Thanks for uploading Image:Inkeri.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed pl:Noc from all interwikis article by my bot.-- Alex S.H. Lin 04:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips, I was going by the Freenode website and didn't notice the filename until i had finished uploading ;) Moniker42 ( talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. A proposal on the re-creation of WP:RUSSIA is currently underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal. One of the main points is that we should have workgroups covering different topics. We are trying to ascertain the interest of editors in various workgroups under WP:RUSSIA, such as history, politics, biographical, etc; as your userpage indicates you are Russian or live in Russia, perhaps you can take a read of the proposal, comment on it wherever you have thoughts, and perhaps provide details of any Russian topics you may be interested and are willing to collaborate with other editors on? Your input is valued. Cheers. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your note in the html of IRCd. The Operator abuse section is valid but could be written better and certainly needs references. There were quite a number of operators who were sanctioned on EFnet in the mid to late 1990s over that sort of behavior (I actually could name names of a number of those operators but that might not be a good idea on wiki). There should be archived emails of this stuff still around, possibly on the EFnet website somewhere. Google should turn up something. Another place to check for archived copies of this stuff would be Google Groups usenet archives. A good bit of IRC admin discussion still took place on usenet and other stuff discussed via email listserv was often reflected to the IRC-related usenet groups. Tothwolf ( talk) 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw you made a change to the lead of the wind article. What is the source of your addition? It needs to be in the article below, using a cite nnnn reference, or someone could potentially send the article to FAR. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have moved 'USA College binge drinking' back to 'Alcohol abuse'.
I agree with you that 'Alcohol abuse' is a serious, international subject. The content of the article, however, does not describe the disease or its effects in the world. The content describes the problems of college students in the United States.
Could I suggest that you undo the move and start a new article 'Alcohol abuse' with content about the disease and its problems in the world? A stub would be valuable as a begining. Thanks! jmcw ( talk) 10:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Incnis Mrsi!
I want to state one question to you: From August 19th until August 23rd the MAKS Airshow takes place again in Zhukovsky, near Moscow. Do you have the time to go there in order to take a lot of photos? Would be unique contribution for Wikimedia. I hope your response is positive. Greets, High Contrast ( talk) 18:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Late reply, I know, but I've replied to your questions at: Talk:Gyrovector space Charvest ( talk) 18:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, USA College binge drinking, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA College binge drinking. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 11:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Wikipedias&curid=6050087&diff=348177056&oldid=347013010 I don't think that's correct. -- Obersachse ( talk) 10:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for the reminder. I am well aware that I sometimes miss previous edits in a series of vandalism but most of the time I actually check the page history and then take the last good version to reset the article. Moreover, I think rollback is rather impractical because a) it needs to be applied for, b) any coded tool is only as practical as the code applied and c) not all edits by the same editor in a row are likely vandalism. So I prefer to use the "undo" button for single edits or just to restore an older version from scratch. De728631 ( talk) 21:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Template:Inet-note-ref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
My rationale is this: on March 27 this year, Russia will advance their clocks forward but it will not actually be daylight saving time, as they will be keeping "summer time" for the whole year. As a result, I reworded all mentions of daylight saving time, but, following March 27, I will advance the time offsets for all Russian time zones by an hour to reflect actual time usage. If you think this is presumptuous of me, then the reverts you have done are OK with me (except that the table for the tz database will need to be changed so that it is a bit more consistent), but I think that some sort of edit similar to what I have done should be performed after March 27 to prevent confusion. ZanderSchubert ( talk) 10:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Here I mean "ordinary" as on Earth at STP, not in the cores of neutron stars. No, free protons do not exist in liquids, since they always attach themselves to the electron cloud in the nearest molecule/anion, which is always available. There may exist free "solvated electrons" in liquids (like sodium dissolving in liquid ammonia to give a nice color), but electrons have sqrt(1836) = 43 times longer wavelengths than do protons, at any energy. A proton at room temp has a wavelength of 2 angstroms or so, which is far too small for them to sit in a cage between negatively charged anions and not be able to make a choice of which way to go and which to sit on, like the proverbial donkey starving between piles of hay. Protons have no reason to delocalize at room temperature.
Yes, I know the article on superacids talks about free protons in liquids, but it gives no references, and frankly I don't believe it. Ab initio QM calculations show protons hopping from anion-to-anion in the strongest superacid known, just as they do in water, via the Grotthuss mechanism. See [2].
So, some editor who claims to know what he's talking about, has reverted me on this point. There's my cite and there's my reasoning. Now, what have YOU got? And by the way, I'm going to go add a citation needed to the statement in superacids. S B H arris 00:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I used to leave comments like that until I learned that insult and arrogance interfere with editing. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Please, explain, what means this [3] edit. It is highly implausible that a very experienced user is not familiar with well known things about page moves and maintaining edit histories. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 11:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PNG Stereo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PNG Stereo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Smjg ( talk) 23:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
For a relatively new editor, you certainly had a bright idea on the MOS (linking) page about redirects rather than # direct links. I never even thought of that. Brilliant! And well-explained to boot. Keep up the good work!
Student7 (
talk)
22:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for cleaning up the new RJ45 section in Registered jack Kvng ( talk) 23:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Incnis Mrsi/Archive 1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Cheers - I did try that when I created the account and started on wikipedia but it didn't work. I'm not sure if it really matters; the caret-wedge shape symbol ⋀ and the cross-times symbol × are both used for the vector product of two vectors, so its not completley unrecognizible. Thats whats in the formula - the vector product of velocity v and magnetic field B. The process of changing names seems lengthly and involved, somehow, and you need to see Bureaucrats and all that. I would rather just stick to the current name and continue to edit - but thanks again =) Happy New Year! -- F = q( E + v × B) 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, there is an RfC concerning the Eidos page in which you have shown interest in the past. This is a small notification in case you may wish to take part in the discussion. Salvidrim! 20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my inadvertent change to the Talk page of Entailment. I was browsing on a slow tablet. -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 09:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Please excuse this intrusion, but you've got it all wrong, Incnis Mrsi. I never become insulted, or look for credit becuase I'm so self-obsessed with my edits, or any of that crap. All I ask for is feedback on my edits, becuase I really would like to know if people think mine are really bad, and what other editors prefer instead (whenever I appear to be "insulted", although not). I really don't mind if others obliterate my edits in place of better content (also - the point of Wikipedia would defeated if this were not so).
Of course: anyone may assume what they assume, but thats the truth. It just becomes irritating when a statement like that is made without reason. -- F = q( E + v × B) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you check the terminology used here? - DePiep ( talk) 09:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
-- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I have moved your diagram requests to their talk pages. (Also, a parameter could be provided to specify the type of diagram wanted, but I did not do that.) FYI the pages: Talk:Address space and Talk:Memory address. Mark Hurd ( talk) 14:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to follow up to see if you would be willing to participate in a one-hour long interview about your experience with categories. Thanks!
