This page is an archive. Do not edit it. Please edit
User talk:Deacon Vorbis instead.
|
Hi Deacon Vorbis. I was looking at Ammarpad's RfA, and while I was disappointed with a number of opposes, yours stuck out like a sore thumb. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and one of our largest issues is that we are geographically biased. Almost all of our editors are from North America or UK. There is a Australasian element, a south Asian one and a European one, but we need to be encouraging growth outside these zones, not stifling it. WormTT( talk) 15:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Deacon Vorbis, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt... YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) |
15:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC) ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Please do not call others "attackers" without any reason at all. You may be blocked. Boeing720 ( talk) 23:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
"... That other person is just a besserwisser ...". You hurled the name at me, not him. And I didn't delete your most recent message; I moved it, as I indicated in the edit summary. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 14:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
If I hadn't found the link to the scene from the movie, I might never have gotten any kind of answer. Someone might have asked why I didn't try to find a video.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking about using a video as a source. Bill Carroll (musician) has only two sources. One has been fixed but is dead again, though I have contacted the people who might be able to give me more information. The other is a YouTube video which I realize I can't even link to for anyone.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite episode}}
seems good for that). As far as the status, I think the general rule of thumb is that unless something is old enough for copyright to have expired, or there's text from the the author releasing it into the public domain (or at least some other sort of grant to redistribute without relinquishing the copyright), then you should assume it's under copyright. So for YouTube (or similar), if the video is actually up on some sort of official channel of the holder or their affiliate, (which you see a lot for music and TV, at least for clips), then linking is fine. But if it's just some random dude with an old TV episode, then that's pretty surely not kosher. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 19:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
See /info/en/?search=Talk:Catalan_number#Second_recursive_formula — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranomostro ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure you mean well, but this mass
WP:DRIVEBY tagging with {{
Cleanup HTML}}
isn't helpful without some indication about exactly what and where the offending tags are. I looked at the first one that popped up in my watchlist (
Gamma function), and I couldn't even find anything. So unless you've got a tool that can generate a report about what the problems are, can you go back and remove these? Thanks, –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 04:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I spent most of the day researching the most common notation for representing sets with limited cardinality & when I made the edit, you hastily reverted it without any constructive words. The section I edited was wrong & failed to address the various questions/concerns on the article's talk page. I felt that I addressed these in addition to correcting the existing mistakes. Could you tell me what I need to do change about (or add to) my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspawn9911 ( talk • contribs) 08:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
At your undid comment https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Infinite_regress&oldid=prev&diff=886155153 You had said "I'll just leave it as a "See also" section hatnote". And have made no further changes. Why? When? Make it, please! -- Nashev ( talk) 08:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm asking about my reverted edits to Snake lemma and Zig-zag lemma. While I can't provide an exact source for the latter being commonly called "the snake lemma", it does say on the page for Zig-zag lemma that "In an unfortunate overlap in terminology, this theorem is also commonly known as the "snake lemma,".", and I've definitely heard my lecturer refer to the latter as the "snake lemma". Should we remove that statement from the article, then? Edderiofer ( talk) 17:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
First of all i didn't "violate" anything, as claimed in your recent message to me. It's a TALK PAGE. Afaik, talk pages exist on wikipedia among others for the purpose of expressing subjective opinion about a topic. Secondly, do you actually support this "variable gender" bullshit??? Now we're starting to see men in their 40's or 50's "identifying" as 5 year old girls, then the "adoptive parents" file complaints to their government when kindergarden schools don't accept them in their classrooms? WTF?? What's next, "identifying" as an animal? or a plant? or several of these at once? This is a ridiculous travesty against human dignity and common sense. Delt01 15:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delt01 ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
"In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article ..."Policies on living persons are pretty clear; and you pretty clearly violated them by your post to the talk page. As for the rest of your comment, I don't think I can help you, because either you're trolling, in which case, WP:DNFT, or you're serious, in which case, please feel free to start an article about this phenomenon (or add it to an existing article), but remember that it must all be verifiable information in reliable sources. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 16:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You recently undid this edit of mine saying "some of this broke the delimiter sizing", I'm unsure what you mean by "broke", and if somethings were broken I'm confused as why reversion was used instead of fixing the delimiter sizing. — T.E.A. ( Talk• Edits) 01:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please revert diff. I presume this was in error. If not, please review the policies about this template and who has authority to remove them from a talk page, where this is an active discussion about the respectful treatment of transwomen identities. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 16:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
"Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages, using the standard template ({{ ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.". – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 16:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you have removed
File:Merge sort animation2.gif here:
Special:Diff/887750333.
