User talk:Zutam

You just didn't code the references right, at the "Invention" article. But, you can fix it.

__ I. __

You type in <ref> PRIOR to your reference and type in </ref> AFTER it, which will embed the references within the coding, yet make them print on the page as numbered references at the bottom of the page.

This is what it will look like when you get done:

Wikipedia's catchphrase is "The Free Encyclopedia."^[1]

References

__ II. __

If there are specific weblinks available to anything you reference, it is very helpful to copy and paste their url's, too. The simplest way to do this is to type in a beginning square parenthesis, followed by the url followed by a blank space followed by the title of the webpage the url leads to followed by a closing square parenthesis. Like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org The English Wikipedia].

Here's what it will look like when you get done: The English Wikipedia.

-- III. __

Then you can put the two things together by typing...

Wikipedia's catchphrase is "The Free Encyclopedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org English Wikipedia's home page]</ref>

Good luck!--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Certain...I don't know, psychological, or whatever, factors or techniques known to help newbies get along with us WPdia ogres who WP:OWN whatever article involve basically going to the article's talkpage--or perhaps even better pinging the user talkpage of whomever didn't like your initial contribution--and figure out some way to get into a mutually respectful conversation about substance, somehow coming an understanding, agreement or compromise where you both accept some addition to the article. Then, post this little piece. Rinse and repeat. (See here: "Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle." Sometimes real-life experts who don't want to learn the ropes of dealing with anonymous J. Q. Public's with regard these expert's actual fields of expertise decide that it's too much effort for what ends up being some fairly limited payoff--but I hope you don't get discouraged! If you do, it's the project's loss.)--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the above editor's comments. It is great to see you here contributing. There have been problems with your initial effort, though; probably because it has been so ambitious.

1. Lists are generally not tolerated when they could be converted into readable prose. This can be done with your contribution.
2. Contributions must fully conform to the verifiability, reliable sources, and original research policies, if you want them to remain in the article.
3. The first reversion of your work was abrupt and terse, things could have been explained to you more politely and helpfully. Please understand all the editors who have so far reverted or commented on your work are glad to see you here and looking forward to your work appearing on the page. We are all engaged in our own pursuits, though, and the best we can do is point you to the relevant policies that are keeping your work off the page.
4. Editors live all over the world (I am in Australia) so your collaborators may be asleep or at work while you are editing, and it is often necessary to wait a day or more for a thoughtful response.
5. Short, clear questions and responses, that directly address the article or clarification of policy will be responded to. All new editors here need help with policy and guidelines. Cultivate a positive collaboration with other editors by assuming they mean well. Do your part by familiarizing yourself with the policies and guidelines other editors tell you about.
6. It doesn't take long to master the craft. Please persevere.

Anthony (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Sinking and Sourcing. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You have repeatedly been told that you need to provide sources for your additions to Wikipedia, yet you continue to add unsourced info. Stop it now or risk being blocked. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I had the pleasure to meet here intelligent, nice and helpful people. To discuss, debate, deliberate - very nice.

• However, there are some who like to Revert without explanation. I am supposed to go to appease them, but they are angry and would not answer...

• And here is the type who threatens I will block yea and rebukes 'You have repeatedly been told... . Anonymously.

• I only object to the style. Incidentally he/she is correct, I added citations. It's simply that it's obvious to me.

--Zutam (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, I am very sorry but I am pretty sure that I did not tell you the article was not important. I remember adding a category to the web page and adding the electronic project to the talk page. I only try to add content to peoples pages, and only a few times have advised merging pages when the content seemed to fit better with a pre-existing page. Truly, I apologize if I offended you.l santry (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have figured it out. If was because when I added the electronic project template with a stub classification and low importance, it was not because the topic is not important, nor was it because I feel in any way that you didn't do a good job. As an example of why these were used check out Talk:Feedback linearization. It encourages other people to add to the page, and to link to the page. It in no way is criticizing the topic or page. Oh Dear l santry (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't take it personally, I just try to understand how to do it better. I feel that this topic is truly important, and presented my arguments - but any argument can be discussed. I am open to constructive criticism - we all strive to improve it, isn't it?

