User talk:Deacon Vorbis/Archive 2019

Disappointed

Hi Deacon Vorbis. I was looking at Ammarpad's RfA, and while I was disappointed with a number of opposes, yours stuck out like a sore thumb. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and one of our largest issues is that we are geographically biased. Almost all of our editors are from North America or UK. There is a Australasian element, a south Asian one and a European one, but we need to be encouraging growth outside these zones, not stifling it. Worm^TT(talk) 15:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: For the record, I didn't know where Ammarpad was from (I still don't, exactly); I was simply struck by the consistency of language errors in his answers. Also, I'm not sure if you're referring to bias in content, in editors, or in administration. Each is certainly present, but I'm not sure what's of most concern to you here. In any case, English Wikipedia is run in English, and administrators need to have a certain mastery of the language to do so properly – more even than required for content contribution. In fact, English Wikipedia already has a huge leg up on other languages due to the widespread use of English as a second language in many parts of the world. However, I don't think that anyone should get a pass at RfA simply because they're from an underrepresented part of the world. (Edit: I wanted to add that I do appreciate raising these sorts of concerns here, so certainly no hard feelings or anything) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you've taken my comment in the spirit it was meant, I'm not one for badgering and have no issue with your opposition to the candidate - I just felt it was important to discuss the issue. I believe the bias it all tied up together, it stems from editors, who then write the content and become administrators. If we have the perception of blocking administrators from an area because they are from the area, then we will have the ongoing effect of discouraging editors and therefore content from those areas.

Effective communication is essential for administrators, I'm one of the strongest advocates for that - however grammatical accuracy and eloquent speech isn't necessary for effective communication, just the ability to get ones point across clearly. I agree that no one should get a "pass" at RfA (though I do believe standards are too high at present, per my reconfirmation of my support - we only have 17 admins who have started editing in the past 7 years) but I also think we need to be mindful of what we're actually looking for in an admin, and be careful not to be sidetracked on an easy tangent which can lead to geographical or even racial bias. Worm^TT(talk) 16:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Because you thanked me

Deacon Vorbis, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)

15:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC) ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't attack others calling them "attackers" totally without reason !

Please do not call others "attackers" without any reason at all. You may be blocked. Boeing720 (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Here is the diff in which you pretty clearly called me a name, which is a pretty clear violation of WP:NPA, irrespective of whether or not the owner of the talk page you made it on is a friend of yours. My issuing of a warning to you is hardly the same kind of violation. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I asked him for his honest recollections. We have spoken to each other. He lives in the Greater Stockholm region. You call that "attacking". But your lines at my talk-page was hostile. If you stop delete talk-pages etc, I will stop deleting your messages to me, if you will have any. Is this reasonable ? Boeing720 (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Boeing720: "... That other person is just a besserwisser ...". You hurled the name at me, not him. And I didn't delete your most recent message; I moved it, as I indicated in the edit summary. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You have been deleting quite a lot talk-page stuff though. And I did't write that to you, did I ?. It wasn't intended for you. It's a German wor.. - no never mind. If you simply stop deleting discussions others have done at talk-pages (how ever trivial they may seem to you), and - before deleting my supposed "crude English" etc - you could just had given me message or corrected it yourself. Or, why not, use your rights; a contributor who has used foreign sources, can well be asked to translate and explain them for other contributors at request. Then I think we can forget all of this. Honestly.

Please have a look at this "classic" rabid petty matters discussion - Talk:Danish_pastry and at headline "Exotic names" there is a hidden part. It includes the following suggestion: "Also, were he new, I would propose baking Boeing720 into a bacon danish with a side of bacon as per WP:DELICIOUS for bringing this to AN/I in an instance of unintentional forum/admin shopping." (To this, I just wish to explain that I thought it was funny. And I had been played by someone else (not this joking guy), I had no knowledge of this furious discussion, but I was asked to press a link and write something. This happened to be AN/I, of which I had not a clue of by then. I didn't participate otherwise.) Boeing720 (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Circle vs line

Moved to Talk:Four-dimensional space § Circle vs line

 – –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

What would have been the best way to handle the link to what I found?

If I hadn't found the link to the scene from the movie, I might never have gotten any kind of answer. Someone might have asked why I didn't try to find a video.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I knew there had to be a reason but I couldn't see it. There's nothing on the IP's talk page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem about the second part; it's just kind of habit whenever I see them pop up anymore. As for the link, I guess you could try to describe it, or advise people to look for it on their own, but WP:COPYVIOEL is pretty clear about that stuff. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It did come up on the first page of whatever I decided to search for. So I guess it would have been easy enough to describe the search. I was hoping there would be more of a fun explanation of the mathematics behind those circles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I find out a video's copyright status?

