• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

User Talk:GeogSage

Hi GeogSage. Thank you for writing very correctly about Technical Geography, about Geographia Technica and for mentioning me, Prof. Ionel Haidu. Indeed, the core concept is autocorrelation and frequency, both at the spatial scale and at the temporal scale, and from here derive all the characteristics specific to the geographical space. I would like to ask you to make a Wikipedia page about me because I have no experience and you already know me. Please very nicely! I will accept the conditions that you will set. Regards, Ionel. ionel.haidu@univ-lorraine.fr Ionel.Haidu (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the message! I've obviously read some of your work and appreciate your advancement of the term technical geography. The term came up in a course I was teaching and resonated with me, so I did a deep dive into the literature. Wikipedia pages I create are the result of literature dives for my work, and are essentially my notes on the topics made public. I'm glad that you approve of the page for that particular term, as I've put a lot of work into it (particularly regarding its history).

You (Ionel Haidu) are already on my list of people to create a page for, but I have struggled to find enough outside literature to put a full page together. The best source on your background is the university website here, but that isn't enough to pass the requirements for notability for academics, which you can read about here . Your Scopus h-index is 12, which likely wouldn't be enough to justify a page on based on criteria 1 "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." You may pass on criteria 8, which is "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area," but I'd prefer to have a big more meat and sources before making an article to avoid it being a stub with two citations, and one of those citations being your university page. I have tried to find a third party verification of the award on your website for the "Annual Prize of the Romanian Academy for Geography," which might satisfy criteria 2 of "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." but have not been able to find one yet. If you have any third party links to biographic information, awards, or anything of that nature, that would be appreciated (I believe some of this material might be missed by only using English in queries). I reached out to some of the projects to make sure your request is documented and how to note it if necessary, but I don't think it will be an issue if I can get access to solid 3rd party sources. GeogSage 20:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bigfoot. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one edit warring. The talk page is ongoing, I have only reverted twice, not three times. I changed one word and brought it to the talk page, which you immediately reverted. GeogSage 17:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That maths is as bad as the proposed English. Do it again and you'll be reported and likely blocked. Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third uncivil comment you have aimed at me. I have looked at the history of edits on the Bigfoot page, and only see three edits [1], [2], & [3] made by me on the bigfoot page at all since when I changed one word to discuss it on the talk page. I brought it to the talk page and you have been quite rude there, and in your edit summaries (such as saying you're edit is to "decrease cringe") and have insisted on your version while the talk was still ongoing. Your comment "That maths is as bad as the proposed English" is extremely uncivil. GeogSage 18:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo: 3 reversion, so not 2. Plain description of error is not "uncivil". Bon courage (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't consider my first edit to be a revert, as I was only changing one word back and not the entire edit you made as I agreed with most of it. Rule is MORE then three within 24 hours in my understanding. GeogSage 18:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing the work of another editor is a revert. Bon courage (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and three is not more then three. GeogSage 18:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Which is why you got a warning of what would happen should this continue. Then it would be a report to WP:AN3 (where it is requirement to show that a warning was issued to any reported user). Bon courage (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]