User talk:I'm your Grandma.

I am really not sure what your issue is. Me edits did not copy any material from anywhere other than the body of the article I edited. The lede is suppose to summarize the body, so using the quotes and sources from the body does just that.Historian7 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:@Historian7: This is not my issue, but it is a problem. A simple google of the following text fragment,

which you just inserted into Scientific Method is found all over the internet. I have already noted that some of the material you worked with at Roman economy also appears in the World Heritage Encyclopedia. If this was unintentional, or, if, somehow you are not responsible for this, then I apologize, but the problem remains. There is substantial similarity to the material you are working with and material that has already appeared elsewhere. Sincerely,, Grandma (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however" comes from Wikipedia. I wrote that about 2005-6. Usually the internet copies from Wikipedia, as the encyclopedia does not enforce its copyright, watching out only for non-attribution of Wikipedia as the source. And if copying into the encyclopedia is detected, the copied text is reverted, in general. The more frustrating part comes from citations. The editors of the encyclopedia have to back up their text with citations. It's not so easy to come up with citations, and professors don't seem to mind when the citations get copied from the encyclopedia.

So User:Historian7, I pretty much can tell if a citation doesn't match the content. What I am going to do is name some of the un-named references so that they can be used elsewhere in the article, if needed. I may be forced to add some "citation needed" {{cn}} inline tags. But if you come up with new material, I follow the links and learn, myself. So I appreciate what you and Grandma are doing. Keep it up! Both of you. Regards --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ancheta Wis, the following edit made by @Historian7

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_economy&diff=623469271&oldid=602730788

included lots of material, but let us consider just a subset:

Currency and banking

The early Empire was monetized to a near-universal extent, in the sense of using money as a way to express prices and debts.[11] The sestertius (plural sestertii, English "sesterces", symbolized as HS) was the basic unit of reckoning value into the 4th century,[12] though the silver denarius, worth four sesterces, was used also for accounting beginning in the Severan dynasty.[13] The smallest coin commonly circulated was the bronze as (plural asses), one-fourth sestertius.[14] Bullion and ingots seem not to have counted as pecunia, "money," and were used only on the frontiers for transacting business or buying property. Romans in the 1st and 2nd centuries counted coins, rather than weighing them—an indication that the coin was valued on its face, not for its metal content. This tendency toward fiat money led eventually to the debasement of Roman coinage, with consequences in the later Empire.[15] The standardization of money throughout the Empire promoted trade and market integration.[16] The high amount of metal coinage in circulation increased the money supply for trading or saving.[17]

This material is virtually identical to the material found at

http://www.worldheritage.org/article/WHEBN0000025507/Roman%20Empire

which reads

CURRENCY AND BANKING

The early Empire was monetized to a near-universal extent, in the sense of using money as a way to express prices and debts.[202] The sestertius (plural sestertii, English "sesterces", symbolized as HS) was the basic unit of reckoning value into the 4th century,[203] though the silver denarius, worth four sesterces, was used also for accounting beginning in the Severan dynasty.[204] The smallest coin commonly circulated was the bronze as (plural asses), one-fourth sestertius.[205] Bullion and ingots seem not to have counted as pecunia, "money," and were used only on the frontiers for transacting business or buying property. Romans in the 1st and 2nd centuries counted coins, rather than weighing them—an indication that the coin was valued on its face, not for its metal content. This tendency toward fiat money led eventually to the debasement of Roman coinage, with consequences in the later Empire.[206] The standardization of money throughout the Empire promoted trade and market integration.[207] The high amount of metal coinage in circulation increased the money supply for trading or saving.[208]

And, I emphasize, this is just one example. I don't understand how this identical material is appearing at both Wiki and World Heritage Encyclopedia.

