User talk:Wikain

Welcome!

Hello, Wikain, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to History of Taiwan, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. I've noticed that you have consistently added the statement that colonization of Taiwan by Han Chinese started in the Yuan dynasty. This is false and pertains to Penghu rather than the island of Taiwan. Please do not add synthesized or original content on Wikipedia. This means combining two statements or more from the same or different sources to create a statement that neither sentences contained. Or adding statements that do not exist in the sources at all. For example recently at History of rockets where none of the sources mentioned rockets until I pointed it out. You should also be aware of WP:FRINGE and article subject. For example the info on Archytas is noticeably separate (steam power) from the vast majority of the info on the rockets page which pertains to gunpowder technology, so it would be better in its own section such as Precursors or other. Qiushufang (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Qualia, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source was the linked wikipedia article itself. Since the section is a small summary of a larger wikipedia page. Wikain (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Wikain! Your additions to Qualia have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's elegibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought copyright was more flexible. I won't copy paragraphs again. Wikain (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello, I'm Pbrks. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sinatraa, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Crank (mechanism). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Crank (mechanism) 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Qiushufang (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I regret our interactions have turned this way, Qiushufang. I can do nothing but keep adding and sharing information I read through my unending journey of curiosity, with best intention, which is why I joined as an editor. I check sources several times, these sources relative to this talk have been checked several times several days already. Wikain (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also endeavoured to check these sources. They don't support your claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Dingley! Here you have a summary(no verbatim, no copyright violation), to show my sources support my claims. I claim:

-That the rotary hand mill comes from Spain, between 6th and 5th BCE

-That a rotary hand mill is a crank

Source 1

"Moliendo en ibero, moliendo en griego»: aculturación y resistencia tecnológica en el Mediterráneo occidental durante la Edad del Hierro"

-Page 23 names the device, as rotary hand mill

-In page 25 Figure 1C, there's a drawing of rotary hand mill

-In page 28 describes the rotary hand mill, composed of two circular stones and a handle/crank (depending on the translation)

-In page 29 says the rotary hand mill is an Iberian invention(Iberian were natives of Spain before Roman conquest)

-In page 29 dates the invention between 6th and 5th BCE

-In page 30 says the rotary mill expanded from Spain to East(Greece and Middle East)

My Source 2

"A Relief of a Water-powered Stone Saw Mill on a Sarcophagus at Hierapolis and its Implications", Journal of Roman Archaeology"

-Page 158 says the rotary hand mill emerged in Spain in the 5th BCE and expanded East(Greece) and North(France)

-Page 159 says the rotary hand mill is a crank. With the handle being the crank and the person's arm being the connecting rod

My Source 3

Lucas 2005, p. 5, fn. 9

-Says: the rotary quern is a crank

Wikipedia already contains my very same 2nd claim with the very same sources, 2 times, in the crank and crankshaft pages:

-Crank page picture. Description: "Tibetan operating a quern (1938). The upright handle of such rotary handmills, set at a distance from the centre of rotation, works as a crank."[My Source 2 page 159][My Source 3]

-Crankshaft page picture. Description: "Querns are a form of hand-operated crank"[My Source 2 page 159][My Source 3]

Compare to my claim:

-My Source 1: Verbal description and depiction of a device, identical to the pictured above. Equally named as rotary hand mill.[My Source 2][My Source 3]. See summary above for pages.

Both pages also say:

"The Chinese used not just the crank, but the crank-and-connecting rod for operating querns"[Science and Civilisation in China, Part 2, Mechanical Engineering]

Why is the same device a crank in one place but not in other?

Thanks for reading. Please let me know your opinion. Wikain (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Wikain. Thank you for your work on Teeth clipping. Another editor, Bruxton, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for the article. I do think the article is not as neutral as it can be

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reciprocating engine. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the same behaviour that saw you blocked recently. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct Andy Dingley, I apologize. I saw that the section included cranks as early reciprocating mechanisms and updated the content from the cranks page. I undid because at first you didn't remove everything about rotary hand mill querns but only my update on them. I also undid without explaining it to you, my bad.

Furthermore, I also undid because this was the 4th time you selectively deleted my edits on inventions about one place, with you overlooking edits of inventions from another place with the same sources and same claims, made by other users, leaving them untouched. Even though I was making the same claims with the same sources that there were already present 3 times on each crank and crankshaft pages, as detailed in your talk page, on my talk page and in the crank talk.

