User talk:Fellowscientist

Hi Fellow Scientist. You have my apologies for reverting your edits earlier. I misread the diff and thought you had actually completely rewritten a comment. Oops! Allformweek (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics

Sounds like a great idea. Go for it! Allformweek (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, you're not autoconfirmed, are you? You're probably short on edits. If you make some petty tidying edits on ten random articles, you'll be all set. Allformweek (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthroponymy

Hi Fellowscientist,

Thanks for the heads up. Seems the problem is that "anthroponymy" and "anthroponomastics" are the same thing, while "anthroponomy" is not.Allformweek (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion at Talk:Linguistics#Functionalism; you are welcome to add your input there, but do not edit war. See WP:BRD for more information. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archives,

You were told several times that isn't how things work, and yet you try to do it anyway behind people's backs, without even an edit summary. Don't do it again.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who even reads the edit summary?

Everyone. They're there for a reason.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 23:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

This is too serious an issue for me to stay quiet about: trying to track down a Wikipedia user in real life and out them to their employer, as you are suggesting in this message, is very inappropriate, and if you continue down that road it may be grounds to have you blocked indefinitely from the site. See, for example, this past incident in which a long-standing editor was blocked from Wikipedia forever for tracking down a user in real-life and trying to get him in trouble with his employer.

I cannot be any more clear on this: do not post any more messages like that if you want to keep editing Wikipedia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test

Just a lil test ''FellowScientist'' (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again. ''FellowScientist'' (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fellowscientist. You have new messages at Allformweek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blocked for 3rr

You have been blocked for three hours for editwarring and breaking the Three revert rule at linguistics. Use the next few hours to acquaint yourself with the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle and our policies about edit warring and Dispute resolution. This is a warning, subsequent blocks will be of a longer duration.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

·Maunus·ƛ· 14:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics

Hello, FS.

Just an informal note on what's going on at linguistics. I haven't been much involved, so this is just what I've noticed from the sidelines.

Personally, I tend to take people at their word, and so I assume that you are not ChocolateGnomes. However, there a quite a few editors who, rightly or wrongly, believe you are. IMO the best way to dispel such suspicions is to cooperate as you would with colleagues at your university, with cooperation and respect, since ChocolateGnomes manifestly lacked those abilities.

As for what the big deal is, <redacted> was a monomaniacal pseudoscientific editor who created a ridiculously long number of sock puppets, in each of which she expressed "independent" support for her bizarre beliefs and also outrage at being suspected of being herself. It was a ridiculous charade. The problem was that she wasted a huge amount of other editors' time over many months. No-one has any patience for a repeat. Even if you convince them that you aren't ChocolateGnomes, they aren't going to have any patience for another editor crusading for Truth. So my advice is to follow WP:Bold: if an edit of yours is reversed, give your reasoning on the talk page, see what the objections are, rewrite the section (on the talk page!) in a way that takes reasonable objections into account, and only if that is accepted by the other editors should you restore it to the article. Most problems can be resolved this way. They may take more time in the short term, but end up saving a lot of time, and hard feelings, in the long run. If you come to an impasse, there are other remedies through WP:dispute resolution, but if it comes to that, you aren't going to get your way by edit warring anyway.

Or, instead of using the talk page for working on the text itself, especially if it's a substantial amount of text, you can set up a sandbox (subpage) to work out the kinks, and then merge that into the article when you achieve consensus. — kwami (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, your point is taken. My only interest is to improve the linguistics article, not hurt any of the editors' feelings. That said, I assure you I am not <redacted> or intend to behave like her. I was just being a little mischievious a while ago on the talkpage and with other community members, but since they are all not in the mood for anything like that -- I can see their patience has been tested enough -- I won't indulge in any such thing. Let's just improve the article, please. ''FellowScientist'' (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could believe that. Unfortunately, nothing you say can be trusted, it is clear that you just go around saying whatever you think will get you the upper hand—even while telling some people your attempt to restore the post-structural linguistics article was a joke, you were telling others that you wanted it restored. Shameful behavior. No one is going to take you seriously. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just moments after getting off a block for edit warring, you blatantly edit warred again. Do you have even the faintest understanding why this kind of behavior is wrong? I am blocking you again; please take this time to read the edit warring policy, particularly WP:BRD. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to block you again, and see you got off easy with Rjanag. I won't extend that block, but will make it quite a bit longer next time. — kwami (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some kind of misunderstanding. Don't you agree? I have not been editing anything against what you guys have YOURSELF said. We agree with each other! I think there is a paranoia in this community about ChocolateGnomes, and I think it is that which you are all acting on, and suffering from. Calm down. ''FellowScientist'' (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ignore Kwami's #1 piece of advice above--Get consensus for your wording at Talk:Linguistics before touching the article. Consensus does not consist of posting something, waiting 10 minutes, and then assuming that silence is consensus. Consensus in your case will consist of waiting at least 24 hours after posting and giving editors in other time zones and editors who work day jobs a chance to reflect on your proposed changes and comment. --Taivo (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

You have already been blocked twice in the past for edit warring, and this series of reverts [1][2] shows that you have not made any attempts to correct your behavior and learn Wikipedia's rules about how to deal with editing conflicts. Editors other than myself (cf. kwami in the section above) have already said that your next instance of edit-warring will lead to longer blocks; therefore, I'm blocking your account indefinitely until you demonstrate sufficiently to administrators that you are ready to edit cooperatively and not edit war anymore. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

As a third party, I witnessed your behavior on the Linguistics article, and I came to your talk page to give you a warning for edit warring. I see that you've been done one better already with an indefinite block. I'm writing primarily so that you know that even a third party thought you were clearly in the wrong. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]