Just keeping track, Grandma (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is simple: World Heritage Encyclopedia copies Wikipedia articles verbatim. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord! I had no idea! @Historian7, I apologize without qualification. I had no idea that "World Heritage Encyclopedia" copied Wiki and, then, wrapped it up as if it was their own product. I'm very sorry to imply that you may have been acquiring your text from them. Sincerely, Grandma (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the WHE site even has a copyright stamp at the base of their webpages! Amazing! Grandma (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've told them about wp:Reuse. We'll see if there's any impactLeadSongDog come howl! 05:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've said they'll address the problem. Let's wait and see. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note to Vsmith at User talk:Vsmith#Project. Of course Vsmith is one of the best, but I thought I'd suggest three other editors who might be able to help regarding the Earthquake prediction article: 0x0077BE, Materialscientist, and Drbogdan. Also, Vanamonde93 and Mannanan51 are good editors who can help with writing and research. CorinneSD (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorinneSD, thank you. "That" page has quite a few problems. Yes, it needs editing for English. But mostly it needs to be worked over for content first. I've poked around, looking for editors working on geophysics pages, but they have mostly shied away when they see the extreme emotion (and sense of ownership) of some of the others that are already involved. What would help is if several editors with experience in geophysics got involved and exert their influence. The page itself is quite important. By the way, you have wonderful visual taste! Looking after things, Grandma (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It looks as if you would not need any help in editing the writing in articles, but I'd be glad to help whenever you need help. I also have an amateur interest in science. CorinneSD (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorinneSD, everyone here likes to think that they know how to write! Another set of Wikipages I've been trying to promote, and which you might find interesting (given your visual taste), are those related to artists whose work is sympathetic to science. Among my favorite artists are the great American landscape artists of the 19th century, especially those of the Hudson River School. Still ticking, Grandma (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been learning more about art and artists from the brilliant and knowledgeable Hafspajen, and have been encouraged to nominate images for Featured Picture status. I'll look for those and other artists whose work has some connection to science. CorinneSD (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorinneSD, your gallery of pictures reminded me of this artist: Martin Johnson Heade, an obvious lover of Nature! Grandma (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. I had never heard of him. I enjoyed looking at the images and will read the article soon. CorinneSD (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion at Fourier transform talk page over your recent edit regarding what classes of functions FT is suitable for. For future reference: if your edit is reverted in good faith (ie, not in a simple act of vandalism), it is best to start a talk page discussion on the topic instead of simply re-doing the edit. See WP:BRD for a longer explanation of this recommended strategy. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grandma, please stop WP:OWNing the talk page at Talk:Fourier transform. As I explained there, the break is necessary because the new discussion concerns the lead as a whole, not the irrelevant issue of periodic and transient phenomena. I want outside people to comment in the new section, not the old one. Boris already apparently got confused by your insistence that we are somehow still discussing periodic and transient phenomena. Your behavior has become unconstructive there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of principle, you do not change other people's comments, including putting them into a new section. If you inserted a link to a section head that you shouldn't have created then you can remove that link. Grandma (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence on joining the new section that concerns the lead as a whole to the earlier, irrelevant, section on transient and periodic phenomena is totally unconstructive. Are you actually interested in getting outside opinions or not? If not, we can just stop discussing things and leave it however you wish. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new section was something that you inserted and divided my comments off from the previous section. That is very clear. Thank you, Grandma (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it you are not interested in continuing constructively there. Good to know. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Slawekb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Talk:Fourier transform because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Fourier transform. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Fourier transform, you may be blocked from editing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vandalism if I return my comments to the section where I originally contributed them! Thank you, Grandma (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism to put the comments there, but you are actually removing things, not just moving them, in a way that affects the context of the section. That is considered to be vandalism. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move, remove, or place my comments in a section where I did not place them myself. I'm going to let you think about this. Grandma (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not want to be quoted, then you should not have posted comments in a public forum, especially one whose contents are released under the Creative commons license. It is completely routine to quote others like this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not routine to move my comments to a new section, no. And inserting my comments, as if I wrote them, is NOT the same as quoting somebody. Grandma (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Slawekb, please do not use my talk page anymore. Thank you. Grandma (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Earth page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Puffin. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Euclidean algorithm  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 22:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Puffin, just have a look at the edit history. Thanks, Grandma (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Assuming you're a genuine newbie, you should take a time out to review WP:BRD and WP:3RR. If you have more changes to make today, I suggest you post drafts to the talk page first, to avoid EW complaints. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but just to be clear, when the delete-revert sequence began, we were already in the midst of a discussion about the content on the talk page. And, yes, drafts are great, but nothing gets discussion going like an honest and well-intended edit of the article itself. Things seem to be progressing now. Grandma (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the big yellow box in the prior thread is the official way we give an FYI about the subject in the box. Climate is a contentious area so wise newcomers make a lot more use of the talk page than making lots of un-vetted changes to the live text in a short period of time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy, I understand. I hope you recognize that I'm a responsible old lady.

When we ask uninvolved people to assess the WP:CONSENSUS our guidance pages instruct them to look at the , in which case merely saying "I like this more than that" is the same as saying nothing at all. To count, it's best to explain why. Have at it! I like having my mind changed for good reasons. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

On the article plate tectonics, I tagged the claim "Tectonic motion first began around three billion years ago." with {{why}} not because I personally want to know, but because the article needs to explain why. Adding "due to mantle convection" seems like half an answer; was the mantle not convecting before and if not why not? The article hasn't been fixed, so I'm putting the tag back. -- Beland (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the answer, then please fix the text yourself. Thank you, Grandma (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]