I was thinking about using a video as a source. Bill Carroll (musician) has only two sources. One has been fixed but is dead again, though I have contacted the people who might be able to give me more information. The other is a YouTube video which I realize I can't even link to for anyone.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the reference formatting in that article is already kind of screwy. And yeah, the YouTube link really shouldn't be in there. In any case, you can still cite the actual TV episode without linking to it ({{cite episode}} seems good for that). As far as the status, I think the general rule of thumb is that unless something is old enough for copyright to have expired, or there's text from the the author releasing it into the public domain (or at least some other sort of grant to redistribute without relinquishing the copyright), then you should assume it's under copyright. So for YouTube (or similar), if the video is actually up on some sort of official channel of the holder or their affiliate, (which you see a lot for music and TV, at least for clips), then linking is fine. But if it's just some random dude with an old TV episode, then that's pretty surely not kosher. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I finally realized I don't have to link to the video because it's in the article. But my goal was to find sources for all the information there and merge with a draft about his band.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Undo on Catalan numbers

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catalan_number#Second_recursive_formula — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranomostro (talk • contribs) 20:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup HTML

I'm sure you mean well, but this mass WP:DRIVEBY tagging with {{Cleanup HTML}} isn't helpful without some indication about exactly what and where the offending tags are. I looked at the first one that popped up in my watchlist (Gamma function), and I couldn't even find anything. So unless you've got a tool that can generate a report about what the problems are, can you go back and remove these? Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, and sorry for the surprise tagging! I do actually have some scripts that can generate reports of HTML problems by article (though in this case I was relying on live search engine results) and the detection of unwanted HTML tags in the by-tag report at Wikipedia:Typo_Team/moss#HTML_tags is actually the reason I'm filling up the de-HTML work queue. But any editor should be able to pretty easily find HTML markup by looking for "<" in the wikitext. In the case of Gamma function, I guess it's a bit harder because there are a bunch of legitimate <math> tags, but if you keep searching you'll see it also has <tt> tags, which according to the documentation are obsolete. -- Beland (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Discouraged

I spent most of the day researching the most common notation for representing sets with limited cardinality & when I made the edit, you hastily reverted it without any constructive words. The section I edited was wrong & failed to address the various questions/concerns on the article's talk page. I felt that I addressed these in addition to correcting the existing mistakes. Could you tell me what I need to do change about (or add to) my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspawn9911 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

"Cartesian theater" @ Infinite regress

At your undid comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infinite_regress&oldid=prev&diff=886155153 You had said "I'll just leave it as a "See also" section hatnote". And have made no further changes. Why? When? Make it, please! --Nashev (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nashev: I made that change during the undo; look at the beginning of the section. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

See also: Cartesian theater

— I see now. Sorry. --Nashev (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Snake lemma vs Zig-zag lemma

I'm asking about my reverted edits to Snake lemma and Zig-zag lemma. While I can't provide an exact source for the latter being commonly called "the snake lemma", it does say on the page for Zig-zag lemma that "In an unfortunate overlap in terminology, this theorem is also commonly known as the "snake lemma,".", and I've definitely heard my lecturer refer to the latter as the "snake lemma". Should we remove that statement from the article, then? Edderiofer (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"violate" ????

First of all i didn't "violate" anything, as claimed in your recent message to me. It's a TALK PAGE. Afaik, talk pages exist on wikipedia among others for the purpose of expressing subjective opinion about a topic. Secondly, do you actually support this "variable gender" bullshit??? Now we're starting to see men in their 40's or 50's "identifying" as 5 year old girls, then the "adoptive parents" file complaints to their government when kindergarden schools don't accept them in their classrooms? WTF?? What's next, "identifying" as an animal? or a plant? or several of these at once? This is a ridiculous travesty against human dignity and common sense. Delt01 15:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delt01 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Delt01: No, talk pages aren't there to air your opinions – see Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also see WP:NOTFORUM, which summarizes the relevant talk page guideline that "In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article ..." Policies on living persons are pretty clear; and you pretty clearly violated them by your post to the talk page. As for the rest of your comment, I don't think I can help you, because either you're trolling, in which case, WP:DNFT, or you're serious, in which case, please feel free to start an article about this phenomenon (or add it to an existing article), but remember that it must all be verifiable information in reliable sources. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Ok, thanks for clarifying. In which case sorry about the few posts i made to talk pages in which i added my personal opinion, including the one on the "glenn close" page - my mistake.

My recent edit to Triangle wave

You recently undid this edit of mine saying "some of this broke the delimiter sizing", I'm unsure what you mean by "broke", and if somethings were broken I'm confused as why reversion was used instead of fixing the delimiter sizing. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 01:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your removal of an Arbcom DS notice

Please revert diff. I presume this was in error. If not, please review the policies about this template and who has authority to remove them from a talk page, where this is an active discussion about the respectful treatment of transwomen identities. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: "Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The template guidelines do not say that non-administrators should not use the article talk page notice, only that enforcing administrators must use the template. Nor is this even common practice as many of these notices have been added to articles, including by me on several related articles. Please revert your change. It is unnecessary interference in the placement of a valid discretionary sanctions notice. If you wish to ask for advice, do so, after reverting your change.

