User talk:Deacon Vorbis/Archive 2020

This page is an archive. Do not edit it. Please edit User talk:Deacon Vorbis instead.
2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

E

The circularity exists between the definition of E and the definition of natural logarithm. Have you considered this? --ilgiz (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilgiz: This is completely out of the blue. What are you talking about? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He does have a good point. e (mathematical constant) starts with The number e is a mathematical constant that is the base of the natural logarithm, while Natural logarithm starts with The natural logarithm of a number is its logarithm to the base of the mathematical constant e. I wonder how this should be fixed? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon As a maths guy, let me voice out my opinions. For most high school pupils, the number e and the natural logarithm is defined just as circularly as in Wikipedia. However, e and the natural logarithm can also be defined through other means, e.g. infinote series and properties. For instance, the exponentiation function e^x can be defined as the unique function whose value at 0 is 1, and whose derivative is equal to itself. This in fact is how e and the natural log is rigorously defined in a real analysis course. However, how to start an article is a matter of prose writing not maths, and given my ideas I'll prefer to let you sort it out. For now I feel that the current heading works fine. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 04:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled re Tenghilan

Which one is the issue of an article about Tenghilan? Best wishes NikoUms — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikoUMS (talk • contribs) 04:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NikoUms: The English in the article is really really bad, and it needs a thorough copy edit. Leave the tag there so that someone who works on copy editing might eventually get to it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok, bro thanks. At least we learn and provide simple information to the community especially in Sabah.. Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikoUMS (talk • contribs) 06:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on ref desk

really?

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: For what it's worth, I ended messing about with it by simply unclosing what I had closed in the first place so it wouldn't just be a duplicate post. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Deacon Vorbis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Deacon Vorbis". The reason given for Deacon Vorbis's block is: "Violation of the three-revert rule".

Accept reason:

That seems like a bug. I've lifted the autoblock. ST47 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Autoblock length was set longer than the block itself, which has expired already). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P... vs child sex offender

One of the users who disagreed with me on my talk, is now in agreement with me. Are you going to stop vandalising Wikipedia now? 151.229.26.18 (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree with you, you must accept that everyone have different opinions. Vandalism refers to deliberate bad-faith edits, and his ideas are just trying to improve Wikipedia. Please assume good faith to other editors. Thank you. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 04:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon Vorbis well, I suppose it's okay for that anonymous user's edits to stand, right? Given the existence of reliable sources, thise edits shouldn't be reverted. If you don't object, I'll undo your reverts. Okay? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 04:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Lord of Math: I certainly do object. Wholesale changes like this are inappropriate. These sources do not justify them. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education

So if it is answered, where is the answer? --Red King (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red King: Look again. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edits

Hi,

I noticed your recent reversion of my edits at CW complex and cable knitting. I'm part of the Typo Team, and currently fixing typos in the letter C with missing spaces. Omitting spaces is often a problem at parentheses, and that's why they're flagged for the Typo Team. Additionally, things like "(co)homology" and "stitch(es)" are simply not English words. For CW complex, "cohomology" without the parentheses should be used, as in the wikilink portion. If there is a need to indicate both words, then "X or Y" should be used for clarity. I urge you to reconsider your reversions.

Regards,

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

revert

your revert and explanation do not make too much logic[1] in the future please discuss on talk page prior to such reverts, would rather not take this to ANI as you have been blocked in the past[2], thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: The explanation was that the infoboxes are pointless; please stop adding them. I'm under no obligation to start something on the talk page first; indeed, WP:BRD suggests that discussion happen after a revert. These infoboxes add nothing to these articles and shouldn't be there. If you disagree, please start a discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: Normally I'm in favor of keeping discussion at article talk pages, but since this spans so many, this is as good a place as any. Anyway, to go into a bit more detail, I'm concerned with seeing infoboxes added to articles en masse and without considering the usefulness of them like this. If an article has sufficient information to summarize in an infobox, then great, but an infobox with one entry, especially one which can generally be gleaned from the first sentence, is generally pointless. I'm generally supportive of infoboxes overall, but they need to actually have sufficient info to box before they should be added. And just on a side note, starting off with threats over simple reverts is usually not the way to go. And on second thought, if you want to gauge consensus for such skimpy infoboxes, maybe WT:MED would be a good place to start (since these are all medical infoboxes). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the comment on my talk page. Mistook you for another user. No position on the trypophobia infobox. I am happy either way. It is barely a health condition... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to: refusal to edit "Google Chrome" from January 28, 2020.

I think that the reason for rejecting my request (WP: NOR) is incorrect. I asked to add the following sentence: There is a condition in the Google Chrome license that allows Google to "remotely disable or remove any" "extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies" "from user systems in its sole discretion." I will show that it is based on reliable sources: The part of sentence "There is a condition in the Google Chrome license that allows Google to" refers to the source at the address I provided in the link (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html). There is a section number 20.3 with the following content: "20.3 From time to time, Google may discover an extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. Google Chrome will periodically download a list of such extensions from Google's servers. You agree that Google may remotely disable or remove any such extension from user systems in its sole discretion. " Members of the sentence: "remotely disable or remove any" and "from user systems in its sole discretion." they come from the last sentence of the quoted fragment of Google license. These members are separated by a fragment that defines what "such extension" is. This fragment ("extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies") also comes from the quoted fragment number 20.3, only from the previous sentence (more precisely: from the first sentence from the fragment of license number 20.3). The link (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html) is credible. It is used in the same context in which I am asking you to use it now, e.g. on the Polish Wikipedia page about Google Chrome (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#cite_ref-eula_38-0). In addition, this link was used as a link to the Google Chrome license also in the following cases on Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navegador_web#cite_ref-2 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cent_Browser#cite_ref-cluf_9-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.75 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal analysis of a primary source (the Chrome EULA) is exactly what "original research" refers to. For something to be added, it would have to be discussed by a reliable, secondary source. And even then, that's no guarantee that it would remain in the article (although it may). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for explaining why you rejected my previous edit request. In that case, please include under the phrase: >> The following year Google reported a "75% drop in customer support help requests for uninstalling unwanted extensions" which led them to expand this restriction to all Windows and Mac users. << in the article about Google Chrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome) the following sentence: >> The Google Chrome license has the following statement: "20.3 From time to time, Google may discover an extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. Google Chrome will periodically download a list of such extensions from Google's servers. You agree that Google may remotely disable or remove any such extension from user systems in its sole discretion." << This is an unchanged quote (without interpretation) from Chrome EULA (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html) with an introductory sentence that only states the source of the quote. If my introductory sentence were a problem again, please help me how to put this Google Chrome license fragment (original source) in this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.75 (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.135 (talk) [reply]

Planck law

Hello, please correct the simplified form of Planck's distribution (introduce factor ni^3 in the formula with x). Please consider revising to account for Wien distribution, and to introduce Planck distribution as a standard distribution page similar to the one of the apparently similar Maxwell distribution, Boltzmann distribution, Poisson distribution. --79.26.57.107 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong signature

You signed my name on another user's edit. --Nessie (📥) 15:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did...

Facepalm –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nCov revert

why did you revert a 'grammar fix' on the virus article?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: Because it was the ~~won't~~ wrong way around (that was a tablet keyboard issue). I'm guessing you got confused between the request and the current state of the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

your right, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's your deal?

