This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, I saw your lengthy report on
WP:AIV about persistent IP vandals (while checking up on another report - sadly I'm not an admin). One thing that might not have occurred to you is to ask for page protection. If you see a persistent vandal (or set of vandals), doing some damage, say, on average, once a day or more, then it's worth a try (if it's only once or twice a week - don't bother - it will be denied).
Go to
WP:RFPP, and fill in a request - semi-protection will stop any IP address from editing - one usually asks for temporary - often the vandals will not bother when the protection comes off.
If you see a date in the future that you are not sure about, then try adding a {{future}} template above those dates. Hope that helps, and good hunting.
Ronhjones
(Talk) 20:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the "Anything You Can Do" sequence was one I simply remembered from actually watching the program. Take care. Shaulceder ( talk) 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Paradoctor. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding User:Likebox a user with which you have been involved. The discussion is about his activities at Quantum mysticism which may be related to his activity at Talk:Chinese room#Searle's assumption further information can be found at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Likebox. Thank you.-- OMCV ( talk) 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
...for the photo comment. I do what I can to lighten the mood. Truth be told, I was actually going zero and my spedometer was broken. Interesting photo nonetheless... — BQZip01 — talk 14:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You're referring to a redirect loop which was created after my edit to link to a standalone page: [1]. Thanks for your attentiveness.-- Rfsmit ( talk) 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Paradoctor, 71.182.244.158 has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the
WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for the very unusual hierarchic cabbage award, I've put it at the end of my userboxes :-) Dmcq ( talk) 17:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the message on my talk page. I noticed recently that Charles Matthew's edits to the mathematical fallacy article removed some content that would be more suited to a paradoxes of infinity article (which currently appears not to exist). I notified Charles that there is probably enough content simply lying around that someone could have a go at the article, and he suggested looking first at Category:Paradoxes of naive set theory. Since you are the Paradoctor, you should obviously be in the loop on this kind of discussion. Best, 71.182.244.158 ( talk) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
The original article was indeed deleted. Then a redirect was created over it which now leads to a seperate page. I've just deleted it since it's orphaned now anyway. - Mailer Diablo 02:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me that you decided to return those userboxes to their sex-specific terminology. Despite your assertion, no knowledge is lost by making those specific userboxes applicable to any Wikipedian, but since they are yours, you are welcome to retain their sex-specific language. It's unfortunate that it's that important to you, because it does little to foster a spirit of collaboration. I was hoping to use one, but I have no interest in perpetuating sex-specific language when it is completely unnecessary. Let me know if you ever reconsider. Jokestress ( talk) 02:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
About the list that you created, I noticed that there are a few that are already on the page for List of paradoxes. Would you like a {{ Done-t}} template next to those? I could quickly put that in for you. I'm just wondering if they're not marked for a reason. Regards Shan man 7 00:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks für den "barnstar". Gegen Klonen hab ich nichts - so lange es nicht mich betrifft ;-) -- D.H ( talk) 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your paradox category additions at auditory illusion and optical illusion. Your handle suggests that you have an agenda about paradoxes; I suggest you use the talk pages to say what's up. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my typo earlier. If you haven't read it, Template:Expand says, "{{ Expand}} should not be used on articles concurrently with stub templates - a stub template is an explicit request for expansion." — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks for removing the redundant search tag at Muslim Mafia. Question -- is even one appropriate? I've never seen one on a talk page before. Doesn't bother me overly, but seems more appropriate in an AfD, where it always appears. Thoughts? Epeefleche ( talk) 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
As I only haz FF 3.0.15 it look fine to me. Maybe tiz time to upgrade? Thx. 19:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Pommer
"Thank you for this userbox." You are very welcome. I am happy to see that it is a success. If you like it, you may like some of my other ones. -RadicalOne--- Contact Me 00:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I like your template, though I can't actually understand how it works... my talk page has a more detailed explanation. -RadicalOne--- Contact Me 00:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
As you've noticed, User:Heartfield01 said permission had been emailed to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, but there is no OTRS ticket on the image page. I suggest you check with someone who has OTRS access, which I don't. If they have no knowledge, you can email Heartfield AT blueyonder DOT co DOT uk, as stated on his user page, to ask for it to be sent again. This also applies to File:Leaningrainbow.jpg. Ty 03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
... over this optional remark. Quid? DVdm ( talk) 20:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: verbalearn. Thanks for deleting that. I'm sure Wikipedia is better now for your efforts. Gregman2 23:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregman2 ( talk • contribs)
Your characterization on my talk page of near-consensus for merge is definitely incorrect. "Fences and Windows" and "Hans Adler" state opposition to this merge also, while suggesting a better merge target of Fine-tuned universe. An anon also states s/he is "undecided" (though I agree in discounting anonymous opinions to a large degree). There are two or three editors who like the idea of the merge, but it really doesn't fit into the Anthropic principle article without being dramatically WP:UNDUE weight. LotLE× talk 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It is many more years (than I would like to recall) since I last read 'Zarathustra' and the 'Genealogy of Morals' all now clearly recollected. Miletus ( talk) 17:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
On thanks. Me too! Appreciate the neighborly nod. RashersTierney ( talk) 00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Awesome work on fixing those reference! Well done! The article looks way better now. Thanks! Nightscream ( talk) 14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, details here. Rich Farmbrough 10:54 2 February 2010 (UTC).
