User talk:Pie are round

I apologize for my over-reaction to your comments at Talk:David Hilbert. I am having a rough week and because of old history with this page I am quite sensitive about the Einstein/Hilbert discussion (if you are interested and weren't following that, let me know and I'll explain). But I still believe you are under estimating my ability to be objective and hope to prove myself objective in the coming discussion. A question, however. You say you have commented there before, but I don't see any indication of that in your user history for this account. Might I inquire as to who you used to be? You have me at a disadvantage there. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Hilbert[edit]

(Re Your reversion of edit on Article Hilbert, left on "Will BeBack" talk)

Admins are important to Wiki, so should conduct themselves with additional care. You reverted, without comment, an edit by me which modestly modified a claim there that had credited Hilbert with the development of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. This claim was in the face of general acceptance of credit to others, particularly crediting Einstein with Relativity. I have engaged discussion with the original author, and we will see what may come of it. However, your reversion appeared questionable on the merits and was made without comment, and this leads to two questions: First whether you intended or have made yourself a party to this "controversy", and whether your actions were an abuse of your privileges as an admin. Please provide response to my talk page explaining your position in the controversy, and any good reason you had for summarily reverting my edit. Thank you. --Pie are round (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, I left your citation requests. However there were two problems with the other aspects of your editing.[1] First, striking through text is not the correct way of replacing it. Perhaps you can imagine what it wouold be like if that were the standard practice across over 2 million articles with thousands of alterations every day. Second, there was no explanation given for the changes. I'm glad to see that you're engaged in a discussion over the material and I'm sure that with a good faith effort a consensus will be found about the right way to phrase the assertions. Will Beback talk 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Yet your answer is not responsive to the question of whether you intend to make yourself a party to an editing dispute. While its hard for me to see the "good faith" of someone who asserts as FACT (as opposed to a supported contention of some kind) that Hilbert is to be credited with both relativity and quantum mechanics, for the sake of civility I will pretend it present. Yet I will declare good faith completely absent if you make ambiguous, as you are doing, whether you are neutral or a party to the dispute. You should declare that now and clearly, or you will risk being regarded as a party not an admin.

I appreciate the problem with strike outs. To explain, the strike through was not intended as a replacement, but to signal a controversy to the reader and interested editors and propose a change which explained the dispute. The strike out would be removed on resolving the dispute, and the absence of discussion would be grounds for reversion by an admin. Perhaps there is a alternative and more conventional way to signal this manner of proposed change, but that is what should have been recognized and explained in discussion of your edit. If you had looked you would have seen discussion was left. (You have to WAIT an hour for people to complete discussion edit before you hair-trigger a revert. Perhaps you got caught in that. See what a problem it raises?)

But worse, your summary reversion IN FACT significantly interfered with the editing process and weighed heavy-handedly on the side of the article status quo. I can explain further but if you don't see it that way I'd rather just call it to your attention and ask that you consider it (as I see other signs you are running into this problem with others). I offer further this comment, which is also admonition and warning: Editors/admins must sometimes act efficiently, and even sometimes in error, and the great unwashed (editors) must give some slack and deference not because you are righter or smarter, but because it has to be so to make it all work. Yet also care must be taken by admins to assure the authority and deference given them is properly used, not abused. I will be pleased to take your response here, and will be most glad to accept suggestions for how to better go about improving Wikipedia articles. --Pie are round (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in participating in the discussion over what the text should say. I was simply enforcing the status quo. The edit in question made significant changes without any explanation. I revert dozens of unexplained changes in articles every week. Whatever folks decide to do, based on a consensus at the talk page, is fine with me. I have no interest one way or the other. As for how to edit better, the first lesson from this should be to always explain your edits using the edit summary box. Will Beback talk 20:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What??? You aren't an editor then, you were acting as an admin? And you have more than a HS education? Yet you have no opinion at all on who is credited with relativity and quantum mechanics, except that Hilbert being credited is the "status quo"? And you weren't asked for this admin "help" by someone because of some problem conduct, but that it is just that it is your job to wander aimlessly around the wikipedia officiously "enforcing the status quo" by reverting anything you think "made significant changes" and which does not have something in the edit box?

