Welcome to my talk page!
Please click
HERE to leave me a new message.
Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
I will respond on this page to your messages, unless you ask me to respond on your Talk page or elsewhere.
Welcome!
Hello, Finell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 04:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear RJFJR: Thanks for the Welcome message you left on my Talk page! I am curious how you even noticed my existence. Are you the official welcoming committee?? Thanks again. Finell 02:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
No, I didn't notice your note until you pointed it out to me. As for your other question, did you click the discussion tab when reading User:Rdsmith4/me? If not, I have no idea why that happened. It's not possible to modify the behavior of the tabs. In any case, I redirected User talk:Rdsmith4/me to my real talk page to avoid future confusion. — Dan | Talk 02:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and kind words on my RfA. Much appreciated. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 04:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
What exactly were you trying to do with these moves/redirects? It seems to me that all you really needed to do was edit the original version of "Golden mean" and change the redirect to point to Golden Mean. Am I missing something? Owen× ☎ 12:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the introduction--it looks much better now. I made sure the article was accurate, but the writing style isn't always very good. Some of the other paragraphs could probably use some help too. I would like to link to golden mean from NicEth, but I'll wait until it gets sorted out a little. WhiteC 15:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my RfA, and for the very kind words. Both are sincerely appreciated. Look forward to collaborate further with you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC) |
Here, Shell < e> 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, why did you comment out the entire latter part of the article? [1] -- Curps 05:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I missed any autoblocks, I think I checked for them and didn't find any. It's not clear why you weren't able to send e-mail, my e-mail is working fine and I receive e-mails daily. However, your edit did more than just add capital letters at the end of an HTML comment, you also added an HTML end comment string at the very end of the article (after the +zh interwiki link, and far away from the site of those capital letters) [3]. So despite what you said above, it really seems like you did intend to comment out the entire latter part of the article... probably you were experimenting and inadvertently saved that experiment to the actual page instead of the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Unfortunately, Solar eclipse was prominently linked from the main page, as a recent featured article, and we've had a lot of vandalism to such prominently featured articles lately, so it was a bit trigger-happy, but I did unblock the account name a minute later. Perhaps there really ought to be an option to unblock autoblocks at the same time that a username is unblocked. -- Curps 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.
This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject. |
Thanks!
--
evrik 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Finell, I am pleased to see your recent enthusiast contributions to astronomical history articles. One request: could you be less aggressive in editing, and try keep the number of edit sessions limited? I now see >10 changes a day in one article, it is hard to keep up reviewing them. Tom Peters 13:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Finell, I gave you the wrong answer on the meaning of VAT in reference to clay tablets: it is an abbreviation for Vorder-Asiatische Tontafelsammlung, and they are (or used to be) kept in Berlin musea, not in the Vatican. Tom Peters 22:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment you posted on my Talk page regarding the Golden Ratio graphic, I wrote a short reply to it there. Good luck on the article. - Eisnel 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Steven, I am not sure what you are asking about. Last I checked I could not detect any material that I added to the Golden Ratio page. Do you know where the link has gone? I am pretty sure there was one to one of the pages at my site, with all the proofs and relevant sources for a follow-up. Did you find any wrong with this arrangement? - Alexb@cut-the-knot.com 21:19, 3 October 2006 (EST)
Steven, sorry. Absolutely forgot about what I did. The piece about the 4:3 ratio appeared in one of Keith Devlin's columns at the MAA site a few years back. If need be I can find it. As to the potential of the wide screen, this is of course a speculation, but a reasonable one, in view of the mystical aesthetic value ascribed to the Golden Ratio. There is a nice link to a misconceptions page. - Alexb@cut-the-knot.com 21:41, 3 October 2006 (EST)
Eh? Minor? To be frank, I didn't even known you can mark moves as minor. I must have thought I was marking the target for deletion! Dunno how that happened. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean " mass nouns" or "math nouns"? Till 15 September the text was still The word "mathematics" is often abbreviated math in the U.S. and Canada and maths in Britain, Ireland, Australia and many other Commonwealth countries. [4] Then it was changed to North America, after some discussion, now in the archives. If one defines the Google hit operator Gh by Gh[X] = the number of Google hits for search term "X", and the maths ratio for site S by mrS = Gh[maths site:S]/Gh[mathematics site:S], we find experimentally that mr.uk ≈ 0.95, whilst mr.ca ≈ 0.07, supporting the theory of Canadian neighbourly conformance. I'm somewhat reluctant to transform this insight into a contribution to our article Canadian English ( North American English confines itself to the U.S.), as it is based on original research. The article seems to take the position anyway that by default the lexicon for Canadian English is the same as for American English, as it mainly documents the differences between these two. -- Lambiam Talk 20:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Finell, thanks for your kind comment regarding Lavinia Williams. Sorry I haven't been around much to reply. You suggested I list the additional citations I found (and mentioned on the article's talk page) under "References" in the article itself. The only thing is, I have no idea if they are real, trustworthy, or accurately transcribed. The citations on the talk page (as opposed to the ones in the articles) are citations I have seen references to online, but where I have not actually seen or heard the books, videos, or audiotapes myself, and could not even find them listed in library catalogs that I checked. I mentioned them on the talk page to give people who wanted to work on the article ideas for places to look, but I didn't want to just blindly propagate them into the article before someone checked up on them. EsdnePyaJ 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Adding your information to my talk page is not appropriate. A word is not inherently a personal attack, and using the "dick rule" is quite appropriate. If you have a complaint about it, find the talk page there, and do not edit my page because you disagree with something that is tossed around by many editors and admin as a good rule of thumb. SanchiTachi 04:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear SanchiTachi:
The views expressed in your item "The Following Words are Not Personal Attack Terms" are misleading and are a dangerous endorsement of personal attacks and incivility, particularly to individuals who are new to the Wikipedia community. Do you really contend that if someone wrote on Wikipedia that you are a dick or a bully, or that you behave like one, that would not constitute a personal attack? Therefore, I added corrective information that is documented by the Wikipedia official policy statements that were linked in what I added.
Furthermore, you should take to heart the comments of other Wikipedians who have expressed the view that some of your conduct has been uncivil or has constituted personal attacks, and consider that they may not all be mistaken. At least, consider whether your contributions to Wikipedia would be more effective and more readily accepted it you stopped engaging in conduct that several other Wikipedians view as disruptive. Also, you may find greater satisfaction in your participation here if your conduct is not the object of this sort of criticism. I am not suggesting that you avoid controversy, but rather that you advocate your position on controversial issues more effectively.
As for the immediate issue of your item "The Following Words are Not Personal Attack Terms", I suggest that you do one of the following: (1) Delete the item; or (2) Restore my response in the interest of balance. Of these, I believe that the first one would be best.
Regarding your accusation that my addition was vandalism, please review Wikipedia:Vandalism and you will see that it is not: I did not change or delete what you wrote. If, after reviewing that statement of official policy, you still contend that my addition was vandalism, please either invoke Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or commence formal dispute resolution, so the issue can be resolved authoritatively.
Finell (Talk) 05:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with his multilicensing under GFDL and PD. I just spent like....3 hours looking into it. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 13:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that primary sources are perfectly acceptable sources on WP and your insistance of adding {{unreferenced}} to an article which cites its sources is quite surprising. If you are unfamiliar with the subject matter and find it unbelievable, you would do much better reading up on the matter. Here you have the following sources to the subject matter with *published* English translations, including commentaries:
You would do much better adding these external links to the article than to engage in an edit war insisting on pretending that the article does not cite its sources.-- Berig 17:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Finell
Thanks for your message on my talk page. Attempts to contact the secretary of Bertie's Cabal and clarify the rules for membership have thus far proved fruitless.
I think I wrote the piece as I had intended, but accept it may have been more amusing if reworded. I did, however, your point of view until I was worried that my head might asplode and then decided to go bowling instead.
Paul Tracy|\ talk 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Peter Nehr is a subject of interest. Reasons being that he is only Austrian-American natualized citizen that I know of that has made it to the Florida State Legislature that I have been able to find in my research. Thus, that makes him a first in his category. He is now a freshman with sponsored bill which have passed which makes him of significance in any state since he is now within state history regardless of scale of importance. I thank you for taking time to review and appreciate the scope of your position in trying to keep the range and scope of Wikipedia down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitanehr ( talk • contribs)
re:Anita, I see no indication that you have been locked out of Wikipedia. Your user name is Anitanehr and your account is not blocked. What do you mean that you are locked out? On the other hand, what do you mean by gaining "exclusive access"? No one has exclusive access to Wikipedia articles; everyone has equal access. Also, the fact that you are the subject's wife and were "assigned to establish the Wikipedia listing for [your] husband" suggests the potential for violating the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. Finell (Talk) 07:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Continuing this discussion please, Finell, It was my mistake on being "locked out"...please forgive, I am new and I was not locked out. Now as to conflict of interest. I could see how my writing style could be construed as biased and changed it to strictly factual and will be providing all backup within the next 2 weeks so that my article is referenced as in my Graduate and my PhD papers were and will be. Will this alleviate any problems for you where conflict of interst are concerned? Doctoral theses have been written on some cases where no distance exists in some areas of science and yet fact can be maintained in the writing. Being close to him, I know his background better than someone else and have access to factual documents such as birth records, naturalization papers, etc that someone outside would not. I also read German fluently which allows me to read old data from before he came to this country should I ever need to add any prior historical information later as his career progresses which the Party asserts to me will happen. I will await your answer. Thank you in being so kind and patient with me. AnitanehrAnita
Hi Steven, Now that Die Feen contains a synopsis and some critical opinions, I think it is not too far off being suitable for candidacy as a good article. As a preliminary, I'm trying to sort out the referencing. I noticed you added a reference to the booklet from the Sawallisch set. I wonder whether you can help me on who wrote the notes and what pages they are in the booklet? Contentwise, does it indicate whether the recording was made in 1982, as the article previously stated) or 1983 which would fit better with the centenary celebrations? I also wonder if it is a source for the history of the manuscript (ie. its being given to Ludwig and then to Hitler and then being lost) or the lack of braodcasting. Thanks. -- Peter cohen 11:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've done much of what you suggested above. The WP:WPO recommended style is to have a discography at the bottom and a performance history warly on. I'll have a think how best to split the performance and recording material. The Sources section has a query against it, anyway from our trial assessments, and is likely to be replaced by further reading and external links sections. As for, the inline citations, my initial contact with you was to do with finding what was said in which sources. Who the commentators are in the lead mentioned in the lead is explained in the article (specifically) in the The music section. I intend to check which of the performers at the premiere are important. at WP:Wagner we are compiling a list of singers who need articles. Thanks again for your comments and good wishes.-- Peter cohen 23:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd consider using those language userboxes, so other editors can easily know which languages you are proficient in?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I looked it up in the
Brockhaus Enzyklopädie and in a text from the
Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. His nationality isn't mentioned in my edition of the Brockhaus Encyclopedia, but the text from the ADB
[6] has one paragraph devoted to this question. Should I translate it?
In der Wissenschaft ist er ein Mann, der nicht einer Nation angehört means For/In science he is a man who has neither/no nationality. It also says that his nationality couldn't be determined clearly and has been a matter of dispute.
I could also cite the german wikipedia (leading and modern), but this won't count, would it? I hope I could help. --
Versusray 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Versusray: Cite rather the "Neue Deutsche Biographie", this is the continuation of "Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie". The last "Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie" edition seems to be from 1912. And rather take the newest edition of "Neue Deutsche Biographie" not those from 1953. The older edition can likely disrespect the neutral point of view; most probably because it is the Polish heritage case - which need to be minimized, is not it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.219.176 ( talk) 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned in the talk page of the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon article that you saw evidence of my lack of regard for other users and their viewpoints on my user talk page. In good faith, I re-read the content on my talk page, and I didn't see any evidence of a lack of regard for other users or viewpoints, unless your definition of "lack of regard" somehow includes "disagreement". At any rate, I found the personal attack offensive. Rray 19:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
regards, Rich 03:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your desire to adhere to the letter of the law of the MOS, but it is only a guideline. Because featured articles try to attain a professional standard of writing, it is important when getting an article ready for that venue to keep that standard in mind. Professional style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style dictate that centuries should be spelled out. Academic presses spell out their centuries as well. I'm not going to revert this change again, but I would appreciate it if you would consider the explanation left in the edit summary and the discussion on the article's talk page before reverting. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 19:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, that simply slipped through the net -- if I don't respond when I first get the new messages bar I tend to forget about it. Anyway I responded on my talk page. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, but it does seem to be tangential to the question: do you support the idea that MOS central takes precedence by default, thus encouraging debate on the talk pages of both MOS and the relevant sub-page to resolve inconsistencies (soon after they're identified, we hope)? Tony (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI - he is entitled to delete or archive the information on his userpage, including inactive block/unblock notices and warnings. Avruch T 15:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll respond to your comment on my talkpage. Avruch T 03:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there
Just a note to tell you I've responded at at my talk. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to create a category to list all the works that were designed with golden proportions or at least been studied because of it's coinciding properties in diverse publications (say, like Stone Henge or the Arc of Noah)... but I can't figure out the right name for such category. I'll also bee needing at least some peer review of the experts. -- 20-dude ( talk) 11:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"(...)omits from its list of resources many of the authoritative sources cited in the Golden ratio article itself." I'm just starting. Howcome every single editor expects every article to be finished already when it is just starting? I'm starting the list from scratch. First placing the books written by the historical researchers, then the academic and scientific researchers from universities and scientific organizatons, then other authors, then internet pages from academic/scientific, and finally regular sourced useful amateur internet pages... If you want you would be more than welcomed to put those sources you mention in the project. Because of your next comment there is still a lot left for me to do:
Also, as the Golden ratio article shows, a lot of nonsense has been written about the golden ratio, and not everything written on the topic is by a reliable source. Yes I'm plenty aware. I could use some more of your advising here. I was thinking on maybe dividing the list in:
But that would left some other works like the Gothic cathedrals right in the middle. They have unknown authors but the geometrical coincidence is even more detailed than the parthenon.
What are your thoughts? By the way, even if you're an opposer you should be involved.-- 20-dude ( talk) 02:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Nice going with the list! I like a lot the changes you made.-- 20-dude ( talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant opposer to the WikiProject (since you didn't seem to like it too much), but that was a poor choice of words on my part, anyway. I know you're a great contributor to the golden ratio articles and that's why I came to you. Reinassance is a toughie, but you're right, that's really embarrasing. hahaha. It shouldn't happen.-- 20-dude ( talk) 02:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean any disrespect to the work done and its researchers. The sources there will be eventually placed, but I'm sure even you agree that's the kind of work that can be ready from the beginning. It was my initiative to include a list of sources that can be researched for the related articles, nobody told me to do so and is not that common to see that sort of lists in a Wikiproject.-- 20-dude ( talk) 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your reply is in my talk page: -- 20-dude ( talk) 04:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You gave me constructive criticism, I'll do the same for you:
-- 20-dude ( talk) 07:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, stop copying what I post on your page in my page. It is not a big deal if I sign up and I axidentally wasn't logged in. I was doing edits from another site. It is not like you have to mind anyway. Same with my warning. That's right my warning is ok yours not. You have to avoid blank reverting and when you see somebody doing so you HAVE to warn him before. I hate wasting my time like this but:
.618=.382+.236=(.618)²+(.618)³ ...so, you can eat your words.
Specifically the word nonsense. Somebody else might consider that an attack on your part, but I'll assume there is good faith somewhere. Read your comments again, they were uncalled for and very unpleasent.
When Dick blanked my edits twice, back then the article was mostly a list with the books that talk about them as related to golden ratio. He erased the Parthenon 4 Gosh sake! The whole thing is inscribed in a freaking golden prism! You're attacking the editor and not the ploblem (against WP: guidelines, btw)Results speak for themselves, with the exception of the arks (wich I respected when Dick took them off) I have proven that every item was right. You should have observed the items were a very specific selection from the beginning. I could defenitely suport your concern I were placing just any monument like an idiot, say the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower or the Great Wall, ut there is no justification for taking off such trascendental work as the gothic cathedrals. To finish soon: the damn parthenon paragraphs were actually (and rightfuly) long time part of the Golden ratio article and he took it of!!! PHIdias for gosh sake!!