Why do you think it's not a mergesort depiction? --
CiaPan (
talk) 07:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello /info/en/?search=Talk:Al-Aqsa_TV#new -- Bohdan Bondar ( talk) 07:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Merge sort shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
i started a discussion about my Thue-Morse audio. feel free to elaborate why you feel it is irrelevant. also, i hope my explanation made sense. -- sofias. ( talk) 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
If you are reading this, you must be the one who erased what I put on list of school shootings. First of all, it did happen. Second of all, I just forgot to put where I got the information. Look up "Georgia School Shooting," and put it back, because it did happen and it belongs on the list. 1jire ( talk) 22:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Deacon. I recently added a citation needed to the intro of the Riemann series theorem page which you reverted. I see why you reverted it, and I think I agree, however my problem is that the generalization that the example suggests is not the generalization that is explained in the article. I was asking for a citation for the method that was implied. I've explained this more precisely on the talk page: Talk:Riemann_series_theorem#A_simpler_example. Since you're interested in the article I thought I'd explicitly invite you to discuss it with me there. Shawsa7 ( talk) 00:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and I thought that maybe noting a very famous meme/picture would add more content, and had no intentions of vandalism. If it did feel like that, I am truly sorry. Minkyumthemaster ( talk) 20:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
About the example that was edited yesterday, doesn't f need to be continuous at x to pass from lim(f(x+h) + f(x-h)), h->0,to this being equal to f(x)? Let me know your thoughts. KungFuLykos ( talk) 09:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
I made the first account, today, but it looks like I mistyped the password. The accounts have very similar names, so I hope you can see that there is no malicious intent.
Thanks, Narrow interests2 ( talk) 02:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Narrow interests2
Please, look at my . I've cited you. Will you contradict yourself and revert this edit? Vikom talk 05:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- 37.152.231.90 ( talk) 05:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for reverting your edit on There are known knowns. Later I figured out why it was needed and changed it back. Thanks, Biogeographist ( talk) 15:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Deacon Vorbis, as we have commented on similar topics in the ArbCom case, I invite you to read paragraph 4 of my statement, where I provided some evidence. This is because I expect to leave Wikipedia shortly, and I may not be involved in the ArbCom case further. starship .paint ( talk) 00:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Carmaker1 can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. I don't think you understand what "highly inapporpriate" means, to even be making such statement and bombarding my talk page with your own drivel.
If you were actually paying attention to what was going on, you would see this exact edit I made CORRECTLY, to reflect the rest of the text and numerous sources pointing to 1983, which U1whatever removed with some peculiar fixation.
When text in relation to 1983 production/introduction date/start is supported via sources within the article already, but the erroneous text ELSEWHERE within the Corvette C4 article contradicts it, then it must be corrected to flow with the rest of the Corvette C4 article as SUPPORTED. A user that goes about blindly reverting such efforts, is committing the act of disruptive editing.
For your education, the Twinkle template I used was for DISRUPTIVE EDITING (NOT Vandalism), was a sole warning on that topic of "removing content", as there is no reason for a user to revert such an diff, when a source is already provided NUMEROUS times. But you were not paying attention and made your assumptions instead on what I was addressing on their page for a recent revert of a diff, that was perfectly accurate and intended to erase inconsistencies. NOT for a different edit altogether on a DIFFERENT ARTICLE, in which I needed a new source for and thus provided with rapidity.
Don't comment on nor send inane templates to my page, if you are not paying mind to a situation at hand. It is an unwelcome waste of my time, I don't really care for, if you cannot (try to) understand a situation fully and exercise due diligence.
It is very annoying to hear from someone, who stumbles into something and seems half-aware, finger wagging sanctimoniously to likely address OTHER topics I NEVER took further issue with U1whatever on. The Corvette C6 article (which was a content dispute) has bloody nothing to do with, the diffs of edits I made on the C4 article. NOT C5, NOT C6.
Simply C4, which related to me changing 1984 to 1983 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chevrolet_Corvette_(C4)&diff=next&oldid=906920467).
Any other C4 reverts, I did not address them YET. IF someone deems it necessary, to be simply deleting corrections with sources already cited elsewhere in the prose (ie 1983), I will leave a warning template, as that is being disruptive and blocking another's ability to effectively contribute. Please annoy someone else, if you are not going to look at things openly.. Carmaker1 ( talk) 14:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear Deacon Vorbis. I just noticed that you recently removed the section on the alternative quadratic formula. Please notice that the new version of my article on ArXiv ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05789) contains extended sections on the numerical stability, and a facsimile of the excerpt from Descartes' "Discours de la méthode" where the quadratic formula was published for the first time in history. Descartes' example is indeed a quadratic equation in homogeneous form. I would therefore politely ask you to restore the section on the alternative solution formula or, if you find it helpful, to even extend it. Sincerely yours, Norbert Hungerbühler (Professor of Mathematics at ETH Zürich). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:10EC:56C4:8000:0:0:11 ( talk) 08:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
we respect but tell me why did he remove my post "Is it a possible glitch in the solar system if true?" as well as the post of light. I posted (asked) with civility despite knowing the truth. did I show any rudeness in my post?
Here is your message on my talk page.
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:VQuakr. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll also add that VQuakr was acting within Wikipedia's guidelines on using talk pages. And if you are unhappy with something an editor does like that, or you don't understand why they did something, then you should address the editor WP:CIVILly. You'll generally find you get a much more constructive response. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, you have reverted my statement about L´Hopital rule. We can talk about whether or not we should add this information but you said that it was incorrect too. Can you please explain why you think it´s wrong that both the numerator and the denominator tend to infinity as p goes to infinity? Kind regards, TranslationTalent ( talk) 22:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Why did you reject the information about the College of New Rochelle's absorption into Mercy College? It seems important and is confirmed information. In fact, this information is contained within the College of New Rochelle entry. The latter institution is ceasing to exist and many of its assets are being transferred to Mercy College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwkirk ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't aware of the WP:SIGN procedure. Wwkirk ( talk) 21:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Edit warring over {{rfc}} in help_talk:Displaying_a_formula". Thank you. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 14:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
You were warned once already about this. Your continual reverting of posts on the Oath Keepers talk page is not ok, and I will report you for vandalism if you do it again. Barwick ( talk) 05:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
You had redacted source links in an edit request I made to the Uno (Card Game) Wikipedia page and I'm wondering why. I had asked in a new talk entry on that page, but you seem to have promptly ignored it. Any chance you could help with how the links provided had to be thrown out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacMinty ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Yet another instance of odd-numbered-space warring, such as [1], and your disruptions are reported. And don’t assume that warring only against me will be reported. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 14:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 15:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. For edit warring over this. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC) |
Hey man, seems like you rolled back edits in the Faà di Bruno's formula entry simply for the sake of undoing changes. Or maybe to conform to some imagined old textbook notation. Why, though? Want less people to start editing Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.112.18.90 ( talk) 16:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you didn't reply but you looked at my edits and reverted another one... Just want to emphasize that I wrote you the entry to get into conversation about it and I'm a little taken aback by that interaction, to be honest. But I'll cope.
