Jump to content

User talk:Ancheta Wis/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Maxwell equations

Thanks for your message. I'll try to elaborate on that AJ interaction term. To give you an idea, the lagrangian for matter will have a kinetic term with covariant derivative |∇φ|^2 , ∇=d-A as written in the next section, which includes a term of the form A*(derivative of matter field φ) ~ AJ. Then variation w.r.t. A will yield φ∇φ ~ J. (sorry for bad formatting, connected via mobile phone) — MFH:Talk 17:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Philippine WikiCon

You are invited to the 3rd Philippine Wiki Conference (WikiCon) on May 26, 2012 9am-1pm at the co.lab.exchange in Pasig City. Please fill this form should you signify interest. --Exec8 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Abstraction

Category:Abstraction, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brad7777 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited History of scientific method, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stoic and Aristotelian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania Barnstar

Wikimania Barnstar
It was great to see you at Wikimania 2012! --evrik (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Kilbourne Hole

Did you write the original article on Kilbourne Hole (it shows an IP)? Please join the discussion on its talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:ZiaBowl1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:ZiaBowl1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scientific method, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Watson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Hypothetico-deductive model

It's about limitations of the model. All models have limitations. Surely, you must be aware of this. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You are bringing up an important point which ought to be aired on a more public page. If you prefer another place, fine. I propose the talk page of the hypothetico-deductive model as the venue.
As a starting point for the discourse at that venue: a model explicitly recognizes that the scope of the domain of discourse is limited. Sometimes called a 'toy problem'. It is more modest than some category subject to scope creep.
I am travelling today so my silence may be beyond my purview. Feel free to hold forth at the venue. I will watch for a response. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

NRA

Fixed it, I think, pretty much! Thanks for catching it. cheers Middle 8 (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Very very sorry!

I apologize for my comments on the Wikipedia talk:Categorization page. I was stupid and didn't read anything carefully. I'm very sorry and hope you'll forgive me. Star767 17:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings, Ancheta Wis! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of computing hardware, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SOC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Ancheta Wis! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

File:IshikawaCause,Effect.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IshikawaCause,Effect.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

File:TRex4.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

File:TRex4.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disabled bot

Hey Ancheta Wis -- could you please clarify why you disabled the "desc notifier" task on Theo's Little Bot? Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Parmenides

Hi Ancheta. The article on Parmenides says:

His dates are uncertain; according to Diogenes Laërtius, he flourished just before 500 BCE,[4] which would put his year of birth near 540 BCE, but Plato has him visiting Athens at the age of 65, when Socrates was a young man, c. 450 BCE,[5] which, if true, suggests a year of birth of c. 515 BCE.

I wonder what Popper thought - I'll look. Myrvin (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Popper writes: "Parmenides of Elea, who lived about 515-445 bc". Perhaps we could put an 'fl.' in front. Myrvin (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Diana Nyad's Birth Name

Why don't you want to put Diana Nyad's birth name (Sneed) at the top of the page? Esszet (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You just now used more words to explain your rationale than you did in the reverted edit. That edit does not conform to MOS:Biographies first mention, because you did not provide a first name, nor did you provide a citation for it. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Admin's barnstar.

The Admin's Barnstar
A tear of pride rolls down my cheek when I see the people I nominated for adminship over half a decade ago keeping up the good work. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imagination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Occipital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:BustOfRalphBunche,UCLA,BuncheHall.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:BustOfRalphBunche,UCLA,BuncheHall.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quantum mechanics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page G-factor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ottoman military band, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkish March (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I need some backup

Hi,

A new editor has been using a pre-QM conceptual scheme to make dogmatic changes in the double-slit article and also the Delayed choice quantum eraser article. He seems to hold me in contempt. I have no desire for an edit war to break out, but I can't seem to get this guy to work through things or go back to the published materials. Thanks.

P0M (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indent style, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whitespace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Scientific method and epistemology

Hi Ancheta (is that your name?),

I think we have indeed been talking past each other, and I did not want to pollute the article's talk page. So I thought this would be a better place to understand each other. I would have preferred email and you can reach me at dpleibovitz@ieee.org if you like. You are welcome to delete/edit this local thread or copy it back into Talk:Scientific method as you feel worthwhile.