Hi Paradoctor, I do hope you'll further explain your view on WP:VPP that references only count if the author's name is mentioned in the text and that footnotes don't count as attribution. You appear to be arguing that using footnotes makes Wikipedia no different than any random blog. That seems quite contrary to standard practice, and I'm curious where that belief came from. But perhaps you just didn't read enough of the proposal to see that the discussion isn't about whether WP:SPS are attributed at all, but whether the author's name must be used in the text in addition to footnotes. WeisheitSuchen ( talk) 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Did you read the passage? The plagiarism took place in Barrow's 2008 introduction to the republication of the 1944 book by Beard. I'm quite confident that it was not Beard writing about George W. Bush, Jr., in 1944. You may now apologize to me. THF ( talk) 09:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: Is it directed at me? The reason why I'm asking here as opposed to on Talk:Zeno's paradoxes is that it seems tangential to that article.
Anyway, if you directed that comment at me, the point I was making is that nowhere in Wikipedia's content policies does it say that in the process of writing articles we should follow the scientific method. Therefore the argument "you aren't following the scientific method when you write articles" is not a valid one. Gabbe ( talk) 11:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying that it would be against Wikipedia's policies to citing the Oresekes source for the statement "the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement [...]"? Or are you saying that it doesn't qualify as a scientific review article? Let's take a different example, this time hypothetical: Let's say that a world-renowned ornithologist said that they observed a Ivory-billed Woodpecker, but did not manage to take a photo or other similar method of verifying their account. In this case the claim "I observed this rare bird" would be impossible to test, and would thus fail the scientific method. If the ornithologist came to Wikipedia directly, their statements would of course be inadmissible, so lets say that the claim was published somewhere. Are you saying, that because the claim fails the scientific method, we would be prohibited from quoting the ornithologist on Wikipedia? Gabbe ( talk) 07:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia says | sources | evaluation |
---|---|---|
F | 928 papers | fails WP:V |
F | Oreskes essay | ok, if Oreskes passes WP:RS, and F passes WP:DUE |
(Oreskes says) "F" | Oreskes essay | ok, if WP:DUE is satisfied |
Thanks for responding to the my question on the Nobel Prize article AIRcorn ( talk) 08:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not to happy that you moved material around, such that it looks like Steaphen was discussing or objecting to my proposed changes, and that it was these proposed changes that caused the stalemate. I only included the proposals as a response to requests by other other editors for comment and input. I was fairly happy with the most recent version of the article, and the changes that I proposed today have very low priority for me. This, while it now seems that these proposals are a major obstacle for us to move on and at the core of the problem. Ansgarf ( talk) 01:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW: With respect to Steaphen's assumed proposals, it would be more useful to either revive the previous mediation attempt, or to initiate a proper mediation process. I doubt that there will be many new insight by repeating the old arguments on the talk page. I might be mistaken, so good luck. Ansgarf ( talk) 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I was sick for a few days and didn't edit at all.
BTW: I initiated arbitration on Steaphen behaviour over the last few years [ [3]]. This might influence your work of commenting out parts of last weeks talk pages. I don't think it would be necessary to do all that work at this stage, not just because it happens a few days late. Ansgarf ( talk) 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Gaylord#Book publishing industry - a unit of measuring an amount of books which you might be interested in, because it includes your edits. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem. -- Imagine Wizard ( talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 20:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
As per your request at: Talk:Sorites paradox#Original research on accepting the conclusion, I’ve found a ref that discusses negative heaps of sand (or rather, negative number of hairs on head). How does it look?
An "up to 10Mb" cable connection. Though I don't know what the speed actually is. OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Descartes Meditations. See Evil daemon, and "Descartes' Epistemology, section 3.2" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Descartes' argument is flawed in that it assumes its conclusion, starting from suppose there were this evil genius who was trying to deceive me. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Why am I wrong? -- Chetvorno TALK 05:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I enjoyed our collaboration on the Liar paradox. I'm particularly impressed with our result, which (paradoxically ;-) is greater than the sum of our individual contributions. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 03:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You added it to the List of paradoxes. The article that references it doesn't make sense to me and seems to include explicit mistakes; can you defend or reword the description of the paradox there? Thanks, – SJ + 06:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A cursory search doesn't turn up anything definitive (even the external link on the Nanda Bayin page only says he reigned until 1599, rather than dating his death), but from what I can find, the history of Myanmar points to the deposement of the king before his death, while the trivia implies that he died as king. It's not clear, but either way I'm more inclined to trust the scholar/book referenced on that page than the trivia collection referenced by death from laughter. Up to you. -- Firien need help? 08:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Template:Rr has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paradoctor, there's a MedCab case concerning the Chinese Room article that you probably should be aware of. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Paradoctor, thanks for your participation in this whole can of worms that I opened. I've added an RfC to the Chinese Room talk page as PhilKnight suggested. Sorry it's taken so much of your time! Reading glasses ( talk) 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI: [4] Dlabtot ( talk) 18:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The author was correct. You can see who he is here: http://pt.linkedin.com/in/plimamonteiro . You may check the whois for the site to find he is the owner. If you still have doubts about authorship PL Monteiro will disclose his real name in the Catch 22 profile. After all, it is public information who he is through the whois for the domain.
Unfortunately, it seems you did not read the actual post I linked to. It does not deal with fact per se, instead it tries to convey to the reader, different technological approaches to Nature that result in widely different possibilities and endeavors. Accusing it of being unreliable is ludicrous...
I was a bit confused on how to contact you. Here you say to respond in my talk page. There you put a link to contact you here. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 12:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I would revert the reversion because here in Wiki I've learned one has to take responsibility for one's own edits. On the other hand, I respect opinion diverse from mine, do not want to incur in anyone's "wrath" nor pick up fights I don't really need. A comment on my present comments, would be very much welcome. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 15:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Considering the author name is correct and the linked post is an allegory, of interest to those discussing these issues, and conveying ideas hard to express otherwise, it seems your objections are refuted and therefore I'm putting the paragraph back in. Unfortunately, I was unable to get your feedback on this. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I like that revision summary. I wish that was auto inserted when ever someone reverse vandalism. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean of spammers. -- Triesault ( talk) 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice. Keep up the good work. -- John ( talk) 05:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Again I am pushed to a whole lot of things I really, really don't like. If you have a moment of your time to put into careful reading would you give me your opinion on this: Competent Independent Writers and WP:RS? Please check also Sagan's Talk page and the Noticeboard. Links provided. Thanks in advance. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 07:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.