I don't think there's a good standard to the "set x to y" expression as in or , akin to how some people write and (quantitatively most?) others opt for . I found the comment "doesn't make sense" a bit harsh, as I think there's a good and fairly evident way in which is taken as an operation taking the derivative of a function, followed by an evaluation at five. But don't take this to be a combative argument, especially here I see how that might be a convention and a possibly more confusing (if better readable) one at that.
I think pushing the factors in the Faa di Bruno formula inside was a strict improvement, but also here, if we take the encyclopedia in Wikipedia more strictly, we might opt for reporting of history and I can well imagine that the lengthy expression is how you'd find it in the original paper.
My wishes
91.112.18.90 ( talk) 17:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
About this (which followed this, which was in response to this): aha, I hadn't seen that there really is some treatment of other extensions in the article. (I will pretend that this is because it's buried slightly, in the middle of a section about the usual gamma, rather than because I did an inadequate job of checking before reverting.) Probably that added to your confusion; sorry! I still think that the usual gamma is so much more important than any other extension of the factorial that any mention of multiple extensions in the lead would need to be very, very clear about that. On another note: I've been quite enjoying three solid days of not seeing anyone angrily berated over trivialities at WT:WPM or elsewhere .... -- JBL ( talk) 01:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
why you delete
"The earliest publication that discusses Factorial appears to be the Sefer Yetzirah [Book of Creation], circa AD 300."
?? ינון גלעדי ( talk) 18:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
"...this isn't a good video clip"
1. Is there a better video on Wiki?
2. This video is in HD (See Wikimedia Commons).
3. The video shows the start and the first 20 minutes of turning.
Please consider undoing my edit!
Fizped ( talk) 20:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
With respect, there was no discussion of the medical consensus in the previous discussion. For all that it was being ignored, I still think the discussion was worth having. Vashti ( talk) 17:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
"Not a helpful/good pic" is not a helfpul/good edit summary, though it is brief. Hyacinth ( talk) 03:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
How is an image request disruptive? Two edits on the article and one edit on the talk page; if combined, three edits. This is the possible beginning of a pattern at most. Note that I have not reverted the reversions of my edits, but instead have responded by trying something differently, and not reverted reversions of those edits. I am actually actively engaged in reaching consensus by reaching out to editors who have objected to my edits.
All images are considered unnecessary by many people, and every and any image may be found unnecessary by at least one person, and there are people who cannot access images due to disability. Similarly, there are people who can't understand a concept after reading page after page, but who can understand a visual presentation of the concept. Since Wikipedia is mostly text and writing, the editors of Wikipedia are statistically skewed towards people who are not "visual learners" (as they say, "writers write, painters paint"), but this does not mean that people who are visual learners do not matter and should not be valued. Hyacinth ( talk) 04:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, i recently added an edit in which i added two films worthy of being put in the lede of said actor (in the part in which they are listed the notable films he did in the 2010s) specifically this two being Shutter Island and The Great Gatsby. I have been denied this perfectly reasonable edit request by you. I think adding these two notable films on his lede is totally reasonable, since they are actually memorable box office hits known by the general public. I don't absolutely think that the list is already exhaustive, adding these movies is more telling of the fact of how many great successful movies he did in this decade alone.
So i gently ask you to admit my edit request so the edit can be validated, and so these two films of him can rightfully appear in the lede alongside the others, as they deserve to appear there. Thank you and good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.190.51 ( talk) 20:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
You either provide the source or your own version of the formula. -- Roland ( talk) 01:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Deacon Vorbis,
Thank you for changing the edit request to "yes" at Talk:Elizabeth May, but the reason I didn't change it is because I wanted to leave it open for someone else to answer and possibly complete, if the needed citation was provided. Nevertheless, I was that person as I've now found a citation and completed the request.
I also like to wrap the edit requests in closure tags so that no further edits occur to that section. No one'e complained about my doing that thus far. Do you think that's reasonable?
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus (
talk) 17:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I like your editnotice. ;)
Hi, Deacon Vorbis. Maybe I should have pinged you and Guy when I commented at Boeing's SPI (after it was closed), but I didn't, so I'll just mention that I have posted agreement with you — that was never Boeing. Possibly I suppose it could have been a friend of his. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC).