I tired of this, please let's move on. There's still too much to do. -- 20-dude ( talk) 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Not recently. When I'm editing from another computer and I feel to lazy to sing in, you can tell it is me by my familiar way of addresing the editors that always implies that I know them and it is me. And if ask later I always confirm. Sometimes I even change the signature myself (I also always sign)-- 20-dude ( talk) 23:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Finell. Thank you for your contributions to the article Richard Dawkins. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit at WP:MoS, Steven. That's the first time someone has gotten it exactly right, I think. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 17:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Finell I was wondering what your objection to changing the nationality of Euclid is. As it is known, Euclid was probably born in Alexandria. He taught and died in it. No one can confirm that he is purely Greek while what is more confirmed is that most of his life was spent in Egypt. He is even called "Euclid of Alexandria". In the hellinic period the Egyptian and Greek civilizations were strongly mixed with each other and each of them influenced the other. Euclid and many other scientists of Alexandria in the Byzantine age are results of that mix. So it is fair to claim both nationalities for them. So I do not understand why this insistence on claiming a doubtful piece of information (i.e. that he is purely Greek) while refusing something that might have greater evidence? Please note that I am saying he is a Greek/Egyptian and I am not claiming that he is only Egyptian. I linked the NAHSTE website in external links. If you did some search in the internet you would find many evidences that support my claim. Best wishes, Ahmedettaf April 5 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedettaf ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Correction to my last message: I meant the two civilizations (Egyptian and Greek) were strongly interacting with each other during the Ptolemaic empire and not the Byzantine age. Sorry about that Ahmedettaf ( talk) 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove cited information, it is considered vandalism. Chessy999 ( talk) 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not add any new information. My change was just a correction from Minister to Plenipotentiary Minister (which is the correct title for diplomatic envoys (see Diplomatic rank). Ministers without any other specification can be anything but diplomatic staff. I also added a reference to justify the rest of the information included in the article. I am willing to comply to your request if you are so kind and explain what I did wrong. Afil ( talk) 15:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I will make the corrections accordingly. Actually the entire book is about Matila Ghyka.
Afil (
talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see my opinion on removing that content here. Nothing personal, I just don't think that content of articles should be held in ransom when it happens to be in accordance with wikipedia policies. (it was libel or it had unreliable sources, it would be different, but this is not the case) -- Enric Naval ( talk) 21:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with the LoJack issue. I am not going to push this any further, delete or modify the content just because I think that it should not be there. Wikipedia is a community site and people on it can use it and do what they want with it. I am surprised at the social ethics of some of your contributors, it seems to be a lot more ego then common sense. The people that feel that everything should be out there should be careful for what they wish for because when they realize why some things shouldn't be so available, it will be too late. This really is not a big deal, it is already out there anyway, Wikipedia just makes it easier to find. Please respond in my talk page if you need to reach me. Summitrt ( talk) 02:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep editing articles that are barely within your field of knowledge? the problem is also that your edita are too strong compared to your researching. Since unlike Dicklyon, you never increase sourcing or information, I can't avoid having this perception. Read the source, not the entire thing but specifically the chapter, section or paragraph that contextualizes the wikipedia statement that you're modifiying. This is too focus on your actions, but that's why you always get the content wrong.
To ilustrate my point, your edits the extreme oposite (meaning as bad) of what you consider mine to be: I my writing often need polishing but the information always prove right, stay and evolves into something even better (save for the biblical arcs); while your polishing lacks aproximation to the sources and end up twisting words to the point that the connection to what the source says stops existing.
Also, there was an ongoing discussion about the use of "he calls", the resolution was that there is no need to use such controversial afirmation when there are milloin of ways of expressing the same thing without affirmating something we can't prove: we don't have a sourse stating who coined the term, in consecuence we can't the coining to anyone and twisting word's in the article is not helping either.
Please, as a personal favor, think of you're answser, twice. Because I barely control my temper, an although its all my problem and fault, it's never a good idea to trigger it.
A sugestion, ask when you don't understand something I write, don't claim it is wrong. Read yourself in the talk pages (as I often do my writting). All your claims were proven wrong or just partially right. The articles remains in escense the same, which is all I care for (I'm not tight with the words I write at all, but with the statements and points they make).-- 20-dude ( talk) 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Consider this a warning. "It is an embarrassment". Is not acceptable as a description, its mean, offensive and raises suspicion of bad faith on your part (because it's too subjective). I demand your apologies.
And no, it's not an embarrassment, it is a stub. You don't like it, go fight the use of stubs at the policy pages, I don't care. Since the only good source in Google books is not good enough for me. I left it there, as a stub, to see if an expert comes along.
It is also not "my child". Quit going through my contributions, you're embarrassing yourself and if I were another person I could do the same to you, but that wouldn’t be civil (in a broader conception of the term). You always forget to ask before making strong statements and weak warnings, because I would have told you to erase it for all I care.
Please don’t reply. You can do as you please with the stub you have my “permission”. It’ll be fun to see what can you do as a researcher (I’m not stating any perception of you here, just to be clear). Again, please do not reply, I won’t care to read it. -- 20-dude ( talk) 23:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving. xenocidic ( talk) 14:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, I'm sure is just a bad choice of words, but your usage of the word "unintelligible" enrages me (I'm just expressing the effect). That's because a) it's not, the definition of that word goes beyond what you meant (which I'll assume is bad grammar, phrasing or spelling) b) in the past you have showed a limited knowledge and capability understanding the topic, therefore, you must realize unintelligible to you might mean just that (unintelligible to Finell)c) all the paragraphs were created at different times and I'm not the only creator or those 3 paragraphs, d) it's incredibly disrespectful to the creators, much more when you erase it.
I'll move on, but in the future try to think twice and be more considerate before behaving like that. Somehow, you insist on editing a topic you're barely familiar with, that's cool, but take in consideration you are barely familiar with it, so that our collaboration gets better (I understand you're relatively new to the topic, you that I'm relatively new to your language).I put them back, but since your comments and actions let me confused about the problem with them, I did some editing. However, I'm not sure if that was an improvement, please fix them (as you already proved you can), and I'll check them later to make sure the sources are cited right.-- 20-dude ( talk) 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You used the comments on my page against me, so I do the same and we're both right (you about me and vice versa):
Please don't remove cited information, it is considered vandalism. Chessy999 (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-- 20-dude ( talk) 21:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Finnel, if, as you claim, that Elements is the most the "successful" textbook, etc. etc., and that there are reliable sources (you know, besides the RS page), then cite them in the text, preferably with the context.
Otherwise I could equally claim that I have reliable sources that suggest otherwise, and both claims would be on level.
In sum, WP:PROVEIT.
Danjel ( talk) 08:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a note - I responded to your undo in the Euclid Discuss
NittyG ( talk) 06:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Finnel,
I'm sorry I got pushy. I think we both got pretty frustrated. I answered to your reply. Lets take a deep breath and be constructive, objective, and focus now. Objections to what I put are natural, and I understand and appreciate the time you're putting forth in discussing this.
I figured I'd respond the the connect-the-dots remark. I understand why you put that where you did, but we should discuss these things on each others talk page from here on.
What I mean by connect-the-dots is, like in the case of the tin article, also put where tin comes from. The update I did to that article along those lines were regarded highly by the authors, which I'm a part of now.
We may not agree on everything, but lets work it out, work together for the interest of wikipedia
thanks NittyG ( talk) 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Finnel - what do you think about the edits I made? NittyG ( talk) 04:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Finnel - please note the discussion topic on the bottom of the Euclid talk page. Thanks. NittyG ( talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thx for your thoughts. Tony (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
And why on Earth did you revert my changes? Which "source" do you need, if I proved that formula by myself, because could not find it neither at wikipedia, nor in books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Lakhturov ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
re: you have redirected the link again.
Here in the Wikipedia, if one knows a subject (honestly) and be able to provide better explanation to that subject than as it is shown, then such things are beneficial to readers.
Your ways of doing thing (like, only cutting and redirection etc.) is usually a norm of a person who has no knowledge but pretend to be of showing alike (character of self derogatory for something....
Now it is clear that you do not understand those basic English. So why you have to involve if you do not know.
I will redirect one more time. But if you play again the same thing, I will leave it.
Why don’t you provide some more links or explanations if you can?
Nevill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.78.169 ( talk) 02:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It's no big deal but I'd rather you didn't make changes to my signed comments. If you feel a small change, like the one you made today, would help things along, then just send me a message about it so I can make it myself.
This is no way the same thing as when you altered the statement topping the quotation section. That was meant to be a public message and your change was moderate and explained. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have implemented an Infobox Scientist in the lead of the Joseph Priestley article, effectively right-aligning the much-disputed placement of the image and left my rationales on Talk:Joseph Priestley. Because I strenuously disagree with the alleged consensus about violating guidelines about image placement and consensus across a wide body of other articles, I have offered to open an RfC for more editors' involvement. Madcoverboy ( talk) 21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed a comment you made at Talk:Manual_of_Style where you express concern that an en dash might mess up search engines, etc. I wonder if you are aware that WP:Naming conventions requires us to always create a redirect for the hyphenated version when we use a dash in an article title? I have always assumed it is for precisely this reason. (Personally, I favor hyphen being always used in article titles, with dashes redirected, since that's how people think and type.) Eaglizard ( talk) 01:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I really didn't mean to revert your edits but those of the anon which changed the article right before you. And then I had some trouble with the parentheses. Thanks. radek ( talk) 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice fix, Finell. Tony (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That was quite a lecture you gave at Talk:Speed of light. It seems unlikely that it will do any good. If you have any specific suggestions for me, let me know, as I realize I'm sometimes part of the problem. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, could you keep an eye on this user and watch out for any nonsense edits/misinformation he inserts? Given his history it is difficult to see this user being productive. Triplestop x3 02:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
After your heavyweight and threatening comments about behavioral change being needed from editors of the 'Speed of light' article I was somewhat surprised to see that, despite on ongoing discussion on the subject in an attempt to reach a durable consensus, you decided to rewrite the lead yourself. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
A ban has been implemented by you upon D Tombe. The basis for this action appears to be an assessment of D Tombe's activities outside the article speed of light, and even outside of WP altogether. Within this article, he has presented a perfectly cogent viewpoint, which I share along with various eminent published sources ((for example Wheeler; Jespersen; Sydenham), that 299 792 458 m/s is not a fundamental constant of nature, but an arbitrary conversion factor introduced by CODATA in 1983. In view of impeccable sources upon this issue, it is surprising to me that you would intervene simply to support a majority rule stance by a cabal of misinformed editors that cannot make nice distinctions in usage of words. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear you're not part of a cabal, but all I meant was that your actions seem to support what I have flatteringly called a cabal, which in turn is built from a pig-headed unwillingness to discuss matters. Brews ohare ( talk) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Finell, The peer reviewed papers in question have been supplied by Brews. I have looked at two of them and they are unequivocal about the point in question. You have been mislead by another editor who tried to tell everybody that I wrote the peer reviewed papers in question. I didn't, and I have explained that to him on his talk page. I'm waiting for him to correct the matter. I'm also waiting for your updated announcement about your 'ban evasion' accusation in relation to the anonymous IP server. I thought that you were going to do a 'checkuser' and come back to us all and announce the result. It's important that you don't leave a serious allegation like this outstanding. Somebody's reputation will remain at stake until you complete your investigation. David Tombe ( talk) 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I see. So you want me to do instigate a checkuser on myself in order to clear myself from your suspicions that you have widely announced? David Tombe ( talk) 09:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The only way that I know of to counter the complete nonsense at Wikipedia:Paid editing is to come up with an alternative Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text. Free free to stop by and contribute. If you know of a better way, please let me know. The reason that Wikipedia:Paid editing is in the shape it is in is that a single editor reverts everybody else's contributions, so that I request that everybody follow WP:1RR on the alternatives page. Smallbones ( talk) 21:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Finell: In presenting matters to Dicklyon I am really trying to consult him on this subject, and not trying to set up another venue for attacks upon my so-called "fringe views". If Dicklyon concludes that something of value to the speed of light crops up, I am sure he will present it in the proper venue more capably than I. So please do not feel obliged to "head me off at the crossroads". Any possible outcome of this little dialog with Dicklyon will surely show up with ample opportunity for you to call it fringe, idiosyncratic, stupid, blind, or whatever you deem (very politely) appropriate. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have some useful advice, please repeat it. Personally, I think my arguments are correct, but that in peoples' minds I am associated with extreme views that, in fact, I have never espoused, which has led to an unwillingness to look at the actual statements I have made and at the sources I have suggested. You yourself have done this, and in fact have extended the problem by misreading the hypothetical example I provided as some kind of claim supporting weird physics. Compounding the problem still further is a tendency of many to use pejorative remarks about "fringe science" idiosyncrasy" and so forth, that have no basis in fact, and are employed to avoid real reasoning, but create a bandwagon effect among those too lazy to evaluate matters for themselves. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You are ending this discussion prematurely. I do not think you have understood my statements correctly, and are characterizing misconceptions of them as "wrong". Dicklyon has said (so far as my A& B example goes) that it is correct but unsourced. That is different from your opinion, I believe. Rather than repeat unkind adjectives like "fallacious" "unwarranted extension", etc. why not undertake to examine matters more closely with me?? Brews ohare ( talk) 20:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, while the comment left by anon was definitely weird and perhaps even inflammatory I didn't see any outright bigotry in it. I have seen much worse, direct, explicit bigotry on talk pages and in edit summaries made by some of the involved editors, go unpunished (though not always). But I will defer to your judgment on this one. radek ( talk) 12:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Please attend to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Speed of light and comment if you wish. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 03:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Finell, I can see that this business about the Lone Ranger has been perplexing you. To put your mind at rest, go to the talk page at Faraday's law. Somewhere down there, you'll see the Lone Ranger involved in a discussion. He's clearly quite sympathetic to what I am saying, but I think you'll find that his analysis of the situation diverges from mine. The Lone Ranger seems to think that the motionally induced EMF is not a part of Faraday's law. I disagree. I think that the time varying aspect and the motionally dependent aspect are two aspects of a single law that can be expressed in total time derivative format. Whoever the Lone Ranger is, he clearly uses a dynamic server which is why you keep thinking that he is a new man in town. I've seen him alot in the past at various articles. I'd be grateful if you could make this information available to all those who you have been making enquiries with. David Tombe ( talk) 10:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Progress is now being made at WP:Paid editing. The topic is very important, and I'd love to get the proposed policy back on track. If you have any input, I'd love to see it on the page. Smallbones ( talk) 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
David does have somewhat of a point - comments like [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light/Workshop&curid=24280965&diff=317400899&oldid=317347898 have nothing to do with the current dispute, so far as I can tell. If I'm mistaken, please let me know, but in that case you do need to provide evidence to show that sockpuppetry is currently an issue. Bringing this up after I just explicitly said he's not socking is over the line. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Finell. Your current evidence section at the Speed of Light case is well over the established 1,000 word limits. When you get a chance, please shorten it to fit within this restriction.
Also, as I mentioned in the section above, presented evidence should be kept relevant to the dispute at hand. Much of your evidence is relating to how David was using multiple accounts prior to his last indefinite block; I do not see how this is relevant to the dispute at the Speed of Light article. Please consider refactoring this information, or including details about how it is relevant to the current dispute. Thank you. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 22:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Who is the user that vandalized the main page? It would be interesting to check if your claims hold up. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
On WP:Civil you state your opinions regarding matters that are still under review as though they are facts.
You also accuse me of gaming the system, which I just don't get. How can a request for comment on the use of the one-line Edit Summary be gaming the system? The idea is simply to invite ideas on how to avoid cryptic summaries that may result in some heat on Talk pages.
It is an issue unrelated to Case/Speed of light, although I believe some of the problems there originate in these one-line Edit Summaries, and I have recommended that the Arbitrators consider that possible cause. I haven't tried to "nail" anybody for such activity. That is just my opinion as to one origin of unrest: it is not an attack on anybody; it is not uncivil; there is no axe grinding. Brews ohare ( talk) 18:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I took a look and found that the IP edit to the Workshop page earlier was not an instance of abusive sockpuppetry. Due to the Privacy Policy, there isn't much more I can say on the matter, but I would ask that you view the comment made as you would a comment from any other participant to the case. Thank you. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to delete catcalls by other editors on Talk: Speed of light, with the justification Delete unnecessary remark? If this is a good practice, you could actually delete a good third of the commentary on this page. Brews ohare ( talk) 18:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Finell, You misrepresented my position at the arbitration talk page, and I am not allowed to defend myself. You brought up a stale matter relating to my edits at the Mozart page over a year ago. You claimed that the dispute was over the issue of whether Mozart was a German or an Austrian, and that I had been arguing that he was a German. It is certainly my own opinion that Mozart only ever became an Austrian about 60 years after his death, but that was not what the argument was about.
The two camps in the argument were,
(1) Arguments to back up both cases. I was supported to this end by one other editor.
(2) No tolerance for any suggestion that Mozart was a German.
I was offering a compromise, and the relevant edit can be read here [9].
The real controversy surrounding that incident was not about truth, or sourcing, or willingness to consider both points of view. The controversy surrounded the issue of inserting material into main article space in the knowledge that it would be opposed by a large number of editors.
My counter argument was that the administration were not doing enough to thwart the activities of special interest groups who are intent on re-writing history. As a condition of my unblocking , I agreed to refrain from inserting material into main article space against a clear consensus. While I am disappointed that the administration cannot do more to counteract revisionist interest groups, I can also appreciate that it would not necessarily be an easy task to undertake, and so I have resigned to the reality of it. Since being unblocked, I can provide evidence that I have had a similar kind of dispute relating to New Zealand's independence date, and that I backed down in honour of my pledge.
There has been absolutely no repeat of the factors surrounding the Mozart debate in July 2008, and I'm very sorry that you felt the need to resurrect this issue at the 'speed of light' arbitration hearing because it provides absolutely no similar offence evidence whatsoever.