If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.
To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.
The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
"new section" button at the top of the page. I don't know how to fix that, unfortunately. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if you're still around, or permanently retired...but could you expand Plato's beard a bit? Smallman12q ( talk) 23:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Well I made this paradox. can you tell me if this is a paradox? Here goes:
"He is bad at everything." This is a wrong sentence because if he is bad at being bad, he can't be bad at everything (as he should be bad at everything, including being bad). But if he is good at being bad, then again he isn't bad at everything as he isn't bad at being bad.
This becomes a paradox. Is this a paradox or not??? (You can see this same message on the discussion page of List of paradoxes). -- Lm34gt45 ( talk) 11:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in this discussion Bulwersator ( talk) 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
The highest form of wisdom is often paradoxical. Your contributions to Paradoxes in Wikipedia are therefore quite valuable. Keep it up! Kgashok ( talk) 17:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Paradoctor! Regarding [5], are you aware that access to the PDF is restricted? I wanted to consult the article but am asked for credentials. -- Chealer ( talk) 04:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm getting quite into the twin paradox and Herbert Dingle and saw on his discussion page that you had a copy of this paper: "A misunderstood rebellion the twin-paradox controversy and Herbert Dingle's vision of science", which I can't find anywhere else online. It would be amazing if you could send me a copy!! My email is lctp1986@gmail.com. Many Thanks, and keep up the good work! ~LP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.197.121 ( talk) 13:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.
This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets ( extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.
We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!
I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.
Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.
Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:25, 30 July 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)
In case you still look at this page : I ma writing the French version of Herbert Dingle => fr:Herbert Dingle and I saw that you have Chang's article I am looking for. Thus, I shall be very grateful if you could send it to me (via my mail on my user page). Thank you very much in advance, -- Cgolds ( talk) 13:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Randy Quaid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cold Dog Soup ( 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) 11:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Read the full newsletter
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the
Suggestions page. --
The Interior 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paradox (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. When I first saw this redirect, I assumed it was a joke, but I thought I should check with you. Is it meant to redirect somewhere else (like vacuous truth)? Thanks TigerShark ( talk) 18:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It's been a long time, but as best I remember, my thinking went something like this. Unless one is a mathematician, the word "onto" will not sound like a mathematical word. For example, "star" has a mathematical meaning (in graph theory), but that is not the most common meaning. So (I thought) if someone wanted a reminder of what "onto" was all about, they would be likely to try "onto (mathematics)". Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Template:Controversial (scientific) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis ( talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Your comment of "ahem" on Talk:Monty Hall problem is not helpful and frankly, somewhat rude. Unless you actually understand Sample space and Event (probability theory), then you should refrain from such comments. There is a bona fide dialog ongoing, and your comment did not help advance it. Tweedledee2011 ( talk) 23:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You have been reported for a 3rr violation, here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Tweedledee2011 ( talk) 10:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweedledee2011 ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Criticisms of the theory of relativity". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
... you should have left untouched ;-) - DVdm ( talk) 15:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
You'll be interested in Wikipedia:Help desk#Dispute Resolution is a Sham. - DVdm ( talk) 12:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinz Hoenig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jump! ( 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) 09:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinz Hoenig, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Romy and Gier ( 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) 09:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed it's fantastic, this. If you can find a way to make it turn up with the blue background in non-Firefox browsers, then by all means I'll take it! - DVdm ( talk) 09:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
style=background:-moz-radial-gradient(...
style=background-color:#0077BE; background-image:-moz-radial-gradient(...
Yes, I trust you that reliable sources would be needed for that. It is obvious commonsense, and is logically valid, but at present I don't know of a reliable source. I think the physics community has brainwashed itself into not seeing the obvious here, and of course Wikipedia will hardly buck that. But I was interested to see who would react and how. Chjoaygame ( talk) 05:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that an experimental test of relativistic length contraction is at most a few years away from being feasible. Solar Probe Plus will bring a satellite into the Sun's corona. This shows that it should be possible to send an experiment into a solar orbit with a radius of 5.9 million km, which translates to an orbital speed of .0005c. Put two rods into counter-rotating orbits, and they will pass with a relative speed of .001c, corresponding to a length contraction of .9999995. For 1 m long rods, this would mean a length difference of 500 nm, the wavelength of visible violet light. Using thermally controlled Zerodur, a handful of atomic clocks, interferometers, picosecond lasers and assorted gadgetry, this should be doable. Of course, there is nothing fundamental preventing us from using 1000m long rods, increasing the length difference to .5 mm. Paradoctor ( talk) 23:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of keeping their contributions, but there was something in there that was struck across various (earlier) paragraphs, and that's just too difficult for me. Or maybe I'm a Pretenddoctor. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 15:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! :) I'll read that, it looks helpful! If I put a link that shouldn't exist feel free to correct it or ask me to fix it ;) Regards, Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση ( talk) 05:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Ouch I'm sorry, I'll use the page title or other suggestions in the info page you linked, thanks for giving me this link I'll read it. Bare URLs even in the footnotes create serious problems when printing a page or making a PDF because the Google Chrome browser has a software bug which seems to be activated by bare URLs on Wikipedia when using a large font size, enclosing the URLs in brackets was a suggestion I read on a Chrome user forum discussing the problem. You're correct it hides information, though, so I'll make sure to put the page's title instead of leaving it empty.