User talk:Paula Pilcher

Correspondance preferably on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Use this page only to redirect me there. Thank you. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Fiberglass

Hi, thanks for cleaning up Fiberglass. Next time, please be careful when deleting text containing <ref> tags. If there is a named <ref> tag that is referenced from outside the deleted text, and the deleted text happens to be where its content is defined, that content needs to be copied into the non-deleted reference, otherwise the article will have a citation error. For Fiberglass, don't worry about it; I've already fixed the problem. Just be careful next time. :-)—Tetracube (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of your talk page

A talk page is more than a site for redirecting you to articles your help is needed with. Other editors will inevitably have matters they wish to discuss with you which are not about a particular article, and this is the venue for that. You may delete them from you talk page, and that is taken as an indication you have read them. It is a better practice to archive them. I note the deletion of the "Strength of glass" article because of copyright violations. It still seems like an important and notable topic for an article, or a section in the Strength of materials article. Glass seems to be a strong material, but brittle. Various forms of glass are used as structural elements. A new article on the same topic would be a useful addition. Thanks. Edison (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic definitely deserves a section within Strength of materials. As for the defunct defunct strength of glass article, it not only violated copyright, it was also plain bad. Please see this in the context of the overall activities of User:Logger9: he has written a number of loquacious essays, overcharged with references, and he keeps dumping this material almost at random in articles where it does not belong. However, people are so impressed by the scientific apparence that they don't dare to reject these contributions. Just have a look at the clean-up I performed yesterday. -- Paula Pilcher (talk)

I put this on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few users expect all conversation to be on their own page. More commonly, the conversation goes back and forth. I post on your page, you reply on mine, etc. It seems like there would be too many talk pages on my watchlist if I had to monitor the othe5r editor's page for a reply. As for the glass articles, it would be an unbalanced article if someone placed their thesis or a college term paper about a particular specialized sub-topic in an article such that it made a large section of the article. The fact that some thesis or term paper has references does not mean that everything in it belongs in a general article. Unfortunately, many of us who have some background in science or engineering absolutely cannot accurately judge what is a balanced coverage of some very specialized topic. I studied mechanics of materials many years ago, but the details fade after a time. Our article can be compared to the corresponding article in a work such as Britannica. Edison (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedies for copyvio

We do not delete for copyvio when there is a noncopyvio version in the history to revert to, as there was for Walter Kauzmann. I removed the copyvio and am reworking the article. Qw ashould especially do this when the subject is extremely notable, as for him, who was a member of the NAS. DGG (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Good news that we can keep part of the article. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glass transition. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. NW (Talk) 19:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Glass transition. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. 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.

Exploding Boy (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block was for 24 hours, in case you were curious. Edison (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I'd put that in. Added now. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your message.

I replied to your message on my talk page.--Srleffler (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you ran afoul of the three-revert rule—perhaps you aren't familiar with this. It's kind of a blanket rule on Wikipedia. Anyone who reverts a page more than three times in 24 hours gets blocked. Admins try to be impartial about this; it's not uncommon for an admin to block people on both sides of the dispute. The block is not a judgement on the merits of your view in this content dispute, but rather on the methods you used. Work with other editors, get consensus. If there is consensus that the material is unwanted, it will be gone quickly.--Srleffler (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for collaboration

Once your block expires and you return to Wikipedia, could you please go to Talk:Glass_Transition#A_note_to_all_contributors and respond to my post? Thank you, NW (Talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-operation

Hi, Paula Pilcher, I would like to ask you to reconsider signing out like displayed on you user page. Some of your comments are reasonable, others aren't. I am glad that logger9 you were fighting with was stimulated to re-consider his writing style. We all can grow with co-operation. All the best with your projects in life... -- Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 20:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Cold source" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cold source. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#Cold source until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]