I would be much obliged if you would do the honourable thing and go to the arbitration talk page and clarify this matter on my behalf. It is totally out of order to try and poison the jury by misrepresenting irrelevant incidents from the past. David Tombe ( talk) 04:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your removal of the new passage about Anno Domini. I though it was really not in keeping with the theme of the article, and all that is needed is to make sure there is a link to the Anno Domini article somewhere in the Year article. I don't, however, agree that is POV to mention Anno Domini without mentioning the CE. When there are many names for something, it is normal in writing to mention only one of them. It is impossible to write if you try to make every sentence be a thesaurus.
If the poster tries again with a more acceptable description of the year numbering system, I hope you won't remove it just because it only mentions one of the names for the year numbering system. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
If you look on the proposed decision page history, you can see three edits around 21:30 by Carcharoth that were oversighted. I'm still not at all sure why -- the content is just Carcharoth voting on some proposals. TotientDragooned ( talk) 03:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Finell. I've replied to your last comment here, and posed a question for you in a new section immediately below. Reqards, Paul August ☎ 20:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your move request, I would like to point out that moving a talkpage IS an allowed way to archive it. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure. The other editor did not do anything wrong by archiving the talkpage by moving it. Users can still check the archives (which is actually easier than checking the logs), and there is also an option to search the archives of a article (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling for an example). You may not like this way of archiving a talkpage, but it is allowed and approved. TJ Spyke 21:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you. However, I closed the move as non-controversial because the user could have done the move him or herself (but wasn't autoconfirmed). Also, the user may be unaware that Animal studies exists. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your recent revert on Euclidean geometry art., the Reference section is to contain reflist - art. is referencing to some source, not Notes, and what is called Reference now - contains a list of publications related to whole issue discussed. So, I'm a bit puzzled with reverting. Pavel Modilaynen ( talk) 09:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Re your removal of the paragraph on litigation costs, with modification comment “This section is not about litigation”:
Given that the ‘Costs’ subsection immediately follows the ‘Rationale’ subsection, and is within a section entitled ‘Economics’, I'd have thought that litigation costs are actually more relevant than the costs of obtaining a patent, in that I would guess that litigation costs are a larger cost within the economy (based on the guess that the number of legal actions is more than about 32/1000 of the number of granted patents).
Accordingly, I intend to re-add the paragraph on litigation, and will in fact consider moving the litigation paragraph to before the filing costs text. I might also try to add brief mentions of other costs associated with granting patents.
See also Talk:Patent#Costs_associated_with_patents; feel free to move the above text to that section of the Talk page and reply there if you have ideas about how the information should be arranged.
[Incidentally, there was a typo in your nbsp change: missing ampersand, so ‘nbsp;’ appears literally in the rendering.] Pjrm ( talk) 06:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your various comments on the Tycho Brahe/Newton topic. One point puzzles me, though: what aspect of my last post on the Tycho Brahe talk page is it that you consider inadequately sourced for WP's article space? (Much of my text proposal put on the talk page is, no doubt, moot at this point. I only wrote there at some length to make a record dealing with matters that might possibly crop up elsewhere. But a few words in explanation of your view would no doubt be instructive generally.) With good wishes, Terry0051 ( talk) 17:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
[From Terry0051] Thanks for your reply, and certainly no offence is taken: I was only hoping maybe to learn something about the mysterious WP boundaries between explanation and interpretation, and perhaps also between reliable and not-reliable sources. (For the record, I didn't think I'd interpreted anything as opposed to pointing out, with an element of explanation, the actual contents of the source in the various places in which they were to be found.) And the practice on whether to regard well-known and well-regarded editions & translations of classic works as primary or secondary -- and whether the usual practice reflects the stated policy -- is another mysterious matter. But maybe this is not the best occasion to go into all of that, so please feel free to let the matter drop. Terry0051 ( talk) 18:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your level headed comments on the history of astronomy talk pages.
You asked at Talk:Tycho Brahe whether the signature practice on that and related pages was a guideline of WikiProject History of Astronomy. It isn't. As far as I can tell it began as a practice of User:Logicus a long time ago and has since been adopted by a number of his correspondents. Logicus seems to enjoy being idiosyncratic. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Finell: You wrote proposed essay misstates and conflicts with existing policies and guidelines. I have reworded this essay here and there to bring up some of your points, but probably not sufficiently. Perhaps you could help me to do this better? I'd like to make an essay somewhat along these lines part of WP, and I could use your help to accomplish this. The idea is that some greater guidance for Talk pages might prove helpful, even if only as suggestions and not guidelines. Although I have responded to TenOfAllTrades, there seems to be little interest in those quarters. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Finell: You may understand that I see the conduct of Talk pages to be problematic. They tend to be contentious, rather than cooperative. That is a tendency of nature under some circumstances, to interpret opposition as attack. What one wants is to interpret opposition as an opportunity to develop a more nuanced view or to add dimension to the topic. There is a good deal more satisfaction in seeing an article become more encompassing and authoritative, than in trumping some editor by a cute turn of phrase or chasing them off.
So I ask you how one might promote the construction of articles as a greater good than massaging ego? My thought with my Essay was to promote an environment where this would happen if Talk pages followed a paradigm of some kind.
I would rather make some contribution to this problem, which I view as major, than to edit an obscure topic. I realize that is an undertaking, and that my Essay is only a step. Maybe you could help? In particular, could you make some suggestions about process, for example, by proposing some changes to the Essay? Maybe you have some alternative actions to propose? Brews ohare ( talk) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Finell - would you mind giving me a quick overview of how all this works? You and I made some changes today - does that mean they stay unless someone undoes them? Or is there a master editor that has control over the content that makes the final decision? If that is the case, who is this editor? Thanks very much, I appreciate any help. -- Piast ( talk) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am not a newcomer. If I need assistance, I'll be sure to ask. Roger Zoel ( talk) 01:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Finell. Would you not mind weighing in on the above linked discussion? From Darkfrog24's suggestion, I take it that your thoughts on this matter will help make this discussion more balanced. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:Contents_box , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis ☂ 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
'Wikify, delete matter unnecessary for disambiguation page, alphabetize, copy eidt' Content – imis ☂ 05:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I am drafting a Requests for comment/User conduct concerning the conduct of Logicus ( talk · contribs · count · api · block log) since the abortive RfC of February 2007. Since you have been involved in the recent content RfC at Talk:Celestial spheres, I would appreciate it if you would look over the draft and see whether it seems appropriate, what revisions you would propose, or what you could add.
At the moment, parts of the RfC are little more than outline points and the desired outcome is totally undefined, but with cooperation perhaps something can be put together that could make it through the process.
I had hoped that this RfC would not need to be posted, given the recent closure of a content RfC on Logicus's edits. However, Logicus's recent comments suggest that I may have been too optimistic.
Feel free to either edit the draft or submit comments on its talk page. Your editing skills and tact would be especially useful. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Undent
Would you object if I copied the above exchange onto the Draft RfC talk page? Your comments provide a useful perspective.
Thanks, SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I dream of horses @ 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In your recent anti-Logicus RfC comments which alleged the material in question is OR, unfortunately you never identified which of its claims are OR in your view. I would be most grateful if you would now do this so that I may consider how any such breaches of NOR policy may be remedied by some revision(s) should any of your criticisms be objectively valid.
If you can oblige me, I would be most grateful if you would start with the material in the smaller section entitled 'Impetus in the celestial spheres', at least since I imagine it would be less problematical for you on your particular understanding of medieval dynamics, as well as being smaller. So in the first instance, do you claim that particular material is OR anywhere?
And in case you ever thought Wilson's objections were valid, I would also be grateful to know whether you think they have now been overcome by my proposed revisions of the only four sentences he seemed to claim are OR because he claims they are OS.
Thanks in anticipation ! -- Logicus ( talk) 16:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Logicus ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 21:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot ( talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
7107delicious Weinachtsgespräch 12:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Finell. I asked for your help before. I need your help again, at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Armond White's review. It is not about White's review; it is rather about our discussion below the one about White's review. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the nature of your disputes with Ncmvocalist, but it is certainly not appropriate to drag them into the discussions on that page. Please discuss those issues on your User talk pages or the pages concerned with the specific disputes they address. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 15:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This is just a notification on possible background on this edit to Carl Sagan.
The paragraph entered in the article by 24.6.219.114 is, for the most part, a quotation from, or a reference to, Cosmos, specifically the episode "The Edge of Forever". However, given the rather truncated and selective choice of phrases, it borders on quote mining, and as such its motives are dubious. Therefore, you made the correct choice in reverting it, it is simply that a lack of citation is not the (most significant) issue. Thank you. -RadicalOne--- Contact Me 16:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your comment "Because of that, the rest of us should stop picking up the stick and beating him with it." I want to thank you for saying this. I came into this situation in the middle so I didn't see everything before his topic ban but since then that's all I've seen is people beating Brews with a stick and I find this comment to be mature and reasonable. I am going to be outspooken in Brews defense but if more people had a view like this I could go and get off the Reichstag. ( WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. ) Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 01:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: [12]. Yes, I would mind – very much – if you decided to turn my comment into a vote. One of the reasons why the arbitration enforcement process is so damnably unpleasant is because of the lining up and taking sides, coupled to the assumption that people reading the discussion aren't bright enough to get past the first word. In my experience, the posts to AE (and to other boards seeking admin action) which are preceded by bold text tend to be from the angry fringe, and tend to be accorded less weight than the comments which simply make their point clearly and concisely. Heck, I'd prefer to avoid having bullets in front of each point, because it prevents the use of paragraph breaks in comments — but those were unfortunately present when I commented.
If you don't mind, it would add nuance depth to your comment at WP:AE if you didn't precede it with a bold vote text. Competent, neutral individuals read the entire discussion before jumping to a conclusion. Or would you object to my removing it? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I withdraw. I couldn't see it in the text, I had never heard of it before, and it is a notation contrary to more common meanings for capitalisation. φ-1 is not exactly difficult is it? (though in convoluted algebras, I suppose it might get wearing!).
There are problems in some articles with a few editors on personal crusades to introduce new notations that they in their infinite wisdom have decided ought be introduced. This looked like one. -- Red King ( talk) 20:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I have declined your G7 speedy on this article, because other editors had worked on it before User:Daykight. I have restored it to the state before Daykight blanked it, and will notify him, too. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 10:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Lynsi is now the President of In-N-Out burger as of Jan 1st 2010. Mark Taylor is now the COO and no longer president. And yes she still is the sole owner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.99.166 ( talk) 05:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Finell: I have filed an RfC at Talk: Bivector#RfC: Unicode wedge symbol. Could you take a look at this matter and proffer some advice? Brews ohare ( talk) 00:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice on conflict. It is interesting to learn that my PC with Windows XP and Firefox is different from yours. I see the wedge in a ∧ b not as a b but as a ∘ b. I can change that by switching fonts from Times Roman to Cambria Math, but that puts extra blank lines in the text whenever the wedge shows up. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I found another option, to disable the default setting "allow pages to select their own fonts". See Help_talk:Special_characters#Instructions for Firefox. Unfortunately, that alters the font spacing in page text to be a bit less readable, at least in using Times New Roman. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The block seems to no longer be necessary or productive. If I were to bring a motion to get them unblocked, would you support it? Likebox ( talk) 21:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) Yes--- I was talking about the topic ban. Sorry for misspeaking.
I agree with you that both editors have made edits that are disagreeable. We all have to deal with the circus of diverging points of view. But it is not good to make a decision about whether to block based on a person's opinionated edits.
In order to function, people with different points of view have to be able to speak out without fear of retribution. By allowing topic bans based on ideosyncratic thinking and weird interpretations, we kick out creative individuals. While most of the edits might be misguided, this can be corrected by consensus. On the other hand, they can contribute beautiful work, diagrams in Brews' case.
I have had to deal with many fringe science topics, and I find that the best way is to just follow the policies, read the sources, make sure that all the material is understood by all from first principles, and work hard to mention fringe points of view alongside mainstream thinking so as to clarify every position. To do this well, we have to tolerate disagreements. So even if you would like to see so-and-so banned, I am asking you to put this feeling aside and ask if this ban is helping create a good atmosphere in the encyclopedia. Likebox ( talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
As Likebox has discussed above, the issue of importance to WP is not brews_ohare or David Tombe, but the conduct of discourse on Talk pages. For a quality article to develop, points of view have to be entertained and explored. Knee-jerk reactions have to be avoided along with resort to using WP:Fringe WP:NOR WP:Soap as swear words on Talk pages with no supporting WP:Diffs. It is natural, of course, to react to ideas that are unfamiliar or even contrary to one's instincts as being the maunderings of a crack-pot, but that natural urge has to be suppressed. It also is natural to indulge in oration, self-important pronouncements, and to seek administrator action to quell the irritations of beliefs contrary to one's own. None of these actions promotes good quality articles.
It may be too much for WP editors to bear, but some methodology for catalysis of good discussion would be sooo... wonderful.
You are pleased with my recent editing, which strikes you as somehow different from my behavior on Talk: Speed of light. In some ways it is: for example, I simply abandoned discussion with JohnBlackburne when the runaround appeared nonconvergent. In contrast, on Talk: Speed of light I had a misplaced confidence in the convergence of logical argument, and hoped some formulation of logic and sources could be found that would provoke consideration of the obvious. That notion is Utopian. In some ways my behavior has not changed: where discussion works and editors actually converse, my behavior is exactly as before, and resolution is accomplished to the benefit of WP. My motivations and beliefs have not changed; all that is different is my lowered expectation of useful interchange. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Finell: It is evident that what one party thinks is a different and new argument, another will take as a rehash of the same-old same-old. The convinced party is liable to see the argument as not different because it lead to the same (obnoxious) conclusion. The resulting exasperation over what is taken as mere repetition then can lead to abusive behavior, which should be prohibited by WP:Civil and WP:NPA, but usually is not.
My view, apparently different from yours, is that WP guidelines should be made more explicit on these matters and more rigorously enforced. That (IMO) would lead to more focused and more productive Talk page discussion.
As you might imagine, I view the Speed of light arbitration as an ineluctable example of the failure of WP admins and guidelines to handle such matters. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
In all fairness, I'd say as well that the Speed of light arbitration illustrates the futility of trying too hard to get a point across. Nonetheless, the powers of persuasion do have greater effect in a healthy editing environment. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hell in a Bucket, Our lines must have crossed. Thanks for you concern, but don't worry, I'll see any trap and I'll avoid it. I just want to see if Finell can put his money where his mouth is. David Tombe ( talk) 02:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) Will do. I'll keep you informed, and I hope there are no bad feelings. This is something on which reasonable people can easily disagree. As far as fast edits--- professional scientists write quickly. Brews has understood the problem, what went wrong, and has taken steps to acknowledge it and fix it. It would have been easy to be clearer to him about the issue of verbosity though. Likebox ( talk) 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Finell: As I said
here : You don't have to establish that justice was or was not done, or that the remedy was effective or not effective. All you have to establish is that recent history indicates useful contribution and no disturbance, so a test is in order to see whether lifting the bans will cause trouble again. If trouble does result, action can be taken.
Your worries about my interpretation of the Speed of light case and its adjudicators has no bearing, and neither does any rehash of ancient history, nor do Freudian speculations.
I thank you for your encouragement, and hope you can entertain a forward optimism. Brews ohare ( talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Finell. You removed a link i recently tried to add to the wiki of Euclid. You state it has no reliable source and is some kind of conspiracy. I agree this link might not was the best presentation of a diffrent history.
But.
Though given the facts that the complete history of Euclid is rather incomplete - information regarding his history is vital.
Here is a reliable source - which also cannot screwed as just a hoax.
Quoteing:" In view of the poverty of Greek tradition on the subject even as early as the time of Proclus (410-485 A.D.), we must necessarily take cum grano the apparently circumstantial accounts of Euclid given by Arabian authors; and indeed the origin of their stories can be explained as the result (1) of the Arabian tendency to romance, and (2) of misunderstandings.
We read15 that “Euclid, son of Naucrates, grandson of Zenarchus16 , called the author of geometry, a philosopher of somewhat ancient date, a Greek by nationality domiciled at Damascus, born at Tyre, most learned in the science of geometry, published a most excellent and most useful work entitled the foundation or elements of geometry, a subject in which no more general treatise existed before among the Greeks: nay, there was no one even of later date who did not walk in his footsteps and frankly profess his doctrine. Hence also Greek, Roman and Arabian geometers not a few, who undertook the task of illustrating this work, published commentaries, scholia, and notes upon it, and made an abridgment of the work itself. For this reason the Greek philosophers used to post up on the doors of their schools the well-known notice: ‘Let no one come to our school, who has not first learned the elements of Euclid.’” The details at the beginning of this extract cannot be derived from Greek sources, for even Proclus did not know anything about Euclid's father, while it was not the Greek habit to record the names of grandfathers, as the Arabians commonly did. Damascus and Tyre were no doubt brought in to gratify a desire which the Arabians always showed to connect famous Greeks in some way or other with the East. Thus Nas<*>īraddīn, the translator of the Elements, who was of T<*>ūs in Khurāsān, actually makes Euclid out to have been “Thusinus” also17 . The readiness of the Arabians to run away with an idea is illustrated by the last words [p. 5] of the extract. Everyone knows the story of Plato's inscription over the porch of the Academy: “let no one unversed in geometry enter my doors”; the Arab turned geometry into Euclid's geometry, and told the story of Greek philosophers in general and “their Academies.”
Equally remarkable are the Arabian accounts of the relation of Euclid and Apollonius18 . According to them the Elements were originally written, not by Euclid, but by a man whose name was Apollonius, a carpenter, who wrote the work in 15 books or sections19 . In the course of time some of the work was lost and the rest became disarranged, so that one of the kings at Alexandria who desired to study geometry and to master this treatise in particular first questioned about it certain learned men who visited him and then sent for Euclid who was at that time famous as a geometer, and asked him to revise and complete the work and reduce it to order. Euclid then re-wrote it in 13 books which were thereafter known by his name. (According to another version Euclid composed the 13 books out of commentaries which he had published on two books of Apollonius on conics and out of introductory matter added to the doctrine of the five regular solids.) To the thirteen books were added two more books, the work of others (though some attribute these also to Euclid) which contain several things not mentioned by Apollonius. According to another version Hypsicles, a pupil of Euclid at Alexandria, offered to the king and published Books XIV. and XV., it being also stated that Hypsicles had “discovered” the books, by which it appears to be suggested that Hypsicles had edited them from materials left by Euclid.
We observe here the correct statement that Books XIV. and XV. were not written by Euclid, but along with it the incorrect information that Hypsicles, the author of Book XIV., wrote Book XV. also.
The whole of the fable about Apollonius having preceded Euclid and having written the Elements appears to have been evolved out of the preface to Book XIV. by Hypsicles, and in this way; the Book must in early times have been attributed to Euclid, and the inference based upon this assumption was left uncorrected afterwards when it was recognised that Hypsicles was the author. The preface is worth quoting:
“Basilides of Tyre, O Protarchus, when he came to Alexandria and met my father, spent the greater part of his sojourn with him on account of their common interest in mathematics. And once, when [p. 6] examining the treatise written by Apollonius about the comparison between the dodecahedron and the icosahedron inscribed in the same sphere, (showing) what ratio they have to one another, they thought that Apollonius had not expounded this matter properly, and accordingly they emended the exposition, as I was able to learn from my father. And I myself, later, fell in with another book published by Apollonius, containing a demonstration relating to the subject, and I was greatly interested in the investigation of the problem. The book published by Apollonius is accessible to all-- for it has a large circulation, having apparently been carefully written out later--but I decided to send you the comments which seem to me to be necessary, for you will through your proficiency in mathematics in general and in geometry in particular form an expert judgment on what I am about to say, and you will lend a kindly ear to my disquisition for the sake of your friendship to my father and your goodwill to me.”
The idea that Apollonius preceded Euclid must evidently have been derived from the passage just quoted. It explains other things besides. Basilides must have been confused with basileus, and we have a probable explanation of the “Alexandrian king,” and of the “learned men who visited” Alexandria. It is possible also that in the “Tyrian” of Hypsicles' preface we have the origin of the notion that Euclid was born in Tyre. These inferences argue, no doubt, very defective knowledge of Greek: but we could expect no better from those who took the Organon of Aristotle to be “instrumentum musicum pneumaticum,” and who explained the name of Euclid, which they variously pronounced as Uclides or Icludes, to be compounded of Ucli a key, and Dis a measure, or, as some say, geometry, so that Uclides is equivalent to the key of geometry!
Lastly the alternative version, given in brackets above, which says that Euclid made the Elements out of commentaries which he wrote on two books of Apollonius on conics and prolegomena added to the doctrine of the five solids, seems to have arisen, through a like confusion, out of a later passage20 in Hypsicles' Book XIV.: “And this is expounded by Aristaeus in the book entitled ‘Comparison of the five figures,’ and by Apollonius in the second edition of his comparison of the dodecahedron with the icosahedron.” The “doctrine of the five solids” in the Arabic must be the “Comparison of the five figures” in the passage of Hypsicles, for nowhere else have we any information about a work bearing this title, nor can the Arabians have had. The reference to the two books of Apollonius on conics will then be the result of mixing up the fact that Apollonius wrote a book on conics with the second edition of the other work mentioned by Hypsicles. We do not find elsewhere in Arabian authors any mention of a commentary by Euclid on Apollonius and Aristaeus: so that the story in the passage quoted is really no more than a variation of the fable that the Elements were the work of Apollonius. http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Aabo%3Atlg%2C1799%2C001&query=elem.%3A1%3Adef. "
In regards to understand the history of euclid and books attributed to this name - the above information deserves to be mentioned in the wiki of euclid. -- DuKu ( talk) 06:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#RfC_on_additional_wording_about_citation_templates Tony (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Finell,
Beside the conflict with Finell was settled he keeps insulting me with wilde accusations and made up claims. User Finell this is my last post in this regards before i take proper steps to stop you from further insults. Please take the time and read about battleing and insulting of other users. Thank you. -- DuKu ( talk) 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Finell. This is to inform you (as you asked me to do) that there is a request for amendement regarding an arbitration case that you have commented on. Likebox ( talk) 05:03, 8
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Infraparticle. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.— Finell 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Infraparticle. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.— Finell 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
To me it appears that two things are at work here.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Likebox deceptively sourced infraparticle. Thank you. -- The Anome ( talk) 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop wikihounding me under any circumstances, be it through needless interactions or inappropriately editing or moving my commentary without my permission. If you have concerns about clerk notes being placed in the clerks notes section, please take the matter up with an arbitrator who is authorised to police the arbitration pages in the manner that they wish. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yet another example of Wiki-fundamentalism causing pointless conflicts. Count Iblis ( talk) 12:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi finnel, I am a new user of wikipedia. my nickname is soso97, i don't like this name but i don't know how to change it. I love science and knowledge. I am science star's friend at school. I hope you could help me how to start using wikipedia. Soso97 ( talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Finell,
Referring to my recent edit, "Substituted 'believed' with scientific terms 'theorized' and 'hypothesized'", which you undid with the message: "The simple words are simpler and more accurate."
Well, the reason for my edit was that I was just following Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_with_multiple_meanings
As you can see from the guideline article, my objection to the terms "belief", "believe", and "believed" are because of their 'religious' connotations: Creationism is my belief; I believe in Jesus Christ; I believed that God would save me.
Therefore, I think that the terms "hypothesize"/"hypothesized" and "theorize"/"theorized" are more appropriate in a scientific context.
Yours sincerely,
IVAN3MAN ( talk) 05:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I think, your removal of PDF accessibility information in the PDF article was not a good idea. PDF accessibility is an important issue and there are hundreds of articles on internet about this topic. Please, help improving wikipedia articles with new references and new information instead of removing them. Thank you. Some references: [13], [14], [15] -- 89.173.64.200 ( talk) 18:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Finell.Why did you delete the material I posted in the dialectic page? The source I provided was called "Dialectics and its place in the development of medival logic".And the content is verifiable.There´s a link to the book. Of course, there are some pages missing, but I just named these philosophers. These names appear in the summary and all over the book. I think that, for the purpose of naming a few philosophers that used dialectics in the middle ages, the source is good.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 13:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Finell,
Thought you might like to know that there was a discussion about the "Reaction" section at
Talk:Air India Express Flight_812#Reaction lists you removed. (I am fairly neutral on the matter) Just letting you know! Happy Editing! --
220.101.28.25 (
talk) 00:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Regarding this edit:
I reverted it. Let's take a look at things:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I thought I gave some constructive analyses of the article lead, along with possible directions for improvement. While I fully considered seeing potential trolling and negativity, it was unexpected to see it from you. Oh, by the way, "travelled" is not a misspelling, but a variant used by millions of people. Tim Shuba ( talk) 11:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, travelled is British English, in fact I think it's used pretty much everywhere outside the USA. Dropping the doubled letter there was one of the many initiatives by Noah Webster of dictionary fame. See the text on his bio page where I just added a citation. Webster had tons of other language reform initiatives, many successful, many not. From my personal observation, the travelled-->traveled change in American English was never fully integrated, with both form appearing regularly in publications by American writers. So I would say the neither form is obviously preferable even in American English. In part because there is no official body to unequivocally mandate correct English usage, the evolution of the language has always been a free-for-all. Tim Shuba ( talk) 18:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering what you think of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Golden_ratio, seeing as it's up for deletion and you're one of only two active members of it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You requested citations on the carpe diem article. I restored the link to the dictionary entry on perseus. This link was deleted from the article some time ago for some unknown reason, most likely vandalism. Gx872op ( talk) 15:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated speed of light for FAC. As a major contributor, please leave your 2cents on the review page. TimothyRias ( talk) 16:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit. Ceoil ( talk) 07:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I refactored your survey entry at the quotation RFC to fit the schema of short numbered entries without discussion. I hope that's OK. Also, you've said TQ where you probably meant LQ (first use); I left that. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Finell, I mentioned an old edit of yours at WT:AT#“Conciseness” wording. Your perspective would be appreciated. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello there,I'm that user who's been the victim of editing the Fields Medal page(i.e.I got blocked with charge of Vandalism.).I've got three question:1)When the current protected status of that page ends,Does the page current contents remain in place or they are replaced with the old version? 2)I've prepared a new and somehow comprehensive table about Fields medalists.I posted this table on the discussion section of the Fields Medal page,and I request for comments about this(If You come there and see my that table I will be really glad,and don't forget to put your comment about it down there!;-)),but so far,just one person did so.Is it normal? 3)Should I submit a request for edit to replace the new table with current one?Or should I wait for reaching a consensus?Thank You. Rezameyqani (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezameyqani ( talk • contribs)
Hello, Finell
Please be careful while editing!
Your edits in Microsoft Small Basic seems to have damaged it. I have restored the last known good version. Let's see what we can salvage of your edits. Please edit in contextual-distinct units and preview your edits.
Also, your talk page is badly in the need of an archiving setup.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 08:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey,
I wanted to let you know that I encountered (and really appreciated and admired) the following message you posted:
Temperment[edit] Michael, I see that you devote a lot of time to Wikipedia and make many valuable contributions, especially in upholding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I also tend to do a lot of copy editing and conforming articles to WP:MOS. However, you could do even more good for Wikipedia by continuing to do what you do with more tact toward other editors. I base this recommendation on reading the most recent archives of your Talk page. Standards are important, but encouraging broader public participation in creating and editing Wikipedia is even more important to the project in the long run (I'm not talking about deliberate vandals). Where possible, consider trying to salvage imperfect edits rather than reverting them—especially with well-intentioned, but inexperienced, Wikipedians. Also, consider using a more friendly, welcoming tone in your communications with other editors and even in your edit summaries, especially with less experienced editors. There will always be a corps of editors who like to copy edit and to conform articles to the MOS. However, recruiting and retaining new editors, and broadening the diversity of editors, are two of the most serious problems that confront the Wikipedia project.—Finell 09:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
My first ever article, The Wood Nymph, recently got the copy-editing ax. :) And, honestly, I felt a little discouraged, too. I want to learn (I'm completely self-taught through trial and error), because I do not see the page I created as a one-off. Rather, I have The Oceanides stub expanded in my in-box after a lot of work. But now I'm thinking twice about ever pasting it into the stub page. Maybe you wouldn't mind looking at it, because the 'mistakes' I made on The Wood Nymph page will also be on the sandbox article. I'd like to learn, and you seem to have a helpful temperament.
Thanks,
Sgvrfjs ( talk) 22:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of us tend to keep refs over a single line. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
At
User talk:Fuzzypeg#Pentagram of Venus i communicated to the contributor of the most recent version of
Pentagram#Pentagram of Venus about my concern that that section needs to become an independent page (and be linked from the
Pentagram article). You also may want to consider commenting at
Talk:Pentagram#Omnibunstrosity.
--
Jerzy•
t 01:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
1.Jump up^ Faculty Conference of July 30, 2015 does refer to BH Hair in her summary, near the end, click talks, click her name, here is another source of that same talk: physicsgirl.com and click the icon next to the date 7/30/15.
1.Jump up^ Beyond the Standard Model Journal Club That lists her talk, and the paper currently listed as ref 4 contains the support of the fact that she completed during that talk, that talk put the finishing touches on the note.
She has notes on that same cite, for example on 12/16/14 she says "I propose a gravitational wave" but then on 2/22/15 it is "We proposed" The talks Strings India, Chicago, Harvard other all call the concepts 'the Triangle' and 'Spin Memory'
When I put in FN 7, I mean FN 7, not citation 7.
Any other help would be greatly appreciated. The Colloquy is an official GSAS publication that lists her as Mode 2, from what I hear, there is not another one in Physics, it is rare (I suppose all thefunding from Hertz helps)
Thank you again... and yes, none of this would be possible without Weinberg's help. 76.16.211.203 ( talk) 06:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean by complete references. 76.16.211.203 ( talk) 06:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
and added them in
good night, thank you 76.16.211.203 ( talk) 07:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mother's Day 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) 22:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Finell Thanks for your contributions to the Kanban (development) page which I'm also trying to improve. You added an "Advert" tag to the page on July 25th. Can you give me some examples of the language you think should be changed? Thanks. Andycarmichaeluk ( talk) 11:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:UW Dawgs: You smell like poo!. Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 06:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).
?fuzzy=1
to the URL, as with
Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).
Hello, Finell. 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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Score, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Musical score ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).
contains_all
that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).
equals_to_any
function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to
see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to
Logstash.News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).
Hi Finell,
I'm the freelance editor who was asked by Honeywell to fix the TPE331 Wiki page. Although I've been doing minor edits to various WP pages in areas of my other expertise, as you can probably tell, I'm pretty new to doing anything but changing a word or two here and there or adding a single citation. This is my first attempt to overhaul a page and although I have some basic (very basic) WP editing skills, I'm certainly not an expert in the various disclosures needed and matters of citation formatting/coding. I've tried reading through the various WP manuals, documentation and other material but don't seem to be making any progress in either understanding that material or getting the various flags removed from the TPE331 page. In short, I'm befuddled.
So I'm throwing myself at your mercy to see if you can help me figure this out. I thought I had met the requirement for disclosing my conflict of interest but apparently not sufficiently. I was holding off trying to fix some citation issues until the page got moved from "Garrett" to "Honeywell." As a separate issue, I see that the whole new section on "performance" was removed and I'd like to see if this useful user information could be re-instated, perhaps once we figure out the disclosure issue(s).
Can you help? Jveeds ( talk) 18:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)jveeds Jim V
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).
Hi,
I notice that in this edit, you replaced the link via redirect (for name " The JAMs") with a link for The KLF. However, this is contrary to the guidance given by the Manual of Style entry covering redirection on dab pages, which favours linking via redirect when:-
Both these apply here. The example given (for Jim Carrey) specifically notes the redirect version to be "correct" and the direct link version as "incorrect".
Hope this explains things. Ubcule ( talk) 11:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Major and minor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triad ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muriel Bristol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Roach ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Interface administrator changes
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metropolitan Opera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matinée ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Finell. 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)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Interface administrator changes
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MIMO, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antenna ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Done:Thanks, DPL bot. I would never opt out of your always-helpful notifications.— Finell 20:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
An article you recently created,
Heteronuclear ion, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
CASSIOPEIA(
talk) 06:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zvezda (ISS module), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Module ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
|
|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Heteronuclear ion, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Interface administrator changes
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
|
|
the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpretedrather than
reasonably construed.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
must notundo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than
should not.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited DREAM Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pass ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Complementarity (molecular biology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complementarity.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
mustor
shoulduse the articles for creation process.
Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.( American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Annus Mirabilis papers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantum theory.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Interface administrator changes
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blackface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folk.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Interface administrator changes
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at
Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Interface administrator changes
oversight
will be renamed to suppress
. This is for
technical reasons. You can comment at
T112147 if you have objections.Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RadioShack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franchise.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dynamic rope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Load.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parachute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canopy.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frame of reference, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axis.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The WikiEagle |
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter |
Volume I — Issue 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Announcements
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Members
New Members
Number of active members: 386.
Total number of members: 921.
Closed Discussions
|
Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New/Ongoing Discussions
On The Main Page Did you know...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at
The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the
mailing list. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pilates. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:39, 2 February 2022 (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 complementary and alternative medicine. 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.
Alexbrn ( talk) 19:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
oversight
will be renamed suppress
in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for
technical reasons. You can comment
in Phabricator if you have objections.News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
|
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.
The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [17] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.
Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future. Sgerbic ( talk) 07:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
deletelogentry
and deletedhistory
rights. This means that those in the
Researcher user group and
Checkusers who are not administrators can now access
Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (
T301928)News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
|
|
Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Keeper of Lost Causes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victim.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Done
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
user_global_editcount
is a new variable that can be used in
abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (
T130439)Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Allele, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trait.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).
Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).
{{
rangeblock|create=yes}}
or {{
uw-ublock|contains profanity}}
.The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).
/64
to the end of an IP in
Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and
consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 54, November – December 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).
|
|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).
|
|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).
|
|
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Casimir effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Retardation.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).
|
|
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maximum usable frequency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angle of incidence.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).
Interface administrator changes
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).
|
|
[s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to
note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Interface administrator changes
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to my talk page!
Please click
HERE to leave me a new message.
Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
I will respond on this page to your messages, unless you ask me to respond on your Talk page or elsewhere.
Welcome!
Hello, Finell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 04:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear RJFJR: Thanks for the Welcome message you left on my Talk page! I am curious how you even noticed my existence. Are you the official welcoming committee?? Thanks again. Finell 02:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
No, I didn't notice your note until you pointed it out to me. As for your other question, did you click the discussion tab when reading User:Rdsmith4/me? If not, I have no idea why that happened. It's not possible to modify the behavior of the tabs. In any case, I redirected User talk:Rdsmith4/me to my real talk page to avoid future confusion. — Dan | Talk 02:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and kind words on my RfA. Much appreciated. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 04:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
What exactly were you trying to do with these moves/redirects? It seems to me that all you really needed to do was edit the original version of "Golden mean" and change the redirect to point to Golden Mean. Am I missing something? Owen× ☎ 12:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the introduction--it looks much better now. I made sure the article was accurate, but the writing style isn't always very good. Some of the other paragraphs could probably use some help too. I would like to link to golden mean from NicEth, but I'll wait until it gets sorted out a little. WhiteC 15:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my RfA, and for the very kind words. Both are sincerely appreciated. Look forward to collaborate further with you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC) |
Here, Shell < e> 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, why did you comment out the entire latter part of the article? [1] -- Curps 05:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I missed any autoblocks, I think I checked for them and didn't find any. It's not clear why you weren't able to send e-mail, my e-mail is working fine and I receive e-mails daily. However, your edit did more than just add capital letters at the end of an HTML comment, you also added an HTML end comment string at the very end of the article (after the +zh interwiki link, and far away from the site of those capital letters) [3]. So despite what you said above, it really seems like you did intend to comment out the entire latter part of the article... probably you were experimenting and inadvertently saved that experiment to the actual page instead of the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Unfortunately, Solar eclipse was prominently linked from the main page, as a recent featured article, and we've had a lot of vandalism to such prominently featured articles lately, so it was a bit trigger-happy, but I did unblock the account name a minute later. Perhaps there really ought to be an option to unblock autoblocks at the same time that a username is unblocked. -- Curps 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.
This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject. |
Thanks!
--
evrik 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Finell, I am pleased to see your recent enthusiast contributions to astronomical history articles. One request: could you be less aggressive in editing, and try keep the number of edit sessions limited? I now see >10 changes a day in one article, it is hard to keep up reviewing them. Tom Peters 13:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Finell, I gave you the wrong answer on the meaning of VAT in reference to clay tablets: it is an abbreviation for Vorder-Asiatische Tontafelsammlung, and they are (or used to be) kept in Berlin musea, not in the Vatican. Tom Peters 22:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment you posted on my Talk page regarding the Golden Ratio graphic, I wrote a short reply to it there. Good luck on the article. - Eisnel 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Steven, I am not sure what you are asking about. Last I checked I could not detect any material that I added to the Golden Ratio page. Do you know where the link has gone? I am pretty sure there was one to one of the pages at my site, with all the proofs and relevant sources for a follow-up. Did you find any wrong with this arrangement? - Alexb@cut-the-knot.com 21:19, 3 October 2006 (EST)
Steven, sorry. Absolutely forgot about what I did. The piece about the 4:3 ratio appeared in one of Keith Devlin's columns at the MAA site a few years back. If need be I can find it. As to the potential of the wide screen, this is of course a speculation, but a reasonable one, in view of the mystical aesthetic value ascribed to the Golden Ratio. There is a nice link to a misconceptions page. - Alexb@cut-the-knot.com 21:41, 3 October 2006 (EST)
Eh? Minor? To be frank, I didn't even known you can mark moves as minor. I must have thought I was marking the target for deletion! Dunno how that happened. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean " mass nouns" or "math nouns"? Till 15 September the text was still The word "mathematics" is often abbreviated math in the U.S. and Canada and maths in Britain, Ireland, Australia and many other Commonwealth countries. [4] Then it was changed to North America, after some discussion, now in the archives. If one defines the Google hit operator Gh by Gh[X] = the number of Google hits for search term "X", and the maths ratio for site S by mrS = Gh[maths site:S]/Gh[mathematics site:S], we find experimentally that mr.uk ≈ 0.95, whilst mr.ca ≈ 0.07, supporting the theory of Canadian neighbourly conformance. I'm somewhat reluctant to transform this insight into a contribution to our article Canadian English ( North American English confines itself to the U.S.), as it is based on original research. The article seems to take the position anyway that by default the lexicon for Canadian English is the same as for American English, as it mainly documents the differences between these two. -- Lambiam Talk 20:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Finell, thanks for your kind comment regarding Lavinia Williams. Sorry I haven't been around much to reply. You suggested I list the additional citations I found (and mentioned on the article's talk page) under "References" in the article itself. The only thing is, I have no idea if they are real, trustworthy, or accurately transcribed. The citations on the talk page (as opposed to the ones in the articles) are citations I have seen references to online, but where I have not actually seen or heard the books, videos, or audiotapes myself, and could not even find them listed in library catalogs that I checked. I mentioned them on the talk page to give people who wanted to work on the article ideas for places to look, but I didn't want to just blindly propagate them into the article before someone checked up on them. EsdnePyaJ 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Adding your information to my talk page is not appropriate. A word is not inherently a personal attack, and using the "dick rule" is quite appropriate. If you have a complaint about it, find the talk page there, and do not edit my page because you disagree with something that is tossed around by many editors and admin as a good rule of thumb. SanchiTachi 04:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear SanchiTachi:
The views expressed in your item "The Following Words are Not Personal Attack Terms" are misleading and are a dangerous endorsement of personal attacks and incivility, particularly to individuals who are new to the Wikipedia community. Do you really contend that if someone wrote on Wikipedia that you are a dick or a bully, or that you behave like one, that would not constitute a personal attack? Therefore, I added corrective information that is documented by the Wikipedia official policy statements that were linked in what I added.
Furthermore, you should take to heart the comments of other Wikipedians who have expressed the view that some of your conduct has been uncivil or has constituted personal attacks, and consider that they may not all be mistaken. At least, consider whether your contributions to Wikipedia would be more effective and more readily accepted it you stopped engaging in conduct that several other Wikipedians view as disruptive. Also, you may find greater satisfaction in your participation here if your conduct is not the object of this sort of criticism. I am not suggesting that you avoid controversy, but rather that you advocate your position on controversial issues more effectively.
As for the immediate issue of your item "The Following Words are Not Personal Attack Terms", I suggest that you do one of the following: (1) Delete the item; or (2) Restore my response in the interest of balance. Of these, I believe that the first one would be best.
Regarding your accusation that my addition was vandalism, please review Wikipedia:Vandalism and you will see that it is not: I did not change or delete what you wrote. If, after reviewing that statement of official policy, you still contend that my addition was vandalism, please either invoke Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or commence formal dispute resolution, so the issue can be resolved authoritatively.
Finell (Talk) 05:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with his multilicensing under GFDL and PD. I just spent like....3 hours looking into it. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 13:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that primary sources are perfectly acceptable sources on WP and your insistance of adding {{unreferenced}} to an article which cites its sources is quite surprising. If you are unfamiliar with the subject matter and find it unbelievable, you would do much better reading up on the matter. Here you have the following sources to the subject matter with *published* English translations, including commentaries:
You would do much better adding these external links to the article than to engage in an edit war insisting on pretending that the article does not cite its sources.-- Berig 17:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Finell
Thanks for your message on my talk page. Attempts to contact the secretary of Bertie's Cabal and clarify the rules for membership have thus far proved fruitless.
I think I wrote the piece as I had intended, but accept it may have been more amusing if reworded. I did, however, your point of view until I was worried that my head might asplode and then decided to go bowling instead.
Paul Tracy|\ talk 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Peter Nehr is a subject of interest. Reasons being that he is only Austrian-American natualized citizen that I know of that has made it to the Florida State Legislature that I have been able to find in my research. Thus, that makes him a first in his category. He is now a freshman with sponsored bill which have passed which makes him of significance in any state since he is now within state history regardless of scale of importance. I thank you for taking time to review and appreciate the scope of your position in trying to keep the range and scope of Wikipedia down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitanehr ( talk • contribs)
re:Anita, I see no indication that you have been locked out of Wikipedia. Your user name is Anitanehr and your account is not blocked. What do you mean that you are locked out? On the other hand, what do you mean by gaining "exclusive access"? No one has exclusive access to Wikipedia articles; everyone has equal access. Also, the fact that you are the subject's wife and were "assigned to establish the Wikipedia listing for [your] husband" suggests the potential for violating the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. Finell (Talk) 07:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Continuing this discussion please, Finell, It was my mistake on being "locked out"...please forgive, I am new and I was not locked out. Now as to conflict of interest. I could see how my writing style could be construed as biased and changed it to strictly factual and will be providing all backup within the next 2 weeks so that my article is referenced as in my Graduate and my PhD papers were and will be. Will this alleviate any problems for you where conflict of interst are concerned? Doctoral theses have been written on some cases where no distance exists in some areas of science and yet fact can be maintained in the writing. Being close to him, I know his background better than someone else and have access to factual documents such as birth records, naturalization papers, etc that someone outside would not. I also read German fluently which allows me to read old data from before he came to this country should I ever need to add any prior historical information later as his career progresses which the Party asserts to me will happen. I will await your answer. Thank you in being so kind and patient with me. AnitanehrAnita
Hi Steven, Now that Die Feen contains a synopsis and some critical opinions, I think it is not too far off being suitable for candidacy as a good article. As a preliminary, I'm trying to sort out the referencing. I noticed you added a reference to the booklet from the Sawallisch set. I wonder whether you can help me on who wrote the notes and what pages they are in the booklet? Contentwise, does it indicate whether the recording was made in 1982, as the article previously stated) or 1983 which would fit better with the centenary celebrations? I also wonder if it is a source for the history of the manuscript (ie. its being given to Ludwig and then to Hitler and then being lost) or the lack of braodcasting. Thanks. -- Peter cohen 11:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've done much of what you suggested above. The WP:WPO recommended style is to have a discography at the bottom and a performance history warly on. I'll have a think how best to split the performance and recording material. The Sources section has a query against it, anyway from our trial assessments, and is likely to be replaced by further reading and external links sections. As for, the inline citations, my initial contact with you was to do with finding what was said in which sources. Who the commentators are in the lead mentioned in the lead is explained in the article (specifically) in the The music section. I intend to check which of the performers at the premiere are important. at WP:Wagner we are compiling a list of singers who need articles. Thanks again for your comments and good wishes.-- Peter cohen 23:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd consider using those language userboxes, so other editors can easily know which languages you are proficient in?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I looked it up in the
Brockhaus Enzyklopädie and in a text from the
Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. His nationality isn't mentioned in my edition of the Brockhaus Encyclopedia, but the text from the ADB
[6] has one paragraph devoted to this question. Should I translate it?
In der Wissenschaft ist er ein Mann, der nicht einer Nation angehört means For/In science he is a man who has neither/no nationality. It also says that his nationality couldn't be determined clearly and has been a matter of dispute.
I could also cite the german wikipedia (leading and modern), but this won't count, would it? I hope I could help. --
Versusray 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Versusray: Cite rather the "Neue Deutsche Biographie", this is the continuation of "Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie". The last "Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie" edition seems to be from 1912. And rather take the newest edition of "Neue Deutsche Biographie" not those from 1953. The older edition can likely disrespect the neutral point of view; most probably because it is the Polish heritage case - which need to be minimized, is not it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.219.176 ( talk) 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned in the talk page of the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon article that you saw evidence of my lack of regard for other users and their viewpoints on my user talk page. In good faith, I re-read the content on my talk page, and I didn't see any evidence of a lack of regard for other users or viewpoints, unless your definition of "lack of regard" somehow includes "disagreement". At any rate, I found the personal attack offensive. Rray 19:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
regards, Rich 03:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your desire to adhere to the letter of the law of the MOS, but it is only a guideline. Because featured articles try to attain a professional standard of writing, it is important when getting an article ready for that venue to keep that standard in mind. Professional style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style dictate that centuries should be spelled out. Academic presses spell out their centuries as well. I'm not going to revert this change again, but I would appreciate it if you would consider the explanation left in the edit summary and the discussion on the article's talk page before reverting. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 19:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, that simply slipped through the net -- if I don't respond when I first get the new messages bar I tend to forget about it. Anyway I responded on my talk page. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, but it does seem to be tangential to the question: do you support the idea that MOS central takes precedence by default, thus encouraging debate on the talk pages of both MOS and the relevant sub-page to resolve inconsistencies (soon after they're identified, we hope)? Tony (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI - he is entitled to delete or archive the information on his userpage, including inactive block/unblock notices and warnings. Avruch T 15:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll respond to your comment on my talkpage. Avruch T 03:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there
Just a note to tell you I've responded at at my talk. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to create a category to list all the works that were designed with golden proportions or at least been studied because of it's coinciding properties in diverse publications (say, like Stone Henge or the Arc of Noah)... but I can't figure out the right name for such category. I'll also bee needing at least some peer review of the experts. -- 20-dude ( talk) 11:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"(...)omits from its list of resources many of the authoritative sources cited in the Golden ratio article itself." I'm just starting. Howcome every single editor expects every article to be finished already when it is just starting? I'm starting the list from scratch. First placing the books written by the historical researchers, then the academic and scientific researchers from universities and scientific organizatons, then other authors, then internet pages from academic/scientific, and finally regular sourced useful amateur internet pages... If you want you would be more than welcomed to put those sources you mention in the project. Because of your next comment there is still a lot left for me to do:
Also, as the Golden ratio article shows, a lot of nonsense has been written about the golden ratio, and not everything written on the topic is by a reliable source. Yes I'm plenty aware. I could use some more of your advising here. I was thinking on maybe dividing the list in:
But that would left some other works like the Gothic cathedrals right in the middle. They have unknown authors but the geometrical coincidence is even more detailed than the parthenon.
What are your thoughts? By the way, even if you're an opposer you should be involved.-- 20-dude ( talk) 02:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Nice going with the list! I like a lot the changes you made.-- 20-dude ( talk) 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant opposer to the WikiProject (since you didn't seem to like it too much), but that was a poor choice of words on my part, anyway. I know you're a great contributor to the golden ratio articles and that's why I came to you. Reinassance is a toughie, but you're right, that's really embarrasing. hahaha. It shouldn't happen.-- 20-dude ( talk) 02:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean any disrespect to the work done and its researchers. The sources there will be eventually placed, but I'm sure even you agree that's the kind of work that can be ready from the beginning. It was my initiative to include a list of sources that can be researched for the related articles, nobody told me to do so and is not that common to see that sort of lists in a Wikiproject.-- 20-dude ( talk) 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your reply is in my talk page: -- 20-dude ( talk) 04:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You gave me constructive criticism, I'll do the same for you:
-- 20-dude ( talk) 07:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, stop copying what I post on your page in my page. It is not a big deal if I sign up and I axidentally wasn't logged in. I was doing edits from another site. It is not like you have to mind anyway. Same with my warning. That's right my warning is ok yours not. You have to avoid blank reverting and when you see somebody doing so you HAVE to warn him before. I hate wasting my time like this but:
.618=.382+.236=(.618)²+(.618)³ ...so, you can eat your words.
Specifically the word nonsense. Somebody else might consider that an attack on your part, but I'll assume there is good faith somewhere. Read your comments again, they were uncalled for and very unpleasent.
When Dick blanked my edits twice, back then the article was mostly a list with the books that talk about them as related to golden ratio. He erased the Parthenon 4 Gosh sake! The whole thing is inscribed in a freaking golden prism! You're attacking the editor and not the ploblem (against WP: guidelines, btw)Results speak for themselves, with the exception of the arks (wich I respected when Dick took them off) I have proven that every item was right. You should have observed the items were a very specific selection from the beginning. I could defenitely suport your concern I were placing just any monument like an idiot, say the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower or the Great Wall, ut there is no justification for taking off such trascendental work as the gothic cathedrals. To finish soon: the damn parthenon paragraphs were actually (and rightfuly) long time part of the Golden ratio article and he took it of!!! PHIdias for gosh sake!!