This is twice now I've tried to step away from a toxic Wikipedia situation you don't understand, and twice now you've deleted my attempt to escape without an edit summary. Do you hate me for some reason? Or is this just a coincidence? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: No, I don't hate you, but I do find you insufferably annoying. But that's not why I reverted you at WP:FTN. I reverted you at WP:FTN because you were being disruptive and posting weird, personal shit that didn't belong there. Knock it off. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your decision to delete my reply, but would like to note for posterity that I at least said "have it your way" regarding your "knock it off" proposal, so future readers have a sense of conclusion here. Alternatively, delete the whole thing. Your page, your choice, just a suggestion. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for an answer

Can you please answer to my proposition on the Basel Problem ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABasel_problem Contribute.Math (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

Sending this to you as last editor of the page, as it is locked.

This statement needs references:

“Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate“ Trontx (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting my first article up

Hi Deacon,

Thanks for helping me out with the confusion. A little backstory: I am part of the team I am trying to put onto Wikepedia in order for prospective players coming into universiy next year to have some semblance of who we are so they'd be more attracted to the team. This means I am biased, but I have tried to write it in a way that it is unbiased. I Sulfurboy said that I have too many internal sources, however there's not much other sources except for UofT sites and the OUA's site as well. I'm in a bit of a pickle because I don't know any other coverage of the team outside of the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyCW (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

It's extremely easy to file with Twinkle; I've gone ahead and done it, pointing to your comment. --JBL (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obverse and reverse

Moved to Talk:Reverse § Obverse and reverse

– –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

Hello, I saw you deleted the image about the ecological way of using t. p. here, because in your opinion it is "not useful". I think that most of people consider ecology to be very useful nowadays, even foundamental. Could you please undo your revert? Thanks --Francescost (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Francescost: No. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, nor is it a how-to guide. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any research, nor a how-to. It's a description of a well known ecological method. Just seems strange because of the topic. Francescost (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

27 Club and Rupert Brooke:

Moved to Talk:27 Club § 27 Club and Rupert Brooke:

– –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wreath Product

Hi, I noticed you rolled back the editor on the Wreath product page including a see also link to the universal embedding theorem. Note the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#"See also" section page states the "See also" section should include related subjects. I don't think removing the universal embedding theorem is helpful for readers because it is one the the main structure theorems for wreath products and group extensions. Although it is referenced earlier in the article, adding this link provides additional emphasis of its importance and relevance to the subject. Moreover, a user scanning through the article looking for main parts may miss the reference to the theorem, whereas by the previous point, they would be less likely to gloss over this important theorem. Wundzer (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wundzer: The guideline at MOS:NOTSEEALSO is pretty clear. While it's not an absolute prohibition, general practice is to avoid "See also" entries which are already mentioned in the article. If you think it's buried in the article compared to how important it is (and looking more closely, I'm not sure it is...after all, it's a short article with a short list of main properties), a better solution is to restructure the article to make it more prominent. You could either make a new (sub)section that mentions the theorem along with a {{main}} pointer to the main article (I think this would be a bit overkill, but not impossible). Or you could give the theorem a brief mention at the end of the lead as a main example application of the wreath product (I think this would be a better option). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crap!

My mistake, and thanks for reverting. Grandpallama (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries of course. I've angered the NFCC gods myself before I knew about that one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma function

[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo.Mathematics (talk • contribs) 00:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC) - the R code is public on GitHub: it is easy to verify the calculations; - the formulas can be derived with a little bit of mathematical work (and the insight that it is possible to derive such relationships); - these formulas are more interesting than having 10 explicit values for G(1/2) later on the page; --Leo.Mathematics (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- great care has been taken to copy correctly the formulas; -- see the reference for the ultimate reference and additional formulas: comment can be removed after the formulas are checked using the original source! --Leo.Mathematics (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The change also inappropriately addresses the reader"

Hello, Deacon Vorbis, You undid my Derivative article change and said,

"quadratic functions are more general. The change also inappropriately addresses the reader"

I hadn't heard of "square functions", but I see there'sa Wikipedia article on them, so that's my ignorance. Somebody who knows even less wouldn't have heard of quadratic functions either, so maybe "square function" is the best terminology, as the simplest (come to think of it, maybe simple "function" would be even better).

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. Is "inappropriately addresses the reader" a general Wikipedia policy? It's arguable as policy, but if that's the house style, I'll go with it. -- editeur24 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Editeur24: See WP:NARRATOR (and WP:TONE more generally) for the relevant guidelines. There's a much finer line for this for mathematical writing than there is for other topics, but if it's easily avoidable, then it should probably be avoided. Otherwise it can come across more in the style of a textbook rather than an encyclopedia.

While I'm here, a couple other things. When you sign your messages, please do so at the end of the message, not in the box for the section title when making a new section (I fixed that up here, but it formats the post wrong). Also, I tagged File talk:Jcurve.png.png for speedy deletion under WP:G8 (which has since been done, but for some reason, Twinkle didn't notify you, I'm not sure why). That file is hosted on Commons, not here on enwp, so you'll need to add any description there, which should be done to the file page directly rather than the talk page. You can probably find some more info on Commons for file description formatting. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look. I'm a textbook writer, so that's probably why I sound like that! But I'll adapt.

I did get an email about you deleting the talk page for the nonexistent png.png file. I was thinking about suggesting to Wikimedia that they have some standard location for source files for diagrams that, like mine, were code produced. Kind of like combining an image collection with a githubish code collection. Do you know if there is such a standard location taht I've missed, or whether or to whom I might suggest adding a Wikimedia standard link to "source code"?editeur24 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You

		The Blattant Ignorrance Barnstar
		I'm not sure what blattant ignorrance is, but it must be something good. Thanks for fighting the fringe! –dlthewave ☎ 00:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, daww thanks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calculus

Undid your reversion of my edit. Please refere to Talk:Yuktibhāṣā where your points have been answered.Prototypehumanoid (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metre vs. Meter

Hello Deacon Vorbis,

I see that you have rolled back the meterstick page.

I realize that changing spelling based on regional differences is fruitless and there shouldn't be any preference given to one or the other, but this is a different circumstance.

The spelling "metre" is official in English as per the directive of the BIPM. The official SI brochure spells it this way among most international organizations. American dictionaries can change the spelling for themselves, but that doesn't make it correct anywhere else. The Style Manual that you sent states:

"Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles."

Is that not exactly what I was doing?

Regards –Gerry Goertzen 2020 April 25, 22:51 (UTC)

@Gerry Goertzen: Common US spelling is "meter", end of story. What the BIPM claims as "official" is irrelevant. This falls under MOS:RETAIN and MOS:ENGVAR. These are not different words for which a common term exists; this is a difference in spelling of the same word between US and UK English. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "UK English." I've never even been there. But everybody uses this spelling except Americans who (as always) don't want to cooperate with the rest of the world. I could say "Common English spelling is 'metre', end of story. What the US claims as 'official' is irrelevant."