Note that I applied Template:Ds/talk notice, not the version you have linked to. --Fæ (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: (I see that now, although it shouldn't have been substed). I believe you're trying to shoehorn in the ArbCom case to an area where it doesn't apply. Looking over the GG case, this seems to fall outside the scope of that, in both letter and spirit. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The template tells you it must be substituted. WRT gender related issues, it explicitly does fall within scope. Simply reading the GG case is not the way to interpret the topics. Further discussion should be on the article talk page, so taking it there. --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but on a side note, there's nothing on the template doc about substing either way; in fact, the examples are all written without a subst: – talk page banners generally shouldn't be substed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The subst is confusing, as Template:Ds/alert explicitly asks you to subst it. It was my presumption that that applied to this family of templates, perhaps not. --Fæ (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge sort

Hi, you have removed File:Merge sort animation2.gif here: Special:Diff/887750333.
Why do you think it's not a mergesort depiction? --CiaPan (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

new in blocked page

Hello https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Aqsa_TV#new --Bohdan Bondar (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Your recent editing history at Merge sort shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to template you, but this is how I make sure that the actions I take on all users involved are fair and the same as everyone else's. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, I noticed your warning on Jrheller1's user talk page regarding harassment. I also don't understand your edit summary here where you state that Jrheller1 is engaging in hounding - where is this harassment and hounding happening exactly? Who is this occurring against other than yourself? Can you provide me with diffs to all of the edits where this user engages in harassment and hounding so I can take a look? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: (No apology needed for templating me; I totally deserve it). The warning I left was just about hounding directed against me, and not any other behavior against me or against anyone else. It was just two instances, which is why I haven't pursued it further, and don't think it needs to be yet really. The first time was at Triangle wave, and the second was this business at Merge sort. These were both articles for which other users had left me messages further up my talk page, and which Jrheller1 had never shown any interest in until a rather unpleasant exchange at another article, which has thankfully been sorted out. Like I said at his talk page, I just kind of ignored the first instance at Triangle wave, but after a second occurrence, I started to get the sense that his actions were done out of spite, especially because on the latter, he showed no interest in following up on the already existent talk page discussion, and he made no indication that he made any effort to understand the issue that I had raised with the image in the first place. That's when I decided to leave the warning. Please ask if there's more I can clarify. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind response, your understanding, and your explanation regarding the hounding I asked about. Since you don't feel that it's to the level of needing escalation, I'll just leave it be until you decide that it does. Just understand that when you revert someone's edits and with edit summaries telling them to stop hounding and harassing you, it's going to draw negative attention to yourself and any content dispute you're involved in - definitely not what you want. ;-) The best thing to do when in a situation where you're feeling hounded and harassed isn't to yell "stop it" at them... that'll just encourage users who are doing this to intentionally cause you stress to do it even more. Instead, try messaging them directly and peacefully, asking them why they're doing what they're doing, and try and work with them to resolve the matter at-hand. Be the "nice guy" and go that route 100% and without allowing any break of civility. If the peaceful route doesn't work, then file a report at ANI with diffs, details, and information regarding the harassment and hounding so that someone can respond, investigate, and help handle the matter. Thanks again for the response. If you have questions or need anything, please let me know and I'll be happy to help you. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thue-Morse audio

i started a discussion about my Thue-Morse audio. feel free to elaborate why you feel it is irrelevant. also, i hope my explanation made sense. --sofias. (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, just in case you missed it: i wrote a reply, including a slowed-down example. --sofias. (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops, forgot where I got the information.

If you are reading this, you must be the one who erased what I put on list of school shootings. First of all, it did happen. Second of all, I just forgot to put where I got the information. Look up "Georgia School Shooting," and put it back, because it did happen and it belongs on the list. 1jire (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Riemann series theorem Intro

Hello Deacon. I recently added a to the intro of the Riemann series theorem page which you reverted. I see why you reverted it, and I think I agree, however my problem is that the generalization that the example suggests is not the generalization that is explained in the article. I was asking for a citation for the method that was implied. I've explained this more precisely on the talk page: Talk:Riemann_series_theorem#A_simpler_example. Since you're interested in the article I thought I'd explicitly invite you to discuss it with me there. Shawsa7 (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"Vandalism for Markiplier post"

Hi, Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and I thought that maybe noting a very famous meme/picture would add more content, and had no intentions of vandalism. If it did feel like that, I am truly sorry. Minkyumthemaster (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Proof of an example in l'Hopital's rule.

About the example that was edited yesterday, doesn't f need to be continuous at x to pass from lim(f(x+h) + f(x-h)), h->0,to this being equal to f(x)? Let me know your thoughts. KungFuLykos (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Narrow interests account duplicate

Hi there,

I made the first account, today, but it looks like I mistyped the password. The accounts have very similar names, so I hope you can see that there is no malicious intent.

Thanks, Narrow interests2 (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Narrow interests2

A philosophical question.

Please, look at my edit. I've cited you. Will you contradict yourself and revert this edit? Vikom ^talk 05:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vikom: I don't know what your problem is with me, or in general, that you have to stoop to making some weird passive-aggressive request about one of your edits. You may have quoted me, but you did so out of context and changed the point I was originally making. I've never seen someone take a revert so personally. Everybody gets reverted sometimes; it's just part of editing here. Please see Wikipedia is not a battleground. To be honest, I might have engaged more meaningfully had you not made such a big fuss about this. But wahtever; it is what it is. I have no desire to turn this into some sort of conflict. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know what your problem is with me,

You know very well what my problem is, but I will remind you. You reverted my 7 consecutive edits, then restored only one. Some of your reverts had no sense at all, and over time, I will restore them.

• or in general, that you have to stoop to making some weird passive-aggressive request about one of your edits.

Hmm, you carelessly destroyed my work and now you are accusing me of passive aggression?

• You may have quoted me, but you did so out of context and changed the point I was originally making.

What a blatant lie. The quote was in context because it referred to the "Simulation of two black holes colliding", which I precisely described in the edit summary: Quote: "I can't imagine anyone reasonably thinking this is anything but some sort of simulation." See my reverted edit

As for the point you was originally making - your original statement is available for everyone.

• I've never seen someone take a revert so personally. Everybody gets reverted sometimes;

"sometimes", but not seven reverts in a row, plus simultaneous another one in another article. I see that destroying someone else's work is your hobby, like in this example, where you destroyed constructive edits made by Drbogdan.

To sum up. You act like a boss, but keep in mind that everyone can revert also your edits.

Vikom ^talk 00:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vikom: Okay, I tried to be civil, but I was serious about not wanting to turn this into a conflict. Therefore, I'm requesting that you please refrain from posting to my talk page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS discretionary sanctions alert

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 the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. 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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --37.152.231.90 (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There are known knowns

I apologize for reverting your edit on There are known knowns. Later I figured out why it was needed and changed it back. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: no worries! It still might be improvable, but I just wanted to get the self-ref out of there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Signpost case

Hello Deacon Vorbis, as we have commented on similar topics in the ArbCom case, I invite you to read paragraph 4 of my statement, where I provided some evidence. This is because I expect to leave Wikipedia shortly, and I may not be involved in the ArbCom case further. starship.paint (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Carmaker1 can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. I don't think you understand what "highly inapporpriate" means, to even be making such statement and bombarding my talk page with your own drivel.

If you were actually paying attention to what was going on, you would see this exact edit I made CORRECTLY, to reflect the rest of the text and numerous sources pointing to 1983, which U1whatever removed with some peculiar fixation.

When text in relation to 1983 production/introduction date/start is supported via sources within the article already, but the erroneous text ELSEWHERE within the Corvette C4 article contradicts it, then it must be corrected to flow with the rest of the Corvette C4 article as SUPPORTED. A user that goes about blindly reverting such efforts, is committing the act of disruptive editing.

For your education, the Twinkle template I used was for DISRUPTIVE EDITING (NOT Vandalism), was a sole warning on that topic of "removing content", as there is no reason for a user to revert such an diff, when a source is already provided NUMEROUS times. But you were not paying attention and made your assumptions instead on what I was addressing on their page for a recent revert of a diff, that was perfectly accurate and intended to erase inconsistencies. NOT for a different edit altogether on a DIFFERENT ARTICLE, in which I needed a new source for and thus provided with rapidity.

Don't comment on nor send inane templates to my page, if you are not paying mind to a situation at hand. It is an unwelcome waste of my time, I don't really care for, if you cannot (try to) understand a situation fully and exercise due diligence.

It is very annoying to hear from someone, who stumbles into something and seems half-aware, finger wagging sanctimoniously to likely address OTHER topics I NEVER took further issue with U1whatever on. The Corvette C6 article (which was a content dispute) has bloody nothing to do with, the diffs of edits I made on the C4 article. NOT C5, NOT C6.

Simply C4, which related to me changing 1984 to 1983 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevrolet_Corvette_(C4)&diff=next&oldid=906920467).

Any other C4 reverts, I did not address them YET. IF someone deems it necessary, to be simply deleting corrections with sources already cited elsewhere in the prose (ie 1983), I will leave a warning template, as that is being disruptive and blocking another's ability to effectively contribute. Please annoy someone else, if you are not going to look at things openly.. Carmaker1 (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Please restore

Dear Deacon Vorbis. I just noticed that you recently removed the section on the alternative quadratic formula. Please notice that the new version of my article on ArXiv (https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05789) contains extended sections on the numerical stability, and a facsimile of the excerpt from Descartes' "Discours de la méthode" where the quadratic formula was published for the first time in history. Descartes' example is indeed a quadratic equation in homogeneous form. I would therefore politely ask you to restore the section on the alternative solution formula or, if you find it helpful, to even extend it. Sincerely yours, Norbert Hungerbühler (Professor of Mathematics at ETH Zürich). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:10EC:56C4:8000:0:0:11 (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A few side comments first: please place new comments at the end and sign your posts with 4 tildes (see WP:TP for help on using talk pages). Also, comments like this should really go on the talk page of the article in question, not here. But this should be easy, so I'll just answer here. There are a lot of problems with what I removed. It was unencyclopedically written, but that's fixable. More seriously, an arXiv preprint isn't a reliable source, because (within limits) anyone can post anything there (see WP:SELFPUB). Also see WP:SELFCITE for issues related to problems of trying to use Wikipedia to promote your own work. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Your message

we respect but tell me why did he remove my post "Is it a possible glitch in the solar system if true?" as well as the post of light. I posted (asked) with civility despite knowing the truth. did I show any rudeness in my post?

Here is your message on my talk page.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:VQuakr. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll also add that VQuakr was acting within Wikipedia's guidelines on using talk pages. And if you are unhappy with something an editor does like that, or you don't understand why they did something, then you should address the editor WP:CIVILly. You'll generally find you get a much more constructive response. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze: You should really ask VQuakr, since he was the one who removed them. But in this case, we don't have to ask, because he already told you; because article talk pages are there to discuss article improvements, not to use as a general forum, as has been noted on your talk page more than once. Again, please read WP:TP for help on using talk pages, which you seem not to have done, since you're still not signing your posts. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Generalized mean - L´Hopital

Hello, you have reverted my statement about L´Hopital rule. We can talk about whether or not we should add this information but you said that it was incorrect too. Can you please explain why you think it´s wrong that both the numerator and the denominator tend to infinity as p goes to infinity? Kind regards, TranslationTalent (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@TranslationTalent: Well, I guess my objection could have been more precise. What you typed above isn't wrong, but it was also wholly irrelevant for applying l'Hospital there, since it was for a limit other than the one under consideration. On a side note, if you do want to discuss inclusion generally, that should be done on the article talk page rather than a particular editor's talk page, so that others have the chance to weigh in. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I have asked a question on the article´s talk page about this proof, maybe you can check it out. Kind regards, TranslationTalent (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, redundancy can sometimes help in understanding. There is no requirement of proofs to be as short as possible. Another topic: I don´t like this proof in it´s current form because it doesn´t tell you why l´hopital can not be applied here. See the talk page of the article for a more detailed explanation of why I think l´hopital is wrong here. Kind regards TranslationTalent (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Thank you, this issue is now officially  Resolved

Mercy College and College of New Rochelle

Why did you reject the information about the College of New Rochelle's absorption into Mercy College? It seems important and is confirmed information. In fact, this information is contained within the College of New Rochelle entry. The latter institution is ceasing to exist and many of its assets are being transferred to Mercy College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwkirk (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wwkirk: I didn't; I simply moved your comment into a new section at the end of the talk page and WP:SIGNed it for you (which you again didn't do here). The request is still open, but I believe you should be able to make the edit yourself at this point. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the WP:SIGN procedure.Wwkirk (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Edit warring over {{rfc}} in help_talk:Displaying_a_formula". Thank you. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism on Talk: Oath Keepers

You were warned once already about this. Your continual reverting of posts on the Oath Keepers talk page is not ok, and I will report you for vandalism if you do it again. Barwick (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up if you want to take part, discussing this via dispute resolution, link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Oath_Keepers Barwick (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Redacted Links

You had redacted source links in an edit request I made to the Uno (Card Game) Wikipedia page and I'm wondering why. I had asked in a new talk entry on that page, but you seem to have promptly ignored it. Any chance you could help with how the links provided had to be thrown out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacMinty (talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk-page warring

Yet another instance of odd-numbered-space warring, such as [1], and your disruptions are reported. And don’t assume that warring only against me will be reported. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: What the hell is odd-numbered-space? And anyway, it's not warring; I just did it to set up auto archiving properly as I explained in my edit summary. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

If you pointed to a policy stating that selective archiving is discouraged, then I’d admit you merely corrected my error. Otherwise it’s warring. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: We don't need a policy to codify that manual archiving like that is bad practice. It leads to even more inconsistent setups than we already have, and people don't follow up with future archiving that needs to be done. We have the bots for a reason. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Your trout is ready for you...

