It is very hard! I found references for citations and because I copy pasted part of an article from wired and adding the citation, Sam Kuru deleted ALL my changed! So I have to go look for it again. I will do that, but seriously whoever deletes things should check and not DELETE all. Or if so delete the article that pretends the name comes from Virtual Reality and Royal Tour without even giving a reference. It took me a while to find the reference. Found it. And the Sam Kuru deletes it all!?! :-(
I will find it again. But please among yourselves you should also check over zealous deleting otherwise you will just make new comes like me run away.
I cannot edit the article anymore. Or I did not know how to or where to press.
So I tried it through the source... yes meanwhile I learned that.
And then it was deleted as well.
That page is not updated. You cannot leave virtual tour without metaverse. that is the whole point of updating the article.
It is like if you would be talking about a library and meanwhile the internet appeared and you delete when I talk about online libraries and amazon, google selling books. I mean not you Schazjmd but Sam Kufu. Anyway you see what I mean?
Normally all shoud be fine now. I see the flying car anyway even if my reference was not OK because it was the company website... I also saw that I actually talked about the 400 model while the article is about the 200 model. I found the vertical flight association website that talked about it last year. So I updated that it can be electric or hybrid and put the reference.
For the Virtual Tour article, I also updated as it should rephrased and put the reference.
Both edits I did according to the BRD rules of Wikipedia and I proposed even to write it in Bold in case there is any problem.
Thank you for your patience. And thanks to everyone I am slowly learning. :-)
hello redacted 403. Sorry if you think so. I m not chinese and don t work for Moller, the article had no updates since years that is why wikipedia sent me this as task. I found in the AI that Moller had now Chinese investors and that it was restarting so I added the parts missing of their history and referenced their website.
What should we do? I mean not having updated information is less good than having updated information. no?
Jdcomix was not replying for REDACTED403, he was adding an additional caution; those are generally grouped under a month year heading.Here are some of the problems with your edit to Moller M200G Volantor:
You wrote As of 2023, the M400 Skycar has not achieved free flight. Despite hundreds of successful test flights, the project’s failure to deliver and associated financial issues have hindered its progress. You did not cite a source for any of that.
You wrote Paul Moller’s work on the Skycar has inspired a new generation of VTOL aircraft developers. His designs, particularly the use of multiple small fans for efficiency and reduced noise, have influenced companies like Joby Aviation. However, Moller remains unconvinced by the concept of electric VTOLs (eVTOLs) and continues to advocate for his hybrid approach. Again, you did not provide any source for that information.
You wrote Moller International is moving forward with joint venture plans in China and logistics planning for the M400X Skycar inaugural flight. While the project’s timeline and financial situation are uncertain, Paul Moller’s dedication to his life’s work remains unwavering, citing https://www.moller.com/. When I do a find on that page, there is no mention of China or M400X, so it is not a good source for that content. Since that is Moller's own site, it is not a reliable source for puffery claims such as Paul Moller's dedication to his life's work remains unwavering.
Sources are provided in articles so that readers can verify the information. They tell readers (and other editors) where we got the information that we add to the article. Our text should summarize what reliable sources say. We give much more weight to what independent sources say about a topic than we do to what the subject of an article says about themselves. And unless we are adding a direct quote, all content must be in our own words, never copy-paste. Hope that helps. Schazjmd(talk)15:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank yes that helps alot. Thank you Schazjmd for taking the time to write all this to me. I don t mind getting comments on my work. It makes me want to make it better. yes the 3 parts were all coming from moller s website. but if you tell me that is not a reliable source, it is OK. I accept that and will go look for other sources.
As you know I am new. I do not chose the articles I receive. I spend time and then I just get a DELETE without a nice explanation like you just did. So again thank you for that.
The system should not simply do a delete. It should give the chance to the contributor (me in this case) to right his/her wrong. This way I can learn from my mistakes and make the perfect research. If not how can I learn? I will simply make more articles with more mistakes. not good for my mental not good for the content not good for whoever has to check.
