User talk:Vikom

March 2019

Your recent editing history at Enrico Fermi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Essentially I agree and feel guilty, though eventually I cited 7 sources, and my adversaries... none. However the last sentence suggests that even if my behavior only indicates that I intend to continue reverting repeatedly, I can be blocked. Then - whatever I do, I can be blocked - for the mere intention of wrongdoing, for example, for a single revert. I feel like a slave and start fearing. I am here only for the pleasure of improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. But, I think, my egoistic motivation is beneficial to others. Vikom (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, but when we run into these issues, what we do is follow WP:BRD and take it to the talk page of the article. Namely argue your case at Talk:Enrico Fermi. It's not only a matter of who cites the dictionaries for the meaning of a word. See also WP:BATTLEGROUND, if you want to frame this in terms of an "adversary", or something to "win". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Re:Enrico_Fermi talk

Thanks Vikom for your corrections! I can also answer in the language of my ancestors: Ars longa, vita brevis! :-). Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

paypal

use free everything

Khorn Veasna (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What is this? - JJBullet (Talk) 09:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Good question :-) Vikom ^talk 17:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vikom: :-) - JJBullet (Talk) 09:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Vikom! You created a thread called Illogical lead sentence of Wikipedia:Reliable sources at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A comment about a recent edit summary

I couldn't agree more with this edit, in which you replaced "prior to" with "before". Goodness knows why so many people seem to think that using pointless Latinisms instead of plain English somehow makes their writing better. However, you may like to think again before using such an edit summary. Even editors who write such pompous English mostly do so in good faith, and they deserve civility. (I confess that I sometimes slip into doing the same kind of thing myself, but I try not to, and I am just suggesting that you too may try not to, not condemning you for doing it.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: You are absolutely right. My sarcasm, though mitigated by "No offense meant ;-)", was unnecessary, and could be perceived as offensive. Basically I have made a personal remark about some editor, who once used the phrase "prior to". Out of curiosity, and partly as a penance, I started doing research and found the corresponding edit, which had taken place almost 7 years ago. Vikom ^talk 03:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting. That article has been viewed almost thirty million times since the beginning of July 2015. (That's the furthest back that the Wikimedia labs page-views tool goes.) If the same average rate of viewing applies ever since that edit was made, then the page has been viewed over fifty two million times with that wording in it, and until you came along nobody saw fit to improve it. A sad comment on people's attitude to English.
• In my original message to you, above, I admitted that I sometimes slip into doing the same kind of thing myself. A little searching through edit summaries produced this example. I am not proud of it, though perhaps the previous editor's edit summary could be viewed as mildly provocational. Also, it was a long time ago, and I hope I am more careful now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:

• Your witty response: What the hell is "uneducated" about preferring plain English to pretentious Latinisms? was not very offensive. From my life experience, most people will never admit they are wrong, which drives me crazy. But you are different, and I am impressed.
• You have used an idiom, which was unknown to me, though I was able to guess the meaning. By the way, my mother tongue is Polish, but several years ago I decided to switch to English, still living in Poland, only to be "born again" in a second language. And indeed, it works. But the transition took many hours a day for five years :-) And even though I have no talent for languages, English is my passion now, and I am entirely self-taught.
• The story of your pseudonym is really complicated. By the way, "albeit" is not a plain English word ;-)

Vikom ^talk 12:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• I did wonder if your mother tongue might not be English, because although I agree with most of your edits to improve English, there are, unfortunately, a few edits which look to me like mistakes due to misunderstandings of a kind which are unlikely for a native English speaker.
• "From my life experience, most people will never admit they are wrong, which drives me crazy." Yes, I feel exactly the same. I have never been able to understand why there are so many people who seem to think that admitting that they are capable of making mistakes would be a disaster. We all make mistakes, so I see no shame in anyone admitting that they, like everyone else, sometimes does so.
• "Albeit"? Why do you mention that? Did I use the word somewhere related to this discussion? If so, when and where? Certainly it is somewhat archaic, and not in everyday use in current English, but it is straight native English, unlike "prior", and to me using a piece of native English which just happens to be less used than it once was seems much less unnatural and artificial than using Latinate expressions that are not, and never have been, natural everyday English. If you ask me to give a logical justification for the distinction, I can't, but to me the two things feel very different. Nevertheless, while I may use words such as "albeit" in edit summaries, and perhaps sometimes even in talk page messages, I would generally not do so in articles, as I know that such words are likely to be unfamiliar to many readers of the encyclopaedia. (If you know of any cases where I have used that word in articles then feel welcome to let me know.)
• If I use "albeit" I am aware that I am using a word that may be unfamiliar to some people, especially those who are not native speakers of English, but I can use expressions such as "saw fit to" without it crossing my mind that it might need explanation. Of course, once you have pointed it out I can see that it is a specific idiom that might not be understood by non-native English speakers, but it is so familiar to me that it doesn't automatically strike me in that way. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• @JamesBWatson: "there are, unfortunately, a few edits which look to me like mistakes due to misunderstandings of a kind which are unlikely for a native English speaker." Unfortunately (no sarcasm intended), this is inevitable, which I am aware of, but I do my best to sound naturally, even at the expense of my (even greater) passion: programming (now mostly Python). If you pointed out my mistakes you discovered I would be very happy and grateful. It would be an invaluable help and a sobering experience, because sometimes I overestimate my language skills in English. I use prestigious dictionaries like Cambridge, Oxford, Oxford_2 ,and Longman. But sometimes I rely on them too much, which can lead to funny discussions like this :-) But what can I offer in return? Do you learn Polish? ;-)
• Judging by how much you wrote about "albeit", you are a perfectionist, like me :-) I found this word on your page. The phrase "By the way" refers to "the story of your pseudonym", which I found on your page. I could have stated it more clearly. Of course your page is not a Wikipedia article, so even Old English would be acceptable (e.g. used for fun). Ironically, I memorized the word "albeit" before the advent of the Internet, and the Google Search. I naively believed that my English teacher was well informed :-) It was not until years later that I discovered much more commonly used synonyms like "though, although, however".
• The way you sign your posts is a bit eccentric. The JamesBWatson would be enough, whether the reader knows the story of your pseudonym or not. But this is your choice. Being seen as eccentric is not bad per se. Every artist knows it :-)

