Hello, Purgy Purgatorio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! : Noyster (talk), 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Purgy Purgatorio! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 16:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
Teahouse advice (thanked)
I have plans to remove some content of a page completely and to move an other part to an other page. I have anounced this plans on the talk pages of the target and the source page. Please, what is the time lapse considered polite and appropriate before I make my plans real? One more question, where do I apply for a reassessment of this page which is part of the WikiProject Physics, to get some hints what to improve or bring to Wikipedia standards? Thanks in advance. Purgy ( talk) 19:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Purgy! Since I do not want to add to the confusion at the Teahouse, I thought I might write a note to you here. There are several ways of notifying other user about things, and they are not always too clear to a newbie. I have not been here so very long myself so I remember it well. The talkback templates are mostly used by senior editors when they are on "official business" like leaving answers at the Teahouse as hosts. Most of us other mortals use less sophisticated, but just as effective ways, and even if we get involved in a discussion at the Teahouse, most of us do not use the fancy templates, we just use the more common ways of communicating. They all result in the same thing: a notification on your page, similar to the one you got from the thanks.
All of these are lazily called pings, "Just ping me." ect. And my explanation here at your page may have triggered a whole bunch of mysterious pings at you. Sorry, it was for a good cause. Pings on your talk page also generates a yellow-highlighted text next to the red number at the top of your page. If you have any other questions about life here as a newbie, please don't hesitate to ping me or leave a message at my talk page. It might be less scary or formal that at the Teahouse. All the best, w.carter -Talk 12:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi!
When you edited First-order logic#Loving relation, did you happen to understand what is meant by "they are examples"? I saw you added sentence 6 as another exception.
I have no idea who is "they" (The individuals a,...,e? The sentences/formulas 1,...,10? The matrices?) and of what they are examples. Can you help me with a brief explanation? - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 19:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, @ Jochen Burghardt:, I am sorry that I missed your question which meanwhile has been answered, I assume, by just not being exhaustive for the given formulae. I was somewhat busy and fully off Wikipedia. If I find time, I'll have a look at that article again, but please, leave a note, if I might be useful. Regards, Purgy ( talk) 12:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I've restored the first change you made in the article. Thank you for correcting the typo. As for the other change, I suggest you discuss it in Talk. Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It is fine to post to my talk page, but you would do better to discuss changes to an article on that article's talk page. Note: always post at the bottom of the talk page. If you post your suggested changes on the article's talk page, I and others will be glad to discuss them, and help you with a rewrite if necessary. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not avoiding answering. I am telling you that the place for your question and my answer is the talk page of an article. I'll take a look at "monoids".
You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology | |
Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed and it seems that this new Wikiproject would be interesting to you. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers Tetra quark ( talk) 20:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Square root of 2, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz ( talk) 00:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey Purgy, I certainly did not mean to be patronizing in the physics forum. I used "kid" in the "atta boy, kid!" sense, as your strong bold voice reminded me of youthful intensity. I am so glad you read this vortex of recursive tendentiousness just right!! Regards, Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 15:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC) But the bullying never stops there Sigh... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 20:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Purgy; no, I have no specific ideas. I asked the subject to propose in the talk-page of scalar field theory what he believes he'd like to see in the article, without trashing the article, which is what raises people's hackles and gets them outraged. Much of the (justified) alarm at the subject's depredations is his legal-vandalism revert actions, not his absurd rants and recriminations. Focussing on the content itself, while leaving the actual article frozen temporarily, might be the best solution. On your part, just awareness of the situation is sufficient. The subject's peremptory spasmodic acts are all made possible by the misperceived isolation of that page, and the illusion that nobody is watching! I don't see how the physics forum is relevant, yet. The subject is self-righteously and aggressively clueless, so I doubt there a bona fide scientific issue that needs to be settled. It's all bullying. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 13:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Purgy. I didn't quite understand your last comment on the Talk:Electronic oscillator page. Are you saying you have changed your mind, and you are against adding the sentence "Quartz crystal oscillators can only be tuned over a small frequency range, of a fraction of a percent" to the article? -- Chetvorno TALK 15:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Purgy,
Hi there, re this revert: I agree. FYI, whenever I come across such edits, I revert and point to MOS:LQ example 2 in the edit summary. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 08:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
German speakers generally misinterpret the English word silly as only meaning doof, albern, or dumm. It has a lot of other meanings too. Depending on the context, for example I, as a native German speaker, would have to consider nicht geeignet, nicht angemessen, ụnangebracht, unaufrichtig, belanglos, usw. Anyway, here is something for you to read. Happy editing! -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Purgy Purgatorio. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw that you might be still having Lithium-ion battery on your watchlist. I used to watch it and it was one of the first articles I worked on, I don't anymore. I've recently discovered something that you might want to watch out for while digging through the archives there: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright, the editor you recently engaged with Special:Contributions/Elektrik_Fanne and an older Special:Contributions/DieSwartzPunkt, all socks. They've (singular) done good work I think, that is, in uncovering the dubiousness of batteryuniversity.com but they've been blocked nonethless. Be wary in future. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 07:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Purgy. I did not think you were rude, though I find D. Lazard is. He's probably Parisian so he cannot know any better, poor man. ;) I always sign my talk posts and I simply forgot this time. Cheers Vincent ( talk) 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crelle. 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) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 10:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your personal attacks on other editors and your making accusations of misconduct against other editors without providing evidence, if you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I completely understand that English is not your first language, but this is the English-language Wikipedia, but that doesn't absolve you from en-wiki's rules. If you don't have the ability to edit in English without spewing insults and unfounded accusations, I strongly suggest you don't attempt it. ‑ Iridescent 16:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It's the "generally" that is the problem since the article says that such batteries use organic solvents, so unless you can provide a reliable source for there existing Lithium-ion batteries that use a non-flammable electrolyte solvent the "generally" stays out. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Purgy Purgatorio. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Wikipedia will have automatically notified you that your name was used in vain. But just in case, I thought I'd drop you a note inviting you to check out the discussion of my intentions that you had requested.
Looking forward to your response.— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 19:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Purgy. In restoring the word “essentially” in Irrational number#Transcendental and algebraic irrationals in the passage “real algebraic numbers (essentially defined as the real roots of polynomials with integer coefficients)”, you expained in the edit summary that this is “neither the only, nor a strict definition, just covering the "essentials"; including the argument)”. Could you help me by elaborating on that? (1) why is it not a strict definition, and (2) what other definition is there? Thanks, Loraof ( talk) 19:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw you undo my edit
here.
Don't you want to leave some links to the Large and Small numbers in this article? Why it should be discussed?
There almost no linking between Numbers and its highly related large and small counterparts that surely should be mentioned.
Don't you want to bring these changes back by yourself or explain why you reversed them?