Changing to "metrestick" does reduce ambiguity. The "meter" in "meterstick" could just refer to the fact that it is a measurement device (meter) and not specifically that it is one metre long, but the "metre" in "metrestick" directly shows that the stick is one metre long because this cannot be confused with the generic word for a measurement device (meter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry Goertzen (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerry Goertzen: (Please indent your replies and sign your talk page messages; see Help:Talk for more info; thanks). "Metre" is the UK spelling for the unit of measurement (and of those varieties closer to UK), while "meter" is the US spelling. Mass changing to the UK spelling violates some pretty core principles of how Wikipedia handles varieties of English. If you think there are reasons that favor doing so in this case, you should really discuss this first (probably at WT:MOSDATE), but my guess is that you'll find a lot of opposition. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User DrWilliamConroy

I'm finding it hard to see precisely what DrWilliamConroy did that was so wrong it led to him being blocked with hours of him registering? My words there are chosen carefully. I am not criticising. I am wondering. So, genuine question, is he some sort of serial offender or is there some other problem? HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: I don't think this was a long-term thing, but the edits looked like trolling, which is why I removed the section. I see there was an AIV report. I guess you could always ask the responding admin(s) for more detail. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link wrong?

Moved to Talk:Euclid's theorem § Link wrong?

– –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to edit requests

I am continuing this conversation here. It is unhelpful and a waste of time to put notices like that merely minutes after they make the request. I'm not telling you to not reply to any of them, just that it is unnecessary to "patrol" edit requests and to get them off of the bot's reports as quickly as possible. If you do them too fast then they might be missed by others who are more familiar with the subject matter. Nihlus 19:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus: If no one patrols the edit request queue, it balloons very very quickly. And as I said, even if I decline a request, there's nothing stopping a regular page watcher from seeing it in their watchlist and going through with what they think is appropriate anyway. I don't think the speed of my decline should really have a negative impact on someone watching the page from looking through recent activity and acting. Besides, even if this one had been precise enough, I probably would have declined for lack of a source. But when it comes down to it, requests need to be clear and precise enough for someone unfamiliar with the page to understand and act on them. Otherwise they're liable to get declined. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. I'm just saying no one benefits from it if you go in quickly and decline them. I'm asking you to take that into consideration in the future. And no, they do not need to be clear and precise enough. Not everyone who wants to make an edit is as skilled an editor as you. Quickly replying with canned messages when nuance is required is unhelpful to those who are familiar with the page as well as those wishing to make changes to a page that they cannot edit. Nihlus 21:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to ignore this, I will take it to ANI. Nihlus 02:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus: I decline unclear edit requests without sources. If you think that's ANI worthy, then you might as well do it now, because I will continue to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert them on pages I watch. Just because they are unclear to you doesn't mean they are unclear to someone familiar with the topic (this is the second time I have said this). Feel free to ask for sources, but don't mark it unclear just because you don't get it. I will take it to the appropriate venue if you continue to do so. Thanks. Nihlus 02:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus: If you revert legitimate edit request patrolling, I will raise the issue at ANI. Nothing is stopping regular watchers from following up on declined requests, and declining requests causes no impediment to doing exactly that. But edit requests must be clear to non-page regulars. Unclear requests get declined. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Dish: Momo Food (Wiki Page)

Hi, I see that you have the ability to change the information on Momo (food) page. Can you please change it so when you search for momo food on google, it comes up as Nepali Dish and not Indian Dish? I can see that users have requested this change since 2018 but there has been no update to the page on that matter. RainiDD (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RainiDD: I have no control over what information Google displays in its search results. If you want to make any changes, they must be to the article, and they must be specific and backed up by sources, and they must be made on the article's talk page, not mine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for the information. RainiDD (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Vandalising article Momo (dish)

It is a Nepali dish and has origin of Nepal so you are not supposed to edit it. Skyz7888 (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyz7888: Please read what vandalism is and particularly, what it is not before accusing other editors of it. We can all edit articles here, and you have no basis for telling me I'm not supposed to. The content there is sourced, and it is inappropriate to change the text based on a source in a way that doesn't reflect that source. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate objects in a set definition

Thank you for reviewing my edits to Set (mathematics). You bring up the interesting distinction between between the contents of a set and how the set is defined or presented. If the set {2, 4, 6} is usually considered the same as {2, 4, 6, 4}, then we should say so. Otherwise, we should say it is not, and provide a good reference.

I have searched for clarification. The article Multiset seems to support your point that the sets are the same. However, Set (abstract data type) accepts only unique values, but that article relates to computer science, not mathematics. Do you know of any solid mathematical references?

I will watch this spot. Comfr (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:49.147.83.13

Sorry for engaging in edit wars and reverting edits that have been reverted. I edited the notations on the Quotient rule page so that they will be closer to the standard notations used in textbooks and online/digital references. Please remember that even if there’s a disagreement doesn’t mean that one is wrong; there are just different ways to express and explain things in math. Whenever you reverted my edits on the Quotient rule page due to changes in notation, you may have failed to recognize the other edits that are much better than the unnecessary edits, so they also got reverted. Meanwhile, on the Exponential function page, when my edit got reverted, I added a note afterward to defend it, but after it got reverted again, I understood what was wrong with my edits. Afterwards, I stopped editing that part and edited a different section of the page. That was a different kind of edit and a different section, but then you reverted it when I was supposed to correct my edit. 49.147.83.13 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to keep copying entire contents of articles to talk pages. I've responded at the talk pages of the articles in question. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again and thank you for expressing your disagreements on my edits to the Quotient rule page regarding the notation changes, logarithmic differentiation, and reciprocal rule proofs.49.147.83.13 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson

Back in November you reverted an addition of 15 books to Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson. your comment was "Spam." The author of the books has added those to the article again. What was your rationale for deleting the addition in November? (Are the books self-published, for example?) David notMD (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: Thanks for the heads-up. I have reverted again. I probably marked it as spam because it was 15 books all by one author, whose name happened to match the account name. I will drop a(nother?) COI warning on the user's talk page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Kay

Please don't be fooled by that Tanzanian Muslim to delete Zara Kay's Wikipedia page. She's helped so many Exmuslims and women fleeing domestic violence.

He probably wants to kill her. That's why he's trying to get rid of her. Don't be a tool for oppression. I can provided extra sources and citations if you want Juhxj (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why Pascal algorithm to compute CDF of normal distribution as been removed ?

Today, I search Pascal algorithm that computes CDF of Normal Distribution function on Normal Distribution page, but I don't find it.

I searched who has deleted this useful algorithm, and I found you.

Before rewritting this algorithm (in another position), I come to you to ask: "Why do you have deleted it ?"

Last page on english Wikipedia site that contains Pascal CDF Normal distributio algorithm [4] Your change has been done 12 February 2018 at 14:37.

Sorry for my english, I'm belgian and I speak normally french ... and it is first time that I use TALK on Wikipedia.

I'm electrical engineer and I worked on IT during more than 32 years and I find interesting to find this Pascal algorithm in this page.

For your information, this algorithm is present on french page ("loi normale"). [5]

Schlebe (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schlebe: My edit summary said why I removed it – because it was "useless". Maybe you want to know why I thought it was useless. In more detail, it was merely a simple translation of the formula directly above it into Pascal (a very little-used language to boot). Not only that, but it was a very very bad algorithm. Not that it matters (English and French Wikipedias are separate projects and have different practices), but the frwp page you linked does not contain any code, in Pascal or otherwise. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon Vorbis: The french page contains a C program named double Phi(double x). Personnaly, I find this algorithm useful. Removed or added this algorithm is therefore subjective decision. What is done in Wikipedia in such circumstances ? Personally, I would rather add something than remove it. I think adding this algorithm (perhaps C algorithm) in 'Numerical approximations for the normal CDF' in Marsaglia (2004) paragraph. If another will add another algorithm for another formula in another language, he can do that. What do you think about this proposal ? Schlebe (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schlebe: Please indent your replies (adding a paragraph after every sentence makes this harder, so I've combined yours). You also don't need to ping ({{re}}) me on my own talk page as notifications to me are automatic here. Yes, I see the function now. It's different to the one that was in the article here, however. And as you note, it's even listed in the section with the source given. The interested reader can go look up the actual code if they want. Wikipedia is not a code repository, and we generally frown upon including code for these sorts of things. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arcimedes

DEACON WROTE: "This article isn't about integration, and Archimedes's methods weren't general anyway" But integration is part of calculus. And the method of exhaustion was used as a general tool for any problem. So you're wrong in both. So Archimedes was the first, whether you like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ate Nike (talk • contribs) 13:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine links

Hello, thanks for keeping the simple > regular English change but what is a submarine link? I tried making the Topography page consistent with the Deontological ethics page which does link to Wiktionary (I find it useful personally). Should for instance Greek words used in the etymology link to their respective Wiktionary, or not? Sorry, I'm new to editing. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thraex64 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thraex64: (By the way, topology, not topography; those are different). Sorry, that's a bit of wiki-jargon. Submarine as in MOS:SUBMARINE, links which are surprising in where they take the reader. Generally, I find all inline wiktionary links to be surprising. They're especially useless here since the words are already glossed. The removal of the {{lang-el}} templates was problematic as well; see the documentation there for more info. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant the Topology page indeed. Thank you for the quick reply and info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thraex64 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahant Nirmal Das

Mahant Nirmal Das is a politician as well as all the information given by him is true, so you are requested to revisit his page! Balusingh12 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir All the information related to this is true and is in accordance with the policy of Wikipedia, so you are requested to remove the notice sent on this page! Thank you Balusingh12 (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kulturkampf: math markup with tex vs html templates

Hi Deacon. When you reverted $f(x)=e^{x}$ to $f (x) = e x$ , you said:

"There are good reasons for keeping {{math}}/{{mvar}} for simple formulas."

Can you point me to the reasons? I've looked in WP:WPMATHTYPE, Wikipedia:Rendering_math, and Help:Displaying_a_formula. Where is the best statement of your position?

"Wholesale changes really shouldn't be done. This vaguely falls under stuff like MOS:STYLERET." [also MOS:FORMULA]

For me and most math writers, the html markup looks obsolete, with unattractive output and super-ugly input, and it's not enough to say it is grandfathered. I realize it must look different to the coders who make the system work, so I really would like to see the reasons. (If you're one of those coders, the whole technical world is in your debt: thank you!) -Magyar25 (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magyar25: Formulas with <math>...</math> often have to rendered as a .png and served up individually, increasing bandwidth requirements. Especially on pages with a lot of formulas, this can be a problem for users on slow connections. And as far as I know, formulas within {{math}} are better handled by screen readers, increasing accessibility. Again, simple formulas are more suited to this where there's more room for benefit. Copy/paste also doesn't work if the images are involved. I also don't think you can justify saying "For ... most math writers" either unless you've undertaken some sort of well-sampled survey. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Screen readers: I just tried the above formulas with Microsoft Narrator. It read the TeX code verbatim (e.g. "caret" for ^), making it understandable for someone who knows TeX commands. The html was worse, ignoring the ^ altogether.

Most math writers prefer TeX: Lack of well-sourced surveys notwithstanding, do you seriously doubt it?? Have you ever tried writing any lengthy math text without TeX?

I see your point with the .png issue. Still, it is self-correcting with ever-growing bandwidth. -Magyar25 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magyar25: The point is that we're not writing lengthy, professionally typeset documents here. We're adding formulas to web-based encyclopedia articles that use MediaWiki along with some existing templates and CSS to help make things work. For the above reasons, {{math}}/{{mvar}} shouldn't be changed to <math>...</math> for simple, inline formulas. If anything, the changes should be made the other way around where it's reasonable to do so. One other bit I may have forgotten to mention was that image captions shouldn't use <math>...</math> unless really absolutely necessary, because Media Viewer won't display it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOR & Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo etc

All hail Deacon, Saw your decline on my edit. Wish to learn more about your application of NOR to what I offered. Gimme a shout. Perhaps we'll find consensus. Peace, Larrytimes23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrytimes23 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

golden ratio

please revert your unnecessary revert and unlock the page NeuralWarp (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NeuralWarp:. Which one? I made two reverts of yours to two different pages; I have no idea what you mean by "unlock the page either". In any case, no. Your additions were inappropriate (they were unsourced trivia), and so my reverts were good. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is trivia. As an application for the Golden Ratio, a quick and easily-remembered conversion trick is one of the more useful. Please revert your reversion, and stop being dismissive of people's contributions. It's clear from your talk page that your attitude is annoying a lot of people. NeuralWarp (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not trivia; please see WP:RS. --JBL (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove any constants

First, twelfth root of 3 and square root of 6 are common. Second, i is more common than e. Third, I forgot to add π! and e!. π! ≈ 7.188, e! ≈ 4.2608. --176.88.99.156 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant

You deleted well sourced related without redunancy text i will tell on you dare u 2 do it Baratiiman (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

Word islam is mentioned 1 time in this page and where is pov? I request third party pov checkBaratiiman (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#FLAT_EARTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratiiman (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moebius transformation

Hi. You have removed my question on talk on Moebius transformation. Let me not agree with you. (:-))

Please note that this section has no references and describes some math transformations which are not easy. That make this section not based on reliable sources and and to technical. I think that it should be improved. Of course it can be moved to wikibooks ( how to do it), but there is no refernces so thats my question on the talk page.

What do you think about it ? Have a nice day. --Adam majewski (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M43112609 and the GNG

Just a comment wrt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/43,112,609 (number): my attitude to notability is anti-dogmatic. The notability guidelines arose as a kind of truce between the inclusionist and deletionist forces on XfD and there are places where they work as well as can be hoped: criteria for bios and companies stand out. But the issue here is to do with verifiability and making best use of editing energy, which I call maintainability: what to you shows failure against GNG on the grounds of the sources being "passing mentions" raises no alarm bells for me: hence my use of the word technicality. Here, as with much noncontroversial mathematical content, I think a strict pass/fail reading of the GNG is too deletionist; wrt. say cryptocoins, I regard a similar attitude as too inclusionist (we are better off not trying to police such articles).

I am not responding with the aim of persuading you, only in the hope that if I document the method in my madness, the result of the AfD won't be quite so annoying. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst: As long as we're waxing philosophical about this all, I like to look at Wikipedia like a garden. Yes, planting flowers is important, but it's just as important to keep out the weeds. This article is a weed. Under no reasonable interpretation of notability, dogmatic or otherwise, does this topic merit its own article. Listing a couple of facts about it by way of it being a Mersenne prime exponent is not appropriate for a general encyclopedia. we have policies like WP:IINFO for a reason. I found no less than 41 entries for 155,117,520 at OEIS. They're verifiable; such an article would be maintainable; should this number be an article too?

