User talk:Prohlep

Locality of reference

One purpose of a talk page is to discuss proposed major changes to an article. The existing locality of reference article has already had a great deal of work performed on it over a long period of time. Prohlep I suggest that you use the Talk:Locality_of_reference page as a discussion forum for your proposed changes. This will minimise confusion for people who want to read a completed article and help reduce disruption. Derek farn (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1: one purpose of the Talk:Locality of reference page is to discuss proposed major changes to an article. The existing locality of reference article has already had a great deal of work performed on it over a long period of time, but appeared to more or less abandoned HALF-READY in the last two months, according to the Revision history of Locality of reference.

That history page proves, that never before was a real debate on the section structure of the article, the existing debate was much more on particular small questions, except for merging together two previous articles into the present one.

So all of the above made me clear, that before my 9 hours work this article was rather a collecting folder of ideas, what can be a good resource to produce later an article. So I decided to do it, or at least, to try it.

2: your User:Derek farn link is still red, you don't provide information about yourself. Neither the Google can give any academic information about you, more precisely about the string "Derek farn".

So in overall, the page appeared abandoned, you did not introduce yourself, so I found nobody to discuss the alterations.

However, sometimes even the drastic structural changes are obvious. At least for me, because I prepare handout for my students since 1978, and there is a common culture, that after a short motivating summary first we define the notions, then second we describe the environment where the notion becomes alive, and third we go into the details. If you check, exactly this is the NEW structure what I did in the last 9 hours.

In addition to this, in the old version, the opposite notion was missing, mainly due to the fact, that the previously described three thematic sections were mixed together, and therefore nobody noticed, that to mention the opposite notion is really important. So the other feature of my extension is that I included the opposite notion.

3: I can imagine, that just when you entered, as I was in the middle of the reorganization, what you could find was completely incoherent. But, at the top of the article there was a huge box indicating, that the article is just under a very heavy reconstruction.

I ASK YOU TO TRUST ME MUCH BETTER IN THE FUTURE. prohlep (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your long post on Talk:The God Delusion.

I single revert only means someone disagrees, it's not something to get upset about! It's part of the normal editing process. Merzul (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:The God Delusion are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prohlep, I was also going to ask you to succinctly state what you want. Do not assume there are attempts to hide the truth. The only reason people are objecting is because you are not sticking to the point on the talk page. Merzul (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LAST WARNING TO "Derek farn"

This is a last warning to "Derek farn".

Your reverting habit and loose restatements makes me mistrustful concerning you.

There is no sign, whether you analyse deeply the article, its discussion and the edit summaries before reverting or reformulating the article itself.

It is worth while to see also your edit summary "(rv: Array access performance same as other data types)" of the reverting (rv: Array access performance same as other data types).

Your user page is empty, and Google search for "Derek+farn" neither gives any reasonable result on your academic skills.

You refuse to tell us who are you, while you did the followings with the page Locality of reference:

19:15, 14 June 2008 Andreas Kaufmann (Talk | contribs) m (8,513 bytes) the state before my first contribution,

17:55, 19 July 2008 Prohlep (Talk | contribs) m (18,017 bytes) I added 9504 bytes roughly,

12:37, 20 July 2008 Derek farn (Talk | contribs) (13,484 bytes) You removed 4533 bytes roughly.

The presentation of the notion Locality of reference was bulky and too restrictive for special cases before me,

I sorted the existing sentences into introduction, definition, reasons for occurrence of the phenomenon and diverse use of the phenomenon,

I as a teaching staff has the experience, that better to present a notion with its opposite notion, with its negation, so I did it,

while you repeatedly tried to wanish these additional professional contents.

Now you have to decide, whether you take over the responsibility for this article,

if not, then I will revert your removed 4533 bytes roughly, and don't forget that this case your choices was "no",

or if yes, then I will not give my name and knowledge to this article, and as a consequence I forbid to use my knowledge for you, hence this case I will revert the article to the version just before my huge contribution action (see the page history, that there was no essential contributions from other authors, except for robots and a few typo corrections in my new sentences), and in this case I do not permit you to use my knowledge and inventions I made in the structure of the article.

