please be polite

I hope it is not too much of a bother, but can you solve the (at least) 224 links to disambiguation pages created by your edits on Presidency (country subdivision)? To be positive, that number of 224 related to the number of used of Template:Terms for types of country subdivisions where the link to "Presidency" is used. The Banner  talk 10:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you for letting me know of this oversight. I will look at this now. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 13:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Another editor has changed the page to a redirect, so it is not a serious problem now. See WP:NOTBROKEN Volunteer1234 ( talk) 13:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC) reply

One problem with the edit is that the phrase "according to the symmetries of the pattern" formerly modified the verb "to classify", but now it is not clear what it modifies. Another issue is that, in my opinion, the lede should define the subject of the article and not some other, related concept. Also, "frieze group pattern" is not, to my knowledge, standard mathematical terminology. In mathematics one is more likely to say "pattern with frieze group symmetry". Could you explain what you are trying to accomplish with this edit? Perhaps I can suggest something. Will Orrick ( talk) 12:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Will, thanks for your comment! "A frieze group is a mathematical concept used to classify designs..." is extremely wordy and makes it a process of classification rather than a symmetry. This contrasts with the very simple diagram to the right, which actually says "Examples of frieze group patterns". I see the problem with "according to..." I think there is a simple solution to this, and I look forward to your suggestions. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 14:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

One possibility is "A frieze group is the set of symmetries of a pattern on a two-dimensional surface that is repetitive in one direction." This isn't 100% accurate since a frieze group, by definition, contains only isometries, which are distance-perserving transformations, including translation, reflection, rotation, and glide reflection. Some patterns may have additional symmetries - for example permutation of colors combined with an isometry. Another slight inaccuracy is that to specify a concrete frieze group one needs to specify certain geometric data such as the width of the unit cell and the position of any reflection or rotation axes within a unit cell. When one says that there are seven frieze groups, one means there are seven up to a certain notion of equivalence in which these data don't matter. This is why the formal definition later in the article says that a frieze group is a "class of discrete symmetry groups". One thing that can be said for the previous wording is that it is non-specific enough not to be factually incorrect. Will Orrick ( talk) 18:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm fine with that wording. It is better than the previous wording. Generally I'd like to see math articles begin with something a general reader (like me) can understand. I know this is difficult at times, but with this article it is possible. Thanks! Volunteer1234 ( talk) 18:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm still thinking about this. What I'm leaning towards now is replacing the first paragraph with something like "In mathematics, a frieze or frieze pattern is a design on a two-dimensional surface that is repetitive in one direction. Such patterns occur frequently in architecture and decorative art. A frieze group is the set of symmetries of a frieze pattern, specifically the set of isometries of the pattern, that is geometric transformations built from rigid motions and reflections that preserve the pattern. The mathematical study of frieze patterns reveals that they can be classified into seven types according to their symmetries." The obvious problem with this is that the subject of the article isn't introduced until the third sentence. One advantage is that it introduces the word "classify" early. For mathematicians, one of the most interesting things about frieze groups is that they can be completely classified, and that we know there are exactly seven types. The word "classify" occurs twice in paragraph two, and omitting mention of classification from paragraph one would require that the second paragraph be rewritten as well. Still hoping for a better idea though. Will Orrick ( talk) 15:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC) reply

If you are the past WP:ANDOR editor, keep in mind that, per this RfC (which I partly started because of the WP:ANDOR editor), WP:ANDOR is only a guideline and is allowed in some cases. This is why that guideline's wording was updated. And, per MOS:QUOTE, "and/or" should not be changed in quotes unless the change is somehow needed. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Looking at your edit history, it appears that you are not the same editor, but I'm not 100% sure since this account started editing around the time that Μαριλιάνα Σερέτη ( talk · contribs) stopped editing. At the moment, you remind me more of a different past editor. Either way, please keep the WP:ANDOR RfC in mind when removing "and/or." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pointing me to the MOS survey! I will take that into consideration. Of course I don't alter quotes, that doesn't make any sense. I do not know of Μαριλιάνα Σερέτη. I'd like to think edits stand on their own, no matter who made them. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 18:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

if you take out the and/or because most would read it as both, most legalese would read it as "but not both", for me, pls stop. Dave Rave ( talk) 04:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't understand what you are saying. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 14:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Fiber (naive set theory) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a " cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 22:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Deacon Vorbis, this isn't a copy-and-paste move but a splitting of an article. – Uanfala 23:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I realized that after I found the second half, as you didn't put that information into the talk pages. Nevertheless, this split isn't a good idea and I'm going through the process of undoing it. This is a short article, both of whose meanings are closely related, and so there's no real reason to split. Moreover, there are some serious problems with the text in the article, which I'll work on cleaning up after this is all sorted out. -- Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 23:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