I have always been better at ideas than in writing, so I want to take the opportunity to explicate my request fully.

What I wish to do

  1. I do not wish to modify (for now) the textual content of the two articles Scientific method and Methodology
  2. Instead, I simply want to add the category Category:Epistemology to both of them.
  3. However, if categorization requires textual changes, then I hope someone can do so better than I

What confuses me

I do not understand why you bring up the concepts of truth and double slit experiments. Please clarify.

Rational for my proposal

Firstly, my proposal may be WP:OR and relate to my worldview that is fundamentally about change, but I believe I am also expressing common knowledge. I am less interested in what a topic is, than in changes to that topic.

I believe that science and epistemology (part of philosophy and ignored by many scientists) should be much more closely associated. Without change, one could say

  1. Defining/describing the scientific method is doing epistemology, but the scientific method itself is one of many Category:Epistemological theories (we did say it is actually an umbrella for a set of theories, but it does have method in its title)
  2. Using/applying the scientific method is doing science (and not epistemology). Many scientists do exactly that and many care very little about philosophy in general and epistemology in particular beyond passing interest.
  3. Topic categories are for finding things. A scientist would never look for scientific method via epistemology and may not care that the scientific method is an object of scrutiny by philosophers - they have numerous objects of scrutiny. Thus, a scientist would not care to see the label "epistemology" within the categories of the scientific method.

However, the situation is different under change. Almost all scientists at some point are unhappy with specific methodologies they use and try to improve them. When a scientist attempts to change the scientific method (or their specific experimental paradigm), then the scientist is doing epistemology (even if they do not know that they are doing so). If I want to improve the scientific method and look up the article, I would like to find at least the category of epistemology. Better would be some textual discussion as well.

Change is one kind of use, and I'm not sure Wikipedia has policies for usage categories - although once named they become topics. However, change is also ubiquitous and possible all articles should be connected to things that influence their evolution. Again, influencers are also a different kind of categorical association. And are, in some sense, in the opposite direction. If epistemology influenced science, then science (as a topic) is made up of epistemology and epistemology would be a subcategory of science, rather than science being a subcategory of epistemology as I suggested! But such influences are often bidirectional.

In the case of the scientific method, perhaps one should (instead) add textual content to the effect: the scientific method evolved over a long time period with contributions by scientists and philosophers alike, although the separation between science and philosophy is recent. While many improvements to the scientific method have come from scientists, the formal study of these improvements is within a branch of philosophy called epistemology.

I guess, at the end of the day, when a scientist attempts a methodology improvement, they should be aware of a large relevant body of literature called "epistemology". Some do, many don't. It is certainly not in the article.

Wikipedia is not prescriptive (as I exceedingly am), but it may simply be a matter adding informational content in a neutral fashion.

PS. At this time, I don't think we are debating anything. You can ignore my suggesting completely and don't need to find common ground or consensus. I am interested in knowing if I have clarified matters (do you understand me?), and I don't mind if your clarify your use of double slit, but only if you have free time.

Thanks, Dpleibovitz (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's my name; I lived in Wisconsin for 23 years, until Feb, hence the account name.
It may be coincidence, but there is a relationship between truth and optics. A thousand years ago, Alhazen asked: "How does light travel through transparent bodies? Light travels through transparent bodies in straight lines only.... We have explained this exhaustively in our Book of Optics. But let us now mention something to prove this convincingly: the fact that light travels in straight lines is clearly observed in the lights which enter into dark rooms through holes.... [T]he entering light will be clearly observable in the dust which fills the air. – Alhazen, translated into English from German by M. Schwarz, from "Abhandlung über das Licht", J. Baarmann (ed. 1882) Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Vol 36 as quoted in Sambursky 1974, p. 136.
  • He demonstrated his conjecture that "light travels through transparent bodies in straight lines only" by placing a straight stick or a taut thread next to the light beam, as quoted in Sambursky 1974, p. 136 to prove that light travels in a straight line.
  • David Hockney, (2001, 2006) in Secret Knowledge: rediscovering the lost techniques of the old masters ISBN 0-14-200512-6 (expanded edition) cites Alhazen several times as the likely source for the portraiture technique using the camera obscura, which Hockney rediscovered with the aid of an optical suggestion from Charles M. Falco. Kitab al-Manazir, which is Alhazen's Book of Optics, at that time denoted Opticae Thesaurus, Alhazen Arabis, was translated from Arabic into Latin for European use as early as 1270. Hockney cites Friedrich Risner's 1572 Basle edition of Opticae Thesaurus. Hockney quotes Alhazen as the first clear description of the camera obscura in Hockney, p. 240.

"Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough." – Alhazen (Ibn Al-Haytham 965 – c. 1040) Critique of Ptolemy, translated by S. Pines, Actes X Congrès internationale d'histoire des sciences, Vol I Ithaca 1962, as quoted in Sambursky 1974, p. 139. (This quotation is from Alhazen's critique of Ptolemy's books Almagest, Planetary Hypotheses, and Optics as translated into English by A. Mark Smith.)

I think it takes a deep thinker, like Alhazen, to address epistemological issues. It takes a lot of horsepower to lift the weighty issues of epistemology, and it may be simpler to restrict the domain of definition just to clarify the issues. In that sense, the scientists have the advantage over the epistemologists. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick reminder

If you do a straight revert to an older version to deal with cruft/vandalism/etc., please double-check for good intermediary edits, like mine on Manunggul Jar, which I had to reimplement. Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 17:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Citadel spread and Plumpy'nut

Hello Ancheta -- as a third-party editor on these two pages, please review and edit, if suitable, to avert WP:3RR by Barnardwoodpecker. Thanks for your participation. --Zefr (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1st Armored Division (United States) 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • division artillery is responsible for training and readiness for the artillery battalions. (''[http://fortblissbugle.com/divarty-back-in-army-iron-steel-brigade-comes-to-bliss-212th-fb-bids-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Roman economy material at Wiki and World Heritage Encyclopedia.

Please see my message at my talk page, Grandma (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Checker shadow illusion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gimp. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"Science war"

You have a friendly way to deal with mavericks like me, however the current voices on the talk page don't go into detail but dismiss anything I might write. I would prefer to see less of a cold topic ban but have a serious discussion of my suggestions. I will ad some of the work on the Alhazen entry, and I am looking forward to further constrictive feedback from your side. Serten II (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Schwinger

The article Schwinger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not seem Notable and fails WP:NMUSIC

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LorTalk 02:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Science Draft Brainstorming

I put a bunch of markers into the draft. I'm looking for something that is different, but inclusive. I'm also flexible, looking for other inputs, and learning what works best for collaboration. So I will take a break for a bit now. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ancheta, I find the Outline of Science useful, but I don't think it needs to be in the talk page. I'd like to suggest that it be removed from there so that we can use the page to "talk" without having to scroll all the way to the bottom of the outline. Seem reasonable? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Universe

Ancheta, I'm involved with the Universe page, with some interesting discussion at Talk:Universe concerning the lead section of that important page. Perhaps this is interesting to you too? If so, please consider contributing. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark A. Smith