You have to understand, that I spent many-many hours to invent a much better structure and content, while you did not do the same effort and improvements.

If you will not make your selection between the not and yes above, then I will propose your behavior for public discussion.

prohlep (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Prohlep/farn

User:Prohlep/farn, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prohlep/farn and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Prohlep/farn during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of User:Prohlep/farn

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:User:Prohlep/farn|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ViperSnake151 21:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question concerning the page listed above: is this in preparation for a report on WP:ANI,WP:RFC or WP:RFAR or something similar that you intend to follow thru on SOON? If so, such pages, where evidence is assembled, have been accepted in the past. But if this is just a place to express your frustration, or a place to keep a long-running record of complaints, then you'd better save this to an off-Wiki computer soon, because it will very very likely be deleted. An answer here, or on the MFD linked above, would be appreciated. --barneca (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prohlep/farn

Yes, this was a HIDDEN preparation for a report on WP:ANI,WP:RFC or WP:RFAR or something similar that I intend either to follow through on SOON, or to drop.

But it was simply deleted while I was working in the jury of the international mathematical competition, having no time to access the internet to make a final decision.

Be so kind to send a copy of that deleted page to me.

In contrary to MANY of your contributors, I am not a hiding one.

Hence if you really want to give back my HIDDEN notes, then you can figure out my email address pretty easily.

Thanks! prohlep (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to make such a request. Please ask the admin who deleted the page to restore it if you believe you have a case. Incidentally, user pages are not hidden. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed the contents to you, Prohlep. As you can see above, the results of an AFD decided that this doesn't belong on Wikipedia, so if you are going to try to turn this into a ANI, RFC, or something, please do it off site, on your own computer. It will be deleted by someone if it comes back up here. --barneca (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I decided to handle this kind of information off site. And I am close to abandon the further investigation of the editor in question. prohlep (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. Then, shall I deleted User:Prohlep/farn again? I see it's recreated just as a blank page; it might be cleaner and less fuss to have it stay deleted. --barneca (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YES, and I apologize myself because of the extended use of your time. prohlep (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --barneca (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Prohlep, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! DougsTech (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mein teurer Heiland, lass dich fragen

I'd like to add this explicitly to your popular bits of St John Passion, but do't want to ruin nice bit about Hungarian practice. Does the Pater Noster come before or after this piece (either would be symbolic) Bob aka linuxlad

Pater Noster is between the "Es ist vollbracht!" aria + "Und neiget das Haupt und verschied." recitative, and the "Mein teurer Heiland, lass dich fragen" chorale. I.e.: before. prohlep (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Error-prone

The article Error-prone has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is Original Research of dubious notability. If there are any secondary sources them it's possibly a candidate for Wiktionary, but I don't see this as a new coinage, to be honest.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A common problem

Dear Wikipedist editor, I want to submit to your attention an our common problem: disruptive contributions and edit warring operated by user Derek farn (talk). This latter shows systematically a provoking behaviour and lacking of respect for other people’s work, typical of vandalism. I’ve sent this communication to many people having the same problem in order to organize a collective protest/action request directed to e.g. the Arbitration Committee or Requests for comment/User conduct (this latter procedure requires the participation of at least two users) or to the Wikipedia Community. If you agree with this initiative please contact me at this dedicated email address: clipeaster-1971 AT yahoo DOT com. In order to avoid creating of a forum section dedicated to Derek farn I suggest you to delete this communication once you’ve read it and, then, be in contact via email. Any suggestion are welcomed. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

As another user pointed out to me that suggesting to be in contact outside wikipedia is not a correct way, for transparency reasons, so I conclude that we need to correspond via talk page. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Prohlep. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Prohlep. 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]

Nomination of Pósa theorem for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pósa theorem 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/Pósa theorem 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. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]