This was a complete and utter failure of AFD. And the people that make weeding the garden so goddamned difficult are really wearing thin. Annoying? Not at all. More like shameful and pitiful. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reason for frustration here is captured by your "Pandora's box" comment on the AfD. If indeed you are right that we are on a slippery slope, then we can have an RfC that participants and closers can bear in mind in later AfDs: I could imagine an RfC that entails that evidence for notability of M43112609 is not evidence for notability of 43112609. I'm not unsympathetic to slippery slope argument, but "weed" is a subjective concept and notability is a proxy for what we really care about. You are entitled to contest User:Barkeep's close on WP:DRV if you think you can craft a persuasive case that the keep arguments should be discounted: the DRV crowd is rather different to the XfD crowd. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image uploaders

Hi, thanks for taking care of Joy Ayara. Now we have User:Eluwa Stephanie. [6] Yoninah (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: Thanks for the heads-up. I posted about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Image competition? in case you want to add anything. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pleat2

Let me know if you come across more like this one. Was an obvious duck of UltraUsurper but I am not watching the areas he edits closely. Confirmed by CU all the same. -- ferret (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Heh, sure. I even filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UltraUsurper, but I'm guessing NRP noticed before anyone even got to that yet. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the case, didn't see it. I commented and closed it. I spotted it cause he was silly enough to leave me a message about another attempt to split iPhone, so I asked NRP to double check. -- ferret (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see, cool. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flatiron Building

My mistake, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey, you dude, I am not a sockpuppet of Xayahrainie43. That guy is a bad guy, but I'm not. I NEVER DO SOCKPUPPET STUFF AND WILL NEVER DO IT. You undid something that I was telling you about. Please, please, stop accusing me. I'm innocent. I am completely innocent. I only did the stuff with the general sandbox and my own sandbox because I wanted to store stuff in my own sandbox. I am completely independent. Please look at the comments I have added on the sockpuppet investigation. Thank you. Friend505 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list

You appear to be engaged in a WP:Edit war there. You are also up against WP:3RR. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the WP:COI section & time of response.

On July 23, 2020, you changed my edit request: "I've changed this to a COI edit request based on the statement made on your user page."

What's troublesome is that the Category:Requested edits appears to be a section where requests are sent to be abandoned, to demoralize those who attempt to follow Wikipedia protocol to make edits give up attempts to do so, and I find that unfortunate.

The number of requests in backlog have grown from 65 to 81, and none since July 23 have been addressed in the queue. How long will this process take? MRHICK01 (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Disc' vs 'disk'

I've changed my mind about whether the Taylor Series article should you use 'disc' or 'disk'. However, ultimately, it's more important that we be consistent. I actually agree with you that 'disk' is better because (1) it is used on Wikipedia and (2) it is definitely more common overall. Even in British English, 'disk' only slightly lags behind 'disc' according to Google Ngram. If you want to discuss this any further, then it would probably be better that we do it on the Taylor Series talk page. TentativeTypist (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Baloch people" page edits

Hello Deacon Vorbis, I hope you are well. I am a PhD student in Near Eastern Languages & Cultures and a new user to Wikipedia. I noticed that the Baloch page is chock full of misinformation and biased content, but the page is protected as a new member I am not authorized to make edits. I suspect that much of the edits made on this page are politically motivated and are a violation of Wikipedia's policies. I'm wondering if you can do anything to protect the page from vandalism, which is what I had wrote about in my edit request about some users obsessively adding in the claim that Baloch people are Hindu, when they are not. The user I mentioned that kept making edits has been banned from Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts.

This is a source from Columbia University that shows religion among Near Eastern groups. https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/GulfReligionGeneral_lg.png. I'm thinking this would be a good source to support the claim that Baloch are Muslims.

Please see my recent edit request made today, which is more straightforward than the last one. My apologies as I am new to this site. Thank you Deacon. -- Davidpemberton3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpemberton3 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidpemberton3: I don't watch that page and have no knowledge about the topic. I only declined your request earlier because it was too vague to act on. I see you've made another one, and I've gone ahead and reverted those edits since the user was evading a block. You'll be autoconfirmed in a couple days anyway and will be able to edit semi-protected articles. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overwrote your reversion

I was finishing an edit of the natural logarithm article when you reverted it. In as much as I have a math Ph.D., and have retired from 20 years as an applied mathematician, I feel reasonably comfortable that you are quite mistaken: None of my changes were "wrong", although a few (such as converting from ... to {{sub|) may well not strictly be necessary, they were where I was editing formulae anyway; the {{nowrap| template for excessively large numbers of codes is arguably an improvement in readability of the wikification of the presented text.

Since I overrode your reversion, you might want to go back and do it again, or instead, skim through the article by actually looking at the results instead of the changes page, before you decide to go ahead.107.242.121.22 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

I had my doubts about linking "scientific" to the science article in the flat earth article and did so reluctantly. If you cared to waste a moment looking at my relatively scant editing history, you would see that one of the things I regularly do is eliminate annoying links to subjects of common knowledge. As I suggested in my edit summary, I would normally never think of linking to "science" or "fact" and would, like you in this case, normally delete such links. So I don't have a problem with scientific > science's being unlinked (especially since the words aren't identical, though that perhaps shouldn't matter), but part of me would still like to see a link to "fact" in this particular case. You are quite right that it gives no actual aid to the average reader, and to tell the truth it was added with a somewhat humorous intent. I was a bit surprised to find an article on "fact", but seeing that it existed I felt that the flat-earth article was among the most appropriate imaginable to link to it, if any WP article was to do so. A kind of a dig, you know. You probably see what I mean, but if you still object to a link to "fact", I'm not going to make a federal case out of it.

Especially since I have a favor to ask of you. Sometime not too long ago I saw someone called Deborah Tavares on YouTube recommending that people read a document titled "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars". I found and read the document (best Internet copy at https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml), but could make no sense of its technicalities and knew no one who could advise me in their regard. I have just now found a seemingly plausible explanation of the genesis of the document at https://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Letters_from_the_Author_of_Silent_Weapons_for_Quiet_Wars.html, though it remains somewhat mysterious and I still haven't received any confirmation of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of its diagrams. If I can entice you into having a look at it, could you please enlighten me to some degree on this? Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first half of this should really be on the talk page, but if you really think it should be linked, then go ahead and reinstate it; I won't object further. As for the second half, about all I can say is: ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wut?

(1) Thanks. (2) That's what I was asking you. I'm pretty sure the diagrams make some sense to somebody, as it's difficult for me to imagine something like that's having been simply fantasized out of nothing. But maybe this isn't your line either. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Squarefree

I'm OK about the revert in Squarefree. Is there a term for non-squarefree integers? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found this:

http://oeis.org/wiki/Squarefull_numbers
- squarefull: every prime factor is at least squared

http://oeis.org/wiki/Squareful_numbers
- Squareful: not squarefree

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Painting reversion

Hi, how are you. Just wanted to check with you. The painting of madhava is based on original research, era etc...it was commissioned as there has been since demand. Also there is a request for an image on the talk page etc... This image also conforms to the wikipedia licence.

