User talk:Mtl-371

Welcome!
Hello, Mtl-371, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 331dot (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: How can I answer a question asked in an alert?
I hope I got it right.Sometimes wiki is not as strightforward as I was expecting.Thank you for your reply. Best regards Mtl-371 (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello, I'm Pórokhov. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Stainless steel— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk or my talk page. Thank you. Pórokhov (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. Of course I know what a sandbox is. However 1)I have not fully mastered how the contents of the sandbox can be transferred to the main page and 2)I thought I had it all right to insert a picture.   Contributing to wiki is a learning experience for me

Mtl-371 (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Request at 3O
Please note that I have declined your request at WP:3O as there doesn't appear to be any existing discussion regarding your concern, which is a pre-requisite for requesting a third opinion. The link you provided was malformed, so I may have missed something? You are welcome to re-file with a proper link, or pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. This is the first time I am asking for a 3O. I struggle with the wikilink Going to the page stainless steel is easy enough but as the exchanges of arguments can be wiewed in the history of edits I am afraid this is not the proper address. I found the following: Editor's summary: rv #2; still not a how-to manual. Undid revision 877584328 by Mtl-371 (talk) Is this the correct link or where do I find it? Please help Mtl-371 (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Mtl, there needs to be an actual discussion at a Talk page, not simply going back and forth in edit summaries. I would recommend you start a discussion at Talk:Stainless steel and try to engage the editor you are having a dispute with.
 * Please note that going back and forth with reverts could fall into the realm of edit-warring. You may want to take a look at WP:BRD for more advice on this. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stainless steel. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Railfan23 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This place
...at times can be somewhat unwelcoming. I am sorry if you have been met with some of this. A couple of suggestions. Finally, assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors, as aggavating as it might be to see hard work reverted. Your and their aims are most often the same, to see the quality of the article in question maintained or improved. When there is a revert of a solid, in my experience, the reason is often misunderstanding (hence the last two recommendations), for instance, a misread by the incoming editor. In relating, pouring oil on a flame will not get you where you want to go—to see your proper, constructuve edits accepted. With many of the relational issues that arise—not all there will be exceptions—a calm, thoughtful query to the individual who objected to your edits will often lead them to return your edits. (I have experienced this, including with some editors with whom you have interacted.) That is to say, if it is clear that you are informed, thoughtful, and reasonable as an editor (as evidenced in your communications), you will likely see and draw out the same from other editors that you engage. Hope that you will continue. Bonne chance. 2601:246:C700:19D:EC05:D6AB:3F04:2E0A (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When doing a series of edits, over a short period, add the tag to the top of the article after the first edit. This will keep the dedicated article-checkers from reverting you before you have finished your series of your edits. (And if it does not—if someone reverts you in a knee-jerk fashion—it gives you a basis for arguing return of your content.)
 * Likewise, when doing a series of edits over a longer period, add the tag to the top of the article after your last edit of the day. Again, this will likely elicit more patience from other editors, if your earlier pattern of edits makes clear a pattern of constructive editing.
 * When editing, always [i] leave a reasonably substantial and accurate description of your edit in the Edit summary, and even consider indicating the direction you will be taking in the editing (for instance, "First of three edits, fixing dead links and bare URLs then will begin checking citations..."); [ii] if the change is going to be significant, start a Talk page where you explain what you are doing, and where you are going with your edit plan.
 * When considering a significant edit (read, "big change") to an article with a dedicated set of regular editors—which you can see by looking for patterns of regular edits by the same name(s), at the "View history" tab—consider contacting one of the more recent of such editors, and introduce yourself, and discuss the edit ahead of time. Older articles often settle into a "groove", and the momentum might be to leave them unchanged. Such discussions can help pave the way for needed major changes.

Please, please, please
I am writing to ask that you please learn the art and craft of editing scientific and technical articles, correctly—perhaps by communicating with or another experienced Wikipedia editor—specifically, about expectations regarding adding content, and the use of sources'''. Three points:
 * 1) Adding sources requires text editing as a part of the edit. For instance, the earlier sentences in an article,"In 1938 and 1939, Paley attended Hunter College... On June 20, 1942, Grace Goodside married cinematographer Jess Paley, and had two children, Nora (1949-) and Danny (1951-)."After editing now appear as,"Grace Goodside attended Hunter College for a year (spanning 1938-1939), then married a 'film camerman', Jess Paley, when she was 19, on June 20, 1942. The Paleys would have two children, Nora (1949-) and Danny (1951-)..." For the citation, see the very end of this Talk section. This rearragement of text (editing) is required because the years of college attendance and the date of marriage do not appear in the source, nor did the term cinematographer, but the rest of the content, and the description "film cameraman" did appear in that source. The point is, after the addition of a source, the sentence really needs to reflect what the source says about the subject—not part of the sentence, all of it; not arriving at nearly correct, but fully correct; and not leaving unsupported content in the sentence, but removing it, or marking it as still needing a citation.
 * 2) Adding sources requires following the rules about source addition. These include, (a) adding accurate and complete citations, not partial ones; that is, not saying, "I recall that Smith talked about it in his book, so I will add the book name.", but rather "I found the precise content of the sentence on page 37 of Smith, and so I give the full book citation, and that page number in the citation I add. Full citations are most often best achieved using the {{cite book..., {{cite journal..., {{cite web..., {{cite AV... and related templates—which you will find if you look in good technical wikipedia articles. For instance, for a book this means filling the author, year, title, location, publisher, page number, and preferably, isbn, url, and access-date as well, and then additional fields if the book requires it (for instance, the chapter name and editor, if the book has a chapter by a separate, named author). You can see an example of a properly filled {{cite journal... template, by looking at the NYT obituary cited above, in the example. (b) Carefully following the rules for each reference type, and the categories of each information that each require. This is alluded to in the last point, through reference to the different types of citation templates. The reason that there are different citation templates, is that journals require different information than books, different kinds of books require different sets of information (edited series versus single-author books, etc.), audiovisual (AV) sources require different information than journals and books, etc. This is why learning by the good example of others is so important; otherwise you have to read all the policies, guidelines, and guides that have been written, which you clearly have not been following. (c) Settling upon an acceptable style for presenting the accurate and complete references you provide. Usually, one chooses the style that is the best already available at the article that you are working on. The best is often one that is using a template, such as {{cite book... or {{cite journal..., and that is also complete in its filling important categories. Then you simply have to do it the same way, again and again. In this way, the citations will all be complete, and all look the same—the presentations of authors will all be the same, e.g., Lastname, Firstname; the dates will look like "8 March 2020" (or whatever); etc.
 * 3) Adding sources require more subtle aspects of submission to conventions, including following different conventions for different subjects. The subjects of materials science, ancient history, modern biography of living persons, etc.—all these present sources in different ways. This means consulting other editors that are more expert than yourself, and not acting before you learn from others. Otherwise, you are creating messes that other people will have to clean up after you.

I will now go to the latest editing that you did, and fix one citation, and then mark the problems that were created by your not following established rules and conventions. Please discuss this with or other logging edit that edit in the areas of materials (or any other subject in which you have interest in editing).{{reflist}}

Yours sincerely, a very concerned, watching academic editor. 2601:246:C700:19D:1459:6DF6:5BE1:3CA6 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)