No opinion on that, but just noting, that your current interlocutor isn't the same user as the one that this talk page belongs to. – Uanfala 23:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Right, I also realized that after the fact; sorry about that. -- Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 23:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I caused a mess here. I was just trying to do what I thought was an obvious split. The article still implies there are two topics. Maybe the lead could be improved to have a general definition of the topic? Volunteer1234 ( talk) 17:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Fiber (algebraic geometry) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Undoing a not-well-thought-out split from the original at Fiber (mathematics), along with the other half at Fiber (naive set theory)

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 removed 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. Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 22:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Fiber (naive set theory) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G6, undoing a page that was created from a not-well-thought-out split attempt from the original at Fiber (mathematics); the other half is also under request at Fiber (algebraic geometry)

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 removed 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. Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 23:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note, sorry for the double notification, but I redid the request as (noted above), I didn't realize this was from an attempt to split. -- Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 23:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for trying to improve Deep diving, but there isn't any agreed definition of deep diving and the article history and its talk page history are full of disagreements about how it may be defined. In addition, the article already had a substantial lead - you can't subdivide a lead into sections using level 3 headers in the way you tried to. Moreover, level 3 headers must be preceded by a level 2 header - see MOS:GOODHEAD.

As a result, I've restored the previous version of the article. Perhaps you may wish to suggest other improvements, or perhaps attempt a more comprehensive lead section per MOS:LEAD. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 20:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I've tried again without the sections. I am attempting to start a MOS:LEAD. Can we move this discussion to the talk page? Volunteer1234 ( talk) 22:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Sorry for reverting you at Cooloola Tramway. It wasn't my intention. I was thanking you because I agree that "use" is almost always preferable to "utilise". But the thank button is immediately next to the undo button in the interface so I am guessing I clicked the wrong one by accident (I have a permanently broken right arm so my control of my right hand, my mouse hand, is a bit unreliable, particularly when I am tired). Thank you for questioning it; normally I would have given a reason for a revert.

Kerry ( talk) 08:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clearing that up! Sorry about your arm. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 16:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Good job in third world article.Be careful nobody disruptes it.Really good! Kingofwoods ( talk) 20:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I wish it wasn't such a battle sometimes. I lost to the (only) editor of Horkey today.[ [1]] Volunteer1234 ( talk) 21:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply

You well described third world.First and second world are already well described.This is the real world.Developing and not developed are just hipocricy words.Follow also these to articles.Nobody can damage them changing.Thanks. Kingofwoods ( talk) 21:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, just checking if you saw my edit and if you think that the given reason is consistent and compatible with the chosen wording of the page's lead section :-) Drow ( talk) 09:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, I saw it. Obviously I prefer my edit "to include". None of those are definitions, they are attributes that may be included in varying degrees in different definitions. I'd actually prefer if the sentences were reversed:

Intelligence is generally described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. It has been defined in many different ways to include the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, and problem solving. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 02:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I changed the lead section but, if you don't mind, can I ask you if you are an English native speaker? If so, could you please read the entirety of the new lead section with calm and, in doing so, check whether the pace, elegance, and clearness of the section are OK for an encyclopedia? Thanks. Drow ( talk) 10:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Hey mate, just wanted to let you know that a word being a proper noun does not exclude that word from also being a portmanteau. Take a look at the entire organizations and companies section or most of the art, literature, and entertainment section for the matter. Also, I provided citation from the IEEE for the definition of Wi-Fi in both the list and the article itself, so hopefully that clears things up. Cheers! Enix150 ( talk) 22:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I disagree about an album title being a portmanteau. A portmanteau is a word, as in something that would be in a dictionary. But anyway the wifi one is just wrong. Maybe you can find one reference back you up but there are hundreds that actually explain how wifi is just a brand name and is based on hifi. You can start here: Wi-Fi Volunteer1234 ( talk) 03:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I missed the edit summary. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I am unsure why you are unhappy with the lead in to this page. Please note that summer architecture is not an "architectural style". If you read the page you will see that the houses built had a wide variety of styles. Roundtheworld ( talk) 06:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take another look at it and try to fix this problem. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 15:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I've answered on the relevant talk page. It's good to give a reason when reverting. I had no idea why I was reverted before. Thanks! Volunteer1234 ( talk) 18:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Re your undo of my edits : I think its best that the opening paragraph is pretty short, and not include detail that is better placed later on, and of course, be accurate. - 'Coffee Palace' is indeed a term, not a type of building, being applied to hotels and guest houses, large and small, for about 30 years. This article covers all the places that were called Coffee Palaces over that time, not just the 1880s Australian ones. Its also referred to as a 'movement'. And then there were non-alcohol hotels that were called Temperance Hotels or Temperance Bars, and then there were the much earlier UK coffee houses... - they were built in the UK as well as Australia, so that should be up front - they were built starting the late 1870s, and into the 1900s, so saying just 1880s is incorrect - Munro was obviously a force only in Victoria, not the other states, or the UK. - Also not sure that the rechabites were a major force, apart from being abstainers, is there a source for this ? - and this line is just silly: "Coffee Palaces were often multi-purpose or mixed use buildings which included a large number of rooms for accommodation as well as ballrooms and other function and leisure facilities." they were hotels, and most hotels had ballrooms and 'leisure facilities'... dining rooms ?, so not really a 'mixed use building' which implies say offices and a hotel and shops etc. they were just hotels much like other hotels, except they didnt serve alcohol... ah, i see that that wording comes from this online guidebook thing pocket oz though not referenced in the article, dontknow who wrote that, still very odd phrase, rather not use it.

