User talk:Eli355

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eli355.

Leave me a message! Press "New Section" above.

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Eli355, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains^(talk) 01:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Orders of magnitude (momentum)

Hi, I'm Meatsgains. Eli355, thanks for creating Orders of magnitude (momentum)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Meatsgains^(talk) 01:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Orders of magnitude (momentum)

The article Orders of magnitude (momentum) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article with non-notable content, entirely based on unreliable open forum source

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DVdm (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heat death of the univ listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Heat death of the univ. Since you had some involvement with the Heat death of the univ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of How to divide by zero

Hello, Eli355. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, How to divide by zero, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

CentreLeftRight ✉ 22:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the removal of "Largest possible momentum"

I removed the row for "Largest possible momentum" because the value cited was non-sensical and not supported by the referenced source, which only listed a mass of the universe. It appears you arrived at the value by multiplying the mass of the universe (6E52 kg) by the speed of light (3E8 m/s). This completely ignores the concept of relativistic momentum; one can trivially choose an inertial frame where a single stationary electron (relative to whatever you care to choose. Earth, sun, galactic center, whatever) has a a momentum higher than this value.

I appreciate your page Orders of magnitude (momentum)! BetatronRadiation (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BetatronRadiation: Thanks for the explanation. —Eli355 (talk | contribs) 01:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BetatronRadiation: When responding to a talk page, please respond where the discussion was started, not on a different talk page. —Eli355 (talk | contribs) 01:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Orders of magnitude (mass). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm: Although objects cannot move at the speed of light, objects can move arbitrarily close the speed of light, and this allows objects to have arbitrarily high masses. —Eli355 (talk | contribs) 14:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete concept. See Mass in special relativity#The relativistic mass concept. - DVdm (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, regarding your edit: there are no such objects, hence the warning above. - DVdm (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi! I noticed all of the links in your signature start with a colon. This isn't strictly needed, because Wikipedia resolves internal links to the current wiki - i.e. the English Wikipedia. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enterprisey: The colon was put in automatically when the {{colored link}} template was substituted. Each colon takes up 1 byte of space, so it is not such a big deal. Eli355 (talk | contribs) 20:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enterprisey: Now my signature transcludes the templates. —Eli355 (

talk

contribs

) 01:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eli355, you may not use transcluded pages in signatures, please adjust as soon as possible. For information about signature guidelines please see WP:SIGNATURE. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: JJMC89 changed my signature to not include transclusions, and removed the emojis. Are emojis allowed in signatures?—Eli355 ( talk contribs ) 18:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eli355, in general some emoji's in your signature are allowed, you should just use the unicode for them if possible. Basically, decorating your signature some is welcome and can be useful (easy to find you in a busy discussion page for example) - but adding lots of markup, symbols, etc tends to lead to it just being distracting. As far as I'm concerned your current signature is just fine, and if you wanted to replace "talk" and "contribs" with symbols while leaving your name spelled out it would probably not be any issue either. Don't ever transclude in signatures - there is a pile of problems it can cause. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SIGLENGTH and WP:SIG#NT regarding the length of your signature and the use of User:Eli355/signature. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please change your signature, it's very disruptive. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: It has been changed. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) - FlightTime (open channel) 17:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries for visual editing

Hi Eli355, yes you should be able to. In the visual editor when you are done editing you click on the "Publish changes..." button, and a popup box will appear that you can type in an edit summary. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfA questions