OK. Let me suggest you have just committed and admitted misconduct, or serious mistake, and unapologetically too, so in future you should look to see if "Pie are round" is involved and if so you should hands off for a day, or even more, to see what happens. And if you conduct yourself again as you did in this case I will be obliged to make a big deal about it, perhaps even to begin wondering whether you are well suited for admin duties. And get your bloody hand off the hair-trigger revert key.

Please be aware that civility and assuming good faith are core policies of this project. WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF Will Beback talk 22:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of incivility? OK,then in the interest of harmony I've redacted an unessential comment (I'll remove it entirely shortly). I always presume good faith, but good faith can be called into question by circumstances or even rebutted by conduct. And inCivility is not mere disagreement, bluntness, or critique. Besides, improper conduct by an admin is too serious to pull punches on, and their skin need to be a little thicker than ordinary in any event, don't you agree?--Pie are round (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose its a fine line between "sniveling" and attempting to suggest ways I am more comfortable collaborating. I probably splatter a bit on both sides of the line. But since I have been unsuccessful at the latter on several tries, I will abandon the attempt. I do appreciate your comments on the text and am happy to be diving back into things Hilbert after a rather long break. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I am okay with the result, I'm addressing these question here rather than the Hilbert talk page: 1) in what way was my last comment on the talk page different from this earlier shorter comment - I don't believe I've been vague about my intentions, but an author can be blind to such things and 2) what wiki policy do you believe my suggestion would be violating? I can see editors disagreeing as to its appropriateness, but I don't see a policy violation. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your extremely kind remarks. While the encouraging words are appreciated, something that always bothers me is being misunderstood. Understanding is, of course, a two-sided process and by asking the questions above I'm hoping to sort out why I was misunderstood (as I believe I was). My attitude all along has remained the same and I believe I have been open about it: Hilbert did some math associated with relativity and that deserves to be mentioned in the article without attributing him with priority for the theory, but in a manner that doesn't pull too much of the priority dispute into the article. Defending Einstein's priority seems to me to give too much credence to those that dispute it. Priority on this issue, in the long run, seems not to have been important to Hilbert and I don't think it is that important to this article. I believe my suggested version of the article is consistent with that attitude. It may still be too loose, be read as POV and need correction, but that's a different matter.

In any event, any ambiguity was error/terseness on my part - and perhaps not understanding how much I was perceived at times as an un-scientific math bigot who thought Hilbert "did" General Relativity. I am not but believe I was quickly marked as such without much evidence. Reading my last comment on the talk page with that perception in mind I can see even IT is ambiguous. If, instead, you read it with my attitude as described above in mind (perhaps emphasizing "SOME credit" and change "think little more about it," to "think no more about it") you might better understand my intended meaning.

While I could have been clearer in my intent throughout, the discussions would have been more productive had you commented something to the effect: "your suggestion appears to lean too much to the pro-Hilbert (or pro-Einsten - I am sometimes unclear about which you suggesting!) POV because...," leaving out my possible motivations until we (possibly) met an impasse about the content. I don't want to belabor these points, but if you spend more time with Wikipedia, you will likely (and unfortunately) find people that are even less conscientious about their writing than myself, who require a bit more patience and faith than even I require! But I will strive to be clearer/less ambiguous.

I do hope we can whip this article into shape at some point!

(further discussions, if any, can remain here if you like - I'm "watching" this page) (John User:Jwy talk) 01:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If we work together again I trust next time matters will move more quickly and cooperatively, now that we are better acquainted." - my hope and expectation! until then. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

As it appears you might not be aware of these, I suggest you read the following. Your approach so far has been unnecessarily "snarky," to use your term. Its completely unnecessary and distracting.

~~And it would help if you kept the talk page comments chronological within topic to make them easier to follow.~~

(John User:Jwy talk) 22:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Those were helpful. I'll review them while you work on your edit. ;) You might also look at the Hilbert Physics section in light of my earlier comments. I have a vague feeling of unease about them.--Pie are round (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]