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. For edit warring over this. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Faà di Bruno's formula

Hey man, seems like you rolled back edits in the Faà di Bruno's formula entry simply for the sake of undoing changes. Or maybe to conform to some imagined old textbook notation. Why, though? Want less people to start editing Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.112.18.90 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Iterated function

Hey, I saw you didn't reply but you looked at my edits and reverted another one... Just want to emphasize that I wrote you the entry to get into conversation about it and I'm a little taken aback by that interaction, to be honest. But I'll cope.

I don't think there's a good standard to the "set x to y" expression as in $\left(x^{5}-5x^{2}\right)_{x=7}$ or ${\tfrac {\partial f(x)}{\partial x}}|_{x=5}$, akin to how some people write $\forall (x)P(x)$ and (quantitatively most?) others opt for $P(x){\text{ for all }}x$. I found the comment "doesn't make sense" a bit harsh, as I think there's a good and fairly evident way in which ${\tfrac {\partial }{\partial x}}|_{x=5}$ is taken as an operation taking the derivative of a function, followed by an evaluation at five. But don't take this to be a combative argument, especially here I see how that might be a convention and a possibly more confusing (if better readable) one at that.

I think pushing the factors in the Faa di Bruno formula inside was a strict improvement, but also here, if we take the encyclopedia in Wikipedia more strictly, we might opt for reporting of history and I can well imagine that the lengthy expression is how you'd find it in the original paper.

My wishes

91.112.18.90 (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Gamma and gamma

About this (which followed this, which was in response to this): aha, I hadn't seen that there really is some treatment of other extensions in the article. (I will pretend that this is because it's buried slightly, in the middle of a section about the usual gamma, rather than because I did an inadequate job of checking before reverting.) Probably that added to your confusion; sorry! I still think that the usual gamma is so much more important than any other extension of the factorial that any mention of multiple extensions in the lead would need to be very, very clear about that. On another note: I've been quite enjoying three solid days of not seeing anyone angrily berated over trivialities at WT:WPM or elsewhere .... --JBL (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: Sorry for the late reply; I've been mostly inactive here the past several days. Anyway, thanks for the note, and certainly no worries; the Hadamard function certainly seems a lot less well-known (but kind of interesting!). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

a lot less well-known (but kind of interesting!) agreed! All the best, JBL (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

factorial

why you delete

"The earliest publication that discusses Factorial appears to be the Sefer Yetzirah [Book of Creation], circa AD 300."

?? ינון גלעדי (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Foucault pendulum

"...this isn't a good video clip"

1. Is there a better video on Wiki?

2. This video is in HD (See Wikimedia Commons).

3. The video shows the start and the first 20 minutes of turning.

Please consider undoing my edit!

Fizped (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

MOS

With respect, there was no discussion of the medical consensus in the previous discussion. For all that it was being ignored, I still think the discussion was worth having. Vashti (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vashti: Unless I missed one buried among all the others (which is certainly possible), there were no studies, or evidence of any kind, demonstrating any harm from the use of the term. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to demonstrate harm. We only have to demonstrate that WP:MEDRS state that there is harm. Vashti (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vashti: My main rationale for closing was that it was just degenerating into arguments without any productive discussion, especially after such a recent discussion on the very same topic, with nothing really new being offered. If you think it was a bad close, you're free to revert me; I definitely won't be offended or make any further attempt to re-close. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You're probably right, and I'm inclined to let another user make the revert call. But it's crushing, after spending two days researching - how many even was it, 50, 60, 70 sources? - to be stonewalled because people can't even be bothered to look at them, when there's as close as damn it to being a medical consensus. Vashti (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not helpful/good

"Not a helpful/good pic" is not a helfpul/good edit summary, though it is brief. Hyacinth (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

How is an image request disruptive? Two edits on the article and one edit on the talk page; if combined, three edits. This is the possible beginning of a pattern at most. Note that I have not reverted the reversions of my edits, but instead have responded by trying something differently, and not reverted reversions of those edits. I am actually actively engaged in reaching consensus by reaching out to editors who have objected to my edits.

All images are considered unnecessary by many people, and every and any image may be found unnecessary by at least one person, and there are people who cannot access images due to disability. Similarly, there are people who can't understand a concept after reading page after page, but who can understand a visual presentation of the concept. Since Wikipedia is mostly text and writing, the editors of Wikipedia are statistically skewed towards people who are not "visual learners" (as they say, "writers write, painters paint"), but this does not mean that people who are visual learners do not matter and should not be valued. Hyacinth (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hyacinth: There's no such thing as a "visual learner". See for example this summary of a study. My claim of WP:POINT was a bit overkill, but I was annoyed. It's especially useless on Mediant, because there already is one for the geometric discussion later. For the general algebraic definition, simply plunking the formula down in an image again isn't helpful. The image was also of low quality due to the formatting of the formulas, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite reply. A pre-existing superior image is a much better reason to remove my image than "not good", and is almost as brief.