I understand that it's frustrating to have your edits reverted and your work deleted, especially when you don't understand what was wrong with them. Learning to edit wikipedia articles is challenging. There are a lot of policies, guidelines, and expectations that are hard to figure out at first. Anytime you have a question, please feel free to ask me or you can ask at the Teahouse to get the benefit of other editors' views.You also need to understand that every editor on wikipedia is a volunteer and each one chooses where to invest their time and efforts. Some editors closely watch recent changes to prevent any inaccuracies or vandalism or unsourced additions. When they see an edit that fits one of those categories, they'll most likely revert it and leave a template on the editor's talk page to let them know about the problem. Those templates contain useful links to pages that are relevant to the problem and, if the editor clicks through to read them, help educate the new editor on how to improve. There is no "system", just individual editors making judgement calls on whether to try to fix a problem or simply revert it.I suggest that you avoid adding sources to articles until you better understand the relationship between a source and article content, and understand what constitutes a reliable source on wikipedia. For example, above you say that all three paragraphs are supported by https://www.moller.com/, but they're not. There is no information on that page that an experienced editor would summarize the way that you did. You might find it useful to start with Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss, a project that runs scripts to find misspellings in articles so editors can fix the spelling. A lot of my early edits were spelling corrections through that project. Schazjmd(talk)16:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello Schazjmd.
How are you? I am shocked by the way people go on reverting but do not make the articles better and when one is finished doing so another one comes back to annoy without giving reasons!
ZERO RESPECT! But I will fight for the truth and the upgrades of articles.
first I had comment about copyright, I rewrote the article. (now I understand that)
then I got that the article mention companies... fine if we cannot mention companies then google should be deleted from the original article... but they don t do that.
Then now the last one says it is my personal opinion that metaverse is a thing! crazy. I think they are old people that do not know what metaverse is so I put it again and added a company I forgot actually so good. (these companies have their wikipedia pages so why do they even agree with them having wikipedia pages if you cannot mention them... but google is ok to mention!)
I think they see me as a newcommer and so they just want to show they know better about a subject they clearly do not know about.
So if they go on bothering the article I would like to start a dispute resolution. How does that work? is it honest or other editors will stick together with these ones because they are old and I m a newcommer?
The Art Collector, you haven't taken any of my advice so far, but I'll try one last time: you need to learn the ropes before you go charging in to disputes. Start a discussion on the article's talk page, present your references, and get consensus for the added text. Stop edit-warring. If you can't convince other editors on the article's talk page that a section on metaverse belongs in the virtual tour article, then go do something else. Schazjmd(talk)19:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I m sorry Wikipedia is not for old people only!
the metaverse belongs in the article and the New York Times link to the article is proof enough that I m not just inventing things.
The way these editors delete is just power abuse and ego. So I don t mind dispute at least these editors will be flagged. So how do I request a dispute?
Honestly I have seen an article for example that clearly was written by someone that is promoting the content and nobody said or did nothing.
so please tell me how do I start a dispute please?
The first step is to attempt to reach consensus on the article talk page. There is no means of dispute resolution that will listen to you until you've attempted that first. Schazjmd(talk)13:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello jdcomix. Thank you for answering for REDACTED403. Although I would have appreciated an answer from REDACTED403 to my question.
I have added content to update the article that has not been updated since years and I cited a reliable source. The website of the person who invented a the flying car the article is talking about is not a reliable source? right now the article is outdated. so if you could take the time to check the website of the inventor and update the information as I don t seem to do it right. Again I have nothing to do with that company. I just found the subject interesting. The Art Collector (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Virtual tour shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MrOllie,
My edit was blocked for copyright issues. I have fixed that. When I reverted I wrote I was OK to do the BRD rule if that was a problem for anyone and I asked to message me before undoing my work.
