of a case to answer, but you should give some thought to the matter as the current edit-warring is attracting editors like myself who know little of the topic and so will tend to judge the matter by appearances. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what you mean by "original contributions." But as I keep telling you, the way to move forward is to build consensus on the article talk page.  If it turns out that other editors agree with you, then Paula's disagreement will no longer be an issue.  Exploding Boy (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That one is real easy. Just look at the version I was reverting to (which includes ALL of her contributions). Then look at the version you are currently protecting. You may notice that the entire bottom half is missing. After initially wasting ALL of it -- and then openly apologizing for doing so -- she(?) just did it again when she felt like it. No reason given. Just WASTED it. -- logger9 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Even simpler. Just look at the version we had posted before she(?) showed up. It's gone. -- logger9 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have asked Paula Pilcher to elaborate her position at Talk:Glass Transition, as in my view, the burden of justification is on the one who wishes to remove the content. Exploding Boy and Colonel Warden, if you know of anything I or anyone else could do to help ameliorate this problem, please feel free to jump in and advise. NW ( Talk ) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've left messages at WP:Glass, WP:Science and RFC articles. It's time for editors to build or clarify consensus regarding the article now.  Exploding Boy (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Transparency (optics)
Hey Logger9,

So far, no one has objected to me making Transparency (optics) into a redirect to Transparent materials. I think we may have achieved success! :) —fudoreaper (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Attaboy....go team Wiki !!!!!!!!!!!!! -- logger9 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Logger9
Hi, another user has revealed your true identity on the talk:Physics of glass page. It is not appropriate for other users to reveal other users identities unless that user has already made their true identity public. Now I see you have provided a link to your website on this talk page, however you have not explicitely revealed your identity here on wikipedia and hence no one has any right whatsoever to reveal your true name. Now I'm just writing this as a heads up, if you object to your identity being revealed then I will strongly support you in removing the offending comments on talk:Physics of glass.

I also see you are having problems at WP:Wikiquette alerts. I just want to make it clear that my comments there are simply to add some background perspective to the discussion and are not in any way dissing you, ultimately you have conducted yourself better than some of the other parties involved, my only advice would be to take a step back every now and then and try not to let other users comments get to you. Personally, my only issue is that I would like to see the articles you have contributed to be made to be more accessible to the layman but this is something we need to work on and I'm sure we'll get there eventually. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for the heads up -- but I have to admit that I am really confused about this issue, as I see no reference on my Userpage to my website anywhere ! -- logger9 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made a request for oversight on your behalf, following Jdrewitt's adminhelp request. This is done by email, privately, for obvious reasons, so the details are not on Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks much ! ( I think ? ) -- logger9 (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If your "I think" is because you're not sure what that means, to translate, I have made a request to have all of the edits outing you excised, so that they are no longer in any page's history. I take privacy concerns very seriously. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds excellent to me. Thanks :-) -- logger9 (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)