The idea of a "visual learner" is a bit of a distraction here (one can always find a reason to include an image, just as one can always find a reason to not include an image Hyacinth (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)). I assume that we can agree that not everyone in the world is as good at reading as everyone else in the world. I'm reminded of Googling "happy drunk" (looking for an images from the Middle Ages of the rosy cheeked slouching drunk in his tilted cap) and all the results saying that, 'there is no such thing as "a happy drunk", because alcohol does not change one's disposition/personality.' However, if some people are disposed to be happy and alcohol doesn't change their disposition, than they are still disposed to be happy if they drink, meaning that there are some happy drunks.

Hyacinth (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Di Caprio's main lede.

Hi, i recently added an edit in which i added two films worthy of being put in the lede of said actor (in the part in which they are listed the notable films he did in the 2010s) specifically this two being Shutter Island and The Great Gatsby. I have been denied this perfectly reasonable edit request by you. I think adding these two notable films on his lede is totally reasonable, since they are actually memorable box office hits known by the general public. I don't absolutely think that the list is already exhaustive, adding these movies is more telling of the fact of how many great successful movies he did in this decade alone.

So i gently ask you to admit my edit request so the edit can be validated, and so these two films of him can rightfully appear in the lede alongside the others, as they deserve to appear there. Thank you and good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.190.51 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Subsolar point coordinates

You either provide the source or your own version of the formula. --Roland (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request for Talk:Elizabeth May

Hi Deacon Vorbis,

Thank you for changing the edit request to "yes" at Talk:Elizabeth May, but the reason I didn't change it is because I wanted to leave it open for someone else to answer and possibly complete, if the needed citation was provided. Nevertheless, I was that person as I've now found a citation and completed the request.

I also like to wrap the edit requests in closure tags so that no further edits occur to that section. No one'e complained about my doing that thus far. Do you think that's reasonable?

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I like your editnotice. ;)

@Dmehus: Certainly no worries. I saw the "not done" and figured it was answered. It's not that uncommon for people to forget to change the template parameter, So when I happen upon one that seems like it really was answered, I just set it that way, so that it doesn't sit around in the queue. As far as wrapping the section in archive tags, I'd say that's probably overkill. Sometimes a declined request gets reopened (perhaps with a source provided that wasn't originally). Occasionally there's even productive discussion about the edit after it's made. I don't think there's any need to try to artificially cut off further edits. The vast majority of requests simply get accepted or declined and that's that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis, Ah okay, that makes sense re: the archive wrappers and thanks for clarifying that some people forget to close off edit requests that they should. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Argh, fixing ping: Dmehus. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, Deacon Vorbis. Maybe I should have pinged you and Guy when I commented at Boeing's SPI (after it was closed), but I didn't, so I'll just mention that I have posted agreement with you — that was never Boeing. Possibly I suppose it could have been a friend of his. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC).

Newton's Law of Gravitation

Why did you revert my comment on Newton's Law of Gravitation. You gave no reason. JFB80 (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@JFB80: You should raise this on the article's talk page, not mine, so that other editors can see and have a chance to weigh in if appropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

When deciding to archive or not, we need not wait for automatic archiving. We can manually archive. And, indeed, regardless of the archive bot, this is common practice. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to pursue it any further, but there are good reasons to wait for the bot. Doing it manually can muck up the bot archive settings (like the counter not getting updated here); using the one-click archiver script is good if you really need to do so. It's also generally good to keep some context about recent discussions so that people don't start the same threads all over again. Sure, someone ideally searches the archives first, but realistically this doesn't usually happen. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Discouraging and Unnecessary

The words 'analogue' and 'analog' are both acceptable in contemporary American English. I'm learning to contribute. Please don't threaten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpt Wise (talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

References

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Subjunctive

I'm a fan of the subjunctive. I refer to your reversal of my correction on the entropy page. The subjunctive is used to refer to something that is a possibility. However, in that case the sentence was referring to a particular case, not at all hypothetical. My Practical English Usage, Michael Swan, Oxford University Press, confirms it, but you can Google it and it will say the same. I encourage you to change the sentence to what it was before. Thank you for trying to do the right thing.--Gciriani (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gciriani: (For future reference, it helps to link either the article or a diff; I had to go digging through my contribs to figure out what you were referring to). Anyway, the introduction via "under the constraint that ..." serves to indicate possibility or hypotheticalness, especially in a that clause, so the subjunctive is perfectly valid here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to troll, but is hypotheticalness even a word? I can see your point of view that if the sentence were "...distribution under the hypothesis that the distribution have...". However, in this case it is "...distribution under the constraint that the distribution have...". Regardless, this is not worth an edit battle, event tough I disagree I leave it to you. Regarding the use of the conjunction that, in this case it merely indicates a relative clause; not all relative clauses are hypothetical. Thank you for encouraging me to link the article in the future. --Gciriani (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't need to go here

The next noob who (per MOS) decides to start fixing [all] curlies on sight will, sooner or later, learn from his mistake too. And the next noob, and the next. Meanwhile, I guess ...