Vikom ^talk 16:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

There are several interesting points there. I will comment on a few of them. I have been unhappy about my user name for years. Putting a disclaimer in my signature is clumsy and awkward, and I have never regarded it as anything better than a crude compromise. Moreover, as time has gone on I have become less and less happy with it, and have been more and more inclined to abandon it. Your comments have been the last straw. As you will see below, I have taken the plunge at last. (There's some interesting English for you. "Moreover" is, it seems to me, on about the same level of not being everyday English as "albeit", and "the last straw" and "taken the plunge" are idioms which you may or may not find as unfamiliar as "see fit to..." If you don't know what they mean, then you can have fun finding out.) You ask "Do you learn Polish?" No. Way back when I was much younger than I am now I studied a Slavonic language which I won't name, because even mentioning it tends to anger many people from other parts of Eastern Europe, including Poland. It was sufficiently similar to Polish that I did have some limited ability to understand bits of Polish, but unfortunately years of disuse have led to my forgetting almost all of what I knew. (You may be interested to know that my wife is of Polish ancestry on her mother's side, but she does not speak Polish.) You ask me to point out mistakes in English you have made. Unfortunately I don't remember those that I have noticed, but if I notice any more I will let yo know. (Another English idiom for you.) Actually, I think most of them may have been not so much mistakes as things which a native English speaker could say, but on the whole probably wouldn't, as for example above, where you say "I do my best to sound naturally". I can't say that that is incorrect English, but I think "I do my best to sound natural" would be much more likely. I have never programmed in Python, but from what little I know of it I think it is probably one I would like if I did learn it; certainly better than that hideous object called "C". Well, maybe "hideous" is overstating it. I don't see "contentious" and "controversial" as exact synonyms, but I'm not sure that the discussion there really expresses the difference accurately. However, that will have to do for now, because my (semi-Polish) wife wants to come to bed so I'll have to put the computer off. I sometimes consider putting it somewhere other than the bedroom... JamesBWatson (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• "I have become less and less happy with it" No way. It looks like developing depression. For such a petty reason? Really? Who cares what your pseudonym is? "JamesBWatson"? Why not? But it may well be JamesXWatson or James_Watson_LTD :-)
• When I saw "I have taken the plunge" I immediately asked the question: "the plunge into what?", because I knew the word "plunge" and e.g. understood the sentence "He took the plunge into politics". So I guessed what you wanted to convey. The other idioms were very familiar to me.
• "Unfortunately I don't remember those that I have noticed, but if I notice any more I will let yo[u] know. (Another English idiom for you.) " What idiom? The sentence is very clear and does not seem to contain any idioms. BTW, I don't expect to be spoon-fed. I learn English through real life situations, not created for learning. Real life means real problems, real people and real emotions. I speak American English, and probably sound like natives, without Polish accent. BTW, you are British, right?
• "I do my best to sound naturally" I can't believe I've made such a silly mistake. It was like Donald Trump's "I feel badly" instead of "I feel bad". I'm so embarrassed. I am aware that verbs related to the senses, such as "to feel," "to sound," "to smell," and "to taste," can be used as so called "linking verbs".
• Of course I guess what language you have studied :-)

Give my regards to your wife :-) Vikom ^talk 16:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

New message from Iryna Harpy

Hello, Vikom. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 06:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Judging by your own talk page, I wonder whether it could it be that you're obsessing with WP:ENGVAR in the wrong context for Wikipedia a little too much. Editor's personal user pages, talk page, and even article space talk pages are inappropriate pages to hand down what I now suspect to be 'criticisms' of other editor's abilities to edit actual article spaces. Editors don't even have to revisit and change their own typos as it's a waste of time. At any rate, please read my response. I'm more than happy to discuss such issues further if it is constructive. Cheers! Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Your edits

Vikom,

I've undone several of your recent edits again after I took a quick look when you popped up on my watchlist. I don't think it's appropriate for you to be making these sorts of changes. Many of them are marked with something like "ce" when it's in fact simply your substitution of a preferred word or phrase. Generally, these substitutions are neither valid nor necessary. Even the one I left alone (changing "apply in" to "apply to") was pretty much a 50/50 change; either would have been perfectly fine there. An earlier batch I went through contained many changes that were simply just wrong (the ones about "off of"). I also noticed you left a comment on Iryna Harpy's talk page where you said: "I want to make English a bit more logical, and Wikipedia seems to be a very good tool.". This is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a means for you to promote your own ideas of how English should be written. Nor is it a vehicle for righting great wrongs. If you're really interested in improving the English on Wikipedia, there are tons and tons of articles that are utterly riddled with very poor English. Cleaning those up is a way to improve Wikipedia, not tweaking word choices based on what you perceive to be "plain English".

This may seem a bit harsh, but I hope you'll take this in the constructive manner in which it was intended, even if it didn't quite come across like that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would like to also ask you to cease this campaign - the Simple English Wikipedia is the place for that, if anywhere. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah I looked at your edit history; expect to be reverted by me if someone else doesn't catch it. Teach yourself some other language and plague their Wikipedia please. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)