So please explain me why you have undone my work, with good and precise reasons. I do not want to start an edit war, but I will see through with my edits unless someone gives me good reasons of course.
Copyright was not the only problem with your edits. You added a list of vendors and citations to unreliable sources as well, and editorializing. If you read WP:BRD and came away with the idea that people would message you before reverting, you misunderstood WP:BRD. MrOllie (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply MrOllie,
rmv copyvio cut&paste from given source; addition of a content marketing blog
Wired magazine which is the reference is not blog.
And if listing companies like Microsoft and Nvidia you consider as marketing... then why is there google several times in the article and you do not delete that.
I don t mind you to amend and better the information, I do mind you to simply undo and not respect the time I put in research. So if you tell me you will spend time on it, do the research and make the proper update of the article, I will be OK I will check later your contribution but if you simply click revert because I am new and this was a task, I will not agree. Mean you did not mean it like this, sorry for misunderstanding then.
It is my 3rd day here on wikipedia and it is very interesting. Mix of nice and not nice people. I don t mind it s like in the world. But I expect professional people and I will not give in to that.
The article about the flying car was my fault because I used as reference the website of the owner of the car. Got that, even if the information gotten there is probably the most complete, it s true that it will not be neutral. But then after I saw that the article was about model 200 and I was actually writing more about model 400. So I am glad for correction from other editors to build a better content on the article. The problem was the article needed update. But then I found a vertical flight association article. So all good there.
Anyway back to our virtual tour. It is important to update it and talk about the metaverse which is what virtual tours of today are. It is like if we are talking about books and the article talks about libraries and you refuse to talk about online libraries and book services like amazon and google... even talk about the kindle to read books.
You have to secure the agreement of other editors. You don't get to dictate conditions for what other people have to do to be allowed to revert you - the onus is on you to secure agreement from others on the article's associated talk page. Making the same edits over and over is edit warring, and that will not work - it is against policy here. MrOllie (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you are not an editor? we are talking exactly for that. I am not dictating conditions, I am working to get proper information on wikipedia, this is what everyone is supposed to do. You have undone my work.
Kuru has reverted my original editorial for clear reasons which meanwhile I understood and adapted. If someone should agree or disagree with my update it is kuru.
Now you have deleted my last work, so I am asking you to either give me good reasons or otherwise amend it better. If you went in the history of the edits you will see that it is not the same edit. The possible edit warring is right now only with you. This is why we are talking and finding a way to resolve this.
Could you explain me why you do not want to update the information properly and do the research yourself so the article is properly edited?
Also you will have to go find the references that were asked by wikipedia, which I found.
1) On the 'article' talk page. And 2) I have already given you my reasons. It isn't up to you to decide if they are 'good reasons' - I get to decide that for myself. MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello. that is not very nice. so you value your opinion above mine without thinking about the good of the article and wikipedia otherwise you would have fixed the references and citations and updated the article. I will revert and you can do as you want. I will not mind going to dispute resolution seen I am of good will and you don t seem to be.
I built something. You deleted it. That is why I said I agree with everybody as long as it is constructive. let s build together. That is why I also spend so much time exchanging with you and I think you understand what I mean and agree otherwise you would not also write back to me. I appreciate that.
I did see, when I wanted to revert that you did work on the article. Appreciated. You put the references. Unlike when Kuru deleted simply and deleted the references and all. Because that is the nightmare with "revert". All what one builds is destroyed. I invite you and others to work on it, turn it, change it... not just revert and delete it all.
That article needs the part on the metaverse. Your issue is the company names mentioned from the article... which I understand... just the article has several times google... so the article as it is now is not objective and sounds like any virtual tours are owned by google. That is not the case. So do you agree that if we have to delete microsoft, nvidia and so we should also delete the google reference in the article? could you please do so then? Or do you agree that if we put company names we might as well put several ones to makes it more neutral?