If you have any queries we could discuss in the talk section. Thanks Imagetoimageless (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Imagetoimageless: "The painting of madhava is based on original research, era etc.". Please see WP:NOR, which details Wikipedia's policy prohibiting original research. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I think this scenario is exempt if attributable. Imagetoimageless (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I have come under your attention since I had discussed in the talk section in calculus. However I point out that I did not revert your change :) Imagetoimageless (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Could we discuss it here or in the talk page of madhava. I see that you have reverted it again. The painting is attributable. Thus it doesn't remit revertion Imagetoimageless (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Imagetoimageless: Please indent your replies; see Help:Talk for more info. I had continued discussion on the article talk page already, which is where this should be taking place anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Do you really need a template explaining what edit warring is? GMG ^talk 17:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Do you really need to restore personal attacks? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I? Because from what I can tell, the only thing I'm reverting is you closing a thread after you got in an edit war because you don't seem to very well understand fair use, and at least appear to think that links to YouTube are presumed suspect. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the bits I'm failing to understand. GMG ^talk 17:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: In case it's not clear from the article history, all I was doing was removing copyright-violating external links per WP:COPYVIOEL until I started getting personal attacks for my trouble. Your egging on isn't helpful. And no, check the history more carefully; Guy posted one, which I removed, then Roxy posted another (not the one that's already there), that I removed. Postingn recordings of a performance IS a copyright vio. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the second link to the low quality concert recording is probably copyvio and shouldn't be linked to. You don't seem to have started the edit war over that bit; you seem to have started the edit war over the video of the performance by the The 8-Bit Big Band, performed by the The 8-Bit Big Band, recorded by the The 8-Bit Big Band, and posted on YouTube by the The 8-Bit Big Band.

We are permitted to post links to content creators making transformative works under a claim of fair use. Every third news story we use as a source incorporates content under fair use.

Regardless, it is wholly inappropriate to attempt to close a thread in which you are actively engaged in an edit war. GMG ^talk 17:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: No, I made absolutely no effort to remove the 8-Bit Band performance. Check the history again. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Apologies. I misinterpreted the flurry of reverts on my watchlist. It still wasn't necessarily appropriate to attempt to close the thread as a way of resolving the dispute. GMG ^talk 17:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery, Alabama buildings AfD

As a heads up, I reinstated Lightburst's comment there, a) so I could reply it to it, and b) because personally I think it reflects far more poorly on him and the ARS squad than it does on you (and c) because it's not really kosher to remove other people's comments). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I appreciate the explanation, but to explain back, I've just gotten so tired of the attacks lately (this is sort of a camel back-breaking straw, too), especially after what should have just been a completely mundane !vote. I'm going to bed; thanks for the note at least. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get it. I'm also frustrated with the ARS squad and the recent drama (I read the recent ANI without commenting, so I know the background). I'm sorry if I added to the weight of the straw with that revert. Ultimately I wanted it to be publicly visible so other commenters could see the kind of rhetoric they're breaking out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truce

User:Lightburst) has given you a dove - Lets call a truce. I do not want either of us to be embroiled in an edit war - nor do I want confrontation. I will not comment directly on your contributions and I will go strike my comment now.
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

eek, I see you refactored my comments again. 5 times? How does this end? One of us will likely be blocked. I want to ask you to revert yourself there please. Lightburst (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can read the collapsed discussion, none of which has anything to do with the merits of my deletion rationale. It's disruptive to the discussion as a whole, and to the sub-discussion about my !vote. If you want to engage in meta-discussion of the AfD itself, the talk page is the proper place for that, not under someone's !vote. I'm tired of the personal attacks. I'm tired of not being able to make a simple mundane !vote at an AfD without my reason for being there called into question. If you think my pattern of appearance at AfDs is problematic, take it up at ANI, not under my !vote. WP:IAR applies here, 3RR be damned. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thegameshowlad

What edits were you referring to as having been reverted in your templated message to Thegameshowlad? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I wasn't; the stock warning message includes that text apparently, even if it's not appropriate. In this case, the edits were all adding one space, which is disruptive generally, but not worth reverting. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon Vorbis, can you give me the page that this was on? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: It was a whole series in a short span: starting at Prostitution in Uzbekistan (!) at 15:32 today up to Simon Mayo at 15:40 (see their contribs for the intervening pages...there might have been more of those, but I wasn't looking in great detail). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon Vorbis, thanks. Only went ahead and issued the block I was in the process of gathering information for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I blocked User:Deacon Vorbes for impersonation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Thanks for the heads-up...I've never gotten an impersonator before; such a special occasion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had...

... my doubts, so thanks for this . - DVdm (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm: Heh, no problem! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring

I do deletion sorting all the time. There are errors which are easily corrected. But you are edit warring the matter. You previously edit warred several other times over these trivial issues. The OP originally put these in an unrelated AfD and i corrected the error. If you continue reverting this I will report you to the edit warring board. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: There were two AFDs open on the same article at the same time; keeping both in the list was helpful for figuring out exactly what was going on. While you may have removed one bit of oddness, it didn't fix the underlying issue. I've closed the second AFD and left the first one open; AnomieBOT will remove the second from the delsort page shortly. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you closed the wrong one. Have a look - it is a 2nd nomination so the one you closed should remain open. Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second nomination wasn't in the AFD log and was opened in error. It's now closed while the original remains open. All should be fine now. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link for "view AfD: on that particular AfD nomination does not work. But this snafu has taken enough of our time. Lightburst (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The headers had gotten clobbered, which I've also fixed. Purge the page and it should transclude the most recent version. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, in the future it is much more collegial to approach an editor without reverting. Closing the duplicate was the right move. And none of this is worth wasting a morning or risking an edit war. My best to you. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberattack on Miami Dade Public Schools

I removed your tag. Please see the article's talk page. Lechonero (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't bother to respond to my comment on the article's talk page and you're determined to use tags rather than to discuss the notability of the article. It looks like you want an edit war. I will report you to the appropriate admin board if you continue like this. Lechonero (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lechonero: Following established procedures for article deletion isn't edit warring. Since I think the article isn't notable, I nominated at AfD, which is the correct next step after a declined PROD. Notability certainly can be discussed on an article's talk page, but it isn't required. When there's disagreement over notability, AfD is ultimately the place where it gets hashed out. You're free to make your case for inclusion there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure not withstanding, it would have been more polite to post a comment rather than a anonymous tag. Also, please provide a link to the AfD page where I can defend my article. I can't find it. Lechonero (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lechonero: The tag itself includes the link, as did the notification Deacon Vorbis left on your talk page! --JBL (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radic ideas

Hey,

I saw on your user page that you're looking into a way to render nested radicals better in text. I thought I might take a crack at it because I've never written a template before and it seemed like a fun challenge.