--Zutam (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are disagreements about the content of an article, please don't document them in the article itself - only on the Talk page and in the edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Patentics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Author protests this decision. I argued and explained my point, and I was ready to make any changes to correct that which is unacceptable. If the term "Patentics" is disputed, I proposed to delete it altogether - it's just an unhappy coincidence that this is the name of a company. I was not aware of it, nor I am related to that company in any way. --Zutam (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's too late now, but for future information, the way to protest a speedy deletion nomination is as per the instructions above - add {{hangon}} to the article itself, below the deletion template, then argue your case on the article's Talk page. A protest comment here is unlikely to be noticed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Parasitic oscillation. Your edits have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Do not add discussion comments to the article itself - the article is about the subject only, and discussion comments go on the Talk page only. I see you have not been editing here for long, so please pay attention to what experienced editors tell you, or I fear your time here will be short. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the purpose of wikipedia (see Wikipedia:About). There are no authorship rights, and no moral rights, it is wholly a collaborative project. Contentious edits are usually discussed but changes that have a clear purpose are usually just noted in edit summaries. In the case of QDMA, information on CDMA was removed as it belongs on the CDMA page and there is no reason for duplication. Making 'protest' edits is not in with the spirit of wikipedia, and may get you blocked from editing. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at PLL multibit, you may be blocked from editing. STOP making protest edits, or you will almost certainly end up blocked Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zutam, please do not be insulted when people place improvement tags on articles, this is a normal part of the wikipedia process and is not intended as discouragement. The reason for tags is to encourage other people to collaborate to help improve the article (as some people are technical experts, others have a good writing style and others are good at formatting). Also I noticed you a placing references in your articles manually - this can lead to difficulties when references are added and removed. Wikipedia has an automatic / hyperlink system for referencing, you can learn to use it in Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No problems! A good way to get into wikipedia editing is to practice making small changes, such as removing vandalism and fixing wording. Also, if you are confused as to why edits you made have been reverted, feel free to ask on the talk page of the person who has made the change. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur welcome to Wikipedia. While it is very confusing at first, it is a worthwhile endeavour. :) l santry (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I like a challenge and an opportunity to learn and do it better - and where can I better learn how to do it? and also meet good people.

--Zutam (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The information in the welcome at the top of this page is useful. Also if you have questions, you can use a forum (also referred to above in the welcome), or just ask an editor who seems experienced. Most of my edits are fixing minor problems, so I'm not the best to ask about page creation etc. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Zutam (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You should probably familiarize yourself with WP:OWN and WP:COI. Point form is not encouraged in encyclopedia articles, text should be grammatical organized prose. Lists of patents are one of my personal pet dislikes - a list of patents doesn't explain anything to the encyclopedia reader, it's much more useful to summarize the key developments. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

• I have placed questions about these changes, in the discussion of this article.

• Re patents, I believe they are useful and informative. They include up-to-date information about trends and developments in industry.

The very purpose of the patenting system is to help society benefit from inventions; patents and applications are published for this purpose; WP has a policy of encouraging invention; so why prevent this information from WP users?

--Zutam (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Point-form text is exhausting to read.

A list of patents tells the reader nothing. If he can figure out how something works from reading a bunch of patents, he doesn't need an encyclopedia article. We're not giving "how-to" information in an encyclopedia article, we're giving a concise and comprehensive overview of the materials. Don't just say things like " there are design issues for multibit PLLs as shown in the 30 listed papers", give *examples* of the design issues. The papers are backup references to the concise description in the article, not a lazy prof's way of keeping his class busy for a week with an assigned reading list. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• New Editors, like me, tend to be angry at responses they get here. Don't.

• It takes time to learn how it works. It definitely is different.

• Please understand that other WP Editors are well-meaning and collaborate to improve the Articles here; if you can see things in that light, you can contribute as well.

--Zutam (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please read the Wikipedia (WP) "Manual of Style", a must for edits here, and also a useful guide to writing articles in general. The articles I wrote to date were well received, however I am an engineer; I was not aware of modern trends in articles writing, or the "Chicago Manual of Style Guide". Very interesting read.

--Zutam (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Reason with people" - Don Corleone, The Godfather; Mario Puzo

• "When you eliminate the impossible, the improbable is the answer" - Sir Conan Doyle, The adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

--Zutam (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Invention (industry), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.inventionpatent.net/patent/process.cfm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I placed notices in the Article itself, in its Discussion and at talk:CorenSearchBot

I did not copy this text from anyone; I am the original author of WP article Industrial invention, which was presumably copied by the external source mentioned. My article contained the text presented here, so I just copied text from one of my authored articles to another. --Zutam (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you to userify the article. Right now it's a sure candidate for deletion. What is the subject of it, precisely? Collection of "anecdotes about engineers"? Statements of the obvious ("There is a huge investment in Fiber-optic communication")? East of Borschov 17:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The article Sinking and sourcing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Two connected, but different subjects (WP:AND), no in-line refs, orphan (if you don't count dab pages)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DexDor (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)