^^ Regards, Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση ( talk) 19:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roger Corman filmography may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 14:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Paradoctor, please could you stop re-adding those entries to the dab, WP:DABACRO explains why. Widefox; talk 00:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I hate myself for smiling. But seriously: there must be a better way of dealing with this, no? VQuakr ( talk) 19:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, that image at First Crusade somehow reminds me of that of The Grand Wazoo (higher res for instance here). Check it out. - DVdm ( talk) 20:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Please read carefully the comment I've added to the article. However, I agree it's not a place for putting everyone's (my) thoughts -- it would be quite confusing.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.197.217 ( talk) 23:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there... I notice this red message here at the bottom of your talk page. If you want to avoid visitors accidentally moving it up—as I just did now —when adding a new section or when replying to the last mesage, you can put the message on top of the talk page but make sure that it always shows at the bottom. I boldly just did that. See if you like it, and enjoy experimenting with it. - DVdm ( talk) 12:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Albert Einstein". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- MelanieN ( talk) 13:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of paradoxes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You reverted the statement that Gilliam called The Zero Theorem the final part of the trilogy. But in the source given it says: "Calling it the third part of a trilogy formed by earlier dystopian satires Brazil and Twelve Monkeys, Gilliam says he sees the film very much as a warning against the perils of a digitised existence." I interpret this as Gilliam having said that The Zero Theorem is the third part of a trilogy, so I think the earlier wording was correct. Why do you think it is correct to say: "Gilliam has not referred to the film this way"? Mark in wiki ( talk) 08:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for editing Upstream contamination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.208.211 ( talk) 14:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Universal rotation curve shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. jps ( talk) 18:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Memory Run, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Brother. 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) 12:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Template:Tr4c has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gadget850 talk 22:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
…with background relating to Zeno and other such ancient philosophical work.
The Zeno's paradoxes has had an expert needed tag added. One thing I noted it needs, is that all the primary sources need to be consistently cited, so they can be followed: All the Plato and Aristotle mostly from same source, with each of those primary sources fully described (then individual passages cited in an identical short style in the references).
To get this started, I took the best occurrence of the classical citations appearing in the References section, and placed a copy of each in an Original sources section. Two of these are almost complete (Plato, Aristotle), two of them are very incomplete (Diogenes, Aquinas).
After this, there is a serious look needed at the lead, it seems. Most of it appears to be OR. That is, it is not sourced either in the lead, or in the main body of the text. I would propose a new section, "Sources and history", to open the article, with most of the lead content being copied there. I.e., the Parmenides stuff, and the Aristotle-same-as-Simplicius content should be moved into the main body and sourced. Only then can a lead re-write begin.
Can you do any of this? I am not a philosopher, but am a scholar, and concur with the stated issues that appear. (And the need for a scholar like you to turn this into a good article, enlisting whatever help you need.)
But all together -- the facts that the classical sources are a hodgepodge of styles and degrees of completeness, that the interpretations appearing throughout are not sourced, that page numbers are often missing -- this makes the thing a mess. And I agree, it is hard not to think that much is OR/plagiarised, so confident are the unsourced opinions.
Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 15:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Endorphins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Just checking to see if you officially (for now, at least) withdrew the RM request at Calf (disambiguation)? First time I've seen it done that way, but if it went bye-bye, I'm not complaining. Montanabw (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think we have met before. I am new to the Calf and Calf (disambiguation) pages and most of the editors on there. Things are obviously very heated over there but I have not had time to look at the history, so the following is offered in a neutral way. Your mass deletion of edits from the Talk:Calf (disambiguation) page is a huge mistake (possibly actionable on this single instance) and could follow you around for a long time if you do not take immediate action. I strongly suggest you offer an apology to the community for your deletions before this escalates and sanctions are considered.DrChrissy (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk) 17:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Paradoctor,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rubbish computer (
Merry Christmas!:
...And a Happy New Year!) 23:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
And a healthy paradoxical 2016. Cheers! - DVdm ( talk) 10:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Technological singularity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Horgan. 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) 09:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Paradoctor,
I'm an infrequent user of Wikipedia. The stale page you found is stale because I ran into editing obstacles. That is, I was not able to format some sections like I wanted and was unsure how to handle some images. Then I ran into personal things that kept me from coming back to the page and asking for help. In recent weeks I've been thinking about returning to the project. Perhaps your edit it just was it takes to get me going again!
Are you able to help me with editing or should I ask elsewhere? How do it ask for help?
1200Flasher 19:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC) 1200Flasher
Hello! Paradoctor,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Onel5969
TT me 00:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dhirendra Verma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian languages. 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) 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Paradoctor, I'm AMPERIO, sysop ( check) in Galician language wikipedia. I saw you added the template machine translation into the article Antón Losada Diéguez which is only half-true. Although I used the translation system provided in wikipedia to do it faster, I was reading every single word in order to correct weird words or expressions. I understand that I may have committed some mistakes, as English is not my native language, and that's why I asked User:Bgwhite to take a look at the article to fix those problems. I also saw that another user from Galician wiki added some information in the work's section and deleted some wikilinks without fixing the content, just deleting [[:gl: and leaving things such as [[Lois_Pereiro|Lois Pereiro]], because in our version we try not to use those wikilinks inside the article, btw I understand that he should have fixed that too. Please, check the article now, as Bgwhite has made some corrections and write me with an answer to try to solve the problem. Thank you, -- AMPERIO ( talk) 11:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I improved the article A Nosa Terra, translating (myself) information from other articles we have on this page gl:A Nosa Terra in Galician wikipedia. Can you please check it? If you don't mind answer me in my talk page or it'll be difficult for me to follow a conversation. Thank you! -- AMPERIO ( talk) 21:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, I saw your lengthy report on
WP:AIV about persistent IP vandals (while checking up on another report - sadly I'm not an admin). One thing that might not have occurred to you is to ask for page protection. If you see a persistent vandal (or set of vandals), doing some damage, say, on average, once a day or more, then it's worth a try (if it's only once or twice a week - don't bother - it will be denied).