109.206.156.72 (
talk) 09:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to prime number again, and all the edits you made over the course of the GA review. As you probably saw, I undid your edits again, but it was not because I thought there was anything particularly inappropriate about them. The issue was that the factorial argument for large prime gaps was supposed to have been moved to the elementary properties section in the reorganization of the article that happened during the GA review, but there was a little bit left over in the summary of the analytic properties section that accidentally got left behind. Your edit expanded that left-behind bit, but I think the better thing to do was just to remove it. So the problem that led to the undo was actually from something I did earlier (neglecting to remove a passage) rather than anything in your edit. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Views/Day | Quality | Title | Tagged with… |
---|---|---|---|
1,036 | Hazing ( talk) | Add sources | |
119 | Analytic number theory ( talk) | Add sources | |
412 | (ε, δ)-definition of limit ( talk) | Add sources | |
1,070 | Riemann zeta function ( talk) | Add sources | |
1,283 | Pencil ( talk) | Add sources | |
896 | Limit (mathematics) ( talk) | Cleanup | |
32 | Mertens function ( talk) | Cleanup | |
301 | Positional notation ( talk) | Expand | |
82 | Austria–Prussia rivalry ( talk) | Expand | |
112 | Plastic number ( talk) | Expand | |
304 | Tetration ( talk) | Unencyclopaedic | |
1,381 | BASIC ( talk) | Unencyclopaedic | |
23 | Mathematical folklore ( talk) | Unencyclopaedic | |
246 | Network science ( talk) | Merge | |
1,403 | Maximum likelihood estimation ( talk) | Merge | |
40 | Inductive type ( talk) | Merge | |
53 | Harmonic conjugate ( talk) | Wikify | |
87 | Instantaneous phase ( talk) | Wikify | |
12 | Timeline of numerals and arithmetic ( talk) | Orphan | |
3 | Repetition variation ( talk) | Orphan | |
26 | Quantum optimization algorithms ( talk) | Orphan | |
153 | Argument of a function ( talk) | Stub | |
12 | Ernesto Cesàro ( talk) | Stub |
Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 17:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mathematical induction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Range ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Re: [1]
Hello. I gather you feel that |newspaper=
is meant only for the paper version of a newspaper, not the web version. That has not been my experience, and if it were true the template wouldn't allow |url=
with |newspaper=
.
Regardless, you could have changed |newspaper=The Telegraph
to |website=The Daily Telegraph
or |work=The Daily Telegraph
—they are all aliases of the same parameter and the choice has no effect on what readers see. If you'll look at the infobox in the article
The Daily Telegraph, you'll find that the value of its Website field matches the domain name of the |url=
in the citation template. The media group is a holding company and has no place in that parameter. Nobody reads Telegraph Media Group. ―
Mandruss
☎ 18:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I just published an explanation for my edits to Scalar (physics). Please comment there or send me a message. Thanks. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 16:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
My edits to the disambiguation page removed links to unrelated articles, video games, angelfish, and a double link to pseudoscalar. None of these articles have any reason to be on disambiguation page. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 00:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry you had to revert that. But the awkward fact is, I didn't alter it in the first place; or at least, not intentionally. I was scrolling down through a particularly long chunk of prose to edit something right at the bottom (as I recall, it was to edit compareably to comparably). If I hit something else on the way, and accidentally jammed a couple of letters in, I certainly never noticed it at the time, and it must have been completely by misadventure. So, thanks and sorry. Nuttyskin ( talk) 23:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trigonometric functions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domain ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Square root of 4, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox instead. Thank you. TheDragonFire ( talk) 07:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
100k+ editor. I also never noticed that being understandable for a specific person is a fundamental requirement in WP, but I do -again- perceive some sinister threat (at least severe condescension) in the formulation
you would be well advised .... I share your lack of interest in pursuing this further, even when your last advice leaves me clueless. In the undesirable case of need for further exchanges, I humbly ask for appropriate respect. WP:AGF is appropriate here! Purgy ( talk) 10:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we have a better method: we call it a constant. Its derivative is a property, not a definition. Why would you revert an edit to make an article less clear? complainer 09:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Last week I encountered a strange alert. When I clicked the bell icon, on the top of the list an unread prompt popped up, which vanished completely when I clicked the blue dot to mark it as read -- strange!
When I checked my mails, I found a message from "HsfBot", referring me to https://id.wikipedia.org, were I am obviously already known as user, and was "invited" to log in (I did not!).
I do not know of any action from my side regarding the Indonesian WP, and feel a bit unsecure about the circumstances of vanishing alerts and unsolicited user pages.
I tried to be concise and short, but certainly I am prepaired to give additional details in case they are needed to explain this to me. Thanks in advance. Purgy ( talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
{{Delete|1=User request}}
on
meta:User:Purgy Purgatorio.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Thanks for the heads up. Varcin2 ( talk) 14:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Purgy Purgatorio! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
First, why do a full reversion of this edit just to capitalize one letter? The other edits were necessary for grammar and to take out the hard sizing. Second, even on the page for splendid isolation the 's' is not capitalized except at the start of a sentence, nor is it capitalized in source titles. You really ought to change it back. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 13:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Linear equation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indeterminate ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Purgy, about this edit comment: "A citation for the rm content would suppress the main intent and content of the ÖWB". I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say. Neither my edit nor yours changed anything about the citations in that article. Damvile ( talk) 13:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
"The dictionary's stated mission is to document differences between Germany's and Austria's vocabulary and orthography".Obviously, this needs a source granting verification. I do not doubt that this sub-target is included in the "mission" of the publishers of the ÖWB, but it should not be mistaken for the broad collection of targets covered by its state-aided edition. From my peripheral knowledge of the editorial pages, and opposing comments on the occasions of the issues, and also considering the ratio of the volume of differences to the whole content, I am convinced that explicitly mentioning only this sub-target violates WP:NPOV,
"suppressing the main intent and content of the ÖWB".So I'd prefer to leave this claim about the "mission" out, at least in the info-box. May I suggest to –in case you wish to– continue a dialogue on the article's TP? Purgy ( talk) 07:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Purgy,
Square root is defined by the numbers not by the words. That is if f you are not a numbers person, at heart. you'll have ittle chance to digest a 3,800 year old topic. The binomial theorem expands first approximations
(A + 1/2A) times itself.
Let me start there. Is this point clear?