Senator2029 ( talk) 20:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi I just noticed you used {{ mvar}} within {{ math}}. {{mvar|name}} is just a shorthand for {{math|''name''}} for use in running text because referring to variables in text is so common. It'll make the characters too big if used within the math template. Dmcq ( talk) 18:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I note you have re-instated the split tag that I removed about a month ago. May I suggest that you put a note on the talk page to start some discussion. Also, if you are sure the article should be split then there is nothing to stop you from doing so. Op47 ( talk) 20:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Double sharp ( talk) 07:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Datagram
Virtual circuit
As you can see, datagram and virtual circuit are indeed opposite of each other. I am returning my edit to both articles.
If still in doubt, please don't change the articles any more, but:
Regarding your recent revert with the comment to "please, walk through average and arithmetic mean links to verify that such definitions are inapplicable to most bodies. the only relevant case would be a body composed of several *identical* particles":
Please note that my wording was "average location of all the mass", not "average location of all the particles". If the mass is unevenly distributed at different points, the average location of the mass will reflect that. This is in agreement with the average of a function:
Make it a triple integral over the entire body or set of bodies, define f(x) as the mass density, and you have the average location of the mass, which is the mass center. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
My mistake in defining the integrand. I should have defined f(x)=x*ρ(x), which is a generic position vector x multiplied by the density function ρ evaluated at the position x. The integral is taken over all the mass, and the leading factor is 1/mass. Now the result is the center of mass, right? MarcusMaximus ( talk) 04:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Uniform motion. Since you had some involvement with the Uniform motion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Tideflat ( talk) 22:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi,
While I agree with your reasoning for reverting the absolute value page as you did, I think it was rather clumsy of you to undo a change several edits back without more careful examination of the content. There was at least one change that was completely valid that you effectively erased with your revert. Please be more careful in the future, otherwise, happy hunting. KlappCK ( talk) 20:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Very mature comment Template talk:Sister project links#Wikisource does NOT work anymore.21.-- Wikien2009 ( talk) 23:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for renaming the American Frontier. Can you please do the same for Timeline of the American Old West. Thanks Rjensen ( talk) 23:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
As I said on the talk, a good essay on quality/reliability. Would you like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability? Membership is free. History2007 ( talk) 20:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Describing Globbett's edits, both on article talk pages and in comments hidden in the Nutation (disambiguation) article as "contamination" is not acceptable behaviour, per WP:CIVIL. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Now resolved, I think. Globbet ( talk) 23:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
However, friendly advice: if you think you understand English better than native speakers you will make yourself look daft. Globbet ( talk) 23:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello Incnis- I saw your edits to the Delete key article, partially reverting my previous ones, and wanted to let you know that the way I changed the lead sentence did in fact retain the article title as its subject. The construction "performs a function...which is to discard" is quite awkward English, which is why I changed it. In addition, I believe it is preferred practice on WP to use italics in lieu of double quotes for presenting terms the way del and delete were in the last sentence. I don't want you to think I made my edits without considering well what I was doing. I think your addition of the delete key "x" symbol is an improvement, though this imageis more representative, I believe. I hope if you consider what I've written, you will agree that my edits were improvements to the article intro. Regards, Eric talk 23:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
My research found MANY Paul Dohertys just in the UK. There is a scientist, a (I believe) footballer or some such sport, and there is a musician, and then there is another writer, and then the author in the article. There are several also in Ireland and the U.S. These are just the FAMOUS ones. Mugginsx ( talk) 11:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I could use a little more elaboration on what you think was wrong with the edit. Correctly replacing three hyphen-minuses with two minus signs and one en dash was correct in these circumstances. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 18:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the three example Boolean logic diagrams (under "Examples"), the "and" and the "or" symbols need to be exchanged in their respective example diagrams. I update only rarely, and my updating skills are rudimentary. Would someone else please make that change? Clarepawling ( talk) 01:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Your edit summaries come across as condescending and border-line personal attacks, and not least are pointy behaviour. Please refrain from hostile commentary within edit summaries. Please comment on content, not contributors, per Wikipedia guidelines. If you don't have anything good to say, don't leave a summary at all, that way you can't be accused of offending anyone. Such attacks may be reported as uncivil. Please respect other editors, and in return they will respect you. Thanks for your understanding. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 10:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
If you really feel the need to refer to immature comments such as "try to understand better what is means, rather than to bog into such a dispute with (sorry) an experienced user", to determine who is right, then so be it.
I guess actions do speak louder than words, and by your own flawed comment, I am more experienced. Kudos to your "logic", but your remark was as poorly thought out as your edit summaries, and an attack on my understanding of something I know fine well about shows that – you seem to enjoy provoking editors with that superiority complex attitude. Do try to learn from your mistakes, rather than compound them further. The only reason there is a dispute here, is because you're too egotistic to accept that you were in the wrong. Next time, I'll refer it to AN/I to resolve it.. seeing how you enjoy the drama. Conversation over. До скорой встречи. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 12:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, re this edit - I've identified the mysterious blue line - it's the Euler line. Careful examination at high enlargement (800%) shows that the blue of this line is brighter and greener than the blue which is used for both the circumcircle and the perpendicular bisectors to AB and to AC (that perp. to BC being missing, as you correctly noted). -- Redrose64 ( talk) 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know or care what you're beef with that guy is, but you're personal attack on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 20#Inexperienced user was uncalled for. It's not relevant to the RFD discussion. I've removed it. To quote the personal attacks policy "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 07:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, there's more of this on my talk page as well. Jarble ( talk) 14:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that your finding and listing of User:Jarble's mistakes is Wikihounding and improper behaviour (NB: it takes far more time and effort to dig through individual edits than to scan through your edit summaries, so don't accuse me of doing the same), and believe EHC was right to notify of this. However, you do not appear to respect the status quo here on Wiki, and have a habit of attempting to claim that other editors are somehow inferior or inexperienced to you, as you did me and were quick to shut your face once proved mistaken. I would suggest, in future, you worry about your own edits, and stop dismissing other editors for their work, as continuation of this line of incivility is liable to lead to you being dragged to Dispute Resolution and sanctioned. Editors have a right to make edits without you policing their work and commenting, as you did. Note, "why they engage in wikilawyering instead of making THEIR OWN EDITS better?" – again, false. EHC is not wikilawyering by showing concern for your attacks on Jarble. You could just as equally be accused of "wikilawyering" by playing Sheriff and listing Jarble's "waste" instead of worrying about your own edits also, right? You listed four mistakes from his 9,000 edits (twice your edits), four... 0.04% of his edits are "waste" ratio? Now who was wikilawyering?
“ | Quoi ? quand je dis : « Nicole, apportez-moi mes pantoufles, et me donnez mon bonnet de nuit », c’est de la prose ? | ” |
— Molière, Le Bourgeois gentilhomme |
I've
removed another personal attack against the same person (Jarble) on the same RFD. RFD is the last place you should be making personal attacks because our concern there is the redirect itself, not the creator. You especially shouldn't be making personal attacks against Jarble.