Go to
WP:RFPP, and fill in a request - semi-protection will stop any IP address from editing - one usually asks for temporary - often the vandals will not bother when the protection comes off.
If you see a date in the future that you are not sure about, then try adding a {{future}} template above those dates. Hope that helps, and good hunting.
Ronhjones
(Talk) 20:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the "Anything You Can Do" sequence was one I simply remembered from actually watching the program. Take care. Shaulceder ( talk) 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Paradoctor. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding User:Likebox a user with which you have been involved. The discussion is about his activities at Quantum mysticism which may be related to his activity at Talk:Chinese room#Searle's assumption further information can be found at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Likebox. Thank you.-- OMCV ( talk) 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
...for the photo comment. I do what I can to lighten the mood. Truth be told, I was actually going zero and my spedometer was broken. Interesting photo nonetheless... — BQZip01 — talk 14:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You're referring to a redirect loop which was created after my edit to link to a standalone page: [1]. Thanks for your attentiveness.-- Rfsmit ( talk) 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Paradoctor, 71.182.244.158 has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the
WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for the very unusual hierarchic cabbage award, I've put it at the end of my userboxes :-) Dmcq ( talk) 17:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the message on my talk page. I noticed recently that Charles Matthew's edits to the mathematical fallacy article removed some content that would be more suited to a paradoxes of infinity article (which currently appears not to exist). I notified Charles that there is probably enough content simply lying around that someone could have a go at the article, and he suggested looking first at Category:Paradoxes of naive set theory. Since you are the Paradoctor, you should obviously be in the loop on this kind of discussion. Best, 71.182.244.158 ( talk) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
The original article was indeed deleted. Then a redirect was created over it which now leads to a seperate page. I've just deleted it since it's orphaned now anyway. - Mailer Diablo 02:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me that you decided to return those userboxes to their sex-specific terminology. Despite your assertion, no knowledge is lost by making those specific userboxes applicable to any Wikipedian, but since they are yours, you are welcome to retain their sex-specific language. It's unfortunate that it's that important to you, because it does little to foster a spirit of collaboration. I was hoping to use one, but I have no interest in perpetuating sex-specific language when it is completely unnecessary. Let me know if you ever reconsider. Jokestress ( talk) 02:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
About the list that you created, I noticed that there are a few that are already on the page for List of paradoxes. Would you like a {{ Done-t}} template next to those? I could quickly put that in for you. I'm just wondering if they're not marked for a reason. Regards Shan man 7 00:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks für den "barnstar". Gegen Klonen hab ich nichts - so lange es nicht mich betrifft ;-) -- D.H ( talk) 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your paradox category additions at auditory illusion and optical illusion. Your handle suggests that you have an agenda about paradoxes; I suggest you use the talk pages to say what's up. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my typo earlier. If you haven't read it, Template:Expand says, "{{ Expand}} should not be used on articles concurrently with stub templates - a stub template is an explicit request for expansion." — Carl ( CBM · talk) 02:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks for removing the redundant search tag at Muslim Mafia. Question -- is even one appropriate? I've never seen one on a talk page before. Doesn't bother me overly, but seems more appropriate in an AfD, where it always appears. Thoughts? Epeefleche ( talk) 02:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
As I only haz FF 3.0.15 it look fine to me. Maybe tiz time to upgrade? Thx. 19:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Pommer
"Thank you for this userbox." You are very welcome. I am happy to see that it is a success. If you like it, you may like some of my other ones. -RadicalOne--- Contact Me 00:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I like your template, though I can't actually understand how it works... my talk page has a more detailed explanation. -RadicalOne--- Contact Me 00:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
As you've noticed, User:Heartfield01 said permission had been emailed to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, but there is no OTRS ticket on the image page. I suggest you check with someone who has OTRS access, which I don't. If they have no knowledge, you can email Heartfield AT blueyonder DOT co DOT uk, as stated on his user page, to ask for it to be sent again. This also applies to File:Leaningrainbow.jpg. Ty 03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
... over this optional remark. Quid? DVdm ( talk) 20:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: verbalearn. Thanks for deleting that. I'm sure Wikipedia is better now for your efforts. Gregman2 23:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregman2 ( talk • contribs)
Your characterization on my talk page of near-consensus for merge is definitely incorrect. "Fences and Windows" and "Hans Adler" state opposition to this merge also, while suggesting a better merge target of Fine-tuned universe. An anon also states s/he is "undecided" (though I agree in discounting anonymous opinions to a large degree). There are two or three editors who like the idea of the merge, but it really doesn't fit into the Anthropic principle article without being dramatically WP:UNDUE weight. LotLE× talk 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It is many more years (than I would like to recall) since I last read 'Zarathustra' and the 'Genealogy of Morals' all now clearly recollected. Miletus ( talk) 17:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
On thanks. Me too! Appreciate the neighborly nod. RashersTierney ( talk) 00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Awesome work on fixing those reference! Well done! The article looks way better now. Thanks! Nightscream ( talk) 14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, details here. Rich Farmbrough 10:54 2 February 2010 (UTC).