Milo
Hello, Purgy Purgatorio. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Function (mathematics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interval ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
When I took out the bit about informing psychophysics, I had the Weber–Fechner law in mind – a "law" for which the properties of the logarithm were never sensible, but people continue to talk about it as if it's plausible, which it never was. But I see there are others such as Zipf's law and Fitts's law that may be closer to being sensibly "informed by" logarithms. So, it's OK; they're just models. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
A part of your edit of 12 Dec 2017 is reverted now ( diff). Indeed, it is not easy (but possible...) to understand what you mean. Probably you should say it differently. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 07:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
If you object to my changes please explain why on the talk page and contribute to the discussion or self-revert. "Consensus takes time" doesn't justify reverting to Jasper Deng's version of the article, which is entirely different from the original. Stemdude ( talk) 09:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to say sorry I didn't see the nowrap extended past the math template. Dmcq ( talk) 18:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I do not care about the following issue except as it leads to many pointless edits on my watchlist, so please feel free to ignore the following message:
It appears that you have an idiosyncratic view of the meaning of the phrase “as of”, particularly in the context of the template Template:as of. I suggest that you discuss this issue at an appropriate venue ( Template_talk:As_of, or the Teahouse) rather than continuing to do one-off reverts, some of which are becoming a sort of very slow edit war. — JBL ( talk) 13:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding an edit of mine that you recently reverted here: My edit comment didn't mean to imply that the contrast itself (between strange attractors on one hand, and limit cycles or fixed-point attractors on the other) was extraneous. If you read at that paragraph in context, you'll see that it's in the section of the article titled "Strange Attractors", so using introductory language ("...known as strange attractors") in that paragraph is extraneous – it's established by the previous two paragraphs. That's all I was removing.
I don't expect to press the issue any more, but please do review your reversion if you get a chance. Thanks! / ninly( talk) 21:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The product of a multiset is undefined at best? Well, I meant it to be the product of all the items in the multiset. Seems straightforward enough to me... KarlFrei ( talk) 15:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ( Refers to this.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. . Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
blatant, unfounded imputation, for which he only vaguely, if at all, apologized meanwhile. Again, the first paragraph of my !vote here was to state how I perceived the mentioned discussion at the time of the discussion. I did not mean to imply that this was the actual content of your or any other editor's comments and I tried to emphasize this distinction with my word choice (particularly of "gathered"). The reason that I wrote it in this way was because the nomination mentioned that
it would seem that there was a rough consensus not to use this. However, I just noticed that it has been added to a number of articles.. Since this implied that I implemented the infobox after observing a consensus against, I wanted to clarify that I did not perceive there to be a consensus against the particular infobox when I decided to implement it. I hope that clears things up and I do apologize for any confusion this may have caused!— MarkH21 ( talk) 13:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
state these thoughts and build my argumentation against your opinion on this.I just had the right to confess these thoughts of libel and vow to repent.
Considering your troubles with thinking these clauses, I suggest you remove the recently added "mathematician"-(info-)box from your UP.: Please refrain from making personal attacks. This is a not the first occurrence of your commenting on the contributor as opposed to the content. Stop. — MarkH21 ( talk) 05:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The ANI-thread dealing with my blocking was archived here. Purgy ( talk) 12:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
the means provided by WPwith the WP-RPA template. I will avoid, just striking my name from an imho defamatory list and correcting to the new entry count. I will amend my comment on my TP accordingly to save anyone from feeling as a legally threatend victim.
Is there this short a deadline to answer bills of indictment? To be more precise, I had the above text entered in the edit window of the WP:ANI, could preview it, but was denied to publish it (I have the denial still open in a browser tab) more detail offered 09:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC). I got notified yesterday evening (UTC +1), but decide to go to bed and completed just my morning routine during breakfast, and only then turned my attention to this matter that requires a calm self, since it is in my terms an inexcusable act of revenge (private opinion). I know now about the ultimate priority of this drama board, nevertheless, I hope never to be drawn here again. Purgy ( talk) 08:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Just to more fully document this bureaucracy gone urgent: I performed FIVE UNDOs during breakfast, before I focused on the one and only real threat: having spent 2 hours with not knowing having threatened a fearsome grownup with pigs on his wings, 8 hours with reading and sleeping in bed, and say two hours more with breakfast, undoing "good faith edits", finally, I could be blocked indefinitely. It took another 2 hours to have me unblocked, while a third admin suspected I would have a list on my UP, "not a good one!". Link to WP:ANI:Legal_threat_by_User:Purgy_Purgatorio Purgy ( talk) 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The ANI-thread dealing with my blocking was archived here. Purgy ( talk) 12:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Purgy Purgatorio ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please, see the comment above the blocking entry. Purgy ( talk) 08:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
It seems clear from the statement above, which says "To be as clear as it is possible to my non-native capabilities of using the English language, I herewith state that I never ever even considered uttering any legal threat here on WP" that no legal threat is intended or extant. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The ANI-thread dealing with my blocking was archived here. Purgy ( talk) 12:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This was placed as retorsion by RexxS on 26 February 2019 to an ill formulated edit summary of mine in reverting a bold addition of an infobox, the application of which was rather declined on the TP of Project Mathematics, and which was TfD'd also. Purgy ( talk) 19:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
As of my current knowledge:
I took considerable care to check the guidance and the logs, etc. before slapping, so it was not quite as unconsidered as it may have seemed,
I do not want to be taken as silly. Purgy ( talk) 09:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
"The template ... appears to me to have been applied for intimidating purposes";
"RexxS' remark ... makes it obvious to me that he intends to intimidate me";
I then intended to find out whether the author's enthusiasm or the reservations formulated on TP:PM prevail in the discussion.It is an imputation to derive from "Wikiprojects, in charge of the topic", addressing the professional competence for FLT, that I would want to supersede a local consensus. Nevertheless, there is a competent opinion.
At ANI, a couple of editors have raised concern about your userpage. It looks to me like you're trying to keep a sort of diary of your Wikipedia activities, but in places it veers into keeping records of people you've disagreed with and how you've disagreed with them.
Would you consider removing this material? Our guideline on userpages forbids keeping this "record of wrongs" type of material. GoldenRing ( talk) 14:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The ANI-thread dealing with my blocking and the above matter was archived with my referral to my above post as last entry here. Purgy ( talk) 12:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Gratias agimus |
---|
I was tempted to reply this to your DS comment, but let's start new. Assume good faith. A DS template is only given when it is possible that the user in question is not aware of the condition, to prevent her or him running into trouble. RexxS is probably the person best aware, and no need to inform him. Others know how to prevent the template, but really: it's no harm. Assume good faith ;)
Today on the Main page: my topic of the year: we give thanks. My user page is too small to list all people whom I like to thank, so I run an extension. One user whom I thank often is Boing! said Zebedee. In this 2014 case, he said it best (what I didn't feel I was allowed to say, nor could have said it so well). I guess we agree for him? Perhaps get to know others a bit better first? Thank you for trying. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I am strongly averse against all these events on drama boards, so I won't dig into the real cause. As a resume from just the short paragraph: I do not like it at all.
Does the end really justify the means, should there be a Jesuit reduction of the IB-opposers?
It appears to me as obvious that we disagree not only on IBs, but also on the valuation of sanctions applied to editors, effects of warnings and informational templates, on individuality vs sociality, and, ..., you name it. It is just our (may I say this?) similar cultural background, or decent upbringing (who knows?) that allows a civilized exchange. I see no interest on your side to accept, or just reflect on my problems with people you seem to hold dear, and (sadly ;) ) I rather would require their apologies than being interested in getting them to know better (but I am not disgusted). I do not feel safe in this now already repeatedly described environment and with the not well understood winks in your smileys.
In any case, you remain welcome on my TP. Purgy ( talk) 13:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, I take it as in my interest (quiescat consentire videtur) and even responsibility to refute unfounded accusations and to refer to open questions put on my TP:
On an aside, I do not strive the least to acquire any capabilities, not to mention art, to take undeserved criticism undisputedly from those who do not belong to my loved ones. I am not hooked on WP. Purgy ( talk) 13:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This new section is mainly for a terminatory revisiting of a story, initiated in the thread about Discretionary Sanctions alert and continued in the thread above, in which I am continuously, substantially, and potentially even intentionally misinterpreted, in part by simply truncating facts. It was triggered by the comment by @ Gerda Arendt: (courtesy ping), refactored from immediately above to here. I do not assume that this refactoring violates any rules and is not fully de rigeur. Purgy ( talk) 11:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you again, for not only warning me of a potentially dead link caused by any archiving, but especially for the kindness of repairing this situation. I fully understand your desire to clean up the clutter I left. However, for documentary reason for myself, I feel obliged to rebut your shortened view on this "warning", and repeatedly point to the expansions, which are constantly swept under the rug, on the state I am in after this hostile act. For the time being, I expect (hope?) this to be my last comment on a development that I perceive as an absolutely unfounded, but widespread hostility under the mask of conserving a valuable encyclopedia against a horde of uncivilized apes, unable to believe in the eternal good announced by those of good will.
@
Gerda Arendt: your comment above saves me from elaborating as announced: it appears to me now as meaningless, reformulating for the umpteenth time my efforts to explicate my deteriorated position in WP, caused by several actions concerning my editorship in WP. It will also safe myself from the task to disprove time and again all the untenable claims, like the word "hostile" appears often, sharpened by "widespread"
(I used "hostile" twice in my TP and in your TP in the identical settings of me being templated; I ascribed it once to the discussion on the TP of FLT (see yourself: I was uninvolved!), and the term widespread hostility I used exactly once, for WP's necessity of e.g. two arbcom cases for IBs); or like warnings go to everybody who comes near the danger, regardless of "state"
which insinuates that I was "near danger". BTW, the scare quotes in this thread are seriously intentional. It's a pity, if I exceeded someone's attention span, but it is beyond me to explain my cause shorter, better, more clear, more basic, ..., at least in English.
Everyone can safely assume that I am not a linas-type, even when I consider his contributions of greater value than all the DYKs in whole WP. RIP! I have no unquenchable desire to express my opinion on other editors. Purgy ( talk) 17:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I notice you undid my edit, commenting that there is no for ; however, all of the other arrays in this description appear to be indexed from zero, and in fact, is actually zero-indexed in step one. Additionally, I have just implemented this algorithm in Common Lisp (my code can be found here), and it fails to work with (as there is no ), but works perfectly with . Goose121 ( talk) 22:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
all of the other arrays in this description appear to be indexed from zero,(emphasis mine), but it is not true that
is actually zero-indexed in step one.Step one is about an array called a, which unluckily looks very similar to α. The array a is indexed from zero, but the array α is not. I will edit α to β to make the difference more obvious. I do not doubt that your implementation works, but I am convinced that the current description is correct, and maybe describes a different implementation of an equivalent algorithm. I will copy all this to the pertinent TP and suggest to continue there any following discussion of this matter. Purgy ( talk) 09:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you know that I do a daily little DYK article as kind of exercise, and looking for someone to thank the same? The higher goal is advanced quality. I like the concept of peer review, when others are invited to comment how an article could be improved. I have one open, feel free to comment. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
looking for someone to thank the same.I do not like either, neither DYKs nor peer reviews. The former is simple disinterest, the latter is complicated: besides disliking the concept, I am no match for you in writing DYKs, I am rather ignoble, and I've seen too many peer reviews to believe in any value at average of them. I've even read several (pseudo-)theoretical rubbish papers about peer reviewing as asessment, the way that EDs do science, on this topic. Nothing compares to a well-founded, scientific valuation of an expert, maybe two (not such "lies-damned lies-studies", published by those governing the current mean -no- mainstream). As a weak exchange I offer you another hero of mine: user:silly rabbit.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MarkH21 ( talk) 22:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely for persistently insulting or disparaging other editors and interfering with their enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. Compare
this ANI thread. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
talk 22:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC).
@ Gerda Arendt: I never considered replying where you asked, because I take it to be frivolous to answer questions of no general importance outside the domains of the enquirer or the answering person. It was always of no concern that I do not consider that place a "neutral corner". It is one of the places belonging to people pulling fun on my disabilities in using the English language. The decision where to answer is made simple, meanwhile, by some admin, "not knowing why we waste so much time on these cases". Fast gun again ...
It was always just the question whether I should reply at all. Well, I decided to answer, as proof of my assumption of good faith, not assuming the question's reason proper would be to hand "enough rope" (Solimans Seidenschnur, what an extremely shabby WP-thought!) to me. In this case, any further questions are superfluous, anyway, but in the case of again exceeding your budget of appropriate attention, I politely ask to not ask again. Somehow my upbringing nudges me to answer honestly-looking questions, if I can.
I take as granted that the meanings I describe are confined to the context of verbal conflicts, without any physical interactions. "Militancy" describes the preparedness to appeal to bureaucratic enforcement of any sanction enacted on the opponent. "Aggressiveness" describes a spectrum, including the use of sharp delimiters in opinions, abstaining from extenuating descriptions, contrasting diametral positions, bludgeoning, text walls, ... up to ridiculing but also the intolerable use of invective and threats (not only physical, legal, ...). "Fundamentalism" is a position of arguing from "first principles", and not from "ad hoc" events that might require intervention. Taking me as an example, I am a fundamentalist whenever possible, I am highly aggressive, while strictly avoiding the intolerable part of the spectrum, and I am of quite low militancy. Neither of the mentioned properties I consider to be defaming (besides the intolerable part of aggression I sketched, to be taken as small as possible, to avoid the fight for being the most vulnerable: "Mamiiieee, he hurt meeee!" fff=fortissima).
However, imputing I were a liar is defaming. I had not protested against
this transmits the same information without defamation. Let's see where being indef'd leads me. Enjoy your friends' victory.