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (
talk)
19:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Please, don't do this, never, because that superscripts should be minus signs. If you are not familiar with WP:− yet, then now it is not too late to read it. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 17:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 22:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
You only responded to part of the third part, and while I do sympathise with you about the nuisance that can be caused when an editor uses an automated process to make a lot of mistakes, I think you missed the first - and most important - section.
On the English Wikipedia, calling another editor anything uncomplimentary can be a breach of the policy on personal attacks and is best avoided. Sentences that start "you are a...." are not appropriate when uncomplimentary. If you feel a user is making bad edits - and it seems that you often have a point here - the way to express that is "these edits are not good because....(no source/misinterprets source/doesn't make sense/ect)." Discuss only what the content should be - make no comment about the competence, intelligence, motivation or attractiveness of the other editor, unless you want to say something nice about them.
So I suggest you stop saying that other editors are 'waste makers' or other such comments. You may consider it to be only factual, but it's coming across as downright rude. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Attempted deletion of 2 commas by Special:Contributions/121.45.223.144 Apteva ( talk) 16:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know this has indeed been deleted as not certified - the time limit was exceeded and the third party declined to certify [6]. I note that your recent comments to new users have all been polite and helpful (I didn't look back further than a couple of days, so maybe this has always been your habit). Please do continue such communications, there is no reason to stop. I don't believe there is a reason for you to stop communicating with other editors generally if you can modify your style. You know what constitutes a rude statement or a flame war - just avoid it by using different words. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your 19 September reversion [7] of my edits to the page '[Dash]':
I'm going to restore my edits that I made, in light of these arguments. If you still feel that they are incorrect, we should discuss your objections in more depth. Thank you. Goldenshimmer ( talk) 18:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coordination complex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delta ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Incnis, you recently editing {{ copied}} under the assumption that a missing oldid means it's a new page. This is entirely, 100% wrong, and what a missing oldid means has been discussed in detail on the talk page - what it means is that many Wikipedians, including many with years of experience, are not familiar with oldids and diffs to put them in this template, and if oldid is missing then the text of the template should be changed so that the "with this edit" text and link doesn't appear at all. In short, oldid and diff should never be a mandatory part of any template, ever. So far, no one who knows enough about templates has been involved or able to fix this, Ego White Tray ( talk) 12:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't been in here for some time. The referenced file is just a graph of some numerical data in Berger's paper. There's no research involved, I merely presented it visually instead of as a table of numbers. I have it in a spreadsheet (somewhere). Tfr000 ( talk) 11:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello Mrsi,
I did a mistake in understanding absolute value concept and so I removed the negative symbol. But I was preparing to correct it when you already made the correction. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2487 ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ̂. Since you had some involvement with the ̂ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). StringTheory11 ( t • c) 00:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Co-option, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vacancy ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I noticed you removed the tag, so I know you are aware of the discussion. I would just say to be a bit more careful in phrasing so you don't give the wrong impression in your edit summary. This is one reason why edit summaries are terrible for communication and the talk page is much better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
You deleted a link to an ANI discussion [8]. The ANI discussion is here. [9]. The edit summary I am referring to is here. [10]. Once you delete an ANI notification, such as you did in the first link I provided, you demonstrate that you have read it, otherwise you wouldn't have known to delete it. Hopefully that will clear up any misunderstandings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Please be more careful with your use of the English language here on the English Wikipedia in the future. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iron catastrophe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accretion ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Hey all :).
I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).
You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
By accident I found Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography#P.C3.B4_Department_and_P.C3.B4_.28department.29. What you mentioned could be avoided by more consistency. But how can WP be made more consistent? I have a similar issue at Talk:Bengkulu#Requested_move - where I want to make Wikipedia more consistent, but the opposing parties are not really giving reasons what is bad with more consistency. Do you know a place where to address this? AsianGeographer ( talk) 03:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please immediately stop moving pages into my user space. If you need assistance from an administrator, request it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Please keep this kind of junk off of my user page. Your edit here made a clear mistake by including my handle in the section heading for this edit. It is sad that you don't assume good faith, but hardly my fault. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 19:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
(From talk page) Yes, you are probably right. Whenever you are (or think you are) correct you become 100% rude. This time, your comment was only 78% rude. Thus it has a 78% chance of being correct. Actually, the chances that you are correct is slightly higher (99.9...%?) in this case. I have been working on an article about [ Lorentz invariance in QFT]. I'd be happy if you could comment on that thing. It has become pretty huge in size, but I think that there are parts of it that can go into WP articles. The more rude your comments are, the more I appreciate them. YohanN7 ( talk) 14:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Incnis,
I noticed you undid a change I added to this (slash). Are you sure about this - if you read the paragraph carefully, I think my change is valid?
Anyway, I won't pursue this any further, so hope you get the time to give it a second glance :)
Regards, Richard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riph72 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Representation theory of the Lorentz group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scalar ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)I've fixed your bizarre logging of this AfD, and also notified the creator... Giant Snowman 12:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on the q&a page about being careful with correspondents names, her original question, copy and pasted: "Hello, I am Marina and I hope I will be able to contribute to our community. Could anyone tell me whether all pictures found o Google images have free license?--Martina Moreau (talk|TB|) 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)"(Emphisis added).
Comments like you left would probably be better left on the individual host's talk page. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 20:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arbitrary unit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Size ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Hello, I was wondering why you thought of me challenging you, by editing an article on European regions. I read you are against bigotry so I thought you may be interested in my article: http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Marina_Moreau/Contemporary_European_geography -- Martina Moreau ( talk) 06:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Piandcompany ( talk) 15:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to get an article re-assessed (it looks like it's done by a bot given the log, but bots can't have that good judgement, can they?), but i've done a lot of work on that article and think it should at least be upgraded to start-class, given it is longer than a stub. The WikiProject Color talk page looked fairly inactive, so I posted here thinking you may know. Basically, all I need to know is who (or what) to ask. Thank you, good day, Free Wales Now! what did I screw up? 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Do not template me please, I've been here for 8 years, a veteran by all measures. Instead, do act against blatant bias when you see it, stop condoning it. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited El (Cyrillic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ligature ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apostrophe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 00:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Hello, Incnis Mrsi:
I had no intent to denigrate anyone and I apologise if you are offended. But the fact remains that the HTML equations had numerous formatting errors (not content errors). All one needs to do is print a copy of that section (as I did) before and after my revisions (as I also did) to see the extent of what was corrected. I am sure that, if you did that, you would see that I did not simply "baldly claim" anything. It took me about two hours to get the equations fixed and if I had to list and explain all of my fixes, it would have taken another two hours ... so I simply said they were "badly rendered with a number of errors". In hindsight,I should have made clear that the problem was in formatting ... not content.
Once again, if I have offended you, I apologise and it was not my intent to offend anyone. mbeychok ( talk) 21:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This may be of interest, although it refers to something at least a year and a half old... CsDix ( talk) 16:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Source code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Machine-readable ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Letter Zyu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loser ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Hi just to let you know I reverted someone blanking your user page as I believe it was vandalism. If I was wrong come tell on my talk page GingerGeek ( talk) 19:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Template:Letter-spacing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 15:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey Incnis Mrsi; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Incnis Mrsi, I'm Clark42, I just didn't bother logging in to edit the file-format article. Yeah, sorry, I missed a capitalisation whilst editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.119.130 ( talk) 18:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
In regards to your request to stop "drive-by replacement" of Perl: I would be happy to use Perl instead, but the search indexes seem to fail to pick up on that when searching for "perl programming". Unless i am mistaken in this observation, the current actions are my only recourse. I will hold off for now until we reach an agreement and would ask you to extend the same courtesy to me. (On a sidenote, it would be appreciated if you'd asked why, before swinging your big bat and reverting.) Mithaldu ( talk) 16:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
In the Complex number article, the {{ fact}} tag reason you gave would have benefited from increased clarity. The reason ("the lowercase i, ORLY?") is not a proper sentence and uses slang. Proper sentences avoid ambiguity. By itself, there is not enough content to the tag to know what you meant and it can be interpreted in multiple ways. Further, slang like "ORLY" should be avoided: when used correctly (with a "reason=" parameter) fact tag reasons are reader-facing (as a tool-tip) and should be of appropriate quality.
I know now that you were specifically questioning the use of "i" for current. I would argue that this falls under " Subject-specific common knowledge". We can discuss it on the article's talk page if you wish. Just about all university-level introductory physics books (at least in the US) use "i" for current (e.g., the very popular Halladay and Resnick). Jason Quinn ( talk) 22:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. From WP:VANDAL: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." (emphasis added) Jeh ( talk) 23:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your diligence in your attempts to improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I must correct your specific comments.
You seem to be somewhat aware of the workings of Wikipedia, but allow me to explain where you have gone wrong. While it may seem like everything on Wikipedia is the result of discussion (and to some extent this is true), allot of the day to day proceedings are on the basis of precedent(or consensus). A precedent is a rule which tells an editor what the result of a discussion would probably be in a particular case. Sometimes a precedent will be written down, and become a semi-official policy. Other times a precedent will not be written down, and one has to ask the editors who work in a particular area how they do things. A precedent will sometimes arise as the result of discussion, other times it will be implied by commonalities in the behaviour of a group of editors; people will come to an agreement, not by discussing things out loud, but by working together and discovering a common method.
To use an analogy, a discussion is a group of lawmakers deciding on a set of laws, a precedent is the way judges enact that law.
If you are unsure of what the precedent is in a particular case, it is a good idea to start by checking the policies. (For example here this FAQ.) The precedent here is that for categories (other than categories for people, which don't have a strong precedent) is that:
The most common example of 2 is the key article of a category, usually an eponymous category.
Now you may think that this it is unfair that this precedent exists, you may have some other idea for category orders. The good news is that nothing on Wikipedia is set in stone. If you think that this, or any other precedent, in Wikipedia could be improved I encourage you to start a discussion. The best place to start in this case is Wikipedia talk:Categorization, there you will find editors who are interested in categorisation policy and will have something to contribute either way. One thing to be wary of before starting a discussion is that you may find that what seems to you an "obvious improvement" is opposed by other editors, so be prepared to make your case.
I have a couple of personal notes before I close. I encourage you to keep going with your script, this sort of thing can greatly improve an individual persons Wikipedia experience. But when providing evidence for your case a link to a discussion that you started on another editors talk page is not a good example of precedent, it is better if you can find points made by other editors (ideally a large group) and examples from article talk, category talk, wikiproject, and policy pages.
Hope to hear from you. -- Andrewaskew ( talk) 23:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please see my post at the Fringe Noticeboard, as I believe it relates to an issue you raised several months ago.
הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) ( formerly R——bo) 03:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pseudo-Euclidean space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiparallel ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 01:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Hi! I noticed you recently redirected Domain (mathematics) to point to the disambiguation page Domain. Please fix the incoming disambiguation links created by this change. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Incnis Mrsi :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 00:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glagolitic alphabet, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)( 86.75.111.166 ( talk) 17:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC))
Dear Incnis Mrsi, go to the entry implication stricte, then go to afficher l'historique and click on (actu | diff) 15 février 2012 à 13:42 84.101.36.154 (discuter) . . (9 321 octets) (+8 461) (défaire). Thus, you'll get what I write about the three ingredients of implication stricte:(1) ~M (p & ~q) (2) Mp (3) ~p. M → M~q. The second ingredient Mp eliminates ~Mp; the third ingredient ~p. M → M~q eliminates Lq. Both ~Mp and Lq contains the first ingredient ~M (p & ~q)and the point is to eliminate ~Mp and Lq to obtain p ≡ Lq. ~M (p & ~q) alone cannot represent the strict implication of q by p, since clearly ~M (p & ~q) is compatible not only with p ≡ Lq but also with ~Mp and Lq. (86.75.111.166 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)) Jean-François Monteil
Please participate in the discussion. Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Inclusion of Pulitzer Prize for History. Solomon7968 ( talk) 08:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
What was wrong with this suggestion? 94.116.38.81 ( talk) 14:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
7 May
06:08 Icnis Mrsi refers to "barely readable sequences like a*b*c* "
10 May
03:22 Mathsci asks "how can there possibly have been a sequence like a*b*c* in the article"
06:23 Clanclub quotes a line from the article with a sequence of that form
06:43 Mathsci removes Clanclub's post with the comment "this does not occur in the article"
06:52 Mathsci edits the article to modify precisely the sequence quoted by Clanclub
07:21 Incnis Mrsi replies to Mathsci posting of 03:22
07:46 Mathsci silently removes his posting of 03:22, making Incnis Mrsi's posting of 07:21 appear to be a reply to a different post
08:33 Mathsci tries to get Clanclub banned for making "a trolling remark about me"
An observer might suggest that the behaviour one of of these users has been disingenuous. Clanclub ( talk) 16:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI, with respect to Mathsci's statement here, this discussion might be of interest to you: [12] -- 125.71.207.194 ( talk) 09:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not a registered wikipedia editor. I just noticed the following mistake and corrected:
-43 corresponds to 11010101 in binary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_number_representations#Sign-and-magnitude_method
Thanks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
135.245.8.2 (
talk)
12:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Before posting a harsh warning as you did with this edit, please ask the edtior what their intention was. You should have first asked, "Did you mean to post that notice on the editor's user page?" Sometimes, even a very experienced editor can make a completely unintentional error, as in this situation. -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 06:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Inkeri.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed pl:Noc from all interwikis article by my bot.-- Alex S.H. Lin 04:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips, I was going by the Freenode website and didn't notice the filename until i had finished uploading ;) Moniker42 ( talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. A proposal on the re-creation of WP:RUSSIA is currently underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal. One of the main points is that we should have workgroups covering different topics. We are trying to ascertain the interest of editors in various workgroups under WP:RUSSIA, such as history, politics, biographical, etc; as your userpage indicates you are Russian or live in Russia, perhaps you can take a read of the proposal, comment on it wherever you have thoughts, and perhaps provide details of any Russian topics you may be interested and are willing to collaborate with other editors on? Your input is valued. Cheers. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your note in the html of IRCd. The Operator abuse section is valid but could be written better and certainly needs references. There were quite a number of operators who were sanctioned on EFnet in the mid to late 1990s over that sort of behavior (I actually could name names of a number of those operators but that might not be a good idea on wiki). There should be archived emails of this stuff still around, possibly on the EFnet website somewhere. Google should turn up something. Another place to check for archived copies of this stuff would be Google Groups usenet archives. A good bit of IRC admin discussion still took place on usenet and other stuff discussed via email listserv was often reflected to the IRC-related usenet groups. Tothwolf ( talk) 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw you made a change to the lead of the wind article. What is the source of your addition? It needs to be in the article below, using a cite nnnn reference, or someone could potentially send the article to FAR. Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have moved 'USA College binge drinking' back to 'Alcohol abuse'.
I agree with you that 'Alcohol abuse' is a serious, international subject. The content of the article, however, does not describe the disease or its effects in the world. The content describes the problems of college students in the United States.
Could I suggest that you undo the move and start a new article 'Alcohol abuse' with content about the disease and its problems in the world? A stub would be valuable as a begining. Thanks! jmcw ( talk) 10:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Incnis Mrsi!
I want to state one question to you: From August 19th until August 23rd the MAKS Airshow takes place again in Zhukovsky, near Moscow. Do you have the time to go there in order to take a lot of photos? Would be unique contribution for Wikimedia. I hope your response is positive. Greets, High Contrast ( talk) 18:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Late reply, I know, but I've replied to your questions at: Talk:Gyrovector space Charvest ( talk) 18:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, USA College binge drinking, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA College binge drinking. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 11:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Wikipedias&curid=6050087&diff=348177056&oldid=347013010 I don't think that's correct. -- Obersachse ( talk) 10:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for the reminder. I am well aware that I sometimes miss previous edits in a series of vandalism but most of the time I actually check the page history and then take the last good version to reset the article. Moreover, I think rollback is rather impractical because a) it needs to be applied for, b) any coded tool is only as practical as the code applied and c) not all edits by the same editor in a row are likely vandalism. So I prefer to use the "undo" button for single edits or just to restore an older version from scratch. De728631 ( talk) 21:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Template:Inet-note-ref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
My rationale is this: on March 27 this year, Russia will advance their clocks forward but it will not actually be daylight saving time, as they will be keeping "summer time" for the whole year. As a result, I reworded all mentions of daylight saving time, but, following March 27, I will advance the time offsets for all Russian time zones by an hour to reflect actual time usage. If you think this is presumptuous of me, then the reverts you have done are OK with me (except that the table for the tz database will need to be changed so that it is a bit more consistent), but I think that some sort of edit similar to what I have done should be performed after March 27 to prevent confusion. ZanderSchubert ( talk) 10:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Here I mean "ordinary" as on Earth at STP, not in the cores of neutron stars. No, free protons do not exist in liquids, since they always attach themselves to the electron cloud in the nearest molecule/anion, which is always available. There may exist free "solvated electrons" in liquids (like sodium dissolving in liquid ammonia to give a nice color), but electrons have sqrt(1836) = 43 times longer wavelengths than do protons, at any energy. A proton at room temp has a wavelength of 2 angstroms or so, which is far too small for them to sit in a cage between negatively charged anions and not be able to make a choice of which way to go and which to sit on, like the proverbial donkey starving between piles of hay. Protons have no reason to delocalize at room temperature.
Yes, I know the article on superacids talks about free protons in liquids, but it gives no references, and frankly I don't believe it. Ab initio QM calculations show protons hopping from anion-to-anion in the strongest superacid known, just as they do in water, via the Grotthuss mechanism. See [2].
So, some editor who claims to know what he's talking about, has reverted me on this point. There's my cite and there's my reasoning. Now, what have YOU got? And by the way, I'm going to go add a citation needed to the statement in superacids. S B H arris 00:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I used to leave comments like that until I learned that insult and arrogance interfere with editing. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Please, explain, what means this [3] edit. It is highly implausible that a very experienced user is not familiar with well known things about page moves and maintaining edit histories. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 11:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PNG Stereo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PNG Stereo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Smjg ( talk) 23:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
For a relatively new editor, you certainly had a bright idea on the MOS (linking) page about redirects rather than # direct links. I never even thought of that. Brilliant! And well-explained to boot. Keep up the good work!
Student7 (
talk)
22:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for cleaning up the new RJ45 section in Registered jack Kvng ( talk) 23:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC) |
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Incnis Mrsi/Archive 1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Cheers - I did try that when I created the account and started on wikipedia but it didn't work. I'm not sure if it really matters; the caret-wedge shape symbol ⋀ and the cross-times symbol × are both used for the vector product of two vectors, so its not completley unrecognizible. Thats whats in the formula - the vector product of velocity v and magnetic field B. The process of changing names seems lengthly and involved, somehow, and you need to see Bureaucrats and all that. I would rather just stick to the current name and continue to edit - but thanks again =) Happy New Year! -- F = q( E + v × B) 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, there is an RfC concerning the Eidos page in which you have shown interest in the past. This is a small notification in case you may wish to take part in the discussion. Salvidrim! 20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting my inadvertent change to the Talk page of Entailment. I was browsing on a slow tablet. -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 09:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Please excuse this intrusion, but you've got it all wrong, Incnis Mrsi. I never become insulted, or look for credit becuase I'm so self-obsessed with my edits, or any of that crap. All I ask for is feedback on my edits, becuase I really would like to know if people think mine are really bad, and what other editors prefer instead (whenever I appear to be "insulted", although not). I really don't mind if others obliterate my edits in place of better content (also - the point of Wikipedia would defeated if this were not so).
Of course: anyone may assume what they assume, but thats the truth. It just becomes irritating when a statement like that is made without reason. -- F = q( E + v × B) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you check the terminology used here? - DePiep ( talk) 09:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
-- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I have moved your diagram requests to their talk pages. (Also, a parameter could be provided to specify the type of diagram wanted, but I did not do that.) FYI the pages: Talk:Address space and Talk:Memory address. Mark Hurd ( talk) 14:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to follow up to see if you would be willing to participate in a one-hour long interview about your experience with categories. Thanks!
Senator2029 ( talk) 20:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi I just noticed you used {{ mvar}} within {{ math}}. {{mvar|name}} is just a shorthand for {{math|''name''}} for use in running text because referring to variables in text is so common. It'll make the characters too big if used within the math template. Dmcq ( talk) 18:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I note you have re-instated the split tag that I removed about a month ago. May I suggest that you put a note on the talk page to start some discussion. Also, if you are sure the article should be split then there is nothing to stop you from doing so. Op47 ( talk) 20:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Double sharp ( talk) 07:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Datagram
Virtual circuit
As you can see, datagram and virtual circuit are indeed opposite of each other. I am returning my edit to both articles.
If still in doubt, please don't change the articles any more, but:
Regarding your recent revert with the comment to "please, walk through average and arithmetic mean links to verify that such definitions are inapplicable to most bodies. the only relevant case would be a body composed of several *identical* particles":
Please note that my wording was "average location of all the mass", not "average location of all the particles". If the mass is unevenly distributed at different points, the average location of the mass will reflect that. This is in agreement with the average of a function:
Make it a triple integral over the entire body or set of bodies, define f(x) as the mass density, and you have the average location of the mass, which is the mass center. MarcusMaximus ( talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
My mistake in defining the integrand. I should have defined f(x)=x*ρ(x), which is a generic position vector x multiplied by the density function ρ evaluated at the position x. The integral is taken over all the mass, and the leading factor is 1/mass. Now the result is the center of mass, right? MarcusMaximus ( talk) 04:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Uniform motion. Since you had some involvement with the Uniform motion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Tideflat ( talk) 22:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi,
While I agree with your reasoning for reverting the absolute value page as you did, I think it was rather clumsy of you to undo a change several edits back without more careful examination of the content. There was at least one change that was completely valid that you effectively erased with your revert. Please be more careful in the future, otherwise, happy hunting. KlappCK ( talk) 20:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Very mature comment Template talk:Sister project links#Wikisource does NOT work anymore.21.-- Wikien2009 ( talk) 23:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for renaming the American Frontier. Can you please do the same for Timeline of the American Old West. Thanks Rjensen ( talk) 23:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
As I said on the talk, a good essay on quality/reliability. Would you like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability? Membership is free. History2007 ( talk) 20:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Describing Globbett's edits, both on article talk pages and in comments hidden in the Nutation (disambiguation) article as "contamination" is not acceptable behaviour, per WP:CIVIL. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Now resolved, I think. Globbet ( talk) 23:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
However, friendly advice: if you think you understand English better than native speakers you will make yourself look daft. Globbet ( talk) 23:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello Incnis- I saw your edits to the Delete key article, partially reverting my previous ones, and wanted to let you know that the way I changed the lead sentence did in fact retain the article title as its subject. The construction "performs a function...which is to discard" is quite awkward English, which is why I changed it. In addition, I believe it is preferred practice on WP to use italics in lieu of double quotes for presenting terms the way del and delete were in the last sentence. I don't want you to think I made my edits without considering well what I was doing. I think your addition of the delete key "x" symbol is an improvement, though this imageis more representative, I believe. I hope if you consider what I've written, you will agree that my edits were improvements to the article intro. Regards, Eric talk 23:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
My research found MANY Paul Dohertys just in the UK. There is a scientist, a (I believe) footballer or some such sport, and there is a musician, and then there is another writer, and then the author in the article. There are several also in Ireland and the U.S. These are just the FAMOUS ones. Mugginsx ( talk) 11:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I could use a little more elaboration on what you think was wrong with the edit. Correctly replacing three hyphen-minuses with two minus signs and one en dash was correct in these circumstances. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 18:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the three example Boolean logic diagrams (under "Examples"), the "and" and the "or" symbols need to be exchanged in their respective example diagrams. I update only rarely, and my updating skills are rudimentary. Would someone else please make that change? Clarepawling ( talk) 01:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Your edit summaries come across as condescending and border-line personal attacks, and not least are pointy behaviour. Please refrain from hostile commentary within edit summaries. Please comment on content, not contributors, per Wikipedia guidelines. If you don't have anything good to say, don't leave a summary at all, that way you can't be accused of offending anyone. Such attacks may be reported as uncivil. Please respect other editors, and in return they will respect you. Thanks for your understanding. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 10:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
If you really feel the need to refer to immature comments such as "try to understand better what is means, rather than to bog into such a dispute with (sorry) an experienced user", to determine who is right, then so be it.
I guess actions do speak louder than words, and by your own flawed comment, I am more experienced. Kudos to your "logic", but your remark was as poorly thought out as your edit summaries, and an attack on my understanding of something I know fine well about shows that – you seem to enjoy provoking editors with that superiority complex attitude. Do try to learn from your mistakes, rather than compound them further. The only reason there is a dispute here, is because you're too egotistic to accept that you were in the wrong. Next time, I'll refer it to AN/I to resolve it.. seeing how you enjoy the drama. Conversation over. До скорой встречи. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 12:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, re this edit - I've identified the mysterious blue line - it's the Euler line. Careful examination at high enlargement (800%) shows that the blue of this line is brighter and greener than the blue which is used for both the circumcircle and the perpendicular bisectors to AB and to AC (that perp. to BC being missing, as you correctly noted). -- Redrose64 ( talk) 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know or care what you're beef with that guy is, but you're personal attack on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 20#Inexperienced user was uncalled for. It's not relevant to the RFD discussion. I've removed it. To quote the personal attacks policy "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 07:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, there's more of this on my talk page as well. Jarble ( talk) 14:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that your finding and listing of User:Jarble's mistakes is Wikihounding and improper behaviour (NB: it takes far more time and effort to dig through individual edits than to scan through your edit summaries, so don't accuse me of doing the same), and believe EHC was right to notify of this. However, you do not appear to respect the status quo here on Wiki, and have a habit of attempting to claim that other editors are somehow inferior or inexperienced to you, as you did me and were quick to shut your face once proved mistaken. I would suggest, in future, you worry about your own edits, and stop dismissing other editors for their work, as continuation of this line of incivility is liable to lead to you being dragged to Dispute Resolution and sanctioned. Editors have a right to make edits without you policing their work and commenting, as you did. Note, "why they engage in wikilawyering instead of making THEIR OWN EDITS better?" – again, false. EHC is not wikilawyering by showing concern for your attacks on Jarble. You could just as equally be accused of "wikilawyering" by playing Sheriff and listing Jarble's "waste" instead of worrying about your own edits also, right? You listed four mistakes from his 9,000 edits (twice your edits), four... 0.04% of his edits are "waste" ratio? Now who was wikilawyering?
“ | Quoi ? quand je dis : « Nicole, apportez-moi mes pantoufles, et me donnez mon bonnet de nuit », c’est de la prose ? | ” |
— Molière, Le Bourgeois gentilhomme |
I've
removed another personal attack against the same person (Jarble) on the same RFD. RFD is the last place you should be making personal attacks because our concern there is the redirect itself, not the creator. You especially shouldn't be making personal attacks against Jarble.