It also seems that you may have something against me since you didn't remove all the reciprocating engine "inappropriate digression" crank edits until I added mine, despite you patrolling the reciprocating engine for a long time and seeing such information, the same behavior you had on the crank and crankshaft pages. Again, you only paid attention to my edit.

Except for this message in my talk, that you made before being fair deleting everything about cranks, this time you have been coherent and fair, since I saw you realized the section was drifting into cranks and you deleted everything about them, not just my update. I thanked you for two of your 3 edits, you left the page in a better state than it was before, as you said the topic was derailing. Cranks are very distant relatives of the reciprocating engine, note that I updated the crank content because it was there for a long time without being removed, leading me to think it was appropriate.

Since you didn't remove everything about cranks at first, just my update, your 2 first reverts were unfair and incoherent and are disruptive and I'm as legitimized as you, to leave this warning on your talk page, I won't because you corrected your mistake by deleting everything about cranks, not just my update. As you can see, I have good faith and I hold no grudge against you. Wikain (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't explain anything in your edit summaries especially during reverts which doesn't speak well of your intentions, considering that in other situations you are perfectly fine doing so. Nobody trusts someone who repeatedly reverts without any explanation as this indicates a user who either knows they have no standing according to policy or deems it beneath them to offer one. This is just basic Wikipedia etiquette and you are no longer new to Wiki. This issue has been consistent both in your interactions with this user and myself. So far the only time you've offered any explanation in talk and adhere to WP:VERIFY is when you are forced into a corner via warnings and reports. You don't seem to take any responsibility for your lack of explanation and even when you "thank" them for doing the "right" thing, you insult their actions as incoherent and disruptive, which is certainly not the case here. Annoying since you specifically did the same to me as well and went so far as to rv me multiple times with spurious reasons such as vandalism. I don't see how you could possibly believe you are as legitimate in your complaints. Qiushufang (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't always provide edit summaries, there're times when I forget, others I think the edit and sources speak for themselves.

Regarding our past edit war(got us banned), I also know you tagged my edits as original research because you want me to spend time justifying every move and edit I make you don't like so I stop editing or leave Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure about this as you knew the crank and crankshaft stuff wasn't my original research, as the claims I made about the rotary handmill/quern in the crank and crankshaft pages were the very same you did on your edits in the section above in both pages. Yes, I recently realized it was you.

Qiushufang: "you insult their actions as incoherent and disruptive"

If anything, I did the same this user did, however I did not leave a warning in this user talk page, moreover, this user finally showed was wrong because this user ended up deleting everything about cranks, not just my edit. And honestly the page is better now. Wikain (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is startling. You provide no reasons for reversions, refused to provide verifying info in talk when requested until reported, proceeded to provide a four part explanation on how multiple sources across different languages when pieced together prove one statement, and then accuse others of already knowing that existing info was there all along, and was in fact feigning ignorance as part of a conspiracy to make you leave Wikipedia when they could not find the corroborating info and requested it? The edits and sources don't speak for themselves especially when one side explained their reason for removal, having not found it, and the one who repeatedly reinstates it does not provide either justifying evidence or a reason. Wikipedia policy requires you to provide evidence from the sources when challenged via WP:VERIFY and it is the WP:BURDEN of the one who adds the material via: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

You absolutely have no reason to warn Andy of anything. Just because they removed the entire section does not prove they were wrong. This is absurd reasoning and shows how you view anything as a combative interaction where you are either right or wrong. Qiushufang (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN. the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material

I see I'll remember that, however the crank stuff was already discussed some weeks ago. It was discussed in Andy Dingley talk, I replied to Andy Dingley in my talk too and it was also present on the talk page. Wikain (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This happened after I had stated that I could not find the corroborating info, requested it, and after you had already been reported for edit warring. The first time you provided the info was in the edit war report itself, then on your talk, then on Andy's, and lastly in article talk where the substantiating info was originally requested by me. You should provide substantiating info from the sources the first time somebody challenges the content rather than as a last resort. When somebody refuses to provide a reason for reversion or substantiating info from their sources, that makes others more skeptical of their side rather than less. Qiushufang (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]