User talk:Logger9/Archives/2009/November

November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Liquid. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have responded to your post in detail on the discussion page for the article under consideration. - logger9 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing so. tedder (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome -- logger9 (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please save your edits in larger chunks
Dear Logger9,

you have the habit of doing intermediate saves every on or two minutes. Let me just give you a few hints:


 * To verify the visual result of edits, use the "preview" button
 * If you just fear loss of edits, it's ok to do intermediate saves; just keep a good measure. 20 saves in 20 minutes seems definitely too much to me.
 * Please use the "edit summary" line to explain intent, type, direction of your edits. Typically, an article is "watched" by some editors: they read from time to time the edit history to prevent vandalism, and to enjoy how their work is carried on by others. If they see a long sequence of unexplained edits, they will examine them in a very critical mood.
 * To avoid trouble with others, it's a good idea to give them time to react: Concentrate on one section or so, edit boldly, explain your edits, then keep your distance for a day. In the rare case that edits are contested, it's better to concentrate discussion on a limited amount of text. Normally, when you come back you will rather find that others just contributed a few superficial improvements to your edits; see this as an encouragement and go on with the next section.

Good continuation for your work here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.247.29 (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just saw this IP's comments while browsing my watchlist. It is good advice; I too would advise you to follow it. NW ( Talk ) 19:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds like sound advice for good reason. I'll try to trim down my 'Saves', increase my 'Previews', and use the 'Edit summary' more often. -- logger9 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Physical chemistry
You have indeed been very bold here, adding a great deal of material. It has been reverted, so instead of having an edit war, the thing to do is to go to the talk page and discuss your ideas there. I agree with the criticism. This article is not intended as a text on physical chemistry. It should point to a lot of other articles that already exist. It does however need work. I think you added far too much material on Organic chemistry also. We need your help. Please try to understand how wikipedia works. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you to some degree. If I were to have opened World Book Encyclopedia when I was younger, I would have hoped to find a short course including a brief desription of all the major topics, including specific directions to other major articles. For the benifit of the novice to the field who has no other resource, the article should be as long as is necessary. There is no reason to keep it short. This is what I have provided you with.


 * But if prefer your stub, which is clearly shorter than any of the specific subject articles, that is clearly your perrogative. I will opt out of this one. -- logger9 (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Logger9, instead of opting out, you should consider switching the project: have a look at wikibook, specifically http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Physical_Chemistry ! I think that's exactly the thing you want to help building, and they seem desperately in need of a knowledgeable editor. -- 89.55.230.168 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not prefer the stub and it is not mine. I would prefer this article to be expanded and link in a better way to other articles. I agree with the comment above. Wikibooks is perhaps more what you want, but I also would hope that you can contribute to wikipedia. WikiProject Physical Chemistry is really dead. I'm just too busy to do major editing. I just do minor things as I go through my rather long watchlist. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Liquid
Logger9, after your last interventions the article Liquid had to be protected again. I would like to invite you to come back to Talk:Liquid and to express your opinion on how to proceed. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A few words that have helped me
Hi Logger9,

I can see how frustrating this must be for you. Dealing with editors can be almost heartbreaking for a writer. Some of the best advice I've ever recieved is to: "Be your own worst editor." Good writing never comes immediately, but usually takes a lot of forming, molding, and rearranging after the initial rough draft. My advice is to be extremely generous with the details when writing something, and exceptionally vicious when you go back and edit. I still remember what a writing teacher told me, "When you write, fill your work with every sort of detail you can imagine, the sky ... its color, the shape of the clouds, the furnishings in the room, and the railing on the stairs. Then put it away for a week ... a month ... a year. When your ready, come back and read through it all, the boring minutia, and cut, edit, and strip every thing that is not absolutely essential to the story. Then read through it again, and you will find that it is all still there. That's what makes a good writer."

This method of "writing between the lines" is what makes a Stephen King story so full of vivid details that are never described. It also works for non-fictional writing. It was James Michener that said, "I am the world's worst writer. I am also the world's best editor." That goes for any great writer, and you may find some usefulness in taking some time to mentally detach yourself from your work, so you can come back and edit it yourself with a fresh perspective. Just a thought. Zaereth (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

More advice
I've worked on one of the most controversial articles on Wikipedia. I think it was a good learning experience, watching how people try to abuse the system, and how other deal with it. A biography of a living person is subject to a much stricter set of rules, and so was also a good learning experience. One thing I've learned is that it does not help to engage someone that is harassing you. (Read the WP:Harassment page, under"what to do.") Pretend you're in court ... don't speak to them directly but talk to the "judge" (the rest of us). Try not to repond if an attack becomes personal. Just keep on presenting your point as if an insult never occurred. Maintain a cool, professional, and humble tone, and you will also quickly gain the support of others. The person with the best attitude in these cases generally wins out.