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (
talk)
19:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Please, don't do this, never, because that superscripts should be minus signs. If you are not familiar with WP:− yet, then now it is not too late to read it. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 17:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 22:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
You only responded to part of the third part, and while I do sympathise with you about the nuisance that can be caused when an editor uses an automated process to make a lot of mistakes, I think you missed the first - and most important - section.
On the English Wikipedia, calling another editor anything uncomplimentary can be a breach of the policy on personal attacks and is best avoided. Sentences that start "you are a...." are not appropriate when uncomplimentary. If you feel a user is making bad edits - and it seems that you often have a point here - the way to express that is "these edits are not good because....(no source/misinterprets source/doesn't make sense/ect)." Discuss only what the content should be - make no comment about the competence, intelligence, motivation or attractiveness of the other editor, unless you want to say something nice about them.
So I suggest you stop saying that other editors are 'waste makers' or other such comments. You may consider it to be only factual, but it's coming across as downright rude. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Attempted deletion of 2 commas by Special:Contributions/121.45.223.144 Apteva ( talk) 16:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know this has indeed been deleted as not certified - the time limit was exceeded and the third party declined to certify [6]. I note that your recent comments to new users have all been polite and helpful (I didn't look back further than a couple of days, so maybe this has always been your habit). Please do continue such communications, there is no reason to stop. I don't believe there is a reason for you to stop communicating with other editors generally if you can modify your style. You know what constitutes a rude statement or a flame war - just avoid it by using different words. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your 19 September reversion [7] of my edits to the page '[Dash]':
I'm going to restore my edits that I made, in light of these arguments. If you still feel that they are incorrect, we should discuss your objections in more depth. Thank you. Goldenshimmer ( talk) 18:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coordination complex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delta ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Incnis, you recently editing {{ copied}} under the assumption that a missing oldid means it's a new page. This is entirely, 100% wrong, and what a missing oldid means has been discussed in detail on the talk page - what it means is that many Wikipedians, including many with years of experience, are not familiar with oldids and diffs to put them in this template, and if oldid is missing then the text of the template should be changed so that the "with this edit" text and link doesn't appear at all. In short, oldid and diff should never be a mandatory part of any template, ever. So far, no one who knows enough about templates has been involved or able to fix this, Ego White Tray ( talk) 12:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't been in here for some time. The referenced file is just a graph of some numerical data in Berger's paper. There's no research involved, I merely presented it visually instead of as a table of numbers. I have it in a spreadsheet (somewhere). Tfr000 ( talk) 11:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello Mrsi,
I did a mistake in understanding absolute value concept and so I removed the negative symbol. But I was preparing to correct it when you already made the correction. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2487 ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ̂. Since you had some involvement with the ̂ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). StringTheory11 ( t • c) 00:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Co-option, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vacancy ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I noticed you removed the tag, so I know you are aware of the discussion. I would just say to be a bit more careful in phrasing so you don't give the wrong impression in your edit summary. This is one reason why edit summaries are terrible for communication and the talk page is much better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
You deleted a link to an ANI discussion [8]. The ANI discussion is here. [9]. The edit summary I am referring to is here. [10]. Once you delete an ANI notification, such as you did in the first link I provided, you demonstrate that you have read it, otherwise you wouldn't have known to delete it. Hopefully that will clear up any misunderstandings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Please be more careful with your use of the English language here on the English Wikipedia in the future. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iron catastrophe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accretion ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Hey all :).
I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).
You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
By accident I found Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography#P.C3.B4_Department_and_P.C3.B4_.28department.29. What you mentioned could be avoided by more consistency. But how can WP be made more consistent? I have a similar issue at Talk:Bengkulu#Requested_move - where I want to make Wikipedia more consistent, but the opposing parties are not really giving reasons what is bad with more consistency. Do you know a place where to address this? AsianGeographer ( talk) 03:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please immediately stop moving pages into my user space. If you need assistance from an administrator, request it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Please keep this kind of junk off of my user page. Your edit here made a clear mistake by including my handle in the section heading for this edit. It is sad that you don't assume good faith, but hardly my fault. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 19:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
(From talk page) Yes, you are probably right. Whenever you are (or think you are) correct you become 100% rude. This time, your comment was only 78% rude. Thus it has a 78% chance of being correct. Actually, the chances that you are correct is slightly higher (99.9...%?) in this case. I have been working on an article about [ Lorentz invariance in QFT]. I'd be happy if you could comment on that thing. It has become pretty huge in size, but I think that there are parts of it that can go into WP articles. The more rude your comments are, the more I appreciate them. YohanN7 ( talk) 14:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Incnis,
I noticed you undid a change I added to this (slash). Are you sure about this - if you read the paragraph carefully, I think my change is valid?
Anyway, I won't pursue this any further, so hope you get the time to give it a second glance :)
Regards, Richard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riph72 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Representation theory of the Lorentz group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scalar ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)I've fixed your bizarre logging of this AfD, and also notified the creator... Giant Snowman 12:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on the q&a page about being careful with correspondents names, her original question, copy and pasted: "Hello, I am Marina and I hope I will be able to contribute to our community. Could anyone tell me whether all pictures found o Google images have free license?--Martina Moreau (talk|TB|) 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)"(Emphisis added).
Comments like you left would probably be better left on the individual host's talk page. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 20:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arbitrary unit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Size ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Hello, I was wondering why you thought of me challenging you, by editing an article on European regions. I read you are against bigotry so I thought you may be interested in my article: http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Marina_Moreau/Contemporary_European_geography -- Martina Moreau ( talk) 06:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Piandcompany ( talk) 15:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to get an article re-assessed (it looks like it's done by a bot given the log, but bots can't have that good judgement, can they?), but i've done a lot of work on that article and think it should at least be upgraded to start-class, given it is longer than a stub. The WikiProject Color talk page looked fairly inactive, so I posted here thinking you may know. Basically, all I need to know is who (or what) to ask. Thank you, good day, Free Wales Now! what did I screw up? 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Do not template me please, I've been here for 8 years, a veteran by all measures. Instead, do act against blatant bias when you see it, stop condoning it. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited El (Cyrillic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ligature ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apostrophe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 00:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Hello, Incnis Mrsi:
I had no intent to denigrate anyone and I apologise if you are offended. But the fact remains that the HTML equations had numerous formatting errors (not content errors). All one needs to do is print a copy of that section (as I did) before and after my revisions (as I also did) to see the extent of what was corrected. I am sure that, if you did that, you would see that I did not simply "baldly claim" anything. It took me about two hours to get the equations fixed and if I had to list and explain all of my fixes, it would have taken another two hours ... so I simply said they were "badly rendered with a number of errors". In hindsight,I should have made clear that the problem was in formatting ... not content.
