User talk:TungstenCarbide

RE: Country articles opening sentence
Hi! I don't mind your yelling at me and I do appreciate your caring. I agree entirely that the opening sentence for Kyrgyzstan is a nightmare, but unfortunately this is how all these countries start: country name, then a parenthetical string with pronunciation, alternative names, spellings in different languages, etc., then close parentheses and continue as if nothing has happened up to that point. See Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Cyprus, Northern Cyprus, etc., etc. There is nothing about this explicitly in the Manual of Style (it's an implication of what the MOS says about the lead paragraph and the naming conventions), but this is how these things are normally done. This establishes what constitutes "consensus" on Wikipedia. The long and the short of it: there is no point in changing one article, because there are still many more around which follow the same template. And, of course, welcome to Wikipedia! I wish you many hours of happy editing. --Zlerman (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear TungstenCarbide: what is your suggestion then? My advice is to take a deep breath and wait until some sort of a consensus is reached: there is no point in smoothing out the intro of one country if dozens of others suffer from the same "defect". In a project such as Wikipedia, consistency is of paramount importance (in my view, at least). Best. --Zlerman (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I will think very carefully about what you have written on my talk page just now. Perhaps a pragmatic solution will be found, but it will take time. --Zlerman (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: blindly reverting
Every name form given in that intro is a current, commonly used title for the country (Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Kigizia). The two foreign languages used are the two main foreign languages in that country. I personally don't care about the IPA following every name, but I can see how people unfamiliar with the name might find it helpful. In short, the material in question is not "shit", as you so elegantly put it, but is important information which belongs at the beginning of the article, where the name is first provided. The discussions you mentioned show a case where the article lists names in 17 different languages for one thing. This is obviously not a similar situation. Otebig (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to disagree. Note: I'm not saying remove the material, I'm saying much of it doesn't belong in the first sentence, making the intro unreadable. TungstenCarbide (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for simple intros, I suggest you help edit the Simple English Wikipedia. Those articles all need lots of work. Otebig (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh pull your fucking head out of your ass, you smug arrogant moron. And then answer honestly, do you really think your edit made the article better? If so, then perhaps you shouldn't be editing Wikpedia at all. TungstenCarbide (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another question; why does all that translation, transliteration and in some cases etyomology and needless pronunciation have to be in the first sentence? Why? What's so magical about that particular spot, other than the fact that it fucks the entire introduction? TungstenCarbide (talk)


 * Wow. Okay. I actually meant what I said, the Simple English Wikipedia has a lot of short articles that need to be expanded, and a lot of articles which need to be created. The Simple English Wikipedia is made to be less complex and detailed (such as no IPA or foreign languages in the intros), and therefore more readable, which is what you are arguing for, it seems like. I read the Simple English entries myself when the equivalent English Wikipedia article is too complex for me at first (like with quantum mechanics - but, like I said, it's short and needs to be expanded). The goals of Simple English Wikipedia seemed to fit your own, that's all. I was actually trying to be helpful. Otebig (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You aren't making any sense. Just because there happens to be a Simple English Wikipedia doesn't mean that it's ok to write shitty introductions on this Wikipedia. TungstenCarbide (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RE
All of those wind farms are projects not completed farms. Mario 1987  17:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fast inverse square root
Thanks! It was fun to write, once I wrapped my head around some of the concepts. I was actually surprised there wasn't a wikipedia article on it when I started. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert
I have opened a Wikiquette alert concerning your behavior here. Otebig (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have brought your response to the above mentioned WQA to the attention of administrators here. The  Seeker 4   Talk  16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * TungstenCarbide, I agree with you on the underlying issue. I am willing to contribute to making the lead section readable, as of now it is a horrible mess. However, as much as your venting is understandable due to your frustration, please do not insult other editors no matter how wrong they are. It would be a shame to lose you and have them still around. Cheers, --Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
 * TC, this is your first block. My advice would be, do nothing now. Walk it off, fix your bicycle, do something physical. Don't contest the block. Either wait out the 72 hours or put a firm undertaking here not to insult editors again, this should enable an administrator to lift your block early.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility and polite editing
You've outright said that you think we're here to build an encyclopedia, not be polite to each other ( on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts ) including edit summaries calling other editors morons. This is completely wrong.

Wikipedia's not an encyclopedia built by a million independent people, banging into each other randomly and working in their own little fiefdoms. It's a cooperative project by a community of people, building things together.

We have plenty of room for people working mostly on their own. However - and this is critical - interactions that are necessary with others must be conducted in an adult and constructive manner. Our policies on civil editing and against making personal attacks are important. If people are abusive towards each other it reduces the quality and participation of the community as a whole, and thus the effort that people spend towards building the encyclopedia as a whole. It's a less pleasant place to be and is less effective if it's a rude and abusive place to work.

Because of that, we've started a new campaign over the last couple of months to more strongly enforce those policies. Those policies are important. We need people to be cooperative and civil to each other - if you disagree with people, fine, but do so in an adult and responsible manner.

This is not negotiable. This is the terms we've set for how the community, and participation in the project, work. We would prefer to have you agree to abide by those terms and remain a positive contributor to the project. But the policies are not negotiable. If you cannot abide by them - cannot edit in an adult and responsible and respectful manner towards other editors - then please leave the project on your own before we simply block you permanently.