Can you please stop infusing Smith in to every article related to Science or Scientific method. Seems like self promotion to me. For example: Science, Scientific method and Ibn al-Haytham. Moorrests (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I am not A. Mark Smith. Nor do I have any kind of relationship with him whatsoever; I came upon him through Shmuel Sambursky, whom I cite in Scientific method. And I have not cited Smith in Scientific method. Smith has spent some 40 years on medieval science. He dominates right now because David C. Lindberg died this year. It took Smith real strength of purpose to devote so much of his life to something of historical interest only. His work has not gone unnoticed: he is now a Curators' Professor at University of Missouri — Columbia. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
What I have notice is the Mr. Smith is a critic of every single Islamic or Muslim scientist especially Ibn al-Haytham. He seems to have refuted achievements of all the Muslim scientists. This alone should exclude all the references from Mr. Smith. Moorrests (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
To describe Smith as a critic of Ibn al-Haytham totally misunderstands Smith's academic career. After studying with Lindberg, he produced the first critical edition of the Latin version of Alhacen's principal optical work, translated it into English, and also wrote many works spelling out Alhacen's influence on the development of optics in medieval Europe. Smith knows Alhacen's work far better than some of the overenthusiastic popularizers. He is one of the most highly qualified sources on Ibn al-Haytham. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Moorrests, It's the other way around.
  1. Aristotle defined science. His ontology of four causes defined how we ought to think. (But it has taken 1000 years to show a better way. Scientific method)
  2. Ptolemy and Euclid: Ptolemy had the experimental method. Euclid had deduction.
  3. Ibn al-Haytham started with Ptolemy and Euclid.
  4. Ibn Sahl was one generation older than Ibn al-Haytham, but for some reason Ibn al-Haytham didn't reproduce Ibn Sahl's experimental law of refraction. Ibn al-Haytham just gave the experimental setup without results. Why? Was he too old? Did he not believe Ibn Sahl? Ptolemy gave experimental data on refraction. So Ibn Sahl had refraction right, 600 years before Descartes. I was really worried that Smith didn't seem to have any mention of Ibn Sahl. But I think that Smith 2015 mentions him.
  5. Smith 2001 gives Ibn al-Haytham credit for hypothetico-deductive method, especially for checking your work, or filling-in gaps in understanding.
  6. Smith 2015 p.180: "The geometrical analysis of sight and light had reached a level of sophistication beyond that of the Greek sources, especially Euclid", p.181ff: Chapter 5 Alhacen and the Grand Synthesis. I think it's pretty clear that Smith is fair.
I am interested in what Smith will have to say about Aristotle. Will he be critical?
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Recursive definition of science?

I think my edit of the Science wiki page puts "scientific" inside the brackets to avoid overemphasizing "scientific". If you search for the word "scientific" in the Science wiki page, the word "scientific" is all over the Science wiki page. Would you undo all the edits that have "scientific" in the Science wiki page, like scientific theory or scientific method in the Science wiki page?

Angelababy00 (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Claims unrelated to SCCS

Hi, if you like to add information related to RCS or Microsoft Revision control systems, please do this in the related articles for RCS or the Microsoft software, they do not belong into the SCCS article. Schily (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited On-screen display, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OSD. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I think you are doing a fine job But I think you are on the wrong page. Book of Optics would befit greatly as what we have there now lacks details about what he proved and how he demonstrated. I put a great deal of weight on Smiths criticism of Wikipedia and the fan club (also his criticism of the anti fan club) We need editors like you who read the sources. J8079s (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. :-) Book of Optics is thankfully not the mess it was a couple of years ago, but I agree that it's still missing a lot. Sunrise (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Strategic Command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SOCOM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1st Armored Division (United States) 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The 1st AD Sustainment Brigade deployed 200 of its soldiers to Afghanistan on 11 May 2015.<ref>[http://fortblissbugle.com/1st-ad-sustainment-brigade-deploys-to-afghanistan/ 1st AD Sustainment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed your question

I was about to go to bed when I saw your question. I sent a reply. Nothing came through the mailing list though. Can you check your spam folder?—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Warnowiaceae

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

New message test

This post should trigger a new messages notification. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Heisenberg picture

Hi!

Out of curiosity, why did you mention the Heisenberg picture in the context of Talk:Quantum mechanics#"Seems perhaps mysterious" needs re-writing? I could guess, but would very much like to hear your reasons instead. Cheers! YohanN7 (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

My vote

arbcom vote saved here 13:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientific method

Hi Ancheta Wis - a beautiful name!

I responded to your contribution in that section. AppliedStatistics (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tardigrades

Hi, I used the Convert template Template:Convert to show the temperatures in both °F and °C. I'm a little suspicious of the lower limit given - it's close to absolute zero, and unfortunately the website referred to makes my browser crash when I try to read it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Proof. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transformation of the United States Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1st Armored Division. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 86th Infantry Division (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort McCoy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:BustOfRalphBunche,UCLA,BuncheHall.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:BustOfRalphBunche,UCLA,BuncheHall.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 08:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Ancheta Wis. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Ancheta Wis.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ancheta Wis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ancheta Wis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ancheta_Wis/Archive_3&oldid=1142849276"