No, I do not agree that adding a section on a buzzword like 'metaverse' is needed in the article. I also do not agree that a longer list of vendors is any better. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you were warned above about edit warring, I encourage you to look at that warning again and click on the embedded links. MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So believe it is my personal analysis? Which means if I rewrite the same but put a source (which will not be a problem at all as this is basic) that links virtual tour with metaverse then you will be fine. So why did you not simply say you need a reference and why you simply delete without improving the article?
Your edit to Virtual tour has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Sam Kuru(talk)13:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sam,
You deleted it because I used a sentence from the article of wired? So I can simply rephrase it right? It was a good summary to bring the content up to date.
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hi there, I see you've been told you're using the wrong kinds of sources. You might find it useful to enable this userscript: User:Headbomb/unreliable. It will highlight sources that are known to be unreliable, so you can learn more easily what you ought to avoid. It won't pick up every unreliable source - but it sure picks up a lot of them. Cheers, and welcome! -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Great. Is that because I asked how old you were and if you understand what the metaverse is? Have you ever tried a VR Headset?
Wikipedia also has BRD policy which you did not respect. As I mentioned before I am fine to write the metaverse chapter in bold.
Anyway had talk the last 2 days with people that thanks to you I see the information on wikipedia in a completely different light. Clearly not so reliable information as I thought and sadly outdated.
WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy. It says that after an edit has been reverted, the editor who made the initial edit should start a discussion on the talk page. So you were the one not respecting its guidance.However, you were blocked for edit warring (which is a policy). Schazjmd(talk)21:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Your reason here Hello Bbb23. Thank you for your message. This is all about the Virtual Tour wikipedia page. Please go have a look. So I read in the guide to appealing blocks about the different points. One of them saying to talk about myself and not the others... easy to say but no easy to do. The article I edited first was undone for reason of copyright. I messaged in the teahouse and received a lot of feedback which was good to learn and to get better. So I understood the copyright issues. Good. So fixed the article and the editor that had undone my first enhancement of the article was fine with it then. Then MrOllie undid my work. I don t mind the making articles better, I do mind the undoing without enhancing the article. It is not respectful for wikipedia and the reader. The information needs update so if I do not do the update right according to MrOllie. MrOllie being the only one each time reverting. When I asked several times why... eventually I got as answer that I was using company names in the article and that I was putting my personal opinion. The metaverse is since the last 3 years what the world uses for virtual tours. So it should be part of the update. I added references to articles to proof it. And about the companies that are mentioned to the article, most of the companies have their own wikipedia pages... I proposed several times to either delete all the company names, all of them including google that is the only company seemingly according to the outdated article that does virtual tours. Or to simply leave all the company names and embrace the links to their wikipedia pages etc. and the answer to that was a revert again. So as I don t get any real reasons or solutions I asked for a commission to review which was also a no to do. I proposed according to BRD to write the METAVERSE part in BOLD this way it could be checked in a respectful way and again I got no answer. So now we are here... So please can you help me to bring justice to the article. I think the reason I get reverted by 1 person is because I am a new commer. And probably the reason why MrOllie is not wanting to put metaverse as part of the virtual tour is because whoever MrOllie is, that person is not aware about new technologies... maybe age related? Anyway it is sad to be so closeminded and discovering how only one person can stop progress in the editor pool of wikipedia. I am discovering the system and have to say that it is now 2 days I have been sharing that with people... I will never read information on wikipedia the same way... not reliable and outdates is not a good thing. So please fix it and do something about MrOllie. And again I am mentioning 1 person because the original editor that undid my work had no more problem with it and MrOllie is not being reasonable in trying to find solutions on updating the article. With no valid reason. Unless MrOllie works for google and wants to keep the whole articles google only and that would be why he/she insists on reverting the article? who know the reasons. Thank you. The Art Collector (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You talk a lot about the actions of another user. All we need to know is how you will resolve editing disputes without edit warring. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