Hi Paradoctor, I do hope you'll further explain your view on WP:VPP that references only count if the author's name is mentioned in the text and that footnotes don't count as attribution. You appear to be arguing that using footnotes makes Wikipedia no different than any random blog. That seems quite contrary to standard practice, and I'm curious where that belief came from. But perhaps you just didn't read enough of the proposal to see that the discussion isn't about whether WP:SPS are attributed at all, but whether the author's name must be used in the text in addition to footnotes. WeisheitSuchen ( talk) 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Did you read the passage? The plagiarism took place in Barrow's 2008 introduction to the republication of the 1944 book by Beard. I'm quite confident that it was not Beard writing about George W. Bush, Jr., in 1944. You may now apologize to me. THF ( talk) 09:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: Is it directed at me? The reason why I'm asking here as opposed to on Talk:Zeno's paradoxes is that it seems tangential to that article.
Anyway, if you directed that comment at me, the point I was making is that nowhere in Wikipedia's content policies does it say that in the process of writing articles we should follow the scientific method. Therefore the argument "you aren't following the scientific method when you write articles" is not a valid one. Gabbe ( talk) 11:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying that it would be against Wikipedia's policies to citing the Oresekes source for the statement "the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement [...]"? Or are you saying that it doesn't qualify as a scientific review article? Let's take a different example, this time hypothetical: Let's say that a world-renowned ornithologist said that they observed a Ivory-billed Woodpecker, but did not manage to take a photo or other similar method of verifying their account. In this case the claim "I observed this rare bird" would be impossible to test, and would thus fail the scientific method. If the ornithologist came to Wikipedia directly, their statements would of course be inadmissible, so lets say that the claim was published somewhere. Are you saying, that because the claim fails the scientific method, we would be prohibited from quoting the ornithologist on Wikipedia? Gabbe ( talk) 07:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia says | sources | evaluation |
---|---|---|
F | 928 papers | fails WP:V |
F | Oreskes essay | ok, if Oreskes passes WP:RS, and F passes WP:DUE |
(Oreskes says) "F" | Oreskes essay | ok, if WP:DUE is satisfied |
Thanks for responding to the my question on the Nobel Prize article AIRcorn ( talk) 08:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not to happy that you moved material around, such that it looks like Steaphen was discussing or objecting to my proposed changes, and that it was these proposed changes that caused the stalemate. I only included the proposals as a response to requests by other other editors for comment and input. I was fairly happy with the most recent version of the article, and the changes that I proposed today have very low priority for me. This, while it now seems that these proposals are a major obstacle for us to move on and at the core of the problem. Ansgarf ( talk) 01:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW: With respect to Steaphen's assumed proposals, it would be more useful to either revive the previous mediation attempt, or to initiate a proper mediation process. I doubt that there will be many new insight by repeating the old arguments on the talk page. I might be mistaken, so good luck. Ansgarf ( talk) 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I was sick for a few days and didn't edit at all.
BTW: I initiated arbitration on Steaphen behaviour over the last few years [ [3]]. This might influence your work of commenting out parts of last weeks talk pages. I don't think it would be necessary to do all that work at this stage, not just because it happens a few days late. Ansgarf ( talk) 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Gaylord#Book publishing industry - a unit of measuring an amount of books which you might be interested in, because it includes your edits. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem. -- Imagine Wizard ( talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 20:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
As per your request at: Talk:Sorites paradox#Original research on accepting the conclusion, I’ve found a ref that discusses negative heaps of sand (or rather, negative number of hairs on head). How does it look?
An "up to 10Mb" cable connection. Though I don't know what the speed actually is. OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Descartes Meditations. See Evil daemon, and "Descartes' Epistemology, section 3.2" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Descartes' argument is flawed in that it assumes its conclusion, starting from suppose there were this evil genius who was trying to deceive me. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Why am I wrong? -- Chetvorno TALK 05:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I enjoyed our collaboration on the Liar paradox. I'm particularly impressed with our result, which (paradoxically ;-) is greater than the sum of our individual contributions. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 03:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You added it to the List of paradoxes. The article that references it doesn't make sense to me and seems to include explicit mistakes; can you defend or reword the description of the paradox there? Thanks, – SJ + 06:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
A cursory search doesn't turn up anything definitive (even the external link on the Nanda Bayin page only says he reigned until 1599, rather than dating his death), but from what I can find, the history of Myanmar points to the deposement of the king before his death, while the trivia implies that he died as king. It's not clear, but either way I'm more inclined to trust the scholar/book referenced on that page than the trivia collection referenced by death from laughter. Up to you. -- Firien need help? 08:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Template:Rr has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paradoctor, there's a MedCab case concerning the Chinese Room article that you probably should be aware of. PhilKnight ( talk) 14:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Paradoctor, thanks for your participation in this whole can of worms that I opened. I've added an RfC to the Chinese Room talk page as PhilKnight suggested. Sorry it's taken so much of your time! Reading glasses ( talk) 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI: [4] Dlabtot ( talk) 18:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The author was correct. You can see who he is here: http://pt.linkedin.com/in/plimamonteiro . You may check the whois for the site to find he is the owner. If you still have doubts about authorship PL Monteiro will disclose his real name in the Catch 22 profile. After all, it is public information who he is through the whois for the domain.
Unfortunately, it seems you did not read the actual post I linked to. It does not deal with fact per se, instead it tries to convey to the reader, different technological approaches to Nature that result in widely different possibilities and endeavors. Accusing it of being unreliable is ludicrous...
I was a bit confused on how to contact you. Here you say to respond in my talk page. There you put a link to contact you here. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 12:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I would revert the reversion because here in Wiki I've learned one has to take responsibility for one's own edits. On the other hand, I respect opinion diverse from mine, do not want to incur in anyone's "wrath" nor pick up fights I don't really need. A comment on my present comments, would be very much welcome. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 15:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Considering the author name is correct and the linked post is an allegory, of interest to those discussing these issues, and conveying ideas hard to express otherwise, it seems your objections are refuted and therefore I'm putting the paragraph back in. Unfortunately, I was unable to get your feedback on this. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I like that revision summary. I wish that was auto inserted when ever someone reverse vandalism. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean of spammers. -- Triesault ( talk) 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice. Keep up the good work. -- John ( talk) 05:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Again I am pushed to a whole lot of things I really, really don't like. If you have a moment of your time to put into careful reading would you give me your opinion on this: Competent Independent Writers and WP:RS? Please check also Sagan's Talk page and the Noticeboard. Links provided. Thanks in advance. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 07:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.