{{math|{{radic2|2}}}} becomes ${{radic2|2}}$ (behaves identically to Template:Radic)
{{math|{{radic2|size=1|3+{{radic2|5}}}}}} becomes ${{radic2|size=1|3+{{radic2|5}}}}$ (demo of size parameter)
{{radic2|size=3|3+{{radic2|5|4}}|4}} becomes {{radic2|size=3|3+{{radic2|5|4}}|4}} (can increment size by 3 to permit superscripts in nested radicals)

You can check it out at Template:Radic2. When size is not specified, its output is exactly the same as Template:Radic. Its main limitation is that it doesn't work in IE8 or below (though neither does Template:Radic).

How it works

{{#if:{{{size|}}}|}}  {{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2|}}}}}  {{#if:{{{size|}}}|<span style="transform:scaleX({{#expr:1/(1+{{{size}}}*.15)}}); -webkit-transform:scaleX({{#expr:1/(1+{{{size}}}*.15)}}); -ms-transform:scaleX({{#expr:1/(1+{{{size}}}*.15)}}); -o-transform:scaleX({{#expr:1/(1+{{{size}}}*.15)}}); -mos-transform:scaleX({{#expr:1/(1+{{{size}}}*.15)}}); display:inline-block; transform-origin:left; width:0;">√  {{0|√}}|√}}   {{#if:{{{size|}}}|}}  {{{1}}}  {{#if:{{{size|}}}|}}

Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus Real: Holy cripes, that's amazing (and a little scary). Honestly, I had kind of forgotten all about this, but I'll definitely check it out. Thanks for the note! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect rv

re your Quaternion edits: incorrect behaviour. "not feasible" for trivial edits is nonsense. Ignoring error fixing: inacceptable (& you obviously had to admit yourself). Please do not repeat in the future. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: Reversion is not "incorrect behavior"...it's a fine thing to do when someone disagrees with a bold change. The next step is usually to discuss. Blindly throwing in a 1= on every use of {{math}} isn't the way to fix a single error. It reduces readability of the markup, and it didn't even address the underlying issue in this case. Please don't do this. And if you really feel like there's some overwhelming reason why it needs to be done, please bring it up at WT:WPM, where others can weigh in. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision by itself is not. However, revision, esp with the "readability" excuse you mention is useless. There is no requirement to discuss such a change beforehand. (To be clear: there is not a single problem using 1= in a template, especially when it is this error-sensitive as {{math}}). Thereby re-introducing an error is inacceptible, unforgiveable and, of course, incorrect. Also, you could reply & rethink to the fact that you did not consider there was an error involved. -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, making edits that do not change the rendered page, such as this one, are not appreciated. -DePiep (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5upp0rt/Opp053/N3u7r81

Regading the now-closed discussion "Shouting !votes" [7], the "creative" responses like OpPose and 0PP05E got me thinking: A spoof RFC to run 24 hours on April 1st would be fun. [April Fools!] RFC: Relax !voting so responses other than "Support"/"Oppose"/"Neutral" should be allowed. I'm not sure where the centralized planning happens for April Fools pranks, but Wikipedia:Rules for Fools and the discussions it links to are probably good places to look to find other editors to collaborate with. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: I mean, you're free to do as you wish with respect to this, but I'd want no part of it. My proposal was serious, and although people found creative ways to oppose, I think the point was well-taken by all, even people who don't like instruction creep. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Locking discussion of history section for 0.999...

Now that is totally unreasonable. Don't let your personal animosity with me be an excuse for this. A history section is perfectly appropriate to an encyclopedia. Your fear of one is what belongs elsewhere. --Algr (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Algr: I have no animosity toward you. However, talk pages aren't there for people to just ask generic questions and endlessly debate stuff. If you wanted to say you think the article should include more history, that's fine, but there was no progress being made toward that or sources provided that could be used. Given your history with that page that could only be described as misguided at best, and trolling at worst, it's clear that the discussion was serving no useful further purpose. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Locking the discussion tells other contributors that the suggestion of a history section is unacceptable. I did the best I could with a reference to some useful info, and was hoping that someone would read this and point me to better references online. If you don't ask the question, no one will know that an answer is needed. --Algr (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring (2)

You are not allowed to move or erase comments at AfD. You are engaged in an edit war at the SocialCred AfD. You will be reported if you do not revert. Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: You're also not allowed to make personal attacks. I'm sick and fucking tired of this shit – I'm sick and fucking tired of the personal potshots for good faith, civil participation at AfDs. You can make your point about the sources without resorting to the WP:ASPERSIONS. They have absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Report me? Fine, but beware the boomerang. I'm →← this close from seeking an AfD TBAN. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't engage with these people. It isn't worth your time. You getting angry is what they want. Reyk _YO! 18:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Lightburst (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversions on Complex Numbers

The article on C used/refers to a definition involving an indeterminate i and polynomial addition and multiplication. For many many people, that is too abstract. I made 3 efforts that should have made this simpler.

A) introduction of a detailed Definition 1 where C is simply IR^2 a familiar set from school.

B) as consequence of A), i=(0,1) becomes a real point in the plane. It is essential for understanding C that i=(0,1) is understood. This should be mentioned in the caption of that first diagram in the article. "i" should not be understood as some "indeterminate". "i" is the 2nd canonical base vector. I cannot accept your revert.

C) In the introduction, C is discussed as being "real". That C equals a concrete set is a compelling argument and easily understandable in regard to this philosophical question whether C is real. I don't understand your revert. Please, explain.

LMSchmitt 21:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LMSchmitt: I've again undone your changes. However, please raise any concerns at the article's talk page, not mine. This gives other people watching the article the opportunity to weigh in. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. However, I note that you do not answer my question which I find unacceptable. I would be willing to copy and continue this dialogue on the respective talk page. However, in my opinion, your non-dialogue (content-wise) is unacceptable.

LMSchmitt 19:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoonosis. Prometheus.gave.man.fire@outlook.com.

My name is David Relkin. Thank you for your comments on the above captioned subject. I use that screen name for contributions to certain websites. My direct email is David@Relkinlaw.com. I did not intend my contribution to be advertising. It was simply my jump off. I found that test and used it as but one potential addition to the page. I intended to add others. Prometheus.gave.man.fire (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility complaint at WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Beland (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IINFO lists

What do you think of List of African-American Republicans? Why is there no List of African-American Democrats? jps (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for they whys, anything I say would be mere speculation, but some of the history from 10+ years ago seems to be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African-American Republicans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Democrats. We have a lot of lists; keeping vs. deleting tends to be pretty inconsistent. As for this one, it's not great, but I've certainly seen worse. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we nominate it for deletion? An article on the subject might be warranted, but a list?! And one that reaches back to the mid-nineteenth century?! What on Earth is that good for? jps (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave that to your judgement. I can only juggle so many AfDs at once, especially potentially contentious ones. I watch the DELSORT pages for lists, so I'd likely see any such nom. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying comments by other contributors on AfD

[8]. It does not matter when I made a comment. That was not a response to comments by other contributors. I only wanted to elaborate on my own previous comment because I found relevant WP guideline. My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter; your elaboration occurred after others replied to your comment; where I placed it was appropriate; it was indented one level from your original comment, which indicates that it's a reply to yourself, not to any of the other replies to you. See the links I left in my mot recent revert. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but you should never modify legitimate comments made by other contributors if they object. Period. That was a legitimate comment with a reference to an appropriate WP guideline. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: I didn't modify your comment; I just moved it to where it should have been left in the first place. Inserting a new comment in the middle of a thread is highly inappropriate, as explained at WP:THREAD. In this case – again – it was particularly confusing because it was at the wrong indentation level and it was left a day later – after multiple replies had been left on the original version of your comment (including some by you!). If you want to want to elaborate on your original comment, you must do so in a way that doesn't interrupt the current threading. Otherwise, it gives the appearance that others are replying to a version of a comment that wasn't even there when the replies were made. My placing at as a direct reply to yourself, one indentation level in, was an attempt to do so in a way that minimized any potential confusion, while still preserving as well as I could.

WP:THREAD is very very clear on this, and your refusal not only to adhere to it, but also to allow anyone else to repair the situation is just baffling. Ironically, when you said that legitimate comments shouldn't be changed, that's exactly what you did by modifying an existing comment with replies. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Thread is irrelevant. You did modify my comment by placing it to a different place. Do you refuse to self-revert? My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is WP:THREAD irrelevant? It specifies how threading should be done in discussions. You haven't addressed any of the substance of what I've said with regards to proper threading. Please at least acknowledge that you understand the issue. I'll note you also indented this previous comment incorrectly, which I've also fixed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Weinger

Hey look, I apologize for making that same request so many times and I'm sorry for deleting your replies on there too. It's just that I wanted to get it removed so badley in the article, that's i kept on making the same requests over and over again. Is it ok if we agree to have it removed just this once and that's it? Because he's mostly best known for his on-camera acting work then his voice over work. He only does voice work occasionally, not all the time. He hasn't had a voice credit in television or film as of 2020, he only does occasionally voice work for video games as of today. 2600:1000:B046:603B:507A:8B0A:79F1:408D (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It's just that I wanted to get it removed so badley in the article..." Wanting such a minor change so badly is strange. Why do you feel so emotionally invested in this? It's a minor style issue in some random biography article. And for the record, when you offer an apology and then follow it up by asking for the exact same thing that caused a problem in the first place, it rings a bit hollow. It's time to just drop it and move on. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is it my fault? No offense by the way. All I was asking for is to have just one simple edit remove from that article, that's all. I wasn't causing any problems to you or anyone, it's not "strange" at all. I wasn't being emotionally either. Please Vorbis, I'm begging you to forgive me, I didn't mean to keep causing all this disruptive talk page request countless time. Again, I'm really sorry for bugging you about this again, I didn't mean to upset you. I just wanted to have a small simple edit removed, that's all. 2600:1000:B045:D91B:B431:292:E461:2687 (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything was anyone's fault. Please, just drop the whole thing already. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of the end of Wikipedia

Please consider nominating this page for deletion rather than deleting most of the contents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I may yet, since my redirection was reverted. However, I'm a bit puzzled by your comment. Deletion itself would delete the contents, and redirection is an alternative to deletion which can be preferable precisely because it keeps the contents in the history. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for the thoughtful criticism at Predictions of the end of Wikipedia‎. One way or another at the end, Wikipedia will be better for the conversation you started. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Rasberry: Well, I'm glad you're not taking it personally, because I certainly don't mean it that way, even if my tone might come across a bit rough. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deacon Vorbis, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Acidic Carbon (Corrode) (Organic compounds) 13:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

I note your "I don't want to paste this in umpteen times" comment at TfD just now, but to avoid your view being overlooked, or worse, becoming the subject of disputes, may I suggest pasting something like "see my comment above" into each discussion? I know that's tedious, but these templates have already been the subject of a TfD that became contentious, on the basis that they were jointly nominated in one section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:

Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm for the sigs...ugh –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

abuse of notation

Thank you for quality work around articles about mathematics and its notation such as abuse of notation, for help at the math reference desk, for dealing with articles for creation and deletion, for "I don't want to paste this in umpteen times", "Please at least acknowledge that you understand the issue." and this notation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2452 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Predictions of the end of Wikipedia

An article that you have been involved in editing—Predictions of the end of Wikipedia—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up about the comments on the banner

You are invited to join the discussion at meta:CentralNotice/Request/Wiki Loves Monuments 2020. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Quotient space

Perhaps you could express yourself at Talk:Quotient space. My view is that a broad-topic article is necessary, and has been painfully lacking for more than a decade. Absolutely none of the DAB targets are written appropriately for general use, they are always too narrow, too off-topic, missing vital definitions and explanations and (dare I say) theorems and lemmas. It's painful to have to invoke the notion of quotient spaces in assorted articles, and have one's hand's tied behind one's back, because we have zero adequate articles on the topic that can be linked to. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop evading your block and I'd be happy to discuss it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was that for

--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 15:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you're following activity in WP:DISCORD, despite having been banned from there. You were advised not to take any actions based on this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) I hate edit warring 2) I'm confused where to escalate the issue. So, have a nice weekend! Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 15:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Club 27

Hello, I'm from Poland and I can't adding sources, because your wikipedia i more complicated than polish wikipedia. Sorry that I undid your edition. I'm not a vandal. I would like to all the best for your wikipedia. Can't you correct/ retake my edition? I'm asking, because I saw that a lot yours articles on english wikipedia has a lot of refliks to the " main article on enlish wikipedia" - e.g. In article [Thuy Trang] - as a reference is another en. wikipedia article. But I'm sure, that her age is true. Example of source might be original page that has been dedicated to her memory. https://www.thuytrangtribute.com/thuy-trang-tribute-biography.html

Best Regards, WujekJasiek --WujekJasiek (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WujekJasiek: A few things. First, any discussion about articles should go on that article's talk page, not mine, so that others can discuss as well. Second, if you need help with editing, especially with things like adding sources, you can ask at the WP:Help desk. Also, I never said or at all thought you were a vandal here. In this case, though, I'll say that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, although you may find good sources being used within. Also, it's not merely enough to establish her age when she died. The consensus on that article has been to require high-quality secondary sources claiming membership in order to include an entry in the list. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks.--WujekJasiek (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dancehall-pop redirect

Morning! Apologies, I've just accidently rolled you back rather than undid over here - it does look like that ip's changes are in good faith and he was accidently reverted by the bot! Mdann52 (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: Yeah, that looks fine. The IP was making a lot of bad reverts along with some reasonable ones, like this was apparently. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just wanted to mention it in case it came up on your feed and you wondered why! Mdann52 (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalised redirects

What do you mean by declining this request? Even WP:RPURPOSE specifically approves plausible capitalisation variants. Whether or not Special:Search finds a redirect is entirely irrelevant. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend backup: These are useless redirects. No one was linking to this, it's not needed for a search, and manual URL entry is a really flimsy reason to make these. See WP:PANDORA. While one redirect may be cheap, millions are not. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even paying attention?

Greetings. Regarding your edit summary on [9]...yes, I definitely made a mistake in that edit, and thanks for catching that. We had to wait a long time for the MOS:RADICAL discussion to be closed before I could start making these changes, and I had forgotten about that caveat. However, there's no need for ascerbic remarks like "are you even paying attention?". This doesn't add any information, and all it really does it cause the person reading it to become upset. This increases the chances that they'll respond in an unconstructive fashion, which does not help the encyclopedia get built, and will no doubt make a less pleasant editing experience for you. -- Beland (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]