Preachy ate chew. --Brogo13 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

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)

An FYI

Sorry for changing Your original comment but You probably did not understand that intention. I did not wanted to echo that you have other intentions. I only though You was aware about my mentioning about edit war in describtion (I even thanked for your original massage until I relplied you as you know) and I can remove "warning" as unproductive for us two with good faith as it is on my own talk. But I made very bad thing that I littly changed your second comment (partly comment can not be edited even on the user own page, or that part of the comment for esample include rude title of section) and I think it require reflection to You. Sorry, again. I belive and hope we will be no longer conflicted in the future if we will see again on Wikipedia. I never was blocked on Wikipedia since 10 years. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent design and WP:DNFT

RE [2] Thanks for removing my reply. I didn't see the earlier IP history until afterwards. Meters (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: I'm glad you didn't take it personally; it didn't even seem to be the honest-but-misguided kind of post. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I kicked myself when I realized. Meters (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The Man in the High Castle/world map

Hallo,Deacon!

Please have another look at "The Man in the High Castle", Section 14 of the talk page. I have reacted to the deletion of the world map. I'd like to know your opinion.

Best wishes

Gernsback67 (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

VBS1/VBS2/VBS3/BISIM incident

thanks but what i can do about troll which flags / erases / changes pages which have valid content, including sources citated, mismatching facts (e.g. he swapped two different companies etc.)

some year ago I spent time to find sources for citations to make sure it match with new wikipedia policies at that time

pages of VBS1 , VBS2 , VBS3 and Bohemia Interactive Simulations when he dislike the reverts he simple flags the pages for deletion (please note he got already several times denied on speedy deletion at 3 of 4 those pages etc.)

User:Dwarden (6 December 2019) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarden (talk • contribs) 23:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dwarden: Calling someone a troll is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on not making personal attacks. Less obviously, so is calling something vandalism which is clearly not vandalism; see WP:NOTVAND for an explanation of the term. What you can do is to look through Wikipedia's general notability guidelines to see how that works here, as well as some specific ones, like WP:NCORP. Looking briefly at the sources at Bohemia Interactive Simulations, the vast majority are to the company itself. These are not independent of the article subject, and do nothing to establish its notability. That doesn't automatically mean that it's not notable, just that the article doesn't demonstrate notability. If you think it really is notable, you should find read the various links I gave you, find sources which demonstrate notability as described in those links, add them to the article appropriately, and mention this at the deletion discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Side note, Dwarden has a COI with the subject and should not edit these articles further, and instead use the talk pages to request changes. -- ferret (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

your side-note is wrong Ferret , i'm not in COI in relation to BISIM/VBS (now and wasn't even in the 2005/2006 when i created the VBS1/VBS2 pages)

as i clearly indicate, the person requesting delete got denied removals of the articles in past (e.g. speedy deletion)

yet even after that, the person in question erased all the content by edit containing simple forward

when that's reverted the person just flags the article again with different type of delete request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarden (talk • contribs) 23:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

2nd millennium

Is "airplane" understood in British/international English? If not, the IP has a point that "aeroplane" is understood in most variants. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: The IP changed it the other way around, from British to US. I'm sure both uses are well-understood by both groups. I didn't actually double check to make sure that British was the prevailing style on the article, but if US is, then it could certainly be changed back. But changing the text of an article just to avoid a redirect shouldn't be done for any reason, let alone for changing ENGVAR. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

RTG and RDMA

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RTG and RDMA. --Jasper Deng (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Section transclusion

Your fix at Transsexual left it still broken. I fixed the syntax so it works, but I have no idea what section you were targeting, so you may have to change it again, to slurp the correct content. Btw, I don't agree with your edit history comment, ... transcluding a section of content seems like a terrible idea, partly for this exact reason. If using features that are complex and need to be implemented correctly in order to work right is a terrible idea, we'd have to get rid of Infoboxes, Templates, and a whole lot of things. It *is* a terrible idea for some, and for others, it's a help. In this particular case, that's a whole lot of material to slurp, and I think it's too much (but as I said, maybe you meant to target something else). In any case, a brief section summarizing the material in Summary style and linking to it as child article might be another approach. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: See the note I left at User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#Broken section marking, where I noted which edit the marking got broken in. I wasn't sure how all the other changes would interact with what was supposed to get transcluded, so I just left it in the broken state for F22R to reconcile. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll follow up there. Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

You ignored my the last message on the following talk page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABasel_problem . I have been waiting for an answer for more than two weeks. I find your attitude disrespectful. Indeed, you have always deleted the paragraph I am trying to add in less than 24 hours. Your ignorance led to an edit warring. I wrote another message on the talk page since then. Please answer to me. If you refuse to answer, please stop deleting the paragraph I am trying to add on the article's page.Contribute.Math (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)