I tired of this, please let's move on. There's still too much to do. -- 20-dude ( talk) 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Not recently. When I'm editing from another computer and I feel to lazy to sing in, you can tell it is me by my familiar way of addresing the editors that always implies that I know them and it is me. And if ask later I always confirm. Sometimes I even change the signature myself (I also always sign)-- 20-dude ( talk) 23:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Finell. Thank you for your contributions to the article Richard Dawkins. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 04:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit at WP:MoS, Steven. That's the first time someone has gotten it exactly right, I think. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 17:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Finell I was wondering what your objection to changing the nationality of Euclid is. As it is known, Euclid was probably born in Alexandria. He taught and died in it. No one can confirm that he is purely Greek while what is more confirmed is that most of his life was spent in Egypt. He is even called "Euclid of Alexandria". In the hellinic period the Egyptian and Greek civilizations were strongly mixed with each other and each of them influenced the other. Euclid and many other scientists of Alexandria in the Byzantine age are results of that mix. So it is fair to claim both nationalities for them. So I do not understand why this insistence on claiming a doubtful piece of information (i.e. that he is purely Greek) while refusing something that might have greater evidence? Please note that I am saying he is a Greek/Egyptian and I am not claiming that he is only Egyptian. I linked the NAHSTE website in external links. If you did some search in the internet you would find many evidences that support my claim. Best wishes, Ahmedettaf April 5 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedettaf ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Correction to my last message: I meant the two civilizations (Egyptian and Greek) were strongly interacting with each other during the Ptolemaic empire and not the Byzantine age. Sorry about that Ahmedettaf ( talk) 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove cited information, it is considered vandalism. Chessy999 ( talk) 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not add any new information. My change was just a correction from Minister to Plenipotentiary Minister (which is the correct title for diplomatic envoys (see Diplomatic rank). Ministers without any other specification can be anything but diplomatic staff. I also added a reference to justify the rest of the information included in the article. I am willing to comply to your request if you are so kind and explain what I did wrong. Afil ( talk) 15:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I will make the corrections accordingly. Actually the entire book is about Matila Ghyka.
Afil (
talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see my opinion on removing that content here. Nothing personal, I just don't think that content of articles should be held in ransom when it happens to be in accordance with wikipedia policies. (it was libel or it had unreliable sources, it would be different, but this is not the case) -- Enric Naval ( talk) 21:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with the LoJack issue. I am not going to push this any further, delete or modify the content just because I think that it should not be there. Wikipedia is a community site and people on it can use it and do what they want with it. I am surprised at the social ethics of some of your contributors, it seems to be a lot more ego then common sense. The people that feel that everything should be out there should be careful for what they wish for because when they realize why some things shouldn't be so available, it will be too late. This really is not a big deal, it is already out there anyway, Wikipedia just makes it easier to find. Please respond in my talk page if you need to reach me. Summitrt ( talk) 02:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep editing articles that are barely within your field of knowledge? the problem is also that your edita are too strong compared to your researching. Since unlike Dicklyon, you never increase sourcing or information, I can't avoid having this perception. Read the source, not the entire thing but specifically the chapter, section or paragraph that contextualizes the wikipedia statement that you're modifiying. This is too focus on your actions, but that's why you always get the content wrong.
To ilustrate my point, your edits the extreme oposite (meaning as bad) of what you consider mine to be: I my writing often need polishing but the information always prove right, stay and evolves into something even better (save for the biblical arcs); while your polishing lacks aproximation to the sources and end up twisting words to the point that the connection to what the source says stops existing.
Also, there was an ongoing discussion about the use of "he calls", the resolution was that there is no need to use such controversial afirmation when there are milloin of ways of expressing the same thing without affirmating something we can't prove: we don't have a sourse stating who coined the term, in consecuence we can't the coining to anyone and twisting word's in the article is not helping either.
Please, as a personal favor, think of you're answser, twice. Because I barely control my temper, an although its all my problem and fault, it's never a good idea to trigger it.
A sugestion, ask when you don't understand something I write, don't claim it is wrong. Read yourself in the talk pages (as I often do my writting). All your claims were proven wrong or just partially right. The articles remains in escense the same, which is all I care for (I'm not tight with the words I write at all, but with the statements and points they make).-- 20-dude ( talk) 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Consider this a warning. "It is an embarrassment". Is not acceptable as a description, its mean, offensive and raises suspicion of bad faith on your part (because it's too subjective). I demand your apologies.
And no, it's not an embarrassment, it is a stub. You don't like it, go fight the use of stubs at the policy pages, I don't care. Since the only good source in Google books is not good enough for me. I left it there, as a stub, to see if an expert comes along.
It is also not "my child". Quit going through my contributions, you're embarrassing yourself and if I were another person I could do the same to you, but that wouldn’t be civil (in a broader conception of the term). You always forget to ask before making strong statements and weak warnings, because I would have told you to erase it for all I care.
Please don’t reply. You can do as you please with the stub you have my “permission”. It’ll be fun to see what can you do as a researcher (I’m not stating any perception of you here, just to be clear). Again, please do not reply, I won’t care to read it. -- 20-dude ( talk) 23:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving. xenocidic ( talk) 14:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, I'm sure is just a bad choice of words, but your usage of the word "unintelligible" enrages me (I'm just expressing the effect). That's because a) it's not, the definition of that word goes beyond what you meant (which I'll assume is bad grammar, phrasing or spelling) b) in the past you have showed a limited knowledge and capability understanding the topic, therefore, you must realize unintelligible to you might mean just that (unintelligible to Finell)c) all the paragraphs were created at different times and I'm not the only creator or those 3 paragraphs, d) it's incredibly disrespectful to the creators, much more when you erase it.
I'll move on, but in the future try to think twice and be more considerate before behaving like that. Somehow, you insist on editing a topic you're barely familiar with, that's cool, but take in consideration you are barely familiar with it, so that our collaboration gets better (I understand you're relatively new to the topic, you that I'm relatively new to your language).I put them back, but since your comments and actions let me confused about the problem with them, I did some editing. However, I'm not sure if that was an improvement, please fix them (as you already proved you can), and I'll check them later to make sure the sources are cited right.-- 20-dude ( talk) 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You used the comments on my page against me, so I do the same and we're both right (you about me and vice versa):
Please don't remove cited information, it is considered vandalism. Chessy999 (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-- 20-dude ( talk) 21:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Finnel, if, as you claim, that Elements is the most the "successful" textbook, etc. etc., and that there are reliable sources (you know, besides the RS page), then cite them in the text, preferably with the context.
Otherwise I could equally claim that I have reliable sources that suggest otherwise, and both claims would be on level.
In sum, WP:PROVEIT.
Danjel ( talk) 08:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a note - I responded to your undo in the Euclid Discuss
NittyG ( talk) 06:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Finnel,
I'm sorry I got pushy. I think we both got pretty frustrated. I answered to your reply. Lets take a deep breath and be constructive, objective, and focus now. Objections to what I put are natural, and I understand and appreciate the time you're putting forth in discussing this.
I figured I'd respond the the connect-the-dots remark. I understand why you put that where you did, but we should discuss these things on each others talk page from here on.
What I mean by connect-the-dots is, like in the case of the tin article, also put where tin comes from. The update I did to that article along those lines were regarded highly by the authors, which I'm a part of now.
We may not agree on everything, but lets work it out, work together for the interest of wikipedia
thanks NittyG ( talk) 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Finnel - what do you think about the edits I made? NittyG ( talk) 04:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Finnel - please note the discussion topic on the bottom of the Euclid talk page. Thanks. NittyG ( talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thx for your thoughts. Tony (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
And why on Earth did you revert my changes? Which "source" do you need, if I proved that formula by myself, because could not find it neither at wikipedia, nor in books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Lakhturov ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
re: you have redirected the link again.
Here in the Wikipedia, if one knows a subject (honestly) and be able to provide better explanation to that subject than as it is shown, then such things are beneficial to readers.
Your ways of doing thing (like, only cutting and redirection etc.) is usually a norm of a person who has no knowledge but pretend to be of showing alike (character of self derogatory for something....
Now it is clear that you do not understand those basic English. So why you have to involve if you do not know.
I will redirect one more time. But if you play again the same thing, I will leave it.
Why don’t you provide some more links or explanations if you can?
Nevill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.78.169 ( talk) 02:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It's no big deal but I'd rather you didn't make changes to my signed comments. If you feel a small change, like the one you made today, would help things along, then just send me a message about it so I can make it myself.
This is no way the same thing as when you altered the statement topping the quotation section. That was meant to be a public message and your change was moderate and explained. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have implemented an Infobox Scientist in the lead of the Joseph Priestley article, effectively right-aligning the much-disputed placement of the image and left my rationales on Talk:Joseph Priestley. Because I strenuously disagree with the alleged consensus about violating guidelines about image placement and consensus across a wide body of other articles, I have offered to open an RfC for more editors' involvement. Madcoverboy ( talk) 21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed a comment you made at Talk:Manual_of_Style where you express concern that an en dash might mess up search engines, etc. I wonder if you are aware that WP:Naming conventions requires us to always create a redirect for the hyphenated version when we use a dash in an article title? I have always assumed it is for precisely this reason. (Personally, I favor hyphen being always used in article titles, with dashes redirected, since that's how people think and type.) Eaglizard ( talk) 01:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I really didn't mean to revert your edits but those of the anon which changed the article right before you. And then I had some trouble with the parentheses. Thanks. radek ( talk) 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice fix, Finell. Tony (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That was quite a lecture you gave at Talk:Speed of light. It seems unlikely that it will do any good. If you have any specific suggestions for me, let me know, as I realize I'm sometimes part of the problem. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, could you keep an eye on this user and watch out for any nonsense edits/misinformation he inserts? Given his history it is difficult to see this user being productive. Triplestop x3 02:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
After your heavyweight and threatening comments about behavioral change being needed from editors of the 'Speed of light' article I was somewhat surprised to see that, despite on ongoing discussion on the subject in an attempt to reach a durable consensus, you decided to rewrite the lead yourself. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
A ban has been implemented by you upon D Tombe. The basis for this action appears to be an assessment of D Tombe's activities outside the article speed of light, and even outside of WP altogether. Within this article, he has presented a perfectly cogent viewpoint, which I share along with various eminent published sources ((for example Wheeler; Jespersen; Sydenham), that 299 792 458 m/s is not a fundamental constant of nature, but an arbitrary conversion factor introduced by CODATA in 1983. In view of impeccable sources upon this issue, it is surprising to me that you would intervene simply to support a majority rule stance by a cabal of misinformed editors that cannot make nice distinctions in usage of words. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear you're not part of a cabal, but all I meant was that your actions seem to support what I have flatteringly called a cabal, which in turn is built from a pig-headed unwillingness to discuss matters. Brews ohare ( talk) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Finell, The peer reviewed papers in question have been supplied by Brews. I have looked at two of them and they are unequivocal about the point in question. You have been mislead by another editor who tried to tell everybody that I wrote the peer reviewed papers in question. I didn't, and I have explained that to him on his talk page. I'm waiting for him to correct the matter. I'm also waiting for your updated announcement about your 'ban evasion' accusation in relation to the anonymous IP server. I thought that you were going to do a 'checkuser' and come back to us all and announce the result. It's important that you don't leave a serious allegation like this outstanding. Somebody's reputation will remain at stake until you complete your investigation. David Tombe ( talk) 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I see. So you want me to do instigate a checkuser on myself in order to clear myself from your suspicions that you have widely announced? David Tombe ( talk) 09:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The only way that I know of to counter the complete nonsense at Wikipedia:Paid editing is to come up with an alternative Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text. Free free to stop by and contribute. If you know of a better way, please let me know. The reason that Wikipedia:Paid editing is in the shape it is in is that a single editor reverts everybody else's contributions, so that I request that everybody follow WP:1RR on the alternatives page. Smallbones ( talk) 21:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Finell: In presenting matters to Dicklyon I am really trying to consult him on this subject, and not trying to set up another venue for attacks upon my so-called "fringe views". If Dicklyon concludes that something of value to the speed of light crops up, I am sure he will present it in the proper venue more capably than I. So please do not feel obliged to "head me off at the crossroads". Any possible outcome of this little dialog with Dicklyon will surely show up with ample opportunity for you to call it fringe, idiosyncratic, stupid, blind, or whatever you deem (very politely) appropriate. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have some useful advice, please repeat it. Personally, I think my arguments are correct, but that in peoples' minds I am associated with extreme views that, in fact, I have never espoused, which has led to an unwillingness to look at the actual statements I have made and at the sources I have suggested. You yourself have done this, and in fact have extended the problem by misreading the hypothetical example I provided as some kind of claim supporting weird physics. Compounding the problem still further is a tendency of many to use pejorative remarks about "fringe science" idiosyncrasy" and so forth, that have no basis in fact, and are employed to avoid real reasoning, but create a bandwagon effect among those too lazy to evaluate matters for themselves. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You are ending this discussion prematurely. I do not think you have understood my statements correctly, and are characterizing misconceptions of them as "wrong". Dicklyon has said (so far as my A& B example goes) that it is correct but unsourced. That is different from your opinion, I believe. Rather than repeat unkind adjectives like "fallacious" "unwarranted extension", etc. why not undertake to examine matters more closely with me?? Brews ohare ( talk) 20:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, while the comment left by anon was definitely weird and perhaps even inflammatory I didn't see any outright bigotry in it. I have seen much worse, direct, explicit bigotry on talk pages and in edit summaries made by some of the involved editors, go unpunished (though not always). But I will defer to your judgment on this one. radek ( talk) 12:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Please attend to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Speed of light and comment if you wish. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 03:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Finell, I can see that this business about the Lone Ranger has been perplexing you. To put your mind at rest, go to the talk page at Faraday's law. Somewhere down there, you'll see the Lone Ranger involved in a discussion. He's clearly quite sympathetic to what I am saying, but I think you'll find that his analysis of the situation diverges from mine. The Lone Ranger seems to think that the motionally induced EMF is not a part of Faraday's law. I disagree. I think that the time varying aspect and the motionally dependent aspect are two aspects of a single law that can be expressed in total time derivative format. Whoever the Lone Ranger is, he clearly uses a dynamic server which is why you keep thinking that he is a new man in town. I've seen him alot in the past at various articles. I'd be grateful if you could make this information available to all those who you have been making enquiries with. David Tombe ( talk) 10:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Progress is now being made at WP:Paid editing. The topic is very important, and I'd love to get the proposed policy back on track. If you have any input, I'd love to see it on the page. Smallbones ( talk) 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
David does have somewhat of a point - comments like [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light/Workshop&curid=24280965&diff=317400899&oldid=317347898 have nothing to do with the current dispute, so far as I can tell. If I'm mistaken, please let me know, but in that case you do need to provide evidence to show that sockpuppetry is currently an issue. Bringing this up after I just explicitly said he's not socking is over the line. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Finell. Your current evidence section at the Speed of Light case is well over the established 1,000 word limits. When you get a chance, please shorten it to fit within this restriction.
Also, as I mentioned in the section above, presented evidence should be kept relevant to the dispute at hand. Much of your evidence is relating to how David was using multiple accounts prior to his last indefinite block; I do not see how this is relevant to the dispute at the Speed of Light article. Please consider refactoring this information, or including details about how it is relevant to the current dispute. Thank you. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 22:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Who is the user that vandalized the main page? It would be interesting to check if your claims hold up. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
On WP:Civil you state your opinions regarding matters that are still under review as though they are facts.
You also accuse me of gaming the system, which I just don't get. How can a request for comment on the use of the one-line Edit Summary be gaming the system? The idea is simply to invite ideas on how to avoid cryptic summaries that may result in some heat on Talk pages.
It is an issue unrelated to Case/Speed of light, although I believe some of the problems there originate in these one-line Edit Summaries, and I have recommended that the Arbitrators consider that possible cause. I haven't tried to "nail" anybody for such activity. That is just my opinion as to one origin of unrest: it is not an attack on anybody; it is not uncivil; there is no axe grinding. Brews ohare ( talk) 18:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I took a look and found that the IP edit to the Workshop page earlier was not an instance of abusive sockpuppetry. Due to the Privacy Policy, there isn't much more I can say on the matter, but I would ask that you view the comment made as you would a comment from any other participant to the case. Thank you. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to delete catcalls by other editors on Talk: Speed of light, with the justification Delete unnecessary remark? If this is a good practice, you could actually delete a good third of the commentary on this page. Brews ohare ( talk) 18:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Finell, You misrepresented my position at the arbitration talk page, and I am not allowed to defend myself. You brought up a stale matter relating to my edits at the Mozart page over a year ago. You claimed that the dispute was over the issue of whether Mozart was a German or an Austrian, and that I had been arguing that he was a German. It is certainly my own opinion that Mozart only ever became an Austrian about 60 years after his death, but that was not what the argument was about.
The two camps in the argument were,
(1) Arguments to back up both cases. I was supported to this end by one other editor.
(2) No tolerance for any suggestion that Mozart was a German.
I was offering a compromise, and the relevant edit can be read here [9].
The real controversy surrounding that incident was not about truth, or sourcing, or willingness to consider both points of view. The controversy surrounded the issue of inserting material into main article space in the knowledge that it would be opposed by a large number of editors.
My counter argument was that the administration were not doing enough to thwart the activities of special interest groups who are intent on re-writing history. As a condition of my unblocking , I agreed to refrain from inserting material into main article space against a clear consensus. While I am disappointed that the administration cannot do more to counteract revisionist interest groups, I can also appreciate that it would not necessarily be an easy task to undertake, and so I have resigned to the reality of it. Since being unblocked, I can provide evidence that I have had a similar kind of dispute relating to New Zealand's independence date, and that I backed down in honour of my pledge.
There has been absolutely no repeat of the factors surrounding the Mozart debate in July 2008, and I'm very sorry that you felt the need to resurrect this issue at the 'speed of light' arbitration hearing because it provides absolutely no similar offence evidence whatsoever.
