User talk:Minsk101

Welcome

 * }

December 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Simon Baron-Cohen has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Simon Baron-Cohen was changed by Minsk101 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.964073 on 2013-12-26T13:23:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your editing at Simon Baron-Cohen
In addition to the WP:3RR warning already issued, please do not remove maintenance tags without resolving the issues or discussing at talk. Also, please review WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a webhost and not an indiscriminate list. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Simon Baron-Cohen. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ''Removing maintenance tags (such as citation needed or failed verification) without providing a source is counterproductive to the process of creating a sourced, high-quality article. So is edit warring and restoring unencyclopaedic content, such as a wall of text listing hundred of articles. Please see the other articles about scholars and how they are structured.'' Sjö (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Hello SandyGeorgia and Sjo. This is Minsk101. Thanks for bringing the Wikipedia list of policies and guidelines to my attention. I will bring my edits in line with them.


 * Hello Minsk101, I'm affraid that I agree with SandyGeorgia's and Sjö's assessment of your editing. You will need to collaborate with others and supply reliable sources when requested. For instance, I removed the huge list of references today and explained my actions on Talk:Simon Baron-Cohen. I would expect you to participate in the discussion there rather than simply return the huge list of references, because a number of other editors believe that they should not be included.
 * At this point, there's two possibilities. You collaborate with the others and adhere to Wikipedia policy, or you find yourself getting warnings, blocks etc. Please do the right thing. JFW &#124; T@lk  12:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff: This is Minsk101. This is fine. I'm still learning the collaborative rules of Wikipedia and can see that some of my edits were not consistent with these. You live and learn!

5RR, blanking cited critical text, removing maintenance tags
You have now reverted the article five times to reinstate an unencylopedic list, remove cited text, and remove maintenance tags. Please do not continue to remove cited text:   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello SandyGeorgia. This is Minsk101. Now I have visited the Talk page I can see what the issues are and am happy to accept your changes. Thanks for explaining.

Hello SandyGeorgia. This is Minsk101. I see you have put in the one book review that seems very unrepresentative. Is it compatible with Wikipedia's neutrality policy to include one biased book review? The reason I deleted that section was because unless it is placed in the context of more balanced coverage, I assume it would be better to have no book reviews. Please advise. Thanks.

Minor edits
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Continued problems
Please read and engage Talk:Simon Baron-Cohen and WP:RS; you continue to add primary sources and non-sources, creating work for those who have to clean up after you. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi SandyGeorgia. This is Minsk101. I'm still learning how Wikipedia works and can see in the rules that secondary sources are preferred over primary sources, if these are available. I'll continue looking for secondary sources but perhaps the primary ones can be there in the meantime. They are usually from reliable sources such as PubMed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minsk101 (talk • contribs) 00:32, December 29, 2013‎