Last minute addendum: My header "You may claim ... threat" is the agreement to deletion of my thread - in advance. "Treat this to your likes", so to say. Purgy ( talk) 14:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Purgy Purgatorio Thanks for reporting that on Scalar projection had citations missing and was unreliable. If you need help go to my talk page, ||Bottalk||. || EBotsEle Bottalk|| 23:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Purgy Purgatorio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! : Noyster (talk), 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Purgy Purgatorio! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 16:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
Teahouse advice (thanked)
I have plans to remove some content of a page completely and to move an other part to an other page. I have anounced this plans on the talk pages of the target and the source page. Please, what is the time lapse considered polite and appropriate before I make my plans real? One more question, where do I apply for a reassessment of this page which is part of the WikiProject Physics, to get some hints what to improve or bring to Wikipedia standards? Thanks in advance. Purgy ( talk) 19:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Purgy! Since I do not want to add to the confusion at the Teahouse, I thought I might write a note to you here. There are several ways of notifying other user about things, and they are not always too clear to a newbie. I have not been here so very long myself so I remember it well. The talkback templates are mostly used by senior editors when they are on "official business" like leaving answers at the Teahouse as hosts. Most of us other mortals use less sophisticated, but just as effective ways, and even if we get involved in a discussion at the Teahouse, most of us do not use the fancy templates, we just use the more common ways of communicating. They all result in the same thing: a notification on your page, similar to the one you got from the thanks.
All of these are lazily called pings, "Just ping me." ect. And my explanation here at your page may have triggered a whole bunch of mysterious pings at you. Sorry, it was for a good cause. Pings on your talk page also generates a yellow-highlighted text next to the red number at the top of your page. If you have any other questions about life here as a newbie, please don't hesitate to ping me or leave a message at my talk page. It might be less scary or formal that at the Teahouse. All the best, w.carter -Talk 12:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi!
When you edited First-order logic#Loving relation, did you happen to understand what is meant by "they are examples"? I saw you added sentence 6 as another exception.
I have no idea who is "they" (The individuals a,...,e? The sentences/formulas 1,...,10? The matrices?) and of what they are examples. Can you help me with a brief explanation? - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 19:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, @ Jochen Burghardt:, I am sorry that I missed your question which meanwhile has been answered, I assume, by just not being exhaustive for the given formulae. I was somewhat busy and fully off Wikipedia. If I find time, I'll have a look at that article again, but please, leave a note, if I might be useful. Regards, Purgy ( talk) 12:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I've restored the first change you made in the article. Thank you for correcting the typo. As for the other change, I suggest you discuss it in Talk. Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It is fine to post to my talk page, but you would do better to discuss changes to an article on that article's talk page. Note: always post at the bottom of the talk page. If you post your suggested changes on the article's talk page, I and others will be glad to discuss them, and help you with a rewrite if necessary. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not avoiding answering. I am telling you that the place for your question and my answer is the talk page of an article. I'll take a look at "monoids".
You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology | |
Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed and it seems that this new Wikiproject would be interesting to you. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers Tetra quark ( talk) 20:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Square root of 2, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz ( talk) 00:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey Purgy, I certainly did not mean to be patronizing in the physics forum. I used "kid" in the "atta boy, kid!" sense, as your strong bold voice reminded me of youthful intensity. I am so glad you read this vortex of recursive tendentiousness just right!! Regards, Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 15:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC) But the bullying never stops there Sigh... Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 20:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Purgy; no, I have no specific ideas. I asked the subject to propose in the talk-page of scalar field theory what he believes he'd like to see in the article, without trashing the article, which is what raises people's hackles and gets them outraged. Much of the (justified) alarm at the subject's depredations is his legal-vandalism revert actions, not his absurd rants and recriminations. Focussing on the content itself, while leaving the actual article frozen temporarily, might be the best solution. On your part, just awareness of the situation is sufficient. The subject's peremptory spasmodic acts are all made possible by the misperceived isolation of that page, and the illusion that nobody is watching! I don't see how the physics forum is relevant, yet. The subject is self-righteously and aggressively clueless, so I doubt there a bona fide scientific issue that needs to be settled. It's all bullying. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 13:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Purgy. I didn't quite understand your last comment on the Talk:Electronic oscillator page. Are you saying you have changed your mind, and you are against adding the sentence "Quartz crystal oscillators can only be tuned over a small frequency range, of a fraction of a percent" to the article? -- Chetvorno TALK 15:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Purgy,
Hi there, re this revert: I agree. FYI, whenever I come across such edits, I revert and point to MOS:LQ example 2 in the edit summary. Cheers - DVdm ( talk) 08:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
German speakers generally misinterpret the English word silly as only meaning doof, albern, or dumm. It has a lot of other meanings too. Depending on the context, for example I, as a native German speaker, would have to consider nicht geeignet, nicht angemessen, ụnangebracht, unaufrichtig, belanglos, usw. Anyway, here is something for you to read. Happy editing! -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Purgy Purgatorio. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw that you might be still having Lithium-ion battery on your watchlist. I used to watch it and it was one of the first articles I worked on, I don't anymore. I've recently discovered something that you might want to watch out for while digging through the archives there: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright, the editor you recently engaged with Special:Contributions/Elektrik_Fanne and an older Special:Contributions/DieSwartzPunkt, all socks. They've (singular) done good work I think, that is, in uncovering the dubiousness of batteryuniversity.com but they've been blocked nonethless. Be wary in future. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 07:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Purgy. I did not think you were rude, though I find D. Lazard is. He's probably Parisian so he cannot know any better, poor man. ;) I always sign my talk posts and I simply forgot this time. Cheers Vincent ( talk) 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crelle. 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) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Stigmatella aurantiaca ( talk) 10:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your personal attacks on other editors and your making accusations of misconduct against other editors without providing evidence, if you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I completely understand that English is not your first language, but this is the English-language Wikipedia, but that doesn't absolve you from en-wiki's rules. If you don't have the ability to edit in English without spewing insults and unfounded accusations, I strongly suggest you don't attempt it. ‑ Iridescent 16:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It's the "generally" that is the problem since the article says that such batteries use organic solvents, so unless you can provide a reliable source for there existing Lithium-ion batteries that use a non-flammable electrolyte solvent the "generally" stays out. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Purgy Purgatorio. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Wikipedia will have automatically notified you that your name was used in vain. But just in case, I thought I'd drop you a note inviting you to check out the discussion of my intentions that you had requested.
Looking forward to your response.— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 19:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Purgy. In restoring the word “essentially” in Irrational number#Transcendental and algebraic irrationals in the passage “real algebraic numbers (essentially defined as the real roots of polynomials with integer coefficients)”, you expained in the edit summary that this is “neither the only, nor a strict definition, just covering the "essentials"; including the argument)”. Could you help me by elaborating on that? (1) why is it not a strict definition, and (2) what other definition is there? Thanks, Loraof ( talk) 19:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw you undo my edit
here.
Don't you want to leave some links to the Large and Small numbers in this article? Why it should be discussed?
There almost no linking between Numbers and its highly related large and small counterparts that surely should be mentioned.
Don't you want to bring these changes back by yourself or explain why you reversed them?