I would be much obliged if you would do the honourable thing and go to the arbitration talk page and clarify this matter on my behalf. It is totally out of order to try and poison the jury by misrepresenting irrelevant incidents from the past. David Tombe ( talk) 04:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your removal of the new passage about Anno Domini. I though it was really not in keeping with the theme of the article, and all that is needed is to make sure there is a link to the Anno Domini article somewhere in the Year article. I don't, however, agree that is POV to mention Anno Domini without mentioning the CE. When there are many names for something, it is normal in writing to mention only one of them. It is impossible to write if you try to make every sentence be a thesaurus.
If the poster tries again with a more acceptable description of the year numbering system, I hope you won't remove it just because it only mentions one of the names for the year numbering system. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
If you look on the proposed decision page history, you can see three edits around 21:30 by Carcharoth that were oversighted. I'm still not at all sure why -- the content is just Carcharoth voting on some proposals. TotientDragooned ( talk) 03:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Finell. I've replied to your last comment here, and posed a question for you in a new section immediately below. Reqards, Paul August ☎ 20:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your move request, I would like to point out that moving a talkpage IS an allowed way to archive it. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure. The other editor did not do anything wrong by archiving the talkpage by moving it. Users can still check the archives (which is actually easier than checking the logs), and there is also an option to search the archives of a article (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling for an example). You may not like this way of archiving a talkpage, but it is allowed and approved. TJ Spyke 21:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you. However, I closed the move as non-controversial because the user could have done the move him or herself (but wasn't autoconfirmed). Also, the user may be unaware that Animal studies exists. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your recent revert on Euclidean geometry art., the Reference section is to contain reflist - art. is referencing to some source, not Notes, and what is called Reference now - contains a list of publications related to whole issue discussed. So, I'm a bit puzzled with reverting. Pavel Modilaynen ( talk) 09:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Re your removal of the paragraph on litigation costs, with modification comment “This section is not about litigation”:
Given that the ‘Costs’ subsection immediately follows the ‘Rationale’ subsection, and is within a section entitled ‘Economics’, I'd have thought that litigation costs are actually more relevant than the costs of obtaining a patent, in that I would guess that litigation costs are a larger cost within the economy (based on the guess that the number of legal actions is more than about 32/1000 of the number of granted patents).
Accordingly, I intend to re-add the paragraph on litigation, and will in fact consider moving the litigation paragraph to before the filing costs text. I might also try to add brief mentions of other costs associated with granting patents.
See also Talk:Patent#Costs_associated_with_patents; feel free to move the above text to that section of the Talk page and reply there if you have ideas about how the information should be arranged.
[Incidentally, there was a typo in your nbsp change: missing ampersand, so ‘nbsp;’ appears literally in the rendering.] Pjrm ( talk) 06:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your various comments on the Tycho Brahe/Newton topic. One point puzzles me, though: what aspect of my last post on the Tycho Brahe talk page is it that you consider inadequately sourced for WP's article space? (Much of my text proposal put on the talk page is, no doubt, moot at this point. I only wrote there at some length to make a record dealing with matters that might possibly crop up elsewhere. But a few words in explanation of your view would no doubt be instructive generally.) With good wishes, Terry0051 ( talk) 17:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
[From Terry0051] Thanks for your reply, and certainly no offence is taken: I was only hoping maybe to learn something about the mysterious WP boundaries between explanation and interpretation, and perhaps also between reliable and not-reliable sources. (For the record, I didn't think I'd interpreted anything as opposed to pointing out, with an element of explanation, the actual contents of the source in the various places in which they were to be found.) And the practice on whether to regard well-known and well-regarded editions & translations of classic works as primary or secondary -- and whether the usual practice reflects the stated policy -- is another mysterious matter. But maybe this is not the best occasion to go into all of that, so please feel free to let the matter drop. Terry0051 ( talk) 18:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your level headed comments on the history of astronomy talk pages.
You asked at Talk:Tycho Brahe whether the signature practice on that and related pages was a guideline of WikiProject History of Astronomy. It isn't. As far as I can tell it began as a practice of User:Logicus a long time ago and has since been adopted by a number of his correspondents. Logicus seems to enjoy being idiosyncratic. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Finell: You wrote proposed essay misstates and conflicts with existing policies and guidelines. I have reworded this essay here and there to bring up some of your points, but probably not sufficiently. Perhaps you could help me to do this better? I'd like to make an essay somewhat along these lines part of WP, and I could use your help to accomplish this. The idea is that some greater guidance for Talk pages might prove helpful, even if only as suggestions and not guidelines. Although I have responded to TenOfAllTrades, there seems to be little interest in those quarters. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Finell: You may understand that I see the conduct of Talk pages to be problematic. They tend to be contentious, rather than cooperative. That is a tendency of nature under some circumstances, to interpret opposition as attack. What one wants is to interpret opposition as an opportunity to develop a more nuanced view or to add dimension to the topic. There is a good deal more satisfaction in seeing an article become more encompassing and authoritative, than in trumping some editor by a cute turn of phrase or chasing them off.
So I ask you how one might promote the construction of articles as a greater good than massaging ego? My thought with my Essay was to promote an environment where this would happen if Talk pages followed a paradigm of some kind.
I would rather make some contribution to this problem, which I view as major, than to edit an obscure topic. I realize that is an undertaking, and that my Essay is only a step. Maybe you could help? In particular, could you make some suggestions about process, for example, by proposing some changes to the Essay? Maybe you have some alternative actions to propose? Brews ohare ( talk) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey Finell - would you mind giving me a quick overview of how all this works? You and I made some changes today - does that mean they stay unless someone undoes them? Or is there a master editor that has control over the content that makes the final decision? If that is the case, who is this editor? Thanks very much, I appreciate any help. -- Piast ( talk) 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am not a newcomer. If I need assistance, I'll be sure to ask. Roger Zoel ( talk) 01:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Finell. Would you not mind weighing in on the above linked discussion? From Darkfrog24's suggestion, I take it that your thoughts on this matter will help make this discussion more balanced. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:Contents_box , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis ☂ 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
'Wikify, delete matter unnecessary for disambiguation page, alphabetize, copy eidt' Content – imis ☂ 05:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I am drafting a Requests for comment/User conduct concerning the conduct of Logicus ( talk · contribs · count · api · block log) since the abortive RfC of February 2007. Since you have been involved in the recent content RfC at Talk:Celestial spheres, I would appreciate it if you would look over the draft and see whether it seems appropriate, what revisions you would propose, or what you could add.
At the moment, parts of the RfC are little more than outline points and the desired outcome is totally undefined, but with cooperation perhaps something can be put together that could make it through the process.
I had hoped that this RfC would not need to be posted, given the recent closure of a content RfC on Logicus's edits. However, Logicus's recent comments suggest that I may have been too optimistic.
Feel free to either edit the draft or submit comments on its talk page. Your editing skills and tact would be especially useful. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Undent
Would you object if I copied the above exchange onto the Draft RfC talk page? Your comments provide a useful perspective.
Thanks, SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I dream of horses @ 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In your recent anti-Logicus RfC comments which alleged the material in question is OR, unfortunately you never identified which of its claims are OR in your view. I would be most grateful if you would now do this so that I may consider how any such breaches of NOR policy may be remedied by some revision(s) should any of your criticisms be objectively valid.
If you can oblige me, I would be most grateful if you would start with the material in the smaller section entitled 'Impetus in the celestial spheres', at least since I imagine it would be less problematical for you on your particular understanding of medieval dynamics, as well as being smaller. So in the first instance, do you claim that particular material is OR anywhere?
And in case you ever thought Wilson's objections were valid, I would also be grateful to know whether you think they have now been overcome by my proposed revisions of the only four sentences he seemed to claim are OR because he claims they are OS.
Thanks in anticipation ! -- Logicus ( talk) 16:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Logicus ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 21:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot ( talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
7107delicious Weinachtsgespräch 12:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Finell. I asked for your help before. I need your help again, at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Armond White's review. It is not about White's review; it is rather about our discussion below the one about White's review. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the nature of your disputes with Ncmvocalist, but it is certainly not appropriate to drag them into the discussions on that page. Please discuss those issues on your User talk pages or the pages concerned with the specific disputes they address. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 15:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This is just a notification on possible background on this edit to Carl Sagan.
The paragraph entered in the article by 24.6.219.114 is, for the most part, a quotation from, or a reference to, Cosmos, specifically the episode "The Edge of Forever". However, given the rather truncated and selective choice of phrases, it borders on quote mining, and as such its motives are dubious. Therefore, you made the correct choice in reverting it, it is simply that a lack of citation is not the (most significant) issue. Thank you. -RadicalOne--- Contact Me 16:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your comment "Because of that, the rest of us should stop picking up the stick and beating him with it." I want to thank you for saying this. I came into this situation in the middle so I didn't see everything before his topic ban but since then that's all I've seen is people beating Brews with a stick and I find this comment to be mature and reasonable. I am going to be outspooken in Brews defense but if more people had a view like this I could go and get off the Reichstag. ( WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. ) Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 01:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: [12]. Yes, I would mind – very much – if you decided to turn my comment into a vote. One of the reasons why the arbitration enforcement process is so damnably unpleasant is because of the lining up and taking sides, coupled to the assumption that people reading the discussion aren't bright enough to get past the first word. In my experience, the posts to AE (and to other boards seeking admin action) which are preceded by bold text tend to be from the angry fringe, and tend to be accorded less weight than the comments which simply make their point clearly and concisely. Heck, I'd prefer to avoid having bullets in front of each point, because it prevents the use of paragraph breaks in comments — but those were unfortunately present when I commented.
If you don't mind, it would add nuance depth to your comment at WP:AE if you didn't precede it with a bold vote text. Competent, neutral individuals read the entire discussion before jumping to a conclusion. Or would you object to my removing it? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I withdraw. I couldn't see it in the text, I had never heard of it before, and it is a notation contrary to more common meanings for capitalisation. φ-1 is not exactly difficult is it? (though in convoluted algebras, I suppose it might get wearing!).
There are problems in some articles with a few editors on personal crusades to introduce new notations that they in their infinite wisdom have decided ought be introduced. This looked like one. -- Red King ( talk) 20:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I have declined your G7 speedy on this article, because other editors had worked on it before User:Daykight. I have restored it to the state before Daykight blanked it, and will notify him, too. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 10:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Lynsi is now the President of In-N-Out burger as of Jan 1st 2010. Mark Taylor is now the COO and no longer president. And yes she still is the sole owner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.99.166 ( talk) 05:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Finell: I have filed an RfC at Talk: Bivector#RfC: Unicode wedge symbol. Could you take a look at this matter and proffer some advice? Brews ohare ( talk) 00:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice on conflict. It is interesting to learn that my PC with Windows XP and Firefox is different from yours. I see the wedge in a ∧ b not as a b but as a ∘ b. I can change that by switching fonts from Times Roman to Cambria Math, but that puts extra blank lines in the text whenever the wedge shows up. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I found another option, to disable the default setting "allow pages to select their own fonts". See Help_talk:Special_characters#Instructions for Firefox. Unfortunately, that alters the font spacing in page text to be a bit less readable, at least in using Times New Roman. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The block seems to no longer be necessary or productive. If I were to bring a motion to get them unblocked, would you support it? Likebox ( talk) 21:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) Yes--- I was talking about the topic ban. Sorry for misspeaking.
I agree with you that both editors have made edits that are disagreeable. We all have to deal with the circus of diverging points of view. But it is not good to make a decision about whether to block based on a person's opinionated edits.
In order to function, people with different points of view have to be able to speak out without fear of retribution. By allowing topic bans based on ideosyncratic thinking and weird interpretations, we kick out creative individuals. While most of the edits might be misguided, this can be corrected by consensus. On the other hand, they can contribute beautiful work, diagrams in Brews' case.
I have had to deal with many fringe science topics, and I find that the best way is to just follow the policies, read the sources, make sure that all the material is understood by all from first principles, and work hard to mention fringe points of view alongside mainstream thinking so as to clarify every position. To do this well, we have to tolerate disagreements. So even if you would like to see so-and-so banned, I am asking you to put this feeling aside and ask if this ban is helping create a good atmosphere in the encyclopedia. Likebox ( talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
As Likebox has discussed above, the issue of importance to WP is not brews_ohare or David Tombe, but the conduct of discourse on Talk pages. For a quality article to develop, points of view have to be entertained and explored. Knee-jerk reactions have to be avoided along with resort to using WP:Fringe WP:NOR WP:Soap as swear words on Talk pages with no supporting WP:Diffs. It is natural, of course, to react to ideas that are unfamiliar or even contrary to one's instincts as being the maunderings of a crack-pot, but that natural urge has to be suppressed. It also is natural to indulge in oration, self-important pronouncements, and to seek administrator action to quell the irritations of beliefs contrary to one's own. None of these actions promotes good quality articles.
It may be too much for WP editors to bear, but some methodology for catalysis of good discussion would be sooo... wonderful.
You are pleased with my recent editing, which strikes you as somehow different from my behavior on Talk: Speed of light. In some ways it is: for example, I simply abandoned discussion with JohnBlackburne when the runaround appeared nonconvergent. In contrast, on Talk: Speed of light I had a misplaced confidence in the convergence of logical argument, and hoped some formulation of logic and sources could be found that would provoke consideration of the obvious. That notion is Utopian. In some ways my behavior has not changed: where discussion works and editors actually converse, my behavior is exactly as before, and resolution is accomplished to the benefit of WP. My motivations and beliefs have not changed; all that is different is my lowered expectation of useful interchange. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Finell: It is evident that what one party thinks is a different and new argument, another will take as a rehash of the same-old same-old. The convinced party is liable to see the argument as not different because it lead to the same (obnoxious) conclusion. The resulting exasperation over what is taken as mere repetition then can lead to abusive behavior, which should be prohibited by WP:Civil and WP:NPA, but usually is not.
My view, apparently different from yours, is that WP guidelines should be made more explicit on these matters and more rigorously enforced. That (IMO) would lead to more focused and more productive Talk page discussion.
As you might imagine, I view the Speed of light arbitration as an ineluctable example of the failure of WP admins and guidelines to handle such matters. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
In all fairness, I'd say as well that the Speed of light arbitration illustrates the futility of trying too hard to get a point across. Nonetheless, the powers of persuasion do have greater effect in a healthy editing environment. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hell in a Bucket, Our lines must have crossed. Thanks for you concern, but don't worry, I'll see any trap and I'll avoid it. I just want to see if Finell can put his money where his mouth is. David Tombe ( talk) 02:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
(deindent) Will do. I'll keep you informed, and I hope there are no bad feelings. This is something on which reasonable people can easily disagree. As far as fast edits--- professional scientists write quickly. Brews has understood the problem, what went wrong, and has taken steps to acknowledge it and fix it. It would have been easy to be clearer to him about the issue of verbosity though. Likebox ( talk) 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Finell: As I said
here : You don't have to establish that justice was or was not done, or that the remedy was effective or not effective. All you have to establish is that recent history indicates useful contribution and no disturbance, so a test is in order to see whether lifting the bans will cause trouble again. If trouble does result, action can be taken.
Your worries about my interpretation of the Speed of light case and its adjudicators has no bearing, and neither does any rehash of ancient history, nor do Freudian speculations.
I thank you for your encouragement, and hope you can entertain a forward optimism. Brews ohare ( talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Finell. You removed a link i recently tried to add to the wiki of Euclid. You state it has no reliable source and is some kind of conspiracy. I agree this link might not was the best presentation of a diffrent history.
But.
Though given the facts that the complete history of Euclid is rather incomplete - information regarding his history is vital.
Here is a reliable source - which also cannot screwed as just a hoax.
Quoteing:" In view of the poverty of Greek tradition on the subject even as early as the time of Proclus (410-485 A.D.), we must necessarily take cum grano the apparently circumstantial accounts of Euclid given by Arabian authors; and indeed the origin of their stories can be explained as the result (1) of the Arabian tendency to romance, and (2) of misunderstandings.
We read15 that “Euclid, son of Naucrates, grandson of Zenarchus16 , called the author of geometry, a philosopher of somewhat ancient date, a Greek by nationality domiciled at Damascus, born at Tyre, most learned in the science of geometry, published a most excellent and most useful work entitled the foundation or elements of geometry, a subject in which no more general treatise existed before among the Greeks: nay, there was no one even of later date who did not walk in his footsteps and frankly profess his doctrine. Hence also Greek, Roman and Arabian geometers not a few, who undertook the task of illustrating this work, published commentaries, scholia, and notes upon it, and made an abridgment of the work itself. For this reason the Greek philosophers used to post up on the doors of their schools the well-known notice: ‘Let no one come to our school, who has not first learned the elements of Euclid.’” The details at the beginning of this extract cannot be derived from Greek sources, for even Proclus did not know anything about Euclid's father, while it was not the Greek habit to record the names of grandfathers, as the Arabians commonly did. Damascus and Tyre were no doubt brought in to gratify a desire which the Arabians always showed to connect famous Greeks in some way or other with the East. Thus Nas<*>īraddīn, the translator of the Elements, who was of T<*>ūs in Khurāsān, actually makes Euclid out to have been “Thusinus” also17 . The readiness of the Arabians to run away with an idea is illustrated by the last words [p. 5] of the extract. Everyone knows the story of Plato's inscription over the porch of the Academy: “let no one unversed in geometry enter my doors”; the Arab turned geometry into Euclid's geometry, and told the story of Greek philosophers in general and “their Academies.”
