Purgy Purgatorio

I am totally new here, and I still have to explore how to make this here and also other things more attractive to you, dear reader.

My only action up to now was editing the article and talk of "Jerk (physics)" and visiting the Teahouse, conversed with Bgwhite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Streamlining_Teahouse_Notification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Meaning_of_page_was_reviewed_by_user
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_to_nest_bold_and_italic.3F
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Editing_Conflicts_in_Teahouse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Previewing_in_Uploading_to_commons.wikimedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_to_render_.22dddot.22_in_math.3F

File:Schematic diagram of Jerk, Acceleration, and Speed.png|thumb|This picture shows a schematic diagram of Jerk, Acceleration, and Speed, assuming all three being limited in their magnitude, when linearly going from one point to an other, which are sufficiently far apart to reach the respective maxima. This is a .png-file generated by modifying a .bmp-file which I generated in Maple myself, and stored as .png-file. I intend to use it in the article at Jerk_(physics)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schematic_diagram_of_Jerk,_Acceleration,_and_Speed.png

The quality rating of Jerk (physics) has been improved to C after my edits, I'll look for further improvement. I edited on First-order logic and sadly missed some request on having been busy.

Meanwhile I know that the C-ranking of Jerk is nowhere near B, especially for the poor citations and references, whereas the content seems to be not too bad. I'll see if I can get myself to improve on this clerical and boring task. You all are cordially invited! :D

I was reverted for poor writing, already for adding roughly three sentences in the axiomatic section on natural numbers. I seem to learn about the climate at Wikipedia (see my talk page). :(

There are some nice guys around here, too, but all the efforts of Wikipedia to look attractive for new contributors are foiled by some who insist on their words being beatified, if not sanctified to remain in eternity. Some even avoid to just listen to the content, because it might be more concise. I exculpate them for all that much, real vandalism, which is not always self-evident. There is no wisdom of the masses! Good articles are products of at most a few.

OMG! What a nice and friendly and amicable place it is around here, compared to META-WIKI ! I was lured there by a banner asking for ideas, mine climbed the top of the leaderboard for endorsements, was hiddden from the campain, re-claimed the top after I reinstated it, and was covered and suffocated again, together with some other, just slightly similar ideas, all by some WMF-beadle in command by a so-called "safe and secure"-directorate.

Is it wrong that I consider some sick clinging to heriditary formulations in articles less damaging than suppressing ideas ad majorem dei gloriam?

I stumbled into the article Answering machine, selected for a week to be

This is Wikipedia's current article for improvement – and you can help edit it! You can discuss how to improve it on its talk page and ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse. See the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ for additional information. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipedia account and place this article on their watchlist. Find sources: "Purgy Purgatorio" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR

where I added substantially in number of bytes. This article had 35 watchers and just 4 - 5 contributors within the span of this one week of focused attention, leaving the article still in an -as a comment on the talk page boldly notices- pitiful state. No surprise, who cares about answering machines in the high times of cellular phones.

BTW, after these actions I was upgraded to an extended confirmed user, whatever this may be. Purgy (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, I stumbled. This time into a discussion on RfA. Admins seem to be different to an astonishing degree. While they all appear to be sapient on all the acronyms whirring around, denoting any other bureaucracy, necessary to keep Wikipedia alive, some do not (want???) to see writings on the wall, perfectly obvious to others. The 3 or 4 discussions on RsfA I had a look at, unveiled strange pro domo behaviour of the respective advocates. Where the pro-voters seemingly are crowded by band wagons up to the rim ("best admin ever!"), with most arguments being thin and without substance exceeding just pure hope, the neg-votes have to be defended against esoteric "safe-space" arguments like "too much negativity" and even offence ("haters will always hate"). I even thought to perceive consensus that !votes may be discarded by the mere claim them not being sufficiently argued. OTOH, any realisation of anticipated behaviour, causing inappropriate blockings, is eagerly exculpated and talked small by the group of fan-admins.

I, myself, was directed to an article, which I perceived as symbolic for "f*ck off, not your business, kid". Sorry, I cannot see this as sufficiently compensated by all those cants about "civility". See my talk page. Sigh! -Purgy (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Already Euler knew it, but nowadays Wikipedians Paul August and D. Lazard insist on staying behind his time and are still eager to keep up i=sqrt(-1), instead of the safe way i²=-1. The latter evidently takes pride in offending me, me making bad things worse, misleading things more misleading and me just inserting NPOV. See here and the reason here. It's boring to be continuously admonished for civil behaviour, when these guys do not even take the time to read the given arguments they are requesting in their standing type, not to talk about that they would valuate them. This french guy talks about worsely written! This is now the second time he offends and talks down on me and is absolutely uncooperative (Recall Natural numbers). BTW, the article is quite poor with nice remarks.

Immediately before this I partook in a discussion for deletion about a child prodigy. May this be no mentekel for Wikipedia, transforming to a fan club of PR.