109.206.156.72 (
talk) 09:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to prime number again, and all the edits you made over the course of the GA review. As you probably saw, I undid your edits again, but it was not because I thought there was anything particularly inappropriate about them. The issue was that the factorial argument for large prime gaps was supposed to have been moved to the elementary properties section in the reorganization of the article that happened during the GA review, but there was a little bit left over in the summary of the analytic properties section that accidentally got left behind. Your edit expanded that left-behind bit, but I think the better thing to do was just to remove it. So the problem that led to the undo was actually from something I did earlier (neglecting to remove a passage) rather than anything in your edit. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Views/Day | Quality | Title | Tagged with… |
---|---|---|---|
1,036 | Hazing ( talk) | Add sources | |
119 | Analytic number theory ( talk) | Add sources | |
412 | (ε, δ)-definition of limit ( talk) | Add sources | |
1,070 | Riemann zeta function ( talk) | Add sources | |
1,283 | Pencil ( talk) | Add sources | |
896 | Limit (mathematics) ( talk) | Cleanup | |
32 | Mertens function ( talk) | Cleanup | |
301 | Positional notation ( talk) | Expand | |
82 | Austria–Prussia rivalry ( talk) | Expand | |
112 | Plastic number ( talk) | Expand | |
304 | Tetration ( talk) | Unencyclopaedic | |
1,381 | BASIC ( talk) | Unencyclopaedic | |
23 | Mathematical folklore ( talk) | Unencyclopaedic | |
246 | Network science ( talk) | Merge | |
1,403 | Maximum likelihood estimation ( talk) | Merge | |
40 | Inductive type ( talk) | Merge | |
53 | Harmonic conjugate ( talk) | Wikify | |
87 | Instantaneous phase ( talk) | Wikify | |
12 | Timeline of numerals and arithmetic ( talk) | Orphan | |
3 | Repetition variation ( talk) | Orphan | |
26 | Quantum optimization algorithms ( talk) | Orphan | |
153 | Argument of a function ( talk) | Stub | |
12 | Ernesto Cesàro ( talk) | Stub |
Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 17:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mathematical induction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Range ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Re: [1]
Hello. I gather you feel that |newspaper=
is meant only for the paper version of a newspaper, not the web version. That has not been my experience, and if it were true the template wouldn't allow |url=
with |newspaper=
.
Regardless, you could have changed |newspaper=The Telegraph
to |website=The Daily Telegraph
or |work=The Daily Telegraph
—they are all aliases of the same parameter and the choice has no effect on what readers see. If you'll look at the infobox in the article
The Daily Telegraph, you'll find that the value of its Website field matches the domain name of the |url=
in the citation template. The media group is a holding company and has no place in that parameter. Nobody reads Telegraph Media Group. ―
Mandruss
☎ 18:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I just published an explanation for my edits to Scalar (physics). Please comment there or send me a message. Thanks. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 16:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
My edits to the disambiguation page removed links to unrelated articles, video games, angelfish, and a double link to pseudoscalar. None of these articles have any reason to be on disambiguation page. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 00:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry you had to revert that. But the awkward fact is, I didn't alter it in the first place; or at least, not intentionally. I was scrolling down through a particularly long chunk of prose to edit something right at the bottom (as I recall, it was to edit compareably to comparably). If I hit something else on the way, and accidentally jammed a couple of letters in, I certainly never noticed it at the time, and it must have been completely by misadventure. So, thanks and sorry. Nuttyskin ( talk) 23:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trigonometric functions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domain ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Square root of 4, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox instead. Thank you. TheDragonFire ( talk) 07:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
100k+ editor. I also never noticed that being understandable for a specific person is a fundamental requirement in WP, but I do -again- perceive some sinister threat (at least severe condescension) in the formulation
you would be well advised .... I share your lack of interest in pursuing this further, even when your last advice leaves me clueless. In the undesirable case of need for further exchanges, I humbly ask for appropriate respect. WP:AGF is appropriate here! Purgy ( talk) 10:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we have a better method: we call it a constant. Its derivative is a property, not a definition. Why would you revert an edit to make an article less clear? complainer 09:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Last week I encountered a strange alert. When I clicked the bell icon, on the top of the list an unread prompt popped up, which vanished completely when I clicked the blue dot to mark it as read -- strange!
When I checked my mails, I found a message from "HsfBot", referring me to https://id.wikipedia.org, were I am obviously already known as user, and was "invited" to log in (I did not!).
I do not know of any action from my side regarding the Indonesian WP, and feel a bit unsecure about the circumstances of vanishing alerts and unsolicited user pages.
I tried to be concise and short, but certainly I am prepaired to give additional details in case they are needed to explain this to me. Thanks in advance. Purgy ( talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
{{Delete|1=User request}}
on
meta:User:Purgy Purgatorio.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Thanks for the heads up. Varcin2 ( talk) 14:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Purgy Purgatorio! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
First, why do a full reversion of this edit just to capitalize one letter? The other edits were necessary for grammar and to take out the hard sizing. Second, even on the page for splendid isolation the 's' is not capitalized except at the start of a sentence, nor is it capitalized in source titles. You really ought to change it back. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 13:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Linear equation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indeterminate ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Purgy, about this edit comment: "A citation for the rm content would suppress the main intent and content of the ÖWB". I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say. Neither my edit nor yours changed anything about the citations in that article. Damvile ( talk) 13:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
"The dictionary's stated mission is to document differences between Germany's and Austria's vocabulary and orthography".Obviously, this needs a source granting verification. I do not doubt that this sub-target is included in the "mission" of the publishers of the ÖWB, but it should not be mistaken for the broad collection of targets covered by its state-aided edition. From my peripheral knowledge of the editorial pages, and opposing comments on the occasions of the issues, and also considering the ratio of the volume of differences to the whole content, I am convinced that explicitly mentioning only this sub-target violates WP:NPOV,
"suppressing the main intent and content of the ÖWB".So I'd prefer to leave this claim about the "mission" out, at least in the info-box. May I suggest to –in case you wish to– continue a dialogue on the article's TP? Purgy ( talk) 07:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Purgy,
Square root is defined by the numbers not by the words. That is if f you are not a numbers person, at heart. you'll have ittle chance to digest a 3,800 year old topic. The binomial theorem expands first approximations
(A + 1/2A) times itself.
Let me start there. Is this point clear?