Anyway, have a nice holiday! Zaereth (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Solid
Logger9, in our discussion at Talk:Liquid you complain my blanket deletion. I took that complaint serious. Today, in copy-editing solid, I actually started by redoing deletions that were admittedly done in a sloppy way. Within 3 minutes, I corrected myself. I restored your version, and I restarted in a more careful way to assess section by section, paragraph by paragraph. In several sections, I still came to the conclusion that the text was off topic or unduly long. I justified every single edit in the edit summary. The rules clearly say: if you don't agree with my changes, go to the talk page and argue against. Sorry for spoiling you another day - be reassured that that's reciprocal. -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Logger, I would have to agree here. Marie did provide a good deal of important points, and a blanket revision is unnecessary. If you could take it to the talk page (but perhaps wait till the Talk:Liquid discussion is over), it would be much appreciated. Regards, NW ( Talk ) 20:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice of WQA filing
Hello, I thought I would inform you that a recent WQA has been filed which involves you. You may find it here. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Referencing
I would encourage you to reference your writing, preferably by secondary sources. As it is said on wikipedia, unreferenced material may well be deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I hear you. Thanks for the tip ! -- logger9 (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
You are the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI. Crafty (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
After reading the report on ANI and looking at the edit history, I've protected Solid. You are clearly engaged in an edit war there. Please use the talk page to seek consensus and you may use the template to request a change. Please do not continue the edit war after protection expires as you will be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Logger9, this is the second article this month that has been protected as a result of you being unable to work effectively with other editors. Seeing the amount of changes you are making I would expect a 2:1 ratio of talk page edits to article edits, to show that you are actively discussing things with other editors. At the moment there is no indication that you are listening to what others are saying at all. You need to make a much greater effort to actively collaborate with other editors, or you face being blocked for disruptive editing. I strongly suggest that you make some response here, or at the ANI report noted above before you continue editing. Kevin (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think something went wrong with your edit at ANI - I reverted on the assumption that it was a mistake -. Kevin (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like you to refactor your statement at WP:ANI - calling Marie a parasite is uncalled for. Also, you have totally failed to adress the issues that I (and others) have brought up. In fact during the ANI discussion you have continued editing without consensus, and without any effort to engage other editors on the talk page. Let me be clear - if you continue to make large scale changes without any attempt at discussion then I will block you until such time as you choose to act in a more collaborative fashion. Kevin (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

She maintains the following on her Userpage for all the world to see: "It is very easy to get nonsense in, and very difficult to get it out. See my attempts to stop User:Logger9 from dumping pseudoscientific blunder." Which is worse ?? -- logger9 (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I will give you whatever you want. I'm not here to fight with anyone. But when all my work gets sequentially destroyed, I can't just sit back and watch. You seem to feel that I am far more at fault than she is. How she has brought you to that position is quite difficult for me to perceive. What she is doing with all these accusations, attacks, wars and hassles is exactly the type of thing that is causing some of the best writers @ Wikipedia to leave. -- 18:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You say this, but your actions tell me otherwise. I asked you to do something simple and your response is more arguments, the same editing style, and no effort to discuss things on the talk page. I've had enough of both of you, and at this point I'm deciding if a block or topic ban would be more suitable. Kevin (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're the boss, and I did what you asked. If I did not, then please specify for me. After the Liquid article is stable, I am largely done for awhile here anyway. I have accomplished what I set out to do, and I don't need a Paula Pilcher in my life on a daily basis. Do what you will. -- logger9 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked you to start discussing your changes with other editors. Your contributions show no talk page edits for almost a week. Am I being unclear? Kevin (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I do understand now. The change I have made is to clarify the reason for each edit on the edit page. I will now start to contribute more there on the talk pages also, and I apologize sincerely for not having done so in the past. I honestly do believe that we can get thru this thing together.

I also think that the Phys Chem Taskforce idea is an excellent way to put us together in the same boat moving forward. I know that when I first started in January, the implementation of the Glass Taskforce -- which took place as I entered the scene making major contributions -- certainly seemed to help iron out some initial ego problems. I know already from trying to contribute recently to the article on Physical chemistry that the stub is in desperate need of work. But unfortunately, even tho they understand that, they are unsure about what they want to do about it. And my textbook type contributions (Gas Laws, example problems, etc.) were not what they are looking for.

For starters, I am intereseted in finding a new approach to that article. I would be more than happy to work with Marie on those issues. On this one, we could both start from scratch -- on a level field of play. -- logger9 (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye
I saw your post to ANI. Just wanted to say goodbye, for now at least. I wish you the best of luck. Hopefully one day we will see you around again. Cheers, NW ( Talk ) 02:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, bud! It's been a real marathon ;-)


 * Everyone needs time to chill...... -- logger9 (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To add my voice. Be sure even when I utterly disagreed with your edits, I never doubted in your good faith. Materialscientist (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Logger9, I see that the same pattern of editing has started again. I find it very difficult to believe that you do not understand the concerns that have been raised here and in several other places. I am becoming inclined to think that you are refusing to hear. Kevin (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I had a few minor edits I wanted to complete on Liquid and Solid before I leave them for awhile. Please note that I used the Solid talk page for that edit and received no response. I.E. I have been given no rational reason to have the brief section on inorganic vs. organic solids eliminated in that article. In Liquid, I have used the talkpage extensively for mkaing my last edits for awhile. In addition, I am removing the last of my suggestions, and returning that along with some other material to their original home. I would not refer to that as the same behavior.

That being said, I am finished with any immediate plans, and my Wiki involvement will be at a minimum for now. Sorry if I have concerned you with the continuity. I understand that you have a responsibility to the group. -- logger9 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)