Hopefully you can modify your behavior to work with the community in a positive manner in the future.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you George for taking the time to explain this to me. It really says a lot about you. Your message is a recipe to achieve low standards of both writing and writers. Now stay the hell off my talk page, you marshmallow stuffed lard ass. TungstenCarbide (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked for persistent incivility. "Indefinite" doesn't necessarily mean "permanent"; if you'd like to take some time to reconsider your attitude toward other users, I'll be willing to revisit the block. If, however, you continue to abuse your talk page privileges, you will lose the ability to post here at all. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

TC, don't give up hope on contributing. There's always a chance Don Rickles could use some new material. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully support and congratulate Georgewilliamherbert in his effort to both welcome the editor and firmly oppose incivility, and that it may have been "wasted" on this editor doesn't mean that it was wasted. Holding out a hand of welcome at the same time as holding up a STOP hand is exactly what we need, and backing this up with efforts to assist the editor in what is legitimate about his or her efforts will prove the matter. TungstenCarbide, as a user name, doesn't bode well for cooperation, but that's not our problem. I also fully support the original short block of this editor, and the conversion to indef, and the simultaneous offer to "revisit" the block. It's working here, and we can hope that this expands, too many times blocks have been accompanied by unnecessary accusations, with a feel more like, indeed, a hammer coming down rather than an action to protect. A good block protects the blocked editor as well as the project, whether the editor likes it or not. I've been blocked. Valuable learning experience, whether or not the block was "correct." But this one clearly was, and my guess is that the editor knows that, was even trolling for it. As to the insults, well, anyone who seriously tries to help this place function better will get plenty of them. --70.17.134.109 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, whatever, your loss. TungstenCarbide (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but maybe more like something Branch Rickey said once when he gave a player his unconditional release: "Addition by subtraction." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?
 * Oh charming, baiting and a personal insult in one sentence. Gee, maybe I need to be more like you. TungstenCarbide (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And all without a hint of vulgarity. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just funnin' ya. But you need to understand that civility IS important. Building an encyclopedia is the goal, but communicating in a calm and cool way is an important part of that effort. Because teamwork will go further toward the goal of building an encyclopedia than rancor will. And if you can understand that fact, things could go well for you and everyone else here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * SO, it's perfectly fine to bait and insult people, just as long as you do it in a "in a calm and cool way" ? That is, in fact, what you are saying with you words and by your example. Go away you fucking idiot. TungstenCarbide (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to bait you, I'm trying to get you to see things from a different perspective. If you have some spark of interest in working here (which I assume you do, since you keep coming back), then you need to consider a different way of working. P.S. There is virtually no name you can call me that will get me riled. Well, maybe "upstart". But very little else. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're not trying to bait me then prove it; stay the hell off my talk page. TungstenCarbide (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
You just got your talk page fully protected for continued violations of WP:Civil after your block. Good bye. Toddst1 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Unblock
Ahem ... which other accounts would those be? If you wish to be unblocked, it must begin with a full disclosure on your part. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting request, as you were not blocked for operating additional accounts. But as you have disclosed this fact we will need to review a full list of these accounts before an unblock can be considered. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right Anthony. I don't run concurrent socks, although there is occasional overlap. Furthermore, I usually make them easy to identify in several different ways. I generally edit for quite a while and don't get reblocked until I ask an inconvenient question about WMUK, for example. --TungstenCarbide (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we already know about the ones listed here, so please supply the accounts we don't know about yet. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TungstenCarbide and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TungstenCarbide are pretty good, I even tagged some myself. There are a couple of false positives in there, though. add TungstenCarbide XXXIII to the list. --TungstenCarbide (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay then, what is your relationship to ? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, add that one too. It's not like I've made it hard to identify me, you've gotta admit. --TungstenCarbide (talk)

Sorry to see you decline my request, DoRD. It's coming up on four years now -- four years that I have been able to edit whenever I want, with the knowledge of many people. That's because I'm not a vandal and have interesting things to say and usually make my identity easy to find. In fact, I'm a fairly legitimate editor, all things considered. Asking for an unblock isn't out of line. As an administrator, you might want to ask yourself why you're more interested in keeping me blocked than looking into accounts like these. --TungstenCarbide (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about WP:OFFER?--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would I wait six months when I can edit whenever I want? Furthermore, I bet ninety-seven percent of the editors taking the 'standard offer' lie and edit during that six months anyway. I'd rather not be associated with them, thank you. --TungstenCarbide (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because no admin would believe your unblock request otherwise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, Jasper. Do you speak for all admins? Are you even an admin yourself? I don't think you really understand what's going on here. --TungstenCarbide (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for admins, but what I can say is that OFFER means you can't sock for 6 months to prove that you have committed yourself to refraining from any future socking, and I believe DoRD declined your request because it was too soon in view of your sock yesterday.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't run concurrent socks. My accounts get blocked merely because I was blocked in the past. I don't need to complete OFFER or be unblocked to edit whenever I want. It would be nice, though, to edit under this username. --TungstenCarbide (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, to avoid getting blocked over and over again in the form of socks, and to use this username, OFFER seems to be the way for you (even if you might not have to wait 6 months, 3 might be decent). Trust me, it'll be worth the wait.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or I could just stop making it easy for people to identify me. Honestly, Jasper, I get to edit whenever I want, with a lot of people knowing who I am, and that's fine, I don't get blocked... Until I engage in a little joke, or ask embarrassing questions about WMUK, for example. Think about it - is it any wonder Wikipedia's editor participation is declining? --TungstenCarbide (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2016
 News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
 * News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters


 * Special report: Olympics readership depended on language


 * In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage


 * WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia


 * Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between


 * Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit


 * Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them


 * Recent research: One study encounters critique of its ethics from Wikipedians; another critiques the ethics employed by Wikipedia


 * Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)