User talk:Sharonzuke

Speedy deletion nomination of CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) Scholar .[edit]

Hello Sharonzuke,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) Scholar . for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ABF99 (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharonzuke, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Sharonzuke! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Eric-Wester. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Physics Essays because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. Eric-Wester (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Physics Essays. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Physics Essays. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.
If there's content that you think should be modified, then please use the article's talk page to explain what according to you is wrong and on which sources you base this, so that we can discuss this issue in a civil manner. Randykitty (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Essays[edit]

Hi, you keep making inappropriate changes to this article. Per WP:ELNO, external links should not be placed in the body of an article as you keep doing for China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Neither should we link to search results. Why you object to ordering databases in alphabetical order is something I really do not understand. And finally, ResearchGate is not a reliable source, nor are the "impact factors" that it provides recognized by anybody else but themselves. PLEASE STOP reverting these edits. If you have good arguments for your edits, then take this to the talk page of the article and discuss the changes you want to implement. Continuing to edit war will only lead to you being blocked from editing. If you revert once more, without even providing an edit summary or any other reason, I will report this at the administrators noticeboard and request that you will be blocked. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Physics Essays, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. DrStrauss talk 22:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sharonzuke reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: ). Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Euryalus (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

This message id for Randykitty in regard to Physics Essays.

A few days ago I wrote you the following message:

This is not an edit war. It is a friendly statement of facts. The impact factor of the journal is available from other sources. The readers should be made aware of such sources. If they are unreliable, let the reader decide, and do not decide for them. Please do not remove what I add for the benefit of the readers, unless everything is removed related to the impact factor. If you prefer the latter solution, this is acceptable to me.

As to CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) Scholar, the reader cannot go into the link that you provide because it is almost impossible to find Physics Essays among the several thousands of journals and books that are listed there. It is much more helpful to provide the direct link to Physics Essays. Again, do not disrupt the improvements to the page that I make by reverting them.

Finally, I do not understand your insistence in arranging the order of the abstracting list in the wrong way. Physics Essays is a physics journal, and not a chemistry journal. By listing, as you do, the Chemical abstracting first, a reader gets the message that Physics Essays is mainly concerned with chemical submissions, and not physics submissions. Again, this is an improvement to which you seem resisting, and it comes as an entire surprise to me. By the way, have you noticed that not one of the improvements that I submitted has been acceptable to you?

Sharonzuke

I was pleasantly surprised that you accepted my arguments and we found common ground by removing completely any mention to the impact factor and by rearranging the order of the abstracting list. In this way the version of the page was acceptable to me as published.

To my surprise, I found, two or three days ago, a complete reversal to the original controversial page, the reversal done by another editor, Euryalus. Not only, but he has blocked any change to the text. So, my question is: For how many rounds of discussions we have to go through before all the editors of Wikipedia are satisfied? Does it make sense what is happening?

I look forward to your reply in the hope that we can reach a consensus on the content of the page of Physics Essays.

Thanks.

Sharonzuke

Hi, Where did you write that message to me, because I never saw it (nor can I find it in your edit history). And, yes, you were edit warring, reverting edits and removing sourced content without any discussion. Anyway, we are now communicating, so that's a good start. Here are answers to your questions. I will be linking to a number of guidelines and essays that explain things in more detail, please read them.

Impact factors are assigned by the Journal Citation Reports. These are the only ones that we list. We do not include unreliable information in articles to "let the reader decide", that is not what a serious encyclopedia does.
You are putting an external link to the results of a search on CNKI in the text. As WP:EL explains, external links should be avoided in the body of text of an article. Per WP:ELNO#9, links to search results should be avoided completely. In short, adding the external link as you keep doing is inappropriate.
The order of the abstracting list: this is always done alphabetically. Any other order is based on personal opinion, which should be avoided (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH).
I never agreed to remove the sourced content about the impact factor and because we never discussed, there was no agreement and I never "accepted your arguments". The fact that Euryalus also reverted your edits indicates that they, too, do not agree with your edits. And if you check the edit history of the article, you will see that you have been reverted by multiple editors, not just me and Euryalus, so at this point there seems to be a solid consensus that your edits do not constitute an improvement of the article. You will have to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page of the article and obtain consensus there before you make those changes again.
Euryalus did not lock the article for editing. Instead, they blocked you from editing WP to stop your ongoing edit warring (as explained by the template just above this section).

In summary: your edits go against established WP policies and guidelines. Especially the fact that you kept reverting edits without discussing them is a serious issue (see WP:BRD). Finally, you have only ever edited this article. Do you have any relationship to the journal or its publisher? If so, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID.

I will copy this discussion to the talk page of the article, which is where the discussion should be continued, not here. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Sharonzuke. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Physics Essays, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Tercer (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Physics Essays. 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. Tercer (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]