User talk:Fredo038

Welcome!

Hi Fredo038! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --Vsmith (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia convention is to place punctuation before reference tags. Vsmith (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello, I'm Le Marteau. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Challenger expedition, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Le Marteau (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Sorry, I do not understand why you wrote "but you didn't provide a source" because you suppress a source which corresponds to reference 13?

Thanks Fredo038 (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi Fredo038! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Gutta-percha that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. SpinningSpark 06:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ‪Spinningspark,

The part of the sentence that I have modified gives a much more precise and accurate historical perspective than what was written before. Precision is important and this is the meaning of my intervention. On the other hand, it in no way destroys the meaning of what was written previously and I note that you have rewritten my passage in such a way as to include the important details that I had added. So it suits me.

Thank you Fredo038 (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my point. The point is you should not be marking such edits minor. Giving "a much more precise and accurate historical perspective" cannot possibly be minor. And of course it changes meaning because you are adding details.

I would also suggest that discussing the electrical properties of gutta-percha in that section is starting to duplicate the discussion in the electrical section. Some of it could be moved there. SpinningSpark 15:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that some details are not necessarily in the right place. For me, in the "Historic" section, there should be general statements about the uses and applications of gutta-percha, while in the "Electrical" section there should be no more historical notes but only properties. In the "Electrical" section the statements about Farady are of a historical nature and the first sentence is very general and redundant with what was said in the "Historic" section. This is only my opinion. Fredo038 (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "Electrical" section is formatted as a sub-section of the "Historic" section so the statement about Faraday is not really out of place. SpinningSpark 18:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. I reiterate that the problem comes from the structure of the page which mixes the historical aspects and the applications. I'm sorry but I find the structure of the wikipedia page in French much clearer because the historical aspects are well separated from the applications. So there is no redundancy. I specify that I am not responsible for the writing of the French page. I think it would be interesting for the reader to combine these two pages. Fredo038 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding sources

Hi Fredo038, I've noticed you've been adding references to lots of articles recently. This is great. However you're often giving incorrect page numbers for your claims. In the pages section of a citation template, you do not enter how many pages in total there are for a book or journal but the page or page range that specifically provides evidence for what you have written. I also think you ought to read MOS:PUFFERY as there are some words that we try to avoid here as they are unencyclopedic and contradict the neutral point of view we have to hold. Hope this is helpful. Do ask if you have any questions. SamWilson989 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamWilson989,

I'm sorry about the pages but I thought it was the total number of pages. When you enter the references in French it is much clearer. I will try to remove these page numbers. For the vocabulary I leave it to you to make corrections.

Thank you. Fredo038 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fredo, thanks for getting back to me. No worries about the page numbers - editing in another language can be difficult! I won't be able to review all of your contributions so please do take a couple of minutes to read MOS:PUFFERY, especially as there's an easy list of words there that you can read and know to avoid (rather than having to work it out each time). Best of luck! SamWilson989 (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Potassium. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Your content and source add no significant information. The source is not a WP:SCIRS review. Either write more clearly or start a talk page discussion. Zefr (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what is blocking you in my addition that allows any user of potassium to determine thermodynamic properties as important as those I have listed. It is your attitude that is not constructive. I have no conflict with any editor and with no one except obviously you. You should look at the French potassium page which is much richer in information today than the English one and for good reason if you block everything you don't understand. It is your attitude that is disturbing and unscientific as opposed to the information I am adding. Please do not interfere with my modifications any longer. Fredo038 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thermodyamic properties are likely a useful topic but your edit is unintelligible for the general reader and is not sourced by a review, WP:SCIRS. Rather than edit warring, join the talk page discussion to work out an acceptable draft with other editors, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Potassium 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The usual course is to start a talk page discussion - it's your burden, WP:BURDEN. Go there or you will be reported to admin for warring, WP:WAR. Zefr (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are imagining and attributing to me totally false intentions. I am not engaged as you say "in a publishing war". I am a scientist who puts my competence at the service of the greatest number of people by sharing the maximum of useful information. When an article is published by a scientific editor, it must be shared with the whole community. That's just what I do. This information is also shared on the French Wikipedia page. So it is not a problem of editing conflict as you like to say.