Milo
Hello, Purgy Purgatorio. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Function (mathematics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interval ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
When I took out the bit about informing psychophysics, I had the Weber–Fechner law in mind – a "law" for which the properties of the logarithm were never sensible, but people continue to talk about it as if it's plausible, which it never was. But I see there are others such as Zipf's law and Fitts's law that may be closer to being sensibly "informed by" logarithms. So, it's OK; they're just models. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
A part of your edit of 12 Dec 2017 is reverted now ( diff). Indeed, it is not easy (but possible...) to understand what you mean. Probably you should say it differently. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 07:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
If you object to my changes please explain why on the talk page and contribute to the discussion or self-revert. "Consensus takes time" doesn't justify reverting to Jasper Deng's version of the article, which is entirely different from the original. Stemdude ( talk) 09:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to say sorry I didn't see the nowrap extended past the math template. Dmcq ( talk) 18:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I do not care about the following issue except as it leads to many pointless edits on my watchlist, so please feel free to ignore the following message:
It appears that you have an idiosyncratic view of the meaning of the phrase “as of”, particularly in the context of the template Template:as of. I suggest that you discuss this issue at an appropriate venue ( Template_talk:As_of, or the Teahouse) rather than continuing to do one-off reverts, some of which are becoming a sort of very slow edit war. — JBL ( talk) 13:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding an edit of mine that you recently reverted here: My edit comment didn't mean to imply that the contrast itself (between strange attractors on one hand, and limit cycles or fixed-point attractors on the other) was extraneous. If you read at that paragraph in context, you'll see that it's in the section of the article titled "Strange Attractors", so using introductory language ("...known as strange attractors") in that paragraph is extraneous – it's established by the previous two paragraphs. That's all I was removing.
I don't expect to press the issue any more, but please do review your reversion if you get a chance. Thanks! / ninly( talk) 21:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The product of a multiset is undefined at best? Well, I meant it to be the product of all the items in the multiset. Seems straightforward enough to me... KarlFrei ( talk) 15:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ( Refers to this.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. . Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
blatant, unfounded imputation, for which he only vaguely, if at all, apologized meanwhile. Again, the first paragraph of my !vote here was to state how I perceived the mentioned discussion at the time of the discussion. I did not mean to imply that this was the actual content of your or any other editor's comments and I tried to emphasize this distinction with my word choice (particularly of "gathered"). The reason that I wrote it in this way was because the nomination mentioned that
it would seem that there was a rough consensus not to use this. However, I just noticed that it has been added to a number of articles.. Since this implied that I implemented the infobox after observing a consensus against, I wanted to clarify that I did not perceive there to be a consensus against the particular infobox when I decided to implement it. I hope that clears things up and I do apologize for any confusion this may have caused!— MarkH21 ( talk) 13:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
state these thoughts and build my argumentation against your opinion on this.I just had the right to confess these thoughts of libel and vow to repent.
Considering your troubles with thinking these clauses, I suggest you remove the recently added "mathematician"-(info-)box from your UP.: Please refrain from making personal attacks. This is a not the first occurrence of your commenting on the contributor as opposed to the content. Stop. — MarkH21 ( talk) 05:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The ANI-thread dealing with my blocking was archived here. Purgy ( talk) 12:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
the means provided by WPwith the WP-RPA template. I will avoid, just striking my name from an imho defamatory list and correcting to the new entry count. I will amend my comment on my TP accordingly to save anyone from feeling as a legally threatend victim.
Is there this short a deadline to answer bills of indictment? To be more precise, I had the above text entered in the edit window of the WP:ANI, could preview it, but was denied to publish it (I have the denial still open in a browser tab) more detail offered 09:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC). I got notified yesterday evening (UTC +1), but decide to go to bed and completed just my morning routine during breakfast, and only then turned my attention to this matter that requires a calm self, since it is in my terms an inexcusable act of revenge (private opinion). I know now about the ultimate priority of this drama board, nevertheless, I hope never to be drawn here again. Purgy ( talk) 08:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Just to more fully document this bureaucracy gone urgent: I performed FIVE UNDOs during breakfast, before I focused on the one and only real threat: having spent 2 hours with not knowing having threatened a fearsome grownup with pigs on his wings, 8 hours with reading and sleeping in bed, and say two hours more with breakfast, undoing "good faith edits", finally, I could be blocked indefinitely. It took another 2 hours to have me unblocked, while a third admin suspected I would have a list on my UP, "not a good one!". Link to WP:ANI:Legal_threat_by_User:Purgy_Purgatorio Purgy ( talk) 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The ANI-thread dealing with my blocking was archived here. Purgy ( talk) 12:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Purgy Purgatorio ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please, see the comment above the blocking entry. Purgy ( talk) 08:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
It seems clear from the statement above, which says "To be as clear as it is possible to my non-native capabilities of using the English language, I herewith state that I never ever even considered uttering any legal threat here on WP" that no legal threat is intended or extant. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The ANI-thread dealing with my blocking was archived here. Purgy ( talk) 12:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This was placed as retorsion by RexxS on 26 February 2019 to an ill formulated edit summary of mine in reverting a bold addition of an infobox, the application of which was rather declined on the TP of Project Mathematics, and which was TfD'd also. Purgy ( talk) 19:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
As of my current knowledge:
I took considerable care to check the guidance and the logs, etc. before slapping, so it was not quite as unconsidered as it may have seemed,
I do not want to be taken as silly. Purgy ( talk) 09:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
"The template ... appears to me to have been applied for intimidating purposes";
"RexxS' remark ... makes it obvious to me that he intends to intimidate me";
I then intended to find out whether the author's enthusiasm or the reservations formulated on TP:PM prevail in the discussion.It is an imputation to derive from "Wikiprojects, in charge of the topic", addressing the professional competence for FLT, that I would want to supersede a local consensus. Nevertheless, there is a competent opinion.
At ANI, a couple of editors have raised concern about your userpage. It looks to me like you're trying to keep a sort of diary of your Wikipedia activities, but in places it veers into keeping records of people you've disagreed with and how you've disagreed with them.
Would you consider removing this material? Our guideline on userpages forbids keeping this "record of wrongs" type of material. GoldenRing ( talk) 14:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The ANI-thread dealing with my blocking and the above matter was archived with my referral to my above post as last entry here. Purgy ( talk) 12:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Gratias agimus |
---|
I was tempted to reply this to your DS comment, but let's start new. Assume good faith. A DS template is only given when it is possible that the user in question is not aware of the condition, to prevent her or him running into trouble. RexxS is probably the person best aware, and no need to inform him. Others know how to prevent the template, but really: it's no harm. Assume good faith ;)
Today on the Main page: my topic of the year: we give thanks. My user page is too small to list all people whom I like to thank, so I run an extension. One user whom I thank often is Boing! said Zebedee. In this 2014 case, he said it best (what I didn't feel I was allowed to say, nor could have said it so well). I guess we agree for him? Perhaps get to know others a bit better first? Thank you for trying. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I am strongly averse against all these events on drama boards, so I won't dig into the real cause. As a resume from just the short paragraph: I do not like it at all.
Does the end really justify the means, should there be a Jesuit reduction of the IB-opposers?
