User talk:TungstenCarbide

Hello TungstenCarbide, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! –  LATICS  talk  00:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

RE: Country articles opening sentence

Hi! I don't mind your yelling at me and I do appreciate your caring. I agree entirely that the opening sentence for Kyrgyzstan is a nightmare, but unfortunately this is how all these countries start: country name, then a parenthetical string with pronunciation, alternative names, spellings in different languages, etc., then close parentheses and continue as if nothing has happened up to that point. See Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Cyprus, Northern Cyprus, etc., etc. There is nothing about this explicitly in the Manual of Style (it's an implication of what the MOS says about the lead paragraph and the naming conventions), but this is how these things are normally done. This establishes what constitutes "consensus" on Wikipedia. The long and the short of it: there is no point in changing one article, because there are still many more around which follow the same template. And, of course, welcome to Wikipedia! I wish you many hours of happy editing. --Zlerman (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear TungstenCarbide: what is your suggestion then? My advice is to take a deep breath and wait until some sort of a consensus is reached: there is no point in smoothing out the intro of one country if dozens of others suffer from the same "defect". In a project such as Wikipedia, consistency is of paramount importance (in my view, at least). Best. --Zlerman (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I will think very carefully about what you have written on my talk page just now. Perhaps a pragmatic solution will be found, but it will take time. --Zlerman (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: blindly reverting

Every name form given in that intro is a current, commonly used title for the country (Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Kigizia). The two foreign languages used are the two main foreign languages in that country. I personally don't care about the IPA following every name, but I can see how people unfamiliar with the name might find it helpful. In short, the material in question is not "shit", as you so elegantly put it, but is important information which belongs at the beginning of the article, where the name is first provided. The discussions you mentioned show a case where the article lists names in 17 different languages for one thing. This is obviously not a similar situation. Otebig (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to disagree. Note: I'm not saying remove the material, I'm saying much of it doesn't belong in the first sentence, making the intro unreadable. TungstenCarbide (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for simple intros, I suggest you help edit the Simple English Wikipedia. Those articles all need lots of work. Otebig (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh pull your fucking head out of your ass, you smug arrogant moron. And then answer honestly, do you really think your edit made the article better? If so, then perhaps you shouldn't be editing Wikpedia at all. TungstenCarbide (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's another question; why does all that translation, transliteration and in some cases etyomology and needless pronunciation have to be in the first sentence? Why? What's so magical about that particular spot, other than the fact that it fucks the entire introduction? TungstenCarbide (talk)

Wow. Okay. I actually meant what I said, the Simple English Wikipedia has a lot of short articles that need to be expanded, and a lot of articles which need to be created. The Simple English Wikipedia is made to be less complex and detailed (such as no IPA or foreign languages in the intros), and therefore more readable, which is what you are arguing for, it seems like. I read the Simple English entries myself when the equivalent English Wikipedia article is too complex for me at first (like with quantum mechanics - but, like I said, it's short and needs to be expanded). The goals of Simple English Wikipedia seemed to fit your own, that's all. I was actually trying to be helpful. Otebig (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense. Just because there happens to be a Simple English Wikipedia doesn't mean that it's ok to write shitty introductions on this Wikipedia. TungstenCarbide (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RE

All of those wind farms are projects not completed farms. Mario1987 17:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fast inverse square root

Thanks! It was fun to write, once I wrapped my head around some of the concepts. I was actually surprised there wasn't a wikipedia article on it when I started. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I have opened a Wikiquette alert concerning your behavior here. Otebig (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have brought your response to the above mentioned WQA to the attention of administrators here. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TungstenCarbide, I agree with you on the underlying issue. I am willing to contribute to making the lead section readable, as of now it is a horrible mess. However, as much as your venting is understandable due to your frustration, please do not insult other editors no matter how wrong they are. It would be a shame to lose you and have them still around. Cheers, --Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violations of WP:CIVIL. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TC, this is your first block. My advice would be, do nothing now. Walk it off, fix your bicycle, do something physical. Don't contest the block. Either wait out the 72 hours or put a firm undertaking here not to insult editors again, this should enable an administrator to lift your block early.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility and polite editing

You've outright said that you think we're here to build an encyclopedia, not be polite to each other ( on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts ) including edit summaries calling other editors morons. This is completely wrong.

Wikipedia's not an encyclopedia built by a million independent people, banging into each other randomly and working in their own little fiefdoms. It's a cooperative project by a community of people, building things together.

We have plenty of room for people working mostly on their own. However - and this is critical - interactions that are necessary with others must be conducted in an adult and constructive manner. Our policies on civil editing and against making personal attacks are important. If people are abusive towards each other it reduces the quality and participation of the community as a whole, and thus the effort that people spend towards building the encyclopedia as a whole. It's a less pleasant place to be and is less effective if it's a rude and abusive place to work.

Because of that, we've started a new campaign over the last couple of months to more strongly enforce those policies. Those policies are important. We need people to be cooperative and civil to each other - if you disagree with people, fine, but do so in an adult and responsible manner.

This is not negotiable. This is the terms we've set for how the community, and participation in the project, work. We would prefer to have you agree to abide by those terms and remain a positive contributor to the project. But the policies are not negotiable. If you cannot abide by them - cannot edit in an adult and responsible and respectful manner towards other editors - then please leave the project on your own before we simply block you permanently.

Hopefully you can modify your behavior to work with the community in a positive manner in the future.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)