Instead of turning the problem to your advantage, you should have contacted me to have a scientific and only scientific discussion before deleting anything. By the way, you still do not give any precise scientific justification of what is bothering you. I am always open to discussion and I am ready to hear and make changes if they are justified from a grammatical or scientific point of view. So I expect a constructive proposal from you. Fredo038 (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a textbook for other scientists, but rather a general reference for common users who may have no science training. Your edit makes no sense to me - a scientist - let alone to say a high school student. The thermodynamics article doesn't mention potassium, so it is your burden to write a clear statement about why this is significant. Also, your source is primary research, not a reputable review for how potassium is related to thermodynamics. Zefr (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said, you show here that it is only your personal opinion and moreover it appears very clearly that you are not a scientist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, also for scientists of all levels. Anyone who has studied science knows that the knowledge of the equations of state of a compound is of primary importance because they are necessary to determine the behavior of compounds when parameters such as temperature, pressure or phase change or flow are made. The Physical and Chemical sections are not a course for everyone either but just a piece of information that should encourage you to dig deeper on your own if you are interested. This is the "beaba" of most of the scientific paragraphs written in Wikipedia: you are given a set of information that should incite you to look further on your own.

Then you obviously have a bad faith problem because the title of the article explicitly mentions potassium. On the question of the journal that would not be "a reputable review" you show there all your incompetence because it is precisely a reputed journal with high impact factor in this scientific field. Try to be more constructive. In general, when you are not competent, you let those who are competent express themselves. Why do you show such a nuisance behavior towards knowledge? Fredo038 (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Potassium. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You are on the brink of getting blocked by attacking me, or any editor who challenges your edit, because you think I "don't know scientific journals." Your edit is unclear, and the source you used is only a theory, not an established fact supported by a review. I can read the thermodynamics article like any other Wikipedia user, and don't see potassium mentioned in that article. Therefore, your edit and source are premature for an encyclopedia. Wait for feedback from other editors on the talk page, and meanwhile try to work more cooperatively, with clearer content and a review source. Zefr (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

The e-mail you sent me a few hours ago was completely unacceptable, and as a result I have disabled your ability to send me any more. If you have anything further to say to me, you may say it here on Wikipedia where it can be read and assessed by others. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further, based on an assessment of your contributions and given your response to my removal of your material in the Miller–Casella thermometer article, I'm now placing the following notice message so that my doing so is formally recorded. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fredo038. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.

Editing in this way is a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be a form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM); the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.

Scientific articles should prefer secondary sources to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

The editing community highly values expert contributors, so I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new section on the article's talk page and add {{request edit}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.

XAM2175 ^(T) 12:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Miller–Casella thermometer. I concur in what Ixtal has said. In the specific case in point, the other editor thought that the paragraph was undue weight and was not relevant. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree as to the content issue, discussion on the article talk page should be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

I'm always glad to see experts wanting to improve global access to free, high-quality information by editing Wikipedia. However, being part of the editing community can be very different to being part of an academic setting and so would encourage you to read the essays Wikipedia:Expert editors, Wikipedia:Understanding Wikipedia's content standards, and Wikipedia:It's not the end of the world. They might help you become a better editor and hopefully increase the chances you productively contribute here.

As a final note, keep in mind that generally the community has very little patience for editors that do not assume good faith on simple matters like deleting a paragraph. Hopefully the essays Wikipedia:Be the glue and Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals can help you understand why this is the case and how to avoid being negatively disruptive in disputes by engaging in personal attacks. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recommendations and advice. But to acknowledge good faith would have been hypocritical on my part. What's more valuable? I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. I've said so in writing in the talk. I'm used to this type of situation in my job. The problem is the lack of discussion based on objective scientific arguments and not just saying I don't like it. One cannot consider contributing more on this basis. Fredo038 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]