Dear reader, as you might have noticed, my impetus to comment on life in WP has decreased. Please, judge on your own, if dramatically. But hey, I had a real nice encounter with a WPian at Geometric algebra, just too sad that we both exchanged some air of frustration. Another "hallmark" I was informed of on 14.08.2017: I already spat 1,000 times into the WP-soup. What a chance to appeal to the responsible drinking rules: Here's to me surviving in WP with other fine guys. Enough reason to add to my user page.

Before this enjoyable encounter I met another nice guy around here. Sadly, he was accompanied by some absolutely clueless, but therefore "professional" writer. Much more sad however, I could not contribute essentially to make a curved spacetime accessible to college level. It would have been a remarkable achievement, I just keep watching.

Another fiend of mine was revived by my contributions to "0.999...=1". OMG, what a useless debate without finicky agreement on some way of dealing with infinity. Whatever, there are opinions of those who refer to successfully having applied "real analysis" (say calculus) in some "thesis" as their qualifying credentials, who claim that piously appealing to infinitely often applying algebraic rules would suffice to give an attempt of a serious proof. I don't know how this will end with a currently open RfC.

BTW, I have seen the Field (math) article grow to be a GA. It is not my achievement! If at all, I contributed to the structure, and to my taste, the article grew too dry, and the refereeing was ridiculous, but here it is: a good article.

By chance only (Thomas.W left an explanation for his revert of my revert on my TP) a "cc I********t" by a newly acquired "friend", H*****r, who, together with his friend L*******c is on the trip to clean up draft space, caught my eye. I. had me threatened before with blocking and had insinuated I would fake ignorance of him threatening me, of course, no! had supposed me pretending not having been warned! So I looked for the content of 04.09. on his TP:

"... do you want to try explaining to this person in German that their grasp of the English language isn't as good as they think it is, and there's only a limited amount of patience The Wikipedia Community will show when it comes to comments like "your pertinent professional incompetence", especially given that their recent edit history seems to consist almost exclusively of machine-translated gibberish.) ‑ I********* 18:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)"

Yes really, "this person" asked Gerda Arendt. Sadly, he did not mention that I already had explained "professional" pertaining to "mathematically professional" to L. and that the addressee "pertinently" disqualified mathematical stubs as no "good" content, and really is no mathematician. In fact, I thought I. would address my comment on H. asking for support in the pending case at WP:AN about sanitizing draft space (TakuMurata). It's my fault, that I did not look up the given link, therefore I ignore his rudeness of "machine-translated gibberish". G.A. did not contact me up to now (that is to say, she did not go on the mission I. tried to schedule). I would like to explain myself in my mother tongue and give my line of arguments against this autocratic maniac. Just for the records, I. cannot know about my estimation of my mastering of the English language, I did not have the pleasure to converse with him at all, and BTW, I do not think too high about my idiom, but maybe higher than about some admins and their behaviour. anonymized the above for to conform to Wikipedia:User_pages, triggered by see -perhaps- below

Yesterday I was indef'd! The sentence Next time I will avoid marginal striking and use the means provided for libel. was taken to WP:ANI in an abbreviated form, accusing me of "legal threatening". The notification of this act arrived on my TP at 18:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC), T0:00. The next 17 hours are quite decisive, even when I slumbered away most of the time. I did not get to know about it before roughly 21:30, T+3:07, read about the necessity of clarifying the case, but, in lack of a given deadline and, assuming rules not enforcing 24/7 response, decided to deal with it next morning, went to bed, read some pages, and then slept. The innocent is not plagued by his conscience. Next morning (~07:30, T+13:07) I started to think about the animosity that triggered my summoning, and how to best answer the request, that claimed my sentence "appears as a legal threat". While I thought this over and tried to be calm about the way my sentence was misunderstood, I reverted 5 or so "good faith edits", and then started to write my explanations at WP:ANI. I should not have done the former: it was interpreted as ignoring the call for clarification! It was then 08:33, T+14:10, when I was blocked and could not deposit my clarification! Factually, I responded roughly within one hour of my awake state to a request, given without any scheduling. Of course, I immediately requested my unblock with the already prepared statement. The blocking admin acknowledged this, deferred action to another admin and went to bed. My request led to some other admin sniffing through my user and talk pages, finding "no good", but no really prosecutable things, and leaving me -who am I to care about this no-good guy- BLOCKED at: 09:02, T+14:39. It took until 11:07, T+16:41 to get me unblocked. Just talking about the blocking and unblocking process, not about the summoning yet.

• The admin dealing with a charge as severe as a "legal threat" should at least do some plausibility check before joining the accusation ("was perceived as" and not "appears to be") by simply taking the truncated citation given by the plaintiff as basis.
• In any non-exigent circumstances there should be reasonable(!) schedules for authoring an appropriate item of written comment countering the accusation.
• In case of a blatantly clear reason for unblock, no admin should waste time for sniffing harmless user pages for minor flaws, but should rather unblock immediately.
• I am aware that by the restless efforts of some admins my possibly undeserved privileges were restored to the earliest possible moment.

Not only the admin-side leaves things to desire (=improving WP).