Why did you revert my comment on Newton's Law of Gravitation. You gave no reason. JFB80 ( talk) 14:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Jehochman Talk 16:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
When deciding to archive or not, we need not wait for automatic archiving. We can manually archive. And, indeed, regardless of the archive bot, this is common practice. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The words 'analogue' and 'analog' are both acceptable in contemporary American English. [1] I'm learning to contribute. Please don't threaten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpt Wise ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
References
I'm a fan of the subjunctive. I refer to your reversal of my correction on the entropy page. The subjunctive is used to refer to something that is a possibility. However, in that case the sentence was referring to a particular case, not at all hypothetical. My Practical English Usage, Michael Swan, Oxford University Press, confirms it, but you can Google it and it will say the same. I encourage you to change the sentence to what it was before. Thank you for trying to do the right thing.-- Gciriani ( talk) 20:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The next noob who (per MOS) decides to start fixing [all] curlies on sight will, sooner or later, learn from his mistake too. And the next noob, and the next. Meanwhile, I guess ...
Preachy ate chew. -- Brogo13 ( talk) 23:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for changing Your original comment but You probably did not understand that intention. I did not wanted to echo that you have other intentions. I only though You was aware about my mentioning about edit war in describtion (I even thanked for your original massage until I relplied you as you know) and I can remove "warning" as unproductive for us two with good faith as it is on my own talk. But I made very bad thing that I littly changed your second comment (partly comment can not be edited even on the user own page, or that part of the comment for esample include rude title of section) and I think it require reflection to You. Sorry, again. I belive and hope we will be no longer conflicted in the future if we will see again on Wikipedia. I never was blocked on Wikipedia since 10 years. Cheers. Dawid2009 ( talk) 16:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
RE [2] Thanks for removing my reply. I didn't see the earlier IP history until afterwards. Meters ( talk) 19:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Hallo,Deacon!
Please have another look at "The Man in the High Castle", Section 14 of the talk page. I have reacted to the deletion of the world map. I'd like to know your opinion.
Best wishes
Gernsback67 ( talk) 18:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thanks but what i can do about troll which flags / erases / changes pages which have valid content, including sources citated, mismatching facts (e.g. he swapped two different companies etc.)
some year ago I spent time to find sources for citations to make sure it match with new wikipedia policies at that time
pages of VBS1 , VBS2 , VBS3 and Bohemia Interactive Simulations when he dislike the reverts he simple flags the pages for deletion (please note he got already several times denied on speedy deletion at 3 of 4 those pages etc.)
User:Dwarden (6 December 2019) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarden ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Is "airplane" understood in British/international English? If not, the IP has a point that "aeroplane" is understood in most variants. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RTG and RDMA. -- Jasper Deng (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Your fix at Transsexual left it still broken. I fixed the syntax so it works, but I have no idea what section you were targeting, so you may have to change it again, to slurp the correct content. Btw, I don't agree with your edit history comment, ... transcluding a section of content seems like a terrible idea, partly for this exact reason. If using features that are complex and need to be implemented correctly in order to work right is a terrible idea, we'd have to get rid of Infoboxes, Templates, and a whole lot of things. It *is* a terrible idea for some, and for others, it's a help. In this particular case, that's a whole lot of material to slurp, and I think it's too much (but as I said, maybe you meant to target something else). In any case, a brief section summarizing the material in Summary style and linking to it as child article might be another approach. HTH, Mathglot ( talk) 01:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
You ignored my the last message on the following talk page : /info/en/?search=Talk%3ABasel_problem . I have been waiting for an answer for more than two weeks. I find your attitude disrespectful. Indeed, you have always deleted the paragraph I am trying to add in less than 24 hours. Your ignorance led to an edit warring. I wrote another message on the talk page since then. Please answer to me. If you refuse to answer, please stop deleting the paragraph I am trying to add on the article's page. Contribute.Math ( talk) 12:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)