Uh...You do know that this isn't really the kind of question you're supposed to ask at RfA, right? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it a totally inappropriate question for RfA, it's not funny, and it's the kind of thing that puts people off from running for adminship. IMO it's nothing more than trolling. Do you really believe that you are competent enough to be judging candidates for adminship? If you do, then please read this too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung and SemiHypercube: It is quite likely that Eli355 is trolling. A completely inexperienced user, posting the sole "oppose" !vote in a strong RfA (148 "support" !votes and counting... ), and basing his !vote on a lack on contributions to mainspace. Yet, when you look at the candidates impressive numbers, then the tiny fractions that this user has in comparison, you see that it can't possibly be a legitimate !vote. Did he post this "oppose" simply because he's so inexperienced that he didn't know any better? Or because he thought it would be 'funny'? One might lean towards the former, until they see the question this user posted for the candidate. Definitely the latter, or more likely both. A new user, posting nonsense in the middle the of a important process like RfA, for nothing more than his own amusement, who then refuses to respond to any queries directed to him, either at the RfA or on his talk page (despite being active on the project during that time) and yes... I believe we are likely being trolled. (Though I will try to AGF and wait to see if Eli355 responds). Either way, this is just another example of why changes are needed at RfA. JMHOs - wolf 07:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Ah-ha! My AGF has been rewarded (partially at least). Eli355 has answered my question over at RfA talk; ":I feel this candidate will use the admin tools properly, and his mass creation of stubs is a separate issue." - Eli355.

That however raises an obvious follow-up question, and SemiHypercube did an excellent job of posting just that, less than 20 min. later; "So why did you oppose !vote if you think he won't misuse the tools?" - SemiHypercube.

A response is still pending as I post this but, it seems that Eli355 is perhaps not trolling afterall, (which would be a good thing). We'll now wait to see if he answers the follow-up question. (I am again going with AGF here) Cheers - wolf 05:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild and SemiHypercube: Whatever his motivations were for posting such a question, it was totally inappropriate, a thorough disregard for the seriousness of RfA and an affront to those who pose relevant questions. This coupled with the string of AfD on his recent creations, which has sadly led to Deacon Vorbis getting a hefty boomerang at ANI and stomping away from Wikipedia in a huff, demonstrates that there is a problem of sorts. Nevertheless, the RfA is certain to conclude with a well deserved promotion and I think we can let the matter rest. Thanks for your measured AGF - keep up the good work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Nomination of Orders of magnitude (momentum) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Orders of magnitude (momentum) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (momentum) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ∯WBG^converse 03:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Participation at AFD

I suggest you read WP:USEFUL before mass commenting on AFD discussions using that rationale. [1] [2] [3] [4] Also, just because something is comprehensive does not necessarily mean it is notable and meets our inclusion policies and guildeines. Mkdw ^talk 20:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: Some of these articles are incomplete and could be improved. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You must express why the subject is notable and should be kept. Something that is useful or could be improved are not valid rationales for inclusion. Mkdw ^talk 20:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

GAB^gab 14:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Thanks —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

Hello. I noticed that you corrected a capital letter on March 5's page. I don't understand why that "T" letter has to be a capital letter. Can you explain it to me, or give me a link about this? 95.253.203.9 (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 95.253.203.9, This letter is capitalized since it is the first letter of a sentence. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I thought the reason was something more difficult to understand. Now I feel a little stupid!
But there is a misunderstanding: that "T" is not the first letter of a sentence! Please check that page again to read the reason why I undid your correction. PS this whole thing has a very very very very low importance, so if you're sure that your edit is good, I'll have no more objections. 95.253.203.9 (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@95.253.203.9: The item your refering to is this one:

1824 – First Anglo-Burmese War: The British officially declare war on Burma.

"First Anglo-Burmese War" is not the first word in the sentence, it just introduces what the sentence is going to be about. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Eli355. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm talk 20:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Thanks —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Eli355. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voted —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Eli355!

Happy New Year!

Eli355,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
SemiHypercube 04:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@SemiHypercube: Thanks, you too :) —Eli355 (talk • contribs)

How to divide by zero listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to divide by zero. Since you had some involvement with the How to divide by zero redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Orders of magnitude AFD

Template:Orders of magnitude AFD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Eli355! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Opposite Day for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Opposite Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposite Day until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Nightscream (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Albany Radio/doc

Template:Albany Radio/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Albany Radio/doc

A tag has been placed on Template:Albany Radio/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Switched to more comprehensive documentation, using {{Navbox documentation}} in the main template. This documentation subpage is no longer needed.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DrChuck68 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Albany Radio/doc

Template:Albany Radio/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. DrChuck68 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:Navbox usage

Template:Navbox usage has been nominated for merging with Template:Navbox documentation. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Set theorist (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Evolution/doc

Template:Evolution/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]