It appears to me as obvious that we disagree not only on IBs, but also on the valuation of sanctions applied to editors, effects of warnings and informational templates, on individuality vs sociality, and, ..., you name it. It is just our (may I say this?) similar cultural background, or decent upbringing (who knows?) that allows a civilized exchange. I see no interest on your side to accept, or just reflect on my problems with people you seem to hold dear, and (sadly ;) ) I rather would require their apologies than being interested in getting them to know better (but I am not disgusted). I do not feel safe in this now already repeatedly described environment and with the not well understood winks in your smileys.
In any case, you remain welcome on my TP. Purgy ( talk) 13:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, I take it as in my interest (quiescat consentire videtur) and even responsibility to refute unfounded accusations and to refer to open questions put on my TP:
On an aside, I do not strive the least to acquire any capabilities, not to mention art, to take undeserved criticism undisputedly from those who do not belong to my loved ones. I am not hooked on WP. Purgy ( talk) 13:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This new section is mainly for a terminatory revisiting of a story, initiated in the thread about Discretionary Sanctions alert and continued in the thread above, in which I am continuously, substantially, and potentially even intentionally misinterpreted, in part by simply truncating facts. It was triggered by the comment by @ Gerda Arendt: (courtesy ping), refactored from immediately above to here. I do not assume that this refactoring violates any rules and is not fully de rigeur. Purgy ( talk) 11:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you again, for not only warning me of a potentially dead link caused by any archiving, but especially for the kindness of repairing this situation. I fully understand your desire to clean up the clutter I left. However, for documentary reason for myself, I feel obliged to rebut your shortened view on this "warning", and repeatedly point to the expansions, which are constantly swept under the rug, on the state I am in after this hostile act. For the time being, I expect (hope?) this to be my last comment on a development that I perceive as an absolutely unfounded, but widespread hostility under the mask of conserving a valuable encyclopedia against a horde of uncivilized apes, unable to believe in the eternal good announced by those of good will.
@
Gerda Arendt: your comment above saves me from elaborating as announced: it appears to me now as meaningless, reformulating for the umpteenth time my efforts to explicate my deteriorated position in WP, caused by several actions concerning my editorship in WP. It will also safe myself from the task to disprove time and again all the untenable claims, like the word "hostile" appears often, sharpened by "widespread"
(I used "hostile" twice in my TP and in your TP in the identical settings of me being templated; I ascribed it once to the discussion on the TP of FLT (see yourself: I was uninvolved!), and the term widespread hostility I used exactly once, for WP's necessity of e.g. two arbcom cases for IBs); or like warnings go to everybody who comes near the danger, regardless of "state"
which insinuates that I was "near danger". BTW, the scare quotes in this thread are seriously intentional. It's a pity, if I exceeded someone's attention span, but it is beyond me to explain my cause shorter, better, more clear, more basic, ..., at least in English.
Everyone can safely assume that I am not a linas-type, even when I consider his contributions of greater value than all the DYKs in whole WP. RIP! I have no unquenchable desire to express my opinion on other editors. Purgy ( talk) 17:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I notice you undid my edit, commenting that there is no for ; however, all of the other arrays in this description appear to be indexed from zero, and in fact, is actually zero-indexed in step one. Additionally, I have just implemented this algorithm in Common Lisp (my code can be found here), and it fails to work with (as there is no ), but works perfectly with . Goose121 ( talk) 22:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
all of the other arrays in this description appear to be indexed from zero,(emphasis mine), but it is not true that
is actually zero-indexed in step one.Step one is about an array called a, which unluckily looks very similar to α. The array a is indexed from zero, but the array α is not. I will edit α to β to make the difference more obvious. I do not doubt that your implementation works, but I am convinced that the current description is correct, and maybe describes a different implementation of an equivalent algorithm. I will copy all this to the pertinent TP and suggest to continue there any following discussion of this matter. Purgy ( talk) 09:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you know that I do a daily little DYK article as kind of exercise, and looking for someone to thank the same? The higher goal is advanced quality. I like the concept of peer review, when others are invited to comment how an article could be improved. I have one open, feel free to comment. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
looking for someone to thank the same.I do not like either, neither DYKs nor peer reviews. The former is simple disinterest, the latter is complicated: besides disliking the concept, I am no match for you in writing DYKs, I am rather ignoble, and I've seen too many peer reviews to believe in any value at average of them. I've even read several (pseudo-)theoretical rubbish papers about peer reviewing as asessment, the way that EDs do science, on this topic. Nothing compares to a well-founded, scientific valuation of an expert, maybe two (not such "lies-damned lies-studies", published by those governing the current mean -no- mainstream). As a weak exchange I offer you another hero of mine: user:silly rabbit.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MarkH21 ( talk) 22:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely for persistently insulting or disparaging other editors and interfering with their enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. Compare
this ANI thread. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
talk 22:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC).
@ Gerda Arendt: I never considered replying where you asked, because I take it to be frivolous to answer questions of no general importance outside the domains of the enquirer or the answering person. It was always of no concern that I do not consider that place a "neutral corner". It is one of the places belonging to people pulling fun on my disabilities in using the English language. The decision where to answer is made simple, meanwhile, by some admin, "not knowing why we waste so much time on these cases". Fast gun again ...
It was always just the question whether I should reply at all. Well, I decided to answer, as proof of my assumption of good faith, not assuming the question's reason proper would be to hand "enough rope" (Solimans Seidenschnur, what an extremely shabby WP-thought!) to me. In this case, any further questions are superfluous, anyway, but in the case of again exceeding your budget of appropriate attention, I politely ask to not ask again. Somehow my upbringing nudges me to answer honestly-looking questions, if I can.
I take as granted that the meanings I describe are confined to the context of verbal conflicts, without any physical interactions. "Militancy" describes the preparedness to appeal to bureaucratic enforcement of any sanction enacted on the opponent. "Aggressiveness" describes a spectrum, including the use of sharp delimiters in opinions, abstaining from extenuating descriptions, contrasting diametral positions, bludgeoning, text walls, ... up to ridiculing but also the intolerable use of invective and threats (not only physical, legal, ...). "Fundamentalism" is a position of arguing from "first principles", and not from "ad hoc" events that might require intervention. Taking me as an example, I am a fundamentalist whenever possible, I am highly aggressive, while strictly avoiding the intolerable part of the spectrum, and I am of quite low militancy. Neither of the mentioned properties I consider to be defaming (besides the intolerable part of aggression I sketched, to be taken as small as possible, to avoid the fight for being the most vulnerable: "Mamiiieee, he hurt meeee!" fff=fortissima).
However, imputing I were a liar is defaming. I had not protested against
this transmits the same information without defamation. Let's see where being indef'd leads me. Enjoy your friends' victory.
Last minute addendum: My header "You may claim ... threat" is the agreement to deletion of my thread - in advance. "Treat this to your likes", so to say. Purgy ( talk) 14:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Purgy Purgatorio Thanks for reporting that on Scalar projection had citations missing and was unreliable. If you need help go to my talk page, ||Bottalk||. || EBotsEle Bottalk|| 23:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)