Once again, if I have offended you, I apologise and it was not my intent to offend anyone. mbeychok ( talk) 21:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This may be of interest, although it refers to something at least a year and a half old... CsDix ( talk) 16:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Source code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Machine-readable ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Letter Zyu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loser ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Hi just to let you know I reverted someone blanking your user page as I believe it was vandalism. If I was wrong come tell on my talk page GingerGeek ( talk) 19:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Template:Letter-spacing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 15:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey Incnis Mrsi; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Incnis Mrsi, I'm Clark42, I just didn't bother logging in to edit the file-format article. Yeah, sorry, I missed a capitalisation whilst editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.119.130 ( talk) 18:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
In regards to your request to stop "drive-by replacement" of Perl: I would be happy to use Perl instead, but the search indexes seem to fail to pick up on that when searching for "perl programming". Unless i am mistaken in this observation, the current actions are my only recourse. I will hold off for now until we reach an agreement and would ask you to extend the same courtesy to me. (On a sidenote, it would be appreciated if you'd asked why, before swinging your big bat and reverting.) Mithaldu ( talk) 16:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
In the Complex number article, the {{ fact}} tag reason you gave would have benefited from increased clarity. The reason ("the lowercase i, ORLY?") is not a proper sentence and uses slang. Proper sentences avoid ambiguity. By itself, there is not enough content to the tag to know what you meant and it can be interpreted in multiple ways. Further, slang like "ORLY" should be avoided: when used correctly (with a "reason=" parameter) fact tag reasons are reader-facing (as a tool-tip) and should be of appropriate quality.
I know now that you were specifically questioning the use of "i" for current. I would argue that this falls under " Subject-specific common knowledge". We can discuss it on the article's talk page if you wish. Just about all university-level introductory physics books (at least in the US) use "i" for current (e.g., the very popular Halladay and Resnick). Jason Quinn ( talk) 22:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. From WP:VANDAL: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." (emphasis added) Jeh ( talk) 23:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your diligence in your attempts to improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I must correct your specific comments.
You seem to be somewhat aware of the workings of Wikipedia, but allow me to explain where you have gone wrong. While it may seem like everything on Wikipedia is the result of discussion (and to some extent this is true), allot of the day to day proceedings are on the basis of precedent(or consensus). A precedent is a rule which tells an editor what the result of a discussion would probably be in a particular case. Sometimes a precedent will be written down, and become a semi-official policy. Other times a precedent will not be written down, and one has to ask the editors who work in a particular area how they do things. A precedent will sometimes arise as the result of discussion, other times it will be implied by commonalities in the behaviour of a group of editors; people will come to an agreement, not by discussing things out loud, but by working together and discovering a common method.
To use an analogy, a discussion is a group of lawmakers deciding on a set of laws, a precedent is the way judges enact that law.
If you are unsure of what the precedent is in a particular case, it is a good idea to start by checking the policies. (For example here this FAQ.) The precedent here is that for categories (other than categories for people, which don't have a strong precedent) is that:
The most common example of 2 is the key article of a category, usually an eponymous category.
Now you may think that this it is unfair that this precedent exists, you may have some other idea for category orders. The good news is that nothing on Wikipedia is set in stone. If you think that this, or any other precedent, in Wikipedia could be improved I encourage you to start a discussion. The best place to start in this case is Wikipedia talk:Categorization, there you will find editors who are interested in categorisation policy and will have something to contribute either way. One thing to be wary of before starting a discussion is that you may find that what seems to you an "obvious improvement" is opposed by other editors, so be prepared to make your case.
I have a couple of personal notes before I close. I encourage you to keep going with your script, this sort of thing can greatly improve an individual persons Wikipedia experience. But when providing evidence for your case a link to a discussion that you started on another editors talk page is not a good example of precedent, it is better if you can find points made by other editors (ideally a large group) and examples from article talk, category talk, wikiproject, and policy pages.
Hope to hear from you. -- Andrewaskew ( talk) 23:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please see my post at the Fringe Noticeboard, as I believe it relates to an issue you raised several months ago.
הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) ( formerly R——bo) 03:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pseudo-Euclidean space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiparallel ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 01:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Hi! I noticed you recently redirected Domain (mathematics) to point to the disambiguation page Domain. Please fix the incoming disambiguation links created by this change. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Incnis Mrsi :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 00:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glagolitic alphabet, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)( 86.75.111.166 ( talk) 17:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC))
Dear Incnis Mrsi, go to the entry implication stricte, then go to afficher l'historique and click on (actu | diff) 15 février 2012 à 13:42 84.101.36.154 (discuter) . . (9 321 octets) (+8 461) (défaire). Thus, you'll get what I write about the three ingredients of implication stricte:(1) ~M (p & ~q) (2) Mp (3) ~p. M → M~q. The second ingredient Mp eliminates ~Mp; the third ingredient ~p. M → M~q eliminates Lq. Both ~Mp and Lq contains the first ingredient ~M (p & ~q)and the point is to eliminate ~Mp and Lq to obtain p ≡ Lq. ~M (p & ~q) alone cannot represent the strict implication of q by p, since clearly ~M (p & ~q) is compatible not only with p ≡ Lq but also with ~Mp and Lq. (86.75.111.166 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)) Jean-François Monteil
Please participate in the discussion. Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Inclusion of Pulitzer Prize for History. Solomon7968 ( talk) 08:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
What was wrong with this suggestion? 94.116.38.81 ( talk) 14:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
7 May
06:08 Icnis Mrsi refers to "barely readable sequences like a*b*c* "
10 May
03:22 Mathsci asks "how can there possibly have been a sequence like a*b*c* in the article"
06:23 Clanclub quotes a line from the article with a sequence of that form
06:43 Mathsci removes Clanclub's post with the comment "this does not occur in the article"
06:52 Mathsci edits the article to modify precisely the sequence quoted by Clanclub
07:21 Incnis Mrsi replies to Mathsci posting of 03:22
07:46 Mathsci silently removes his posting of 03:22, making Incnis Mrsi's posting of 07:21 appear to be a reply to a different post
08:33 Mathsci tries to get Clanclub banned for making "a trolling remark about me"
An observer might suggest that the behaviour one of of these users has been disingenuous. Clanclub ( talk) 16:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI, with respect to Mathsci's statement here, this discussion might be of interest to you: [12] -- 125.71.207.194 ( talk) 09:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not a registered wikipedia editor. I just noticed the following mistake and corrected:
-43 corresponds to 11010101 in binary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_number_representations#Sign-and-magnitude_method
Thanks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
135.245.8.2 (
talk)
12:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Before posting a harsh warning as you did with this edit, please ask the edtior what their intention was. You should have first asked, "Did you mean to post that notice on the editor's user page?" Sometimes, even a very experienced editor can make a completely unintentional error, as in this situation. -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 06:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)