If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.
To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.
The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
"new section" button at the top of the page. I don't know how to fix that, unfortunately. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if you're still around, or permanently retired...but could you expand Plato's beard a bit? Smallman12q ( talk) 23:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Well I made this paradox. can you tell me if this is a paradox? Here goes:
"He is bad at everything." This is a wrong sentence because if he is bad at being bad, he can't be bad at everything (as he should be bad at everything, including being bad). But if he is good at being bad, then again he isn't bad at everything as he isn't bad at being bad.
This becomes a paradox. Is this a paradox or not??? (You can see this same message on the discussion page of List of paradoxes). -- Lm34gt45 ( talk) 11:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in this discussion Bulwersator ( talk) 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
The highest form of wisdom is often paradoxical. Your contributions to Paradoxes in Wikipedia are therefore quite valuable. Keep it up! Kgashok ( talk) 17:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Paradoctor! Regarding [5], are you aware that access to the PDF is restricted? I wanted to consult the article but am asked for credentials. -- Chealer ( talk) 04:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm getting quite into the twin paradox and Herbert Dingle and saw on his discussion page that you had a copy of this paper: "A misunderstood rebellion the twin-paradox controversy and Herbert Dingle's vision of science", which I can't find anywhere else online. It would be amazing if you could send me a copy!! My email is lctp1986@gmail.com. Many Thanks, and keep up the good work! ~LP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.197.121 ( talk) 13:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.
This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets ( extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.
We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!
I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.
Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.
Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:25, 30 July 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)
In case you still look at this page : I ma writing the French version of Herbert Dingle => fr:Herbert Dingle and I saw that you have Chang's article I am looking for. Thus, I shall be very grateful if you could send it to me (via my mail on my user page). Thank you very much in advance, -- Cgolds ( talk) 13:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Randy Quaid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cold Dog Soup ( 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) 11:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Read the full newsletter
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the
Suggestions page. --
The Interior 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paradox (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. When I first saw this redirect, I assumed it was a joke, but I thought I should check with you. Is it meant to redirect somewhere else (like vacuous truth)? Thanks TigerShark ( talk) 18:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It's been a long time, but as best I remember, my thinking went something like this. Unless one is a mathematician, the word "onto" will not sound like a mathematical word. For example, "star" has a mathematical meaning (in graph theory), but that is not the most common meaning. So (I thought) if someone wanted a reminder of what "onto" was all about, they would be likely to try "onto (mathematics)". Rick Norwood ( talk) 16:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Template:Controversial (scientific) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis ( talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Your comment of "ahem" on Talk:Monty Hall problem is not helpful and frankly, somewhat rude. Unless you actually understand Sample space and Event (probability theory), then you should refrain from such comments. There is a bona fide dialog ongoing, and your comment did not help advance it. Tweedledee2011 ( talk) 23:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You have been reported for a 3rr violation, here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Tweedledee2011 ( talk) 10:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweedledee2011 ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Criticisms of the theory of relativity". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
... you should have left untouched ;-) - DVdm ( talk) 15:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
You'll be interested in Wikipedia:Help desk#Dispute Resolution is a Sham. - DVdm ( talk) 12:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinz Hoenig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jump! ( 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) 09:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinz Hoenig, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Romy and Gier ( 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) 09:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed it's fantastic, this. If you can find a way to make it turn up with the blue background in non-Firefox browsers, then by all means I'll take it! - DVdm ( talk) 09:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
style=background:-moz-radial-gradient(...
style=background-color:#0077BE; background-image:-moz-radial-gradient(...
Yes, I trust you that reliable sources would be needed for that. It is obvious commonsense, and is logically valid, but at present I don't know of a reliable source. I think the physics community has brainwashed itself into not seeing the obvious here, and of course Wikipedia will hardly buck that. But I was interested to see who would react and how. Chjoaygame ( talk) 05:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that an experimental test of relativistic length contraction is at most a few years away from being feasible. Solar Probe Plus will bring a satellite into the Sun's corona. This shows that it should be possible to send an experiment into a solar orbit with a radius of 5.9 million km, which translates to an orbital speed of .0005c. Put two rods into counter-rotating orbits, and they will pass with a relative speed of .001c, corresponding to a length contraction of .9999995. For 1 m long rods, this would mean a length difference of 500 nm, the wavelength of visible violet light. Using thermally controlled Zerodur, a handful of atomic clocks, interferometers, picosecond lasers and assorted gadgetry, this should be doable. Of course, there is nothing fundamental preventing us from using 1000m long rods, increasing the length difference to .5 mm. Paradoctor ( talk) 23:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of keeping their contributions, but there was something in there that was struck across various (earlier) paragraphs, and that's just too difficult for me. Or maybe I'm a Pretenddoctor. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 15:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! :) I'll read that, it looks helpful! If I put a link that shouldn't exist feel free to correct it or ask me to fix it ;) Regards, Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση ( talk) 05:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Ouch I'm sorry, I'll use the page title or other suggestions in the info page you linked, thanks for giving me this link I'll read it. Bare URLs even in the footnotes create serious problems when printing a page or making a PDF because the Google Chrome browser has a software bug which seems to be activated by bare URLs on Wikipedia when using a large font size, enclosing the URLs in brackets was a suggestion I read on a Chrome user forum discussing the problem. You're correct it hides information, though, so I'll make sure to put the page's title instead of leaving it empty.