 * Please sign your edits by entering four tildes after them ( ~ ). Please review WP:COI; you have cherrypicked reviews to include only the positive.  There are multiple posts at Talk:Simon Baron-Cohen requesting your feedback about your problematic edits; you have not once posted to or responded on talk.  Please do so.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read article talk page
Please read Talk:Simon Baron-Cohen; if you are unable yet to understand how to use sources, then you can always start a new section at the bottom of the talk page, list the sources you want incorporated, provide the text you propose based on those sources, and I will be happy to add the text for you. This would be much more expedient than having to constantly rewrite, remove, correct text that is not supported by sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk)
 * Thanks SandyGeorgia. I'm happy to follow this suggestion provided it doesn't breach the restrictions that the Wiki administrator may have imposed on my contributions. Reading below it seems as if your reporting has led to me being requested not to edit any Talk pages let alone articles? Please clarify if your invitation for me to supply you with sources or proposed text still stands.Minsk101 (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to cease article editing until ANI thread is resolved
Hello Minsk, I am a Wikipedia administrator. Based on the problems with your editing discussed above and at the SBC Talk page, I was considering blocking your account from editing for a short while due to the issues raised. However, as there is now an ANI thread regarding your editing (see previous section), and it is difficult to get your responses heard at an ANI thread when you are blocked, I am not blocking now and instead I request that you do not edit any article pages or associated Talk pages until the ANI thread regarding your editing is resolved. Would you please confirm that you will adhere to this restriction? Thank you... 04:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Zad68. Sorry that I've only just found these messages. I had no idea I was being requested not to edit any article or Talk pages, so apologies if I appear to have broken your restriction. Now that I know I am more than happy to do this. Please confirm if I can provide material for SandyGeorge or others to consider, since my Wiki skills are still quite embryonic and if so, where this should be posted. Thanks.Minsk101 (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Minsk, OK you agree to avoid editing the Simon Baron-Cohen article until further notice. Great, this will help resolve the ANI thread.  You should feel free to propose and discuss edits on the Talk:Simon Baron-Cohen page but avoid editing the article itself. Please do pay attention to and respond to requests directed toward you on your User Talk page here, and at article Talk pages, it is really a requirement for editing Wikipedia. You need to engage in discussion about contested edits with other editors.  New editors are allowed some leeway and time to begin engagement on these discussion pages, but after a short while it is expected that editors use them.  It is also expected that editors learn Wikipedia formatting rules and avoid using things like bare URLs as references, and avoid copyright violations.  Links for you to learn how to do all these things have been provided to you; it is now your responsibility to follow those links and educate yourself on how to do them.    13:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for understanding, Minsk. Based on our discussion here I have gone ahead and closed the ANI discussion concerning you with no further action needed. To reiterate, you've agreed to avoid editing the SBC article directly and will instead use the article Talk page... to make sure it's clear to you, until it's been demonstrated that you will be editing that article in conformance with Wikipedia content policies, edits by you to the article itself may result in a block. 18:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest
Hello Minsk101. I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. While we welcome most contributions to the encyclopedia, people who work for an organisation are discouraged from editing the article about that organisation, and notable people are asked not to edit their own articles or articles where they may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. There's more information on this topic at Conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Diannaa. I'm very happy to leave the editing of this page to SandyGeorgia and others. My contributions were to try to add some reference to primary sources as SandyGeorgia tends to rely almost exclusively on secondary sources. This may be a Wiki policy but it means all that gets covered is a rehash of journalism. If that's what you want Wiki to be known for that's fine but we know that journalists often spend no more than a few hours or a few days writing an article, so the end product often lacks depth and accuracy and may be just a set of opinions. I find it surprising that primary sources are not read or included as citations. I'm learning that the Wiki definition of "truth" includes journalistic reporting of opinions whilst the scientist definition of "truth" is the report of the actual experimental research that took place and the avoidance of opinions. Seems like worlds apart. I apologise that I still haven't studied many technicalities of Wiki such as how to avoid Bare URLs or what a copvoi is (??). Finally, I have never engaged in "war editing"; what an aggressive concept. I greatly appreciate your tone as an administrator is very reasonable and non-accusatoryMinsk101 (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct in recognizing that Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources where available to primary sources. The issue with using primary sources is generally one of due weight, as a primary source cannot demonstrate its own relevance or lasting impact; an independent secondary source is needed for that.  Primary sources often get used for promotion, or get over-emphasized relative to their actual importance.  Journalism/newspaper reporting isn't the only area where we can find secondary sources; literature review articles published in established journals can be good resources, and they are not written in hours and are also peer-reviewed.  Per policy Wikipedia reflects the mainstream scientific consensus.    13:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also FYI your edits to the SBC article of December 26-27, where you repeatedly re-inserted the large list of publications after several other editors (and ClueBot) removed it, was edit-warring. Please see WP:EDITWARRING for how Wikipedia defines it.   13:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The COI is a certainty, not a possiblity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.9.50 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)