Equally remarkable are the Arabian accounts of the relation of Euclid and Apollonius18 . According to them the Elements were originally written, not by Euclid, but by a man whose name was Apollonius, a carpenter, who wrote the work in 15 books or sections19 . In the course of time some of the work was lost and the rest became disarranged, so that one of the kings at Alexandria who desired to study geometry and to master this treatise in particular first questioned about it certain learned men who visited him and then sent for Euclid who was at that time famous as a geometer, and asked him to revise and complete the work and reduce it to order. Euclid then re-wrote it in 13 books which were thereafter known by his name. (According to another version Euclid composed the 13 books out of commentaries which he had published on two books of Apollonius on conics and out of introductory matter added to the doctrine of the five regular solids.) To the thirteen books were added two more books, the work of others (though some attribute these also to Euclid) which contain several things not mentioned by Apollonius. According to another version Hypsicles, a pupil of Euclid at Alexandria, offered to the king and published Books XIV. and XV., it being also stated that Hypsicles had “discovered” the books, by which it appears to be suggested that Hypsicles had edited them from materials left by Euclid.
We observe here the correct statement that Books XIV. and XV. were not written by Euclid, but along with it the incorrect information that Hypsicles, the author of Book XIV., wrote Book XV. also.
The whole of the fable about Apollonius having preceded Euclid and having written the Elements appears to have been evolved out of the preface to Book XIV. by Hypsicles, and in this way; the Book must in early times have been attributed to Euclid, and the inference based upon this assumption was left uncorrected afterwards when it was recognised that Hypsicles was the author. The preface is worth quoting:
“Basilides of Tyre, O Protarchus, when he came to Alexandria and met my father, spent the greater part of his sojourn with him on account of their common interest in mathematics. And once, when [p. 6] examining the treatise written by Apollonius about the comparison between the dodecahedron and the icosahedron inscribed in the same sphere, (showing) what ratio they have to one another, they thought that Apollonius had not expounded this matter properly, and accordingly they emended the exposition, as I was able to learn from my father. And I myself, later, fell in with another book published by Apollonius, containing a demonstration relating to the subject, and I was greatly interested in the investigation of the problem. The book published by Apollonius is accessible to all-- for it has a large circulation, having apparently been carefully written out later--but I decided to send you the comments which seem to me to be necessary, for you will through your proficiency in mathematics in general and in geometry in particular form an expert judgment on what I am about to say, and you will lend a kindly ear to my disquisition for the sake of your friendship to my father and your goodwill to me.”
The idea that Apollonius preceded Euclid must evidently have been derived from the passage just quoted. It explains other things besides. Basilides must have been confused with basileus, and we have a probable explanation of the “Alexandrian king,” and of the “learned men who visited” Alexandria. It is possible also that in the “Tyrian” of Hypsicles' preface we have the origin of the notion that Euclid was born in Tyre. These inferences argue, no doubt, very defective knowledge of Greek: but we could expect no better from those who took the Organon of Aristotle to be “instrumentum musicum pneumaticum,” and who explained the name of Euclid, which they variously pronounced as Uclides or Icludes, to be compounded of Ucli a key, and Dis a measure, or, as some say, geometry, so that Uclides is equivalent to the key of geometry!
Lastly the alternative version, given in brackets above, which says that Euclid made the Elements out of commentaries which he wrote on two books of Apollonius on conics and prolegomena added to the doctrine of the five solids, seems to have arisen, through a like confusion, out of a later passage20 in Hypsicles' Book XIV.: “And this is expounded by Aristaeus in the book entitled ‘Comparison of the five figures,’ and by Apollonius in the second edition of his comparison of the dodecahedron with the icosahedron.” The “doctrine of the five solids” in the Arabic must be the “Comparison of the five figures” in the passage of Hypsicles, for nowhere else have we any information about a work bearing this title, nor can the Arabians have had. The reference to the two books of Apollonius on conics will then be the result of mixing up the fact that Apollonius wrote a book on conics with the second edition of the other work mentioned by Hypsicles. We do not find elsewhere in Arabian authors any mention of a commentary by Euclid on Apollonius and Aristaeus: so that the story in the passage quoted is really no more than a variation of the fable that the Elements were the work of Apollonius. http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Aabo%3Atlg%2C1799%2C001&query=elem.%3A1%3Adef. "
In regards to understand the history of euclid and books attributed to this name - the above information deserves to be mentioned in the wiki of euclid. -- DuKu ( talk) 06:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#RfC_on_additional_wording_about_citation_templates Tony (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Finell,
Beside the conflict with Finell was settled he keeps insulting me with wilde accusations and made up claims. User Finell this is my last post in this regards before i take proper steps to stop you from further insults. Please take the time and read about battleing and insulting of other users. Thank you. -- DuKu ( talk) 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Finell. This is to inform you (as you asked me to do) that there is a request for amendement regarding an arbitration case that you have commented on. Likebox ( talk) 05:03, 8
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Infraparticle. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.— Finell 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Infraparticle. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.— Finell 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
To me it appears that two things are at work here.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Likebox deceptively sourced infraparticle. Thank you. -- The Anome ( talk) 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop wikihounding me under any circumstances, be it through needless interactions or inappropriately editing or moving my commentary without my permission. If you have concerns about clerk notes being placed in the clerks notes section, please take the matter up with an arbitrator who is authorised to police the arbitration pages in the manner that they wish. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yet another example of Wiki-fundamentalism causing pointless conflicts. Count Iblis ( talk) 12:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi finnel, I am a new user of wikipedia. my nickname is soso97, i don't like this name but i don't know how to change it. I love science and knowledge. I am science star's friend at school. I hope you could help me how to start using wikipedia. Soso97 ( talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Finell,
Referring to my recent edit, "Substituted 'believed' with scientific terms 'theorized' and 'hypothesized'", which you undid with the message: "The simple words are simpler and more accurate."
Well, the reason for my edit was that I was just following Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_with_multiple_meanings
As you can see from the guideline article, my objection to the terms "belief", "believe", and "believed" are because of their 'religious' connotations: Creationism is my belief; I believe in Jesus Christ; I believed that God would save me.
Therefore, I think that the terms "hypothesize"/"hypothesized" and "theorize"/"theorized" are more appropriate in a scientific context.
Yours sincerely,
IVAN3MAN ( talk) 05:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I think, your removal of PDF accessibility information in the PDF article was not a good idea. PDF accessibility is an important issue and there are hundreds of articles on internet about this topic. Please, help improving wikipedia articles with new references and new information instead of removing them. Thank you. Some references: [13], [14], [15] -- 89.173.64.200 ( talk) 18:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Finell.Why did you delete the material I posted in the dialectic page? The source I provided was called "Dialectics and its place in the development of medival logic".And the content is verifiable.There´s a link to the book. Of course, there are some pages missing, but I just named these philosophers. These names appear in the summary and all over the book. I think that, for the purpose of naming a few philosophers that used dialectics in the middle ages, the source is good.-- Knight1993 ( talk) 13:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Finell,
Thought you might like to know that there was a discussion about the "Reaction" section at
Talk:Air India Express Flight_812#Reaction lists you removed. (I am fairly neutral on the matter) Just letting you know! Happy Editing! --
220.101.28.25 (
talk) 00:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Regarding this edit:
I reverted it. Let's take a look at things:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I thought I gave some constructive analyses of the article lead, along with possible directions for improvement. While I fully considered seeing potential trolling and negativity, it was unexpected to see it from you. Oh, by the way, "travelled" is not a misspelling, but a variant used by millions of people. Tim Shuba ( talk) 11:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, travelled is British English, in fact I think it's used pretty much everywhere outside the USA. Dropping the doubled letter there was one of the many initiatives by Noah Webster of dictionary fame. See the text on his bio page where I just added a citation. Webster had tons of other language reform initiatives, many successful, many not. From my personal observation, the travelled-->traveled change in American English was never fully integrated, with both form appearing regularly in publications by American writers. So I would say the neither form is obviously preferable even in American English. In part because there is no official body to unequivocally mandate correct English usage, the evolution of the language has always been a free-for-all. Tim Shuba ( talk) 18:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering what you think of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Golden_ratio, seeing as it's up for deletion and you're one of only two active members of it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You requested citations on the carpe diem article. I restored the link to the dictionary entry on perseus. This link was deleted from the article some time ago for some unknown reason, most likely vandalism. Gx872op ( talk) 15:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated speed of light for FAC. As a major contributor, please leave your 2cents on the review page. TimothyRias ( talk) 16:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit. Ceoil ( talk) 07:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I refactored your survey entry at the quotation RFC to fit the schema of short numbered entries without discussion. I hope that's OK. Also, you've said TQ where you probably meant LQ (first use); I left that. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Finell, I mentioned an old edit of yours at WT:AT#“Conciseness” wording. Your perspective would be appreciated. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello there,I'm that user who's been the victim of editing the Fields Medal page(i.e.I got blocked with charge of Vandalism.).I've got three question:1)When the current protected status of that page ends,Does the page current contents remain in place or they are replaced with the old version? 2)I've prepared a new and somehow comprehensive table about Fields medalists.I posted this table on the discussion section of the Fields Medal page,and I request for comments about this(If You come there and see my that table I will be really glad,and don't forget to put your comment about it down there!;-)),but so far,just one person did so.Is it normal? 3)Should I submit a request for edit to replace the new table with current one?Or should I wait for reaching a consensus?Thank You. Rezameyqani (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezameyqani ( talk • contribs)
Hello, Finell
Please be careful while editing!
Your edits in Microsoft Small Basic seems to have damaged it. I have restored the last known good version. Let's see what we can salvage of your edits. Please edit in contextual-distinct units and preview your edits.
Also, your talk page is badly in the need of an archiving setup.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 08:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey,
I wanted to let you know that I encountered (and really appreciated and admired) the following message you posted:
Temperment[edit] Michael, I see that you devote a lot of time to Wikipedia and make many valuable contributions, especially in upholding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I also tend to do a lot of copy editing and conforming articles to WP:MOS. However, you could do even more good for Wikipedia by continuing to do what you do with more tact toward other editors. I base this recommendation on reading the most recent archives of your Talk page. Standards are important, but encouraging broader public participation in creating and editing Wikipedia is even more important to the project in the long run (I'm not talking about deliberate vandals). Where possible, consider trying to salvage imperfect edits rather than reverting them—especially with well-intentioned, but inexperienced, Wikipedians. Also, consider using a more friendly, welcoming tone in your communications with other editors and even in your edit summaries, especially with less experienced editors. There will always be a corps of editors who like to copy edit and to conform articles to the MOS. However, recruiting and retaining new editors, and broadening the diversity of editors, are two of the most serious problems that confront the Wikipedia project.—Finell 09:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
My first ever article, The Wood Nymph, recently got the copy-editing ax. :) And, honestly, I felt a little discouraged, too. I want to learn (I'm completely self-taught through trial and error), because I do not see the page I created as a one-off. Rather, I have The Oceanides stub expanded in my in-box after a lot of work. But now I'm thinking twice about ever pasting it into the stub page. Maybe you wouldn't mind looking at it, because the 'mistakes' I made on The Wood Nymph page will also be on the sandbox article. I'd like to learn, and you seem to have a helpful temperament.
Thanks,
Sgvrfjs ( talk) 22:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of us tend to keep refs over a single line. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
At
User talk:Fuzzypeg#Pentagram of Venus i communicated to the contributor of the most recent version of
Pentagram#Pentagram of Venus about my concern that that section needs to become an independent page (and be linked from the
Pentagram article). You also may want to consider commenting at
Talk:Pentagram#Omnibunstrosity.
--
Jerzy•
t 01:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
1.Jump up^ Faculty Conference of July 30, 2015 does refer to BH Hair in her summary, near the end, click talks, click her name, here is another source of that same talk: physicsgirl.com and click the icon next to the date 7/30/15.
1.Jump up^ Beyond the Standard Model Journal Club That lists her talk, and the paper currently listed as ref 4 contains the support of the fact that she completed during that talk, that talk put the finishing touches on the note.
She has notes on that same cite, for example on 12/16/14 she says "I propose a gravitational wave" but then on 2/22/15 it is "We proposed" The talks Strings India, Chicago, Harvard other all call the concepts 'the Triangle' and 'Spin Memory'
When I put in FN 7, I mean FN 7, not citation 7.
Any other help would be greatly appreciated. The Colloquy is an official GSAS publication that lists her as Mode 2, from what I hear, there is not another one in Physics, it is rare (I suppose all thefunding from Hertz helps)
Thank you again... and yes, none of this would be possible without Weinberg's help. 76.16.211.203 ( talk) 06:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean by complete references. 76.16.211.203 ( talk) 06:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
and added them in
good night, thank you 76.16.211.203 ( talk) 07:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mother's Day 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) 22:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Finell Thanks for your contributions to the Kanban (development) page which I'm also trying to improve. You added an "Advert" tag to the page on July 25th. Can you give me some examples of the language you think should be changed? Thanks. Andycarmichaeluk ( talk) 11:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:UW Dawgs: You smell like poo!. Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 06:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).
?fuzzy=1
to the URL, as with
Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).
Hello, Finell. 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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Score, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Musical score ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).
contains_all
that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).
equals_to_any
function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to
see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to
Logstash.News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).
Hi Finell,
I'm the freelance editor who was asked by Honeywell to fix the TPE331 Wiki page. Although I've been doing minor edits to various WP pages in areas of my other expertise, as you can probably tell, I'm pretty new to doing anything but changing a word or two here and there or adding a single citation. This is my first attempt to overhaul a page and although I have some basic (very basic) WP editing skills, I'm certainly not an expert in the various disclosures needed and matters of citation formatting/coding. I've tried reading through the various WP manuals, documentation and other material but don't seem to be making any progress in either understanding that material or getting the various flags removed from the TPE331 page. In short, I'm befuddled.
So I'm throwing myself at your mercy to see if you can help me figure this out. I thought I had met the requirement for disclosing my conflict of interest but apparently not sufficiently. I was holding off trying to fix some citation issues until the page got moved from "Garrett" to "Honeywell." As a separate issue, I see that the whole new section on "performance" was removed and I'd like to see if this useful user information could be re-instated, perhaps once we figure out the disclosure issue(s).
Can you help? Jveeds ( talk) 18:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)jveeds Jim V
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).
Hi,
I notice that in this edit, you replaced the link via redirect (for name " The JAMs") with a link for The KLF. However, this is contrary to the guidance given by the Manual of Style entry covering redirection on dab pages, which favours linking via redirect when:-
Both these apply here. The example given (for Jim Carrey) specifically notes the redirect version to be "correct" and the direct link version as "incorrect".
Hope this explains things. Ubcule ( talk) 11:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Major and minor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triad ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muriel Bristol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Roach ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Interface administrator changes
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metropolitan Opera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matinée ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Finell. 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)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Interface administrator changes
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MIMO, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antenna ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Done:Thanks, DPL bot. I would never opt out of your always-helpful notifications.— Finell 20:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Interface administrator changes
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
An article you recently created,
Heteronuclear ion, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
CASSIOPEIA(
talk) 06:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zvezda (ISS module), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Module ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so
will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
|
|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Heteronuclear ion, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Interface administrator changes
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
|
|
the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpretedrather than
reasonably construed.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
|
must notundo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than
should not.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited DREAM Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pass ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).
Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).
RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Complementarity (molecular biology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complementarity.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
mustor
shoulduse the articles for creation process.
Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.( American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Annus Mirabilis papers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantum theory.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Interface administrator changes
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blackface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folk.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Interface administrator changes
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at
Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Interface administrator changes
oversight
will be renamed to suppress
. This is for
technical reasons. You can comment at
T112147 if you have objections.Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RadioShack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franchise.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dynamic rope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Load.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parachute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canopy.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frame of reference, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axis.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The WikiEagle |
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter |
Volume I — Issue 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Announcements
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Members
New Members
Number of active members: 386.
Total number of members: 921.
Closed Discussions
|
Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New/Ongoing Discussions
On The Main Page Did you know...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at
The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the
mailing list. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pilates. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 19:39, 2 February 2022 (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 complementary and alternative medicine. 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.
Alexbrn ( talk) 19:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).
oversight
will be renamed suppress
in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for
technical reasons. You can comment
in Phabricator if you have objections.News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
|
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.
The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [17] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.
Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future. Sgerbic ( talk) 07:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
deletelogentry
and deletedhistory
rights. This means that those in the
Researcher user group and
Checkusers who are not administrators can now access
Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (
T301928)News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
|
|
Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Keeper of Lost Causes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victim.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Done
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).
|
Interface administrator changes
|
user_global_editcount
is a new variable that can be used in
abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (
T130439)Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Allele, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trait.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).
Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).
{{
rangeblock|create=yes}}
or {{
uw-ublock|contains profanity}}
.The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).
/64
to the end of an IP in
Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and
consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 54, November – December 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).
|
|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).
|
|
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).
|
|
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Casimir effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Retardation.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).
|
|
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maximum usable frequency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angle of incidence.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).
Interface administrator changes
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).
|
|
[s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to
note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Interface administrator changes
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)