^^ Regards, Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση ( talk) 19:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roger Corman filmography may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 14:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Paradoctor, please could you stop re-adding those entries to the dab, WP:DABACRO explains why. Widefox; talk 00:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I hate myself for smiling. But seriously: there must be a better way of dealing with this, no? VQuakr ( talk) 19:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, that image at First Crusade somehow reminds me of that of The Grand Wazoo (higher res for instance here). Check it out. - DVdm ( talk) 20:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Please read carefully the comment I've added to the article. However, I agree it's not a place for putting everyone's (my) thoughts -- it would be quite confusing.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.197.217 ( talk) 23:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there... I notice this red message here at the bottom of your talk page. If you want to avoid visitors accidentally moving it up—as I just did now —when adding a new section or when replying to the last mesage, you can put the message on top of the talk page but make sure that it always shows at the bottom. I boldly just did that. See if you like it, and enjoy experimenting with it. - DVdm ( talk) 12:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:Albert Einstein". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- MelanieN ( talk) 13:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of paradoxes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You reverted the statement that Gilliam called The Zero Theorem the final part of the trilogy. But in the source given it says: "Calling it the third part of a trilogy formed by earlier dystopian satires Brazil and Twelve Monkeys, Gilliam says he sees the film very much as a warning against the perils of a digitised existence." I interpret this as Gilliam having said that The Zero Theorem is the third part of a trilogy, so I think the earlier wording was correct. Why do you think it is correct to say: "Gilliam has not referred to the film this way"? Mark in wiki ( talk) 08:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for editing Upstream contamination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.208.211 ( talk) 14:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Universal rotation curve shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. jps ( talk) 18:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Memory Run, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Brother. 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) 12:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Template:Tr4c has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gadget850 talk 22:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
…with background relating to Zeno and other such ancient philosophical work.
The Zeno's paradoxes has had an expert needed tag added. One thing I noted it needs, is that all the primary sources need to be consistently cited, so they can be followed: All the Plato and Aristotle mostly from same source, with each of those primary sources fully described (then individual passages cited in an identical short style in the references).
To get this started, I took the best occurrence of the classical citations appearing in the References section, and placed a copy of each in an Original sources section. Two of these are almost complete (Plato, Aristotle), two of them are very incomplete (Diogenes, Aquinas).
After this, there is a serious look needed at the lead, it seems. Most of it appears to be OR. That is, it is not sourced either in the lead, or in the main body of the text. I would propose a new section, "Sources and history", to open the article, with most of the lead content being copied there. I.e., the Parmenides stuff, and the Aristotle-same-as-Simplicius content should be moved into the main body and sourced. Only then can a lead re-write begin.
Can you do any of this? I am not a philosopher, but am a scholar, and concur with the stated issues that appear. (And the need for a scholar like you to turn this into a good article, enlisting whatever help you need.)
But all together -- the facts that the classical sources are a hodgepodge of styles and degrees of completeness, that the interpretations appearing throughout are not sourced, that page numbers are often missing -- this makes the thing a mess. And I agree, it is hard not to think that much is OR/plagiarised, so confident are the unsourced opinions.
Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 15:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Endorphins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Just checking to see if you officially (for now, at least) withdrew the RM request at Calf (disambiguation)? First time I've seen it done that way, but if it went bye-bye, I'm not complaining. Montanabw (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think we have met before. I am new to the Calf and Calf (disambiguation) pages and most of the editors on there. Things are obviously very heated over there but I have not had time to look at the history, so the following is offered in a neutral way. Your mass deletion of edits from the Talk:Calf (disambiguation) page is a huge mistake (possibly actionable on this single instance) and could follow you around for a long time if you do not take immediate action. I strongly suggest you offer an apology to the community for your deletions before this escalates and sanctions are considered.DrChrissy (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk) 17:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Paradoctor,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rubbish computer (
Merry Christmas!:
...And a Happy New Year!) 23:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
And a healthy paradoxical 2016. Cheers! - DVdm ( talk) 10:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Technological singularity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Horgan. 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) 09:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Paradoctor,
I'm an infrequent user of Wikipedia. The stale page you found is stale because I ran into editing obstacles. That is, I was not able to format some sections like I wanted and was unsure how to handle some images. Then I ran into personal things that kept me from coming back to the page and asking for help. In recent weeks I've been thinking about returning to the project. Perhaps your edit it just was it takes to get me going again!
Are you able to help me with editing or should I ask elsewhere? How do it ask for help?
1200Flasher 19:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC) 1200Flasher
Hello! Paradoctor,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Onel5969
TT me 00:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dhirendra Verma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian languages. 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) 09:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Paradoctor, I'm AMPERIO, sysop ( check) in Galician language wikipedia. I saw you added the template machine translation into the article Antón Losada Diéguez which is only half-true. Although I used the translation system provided in wikipedia to do it faster, I was reading every single word in order to correct weird words or expressions. I understand that I may have committed some mistakes, as English is not my native language, and that's why I asked User:Bgwhite to take a look at the article to fix those problems. I also saw that another user from Galician wiki added some information in the work's section and deleted some wikilinks without fixing the content, just deleting [[:gl: and leaving things such as [[Lois_Pereiro|Lois Pereiro]], because in our version we try not to use those wikilinks inside the article, btw I understand that he should have fixed that too. Please, check the article now, as Bgwhite has made some corrections and write me with an answer to try to solve the problem. Thank you, -- AMPERIO ( talk) 11:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I improved the article A Nosa Terra, translating (myself) information from other articles we have on this page gl:A Nosa Terra in Galician wikipedia. Can you please check it? If you don't mind answer me in my talk page or it'll be difficult for me to follow a conversation. Thank you! -- AMPERIO ( talk) 21:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)