caption for the big image - its far too long ! also lots of inaccurate and unsupported stuff - it was NOT Melbourne's tallest building, that was the APA Building, Melbourne - it became a hotel in the 20s, not the 50s - no evidence it was considered for a casino - the bit about the grand can go later.

PS im an architectural historian based in Melbourne Rohanstorey ( talk) 06:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm fine with you editing the content as you know the subject! My edits were just for style and readability. Yes the caption is obviously way too big. I'm not sure why you want the lead to be so short. The recommended lead length is three paragraphs.( WP:LEAD) It is supposed to be a self-contained summary of the whole article. Every term is a term, it is redundant to say so.( WP:REFERS) Hotel is also a term. A coffee palace was a building .... Thanks! Volunteer1234 ( talk) 00:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

OK, good points, Ill try to refine the style and readability, didnt know that about leads, so will make it a bit longer, though when the article isnt long youd think the lead would be shorter too. And yep OK, 'term' is redundant ! Rohanstorey ( talk) 00:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC) reply

What do you mean "Worse"? Do you mean that dubius original research is better than dicdef? I did this on purpose: either tank war gamers (who, obviously, concocted this article) write a referenced text into the article or it will be eliminated. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I just meant that before it was a redundant article and now it wasn't really an article at all just a "dicdef" as you say. It seems from the disambig merge talk that we all agree that Panzer should either be a redirect or the disambig moved there. I'm happy with either of those solutions Volunteer1234 ( talk) 21:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

There is an Administrative Notice Board report ( which can be found here) concerning Bacondrum's edits to the Call-out culture article. I am posting this notice on the Talk pages of the ten most frequent contributors to the article who have accounts on Wikipedia. -- DeRossitt ( talk) 23:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi - it's not entirely clear whether you are endorsing a Topic ban against Bacondrum or not because of where the the endorsement is posted - can you clarify? FOARP ( talk) 20:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that. I cleaned it up and moved to correct section. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 21:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

So I'm not the only person out there who hates how that word is utilized used. R2 ( bleep) 00:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I've given up on my mission to rid wikipedia of it. It is on many thousands of articles. Maybe someone can write a script. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 02:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC) reply

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) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The article Software-defined memory has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem notable—if it is, the article doesn't reflect that and should be improved as well as linked to from other articles. Written in a promotional tone; does not give an encyclopedic treatment of its subject. No activity since 2017; no indication its subject was more than a flash in the pan—if that's wrong, the article should be improved instead of deleted.

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.

P.S. I noticed that the second of your three edits to that article removes and complains about "emact opposite", when it was your own previous edit that incorrected it from "exact opposite" (among other changes). It seems the real problem was that there was no apparent referent for the "opposite", not the "emact" typo. Just thought that was slightly interesting. – PointyOintment ❬ 💬• ⌨❭  08:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply

ha, oops! Volunteer1234 ( talk) 21:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect White Tanzanians. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 24#White Tanzanians until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Redirect, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. UtherSRG (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The article List of Spanish autonomous communities by unemployment rate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Already covered in Unemployment in Spain

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. IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 18:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply