User talk:DonaldKronos: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:07, 23 December 2014 editMishae (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users85,764 edits →Look, calm down and quit taking it personally.← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:14, 23 December 2014 edit undoDonaldKronos (talk \| contribs)220 edits →December 2014: noteNext edit →
Line 69:		Line 69:

	] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].		] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].

			From the Dispute Resolution page... "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

			To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war." -- Why am I NEVER given such courtesy in here? Am I upset? YES! Should I be? I don't know... but I am! I feel like I am considered less than dirt in here. Should that not bother me? Okay, in this case... there was a message saying not to change the first paragraph without....whatever it was... but I did not notice it at the time, because I do no know of conventions for such things, and they are not obvious.... so I apologize to the community for NOT NOTICING what I should have noticed... but I'm STILL FRUSTRATED AS HELL!


	'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 00:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)		'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 00:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:14, 23 December 2014

NOT FEELING WELCOME AT ALL

What is it about hard work that is so despised within the Misplaced Pages community? I added to the evolution page, to make it about evolution rather than just about evolution through biological reproduction, and ONCE AGAIN, MY HARD WORK IS IMMEDIATELY DELETED!

Here are the first two paragraphs as I had corrected them...

Evolution in its broadest sense, is the accumulation of change. In this sense, anything in which changes accumulate, evolves. This is true of culture, language, computer software, technology, knowledge, automation, and so on. A quick web search for information about the evolution of any such thing should provide plenty of reference material.

Probably the most well known type of evolution, accumulation of hereditary modification, also known as descent with modification, causes the accumulation of change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Such evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the biodiversity of species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Notice that there is NOTHING off topic or off point, and I DID NOT NEGLECT TO INCLUDE REFERENCES!

Here is what it was reverted back to....

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the biodiversity of species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

In my opinion, that constitutes VANDALISM! I can think of no other reason why anyone would HIDE THE DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION on a page ABOUT EVOLUTION!

Welcome!

Hello, DonaldKronos, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Esper (language), may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! I, JethroBT 02:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Esper (language)

The article Esper (language) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources discussing this language in-depth (Wikibooks is not sufficient). Does not appear to have a connection to Esperanto discussed in any sources, either.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I, JethroBT 02:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DonaldKronos. You have new messages at I JethroBT's talk page.
Message added 01:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, JethroBT 01:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:DonaldKronos/Esper (language)

Because of your circumstances and the current state of your article, I've moved it to a subpage of your userpage here, so you have some time to work on it. I'm concerned it will be removed, and this way, you have more time to add needed sources to the article. I, JethroBT 17:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

December 2014

Thank you for trying to keep Misplaced Pages free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Evolution, are not considered vandalism under Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Misplaced Pages:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Also, go to the article's talk page (Talk:Evolution) and seek consensus for your changes -- that's the standard, not making wild accusation. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And seeing your post here, I have to point out WP:OWN and WP:Assume good faith to you. No editor owns their edits here, and you need to assume that editors have good reasons for doing what they do. If you don't want your edits to be revised, modified, or even removed or undone, you probably should not edit here. This is a collaborative project, not just your project. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How is any of this off point?

That was removed, why?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonaldKronos (talk • contribs)

New talk page posts go at the bottom of the section. Most of the material there has nothing to do with biological evolution. The intro summarizes the article, and the article in this case is only about biological evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Evolution shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

From the Dispute Resolution page... "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war." -- Why am I NEVER given such courtesy in here? Am I upset? YES! Should I be? I don't know... but I am! I feel like I am considered less than dirt in here. Should that not bother me? Okay, in this case... there was a message saying not to change the first paragraph without....whatever it was... but I did not notice it at the time, because I do no know of conventions for such things, and they are not obvious.... so I apologize to the community for NOT NOTICING what I should have noticed... but I'm STILL FRUSTRATED AS HELL!

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, calm down and quit taking it personally

Seriously, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:OWN. We've explained how to go on about your edits, no one's punishing you for having made them, and you have every opportunity to get over it and find something productive to do instead of throwing a tantrum. If you keep taking every single reversion personally, call editors in good standing vandals for cleaning up your messes, and give a contrarian "nuh-uh!" to every attempt to explain what you need to do, you will wear out your welcome and you will not last for much longer. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Evolution. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling the people who have reverted you vandals when their edits do not meet the site's definition of vandalism and were made in good faith is considered a personal attack. Seriously, your hissy-fits are just digging you into a deeper hole. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this "community" has yet to answer the simple question I have BEGGED for an answer to, which is HOW TO COMMUNICATE IN HERE! It's like trying to get a message to someone in a big city without any way of knowing where they are, any of their contact information, or anything else useful for figuting out how to get in contact. It's EXTREMELY frustrating, and nearly eveything I have EVEry WRITTEN for Misplaced Pages seems to end up deleted.... ALMOST ALWAYS with no explanation, and no way to contact the person who deleted it! I don't even have a clue how to know if you will ever see this, so what am I writing it for? :(( DonaldKronos (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I gave you an explanation for why your edit was initially reverted and replied to your post on my talk page. You ignored both and called me a vandal. Why should people take the time to be civil with you when you insult them and ignore their feedback? Zarcusian (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. So what exactly is going on? If you want to I can help you.--Mishae (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Tradition: ‘A behaviour pattern transmitted repeatedly through social learning to become a population-level characteristic’.The Evolution of Culture by Andrew Whiten
The forces affecting language and the evolution which a language continually undergoes are covered, with historical changes in spellings, meanings, and sounds traced in some detail.Aspects of Language. - Bolinger, Dwight
Coping with huge amounts of data is one of the major problems in the context of software evolution.Understanding Software Evolution using a Combination of Software Visualization and Software Metrics (2002) by Michele Lanza , Stéphane Ducasse
We describe GEVOL, a system that visualizes the evolution of software using a novel graph drawing technique for visualization of large graphs with a temporal component.A system for graph-based visualization of the evolution of software
This paper draws on an evolutionary theory of economic growth that brings together appreciative theorizing regarding growth and formal theorizing.The Co-evolution of Technology, Industrial Structure, and Supporting Institutions by RICHARD R. NELSON
The analysis of the evolution of knowledge is distinguished from standard economics and neoDarwinian biology; it combines purpose with the impossibility of empirical proof.The Evolution of Knowledge: Beyond the Biological Model by Brian J. Loasby
Nursing Research has made a significant contribution in disseminating the body of tested knowledge related to the health disparities experienced by vulnerable populations and the methodologies associated with vulnerable populations research.Health Disparities Among Vulnerable Populations: Evolution of Knowledge Over Five Decades in Nursing Research Publications
The paper covers the evolution of drilling mechanization and automation from the mid-nineteenth century to today.The Evolution of Automation in Drilling
From these considerations, I shall devote the first chapter of this Abstract to Variation under Domestication. We shall thus see that a large amount of hereditary modification is at least possible, and, what is equally or more important, we shall see how great is the power of man in accumulating by his Selection successive slight variations.On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin - 1st Edition
^ Hall & Hallgrímsson 2008, pp. 3–5 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHallHallgrímsson2008 (help)
Tradition: ‘A behaviour pattern transmitted repeatedly through social learning to become a population-level characteristic’.The Evolution of Culture by Andrew Whiten
The forces affecting language and the evolution which a language continually undergoes are covered, with historical changes in spellings, meanings, and sounds traced in some detail.Aspects of Language. - Bolinger, Dwight
Coping with huge amounts of data is one of the major problems in the context of software evolution.Understanding Software Evolution using a Combination of Software Visualization and Software Metrics (2002) by Michele Lanza , Stéphane Ducasse
We describe GEVOL, a system that visualizes the evolution of software using a novel graph drawing technique for visualization of large graphs with a temporal component.A system for graph-based visualization of the evolution of software
This paper draws on an evolutionary theory of economic growth that brings together appreciative theorizing regarding growth and formal theorizing.The Co-evolution of Technology, Industrial Structure, and Supporting Institutions by RICHARD R. NELSON
The analysis of the evolution of knowledge is distinguished from standard economics and neoDarwinian biology; it combines purpose with the impossibility of empirical proof.The Evolution of Knowledge: Beyond the Biological Model by Brian J. Loasby
Nursing Research has made a significant contribution in disseminating the body of tested knowledge related to the health disparities experienced by vulnerable populations and the methodologies associated with vulnerable populations research.Health Disparities Among Vulnerable Populations: Evolution of Knowledge Over Five Decades in Nursing Research Publications
The paper covers the evolution of drilling mechanization and automation from the mid-nineteenth century to today.The Evolution of Automation in Drilling
From these considerations, I shall devote the first chapter of this Abstract to Variation under Domestication. We shall thus see that a large amount of hereditary modification is at least possible, and, what is equally or more important, we shall see how great is the power of man in accumulating by his Selection successive slight variations.On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin - 1st Edition