User talk:MaxEnt

Archives

1, 2

Where is Kenny Wood?

Greetings MaxEnt! You mention on your userpage that you run a personal MediaWiki for notetaking. May I ask, what is your operating system, and what was your strategy for setting up such as system? I have a non-technical mind for these things. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fundamental interaction may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• via gravitation and electromagnetism. The strong interaction, synthesizing [[chemical elements]][[ via [[nuclear fusion]] within [[star]]s, holds together the [[atom]]'s [[atomic nucleus|nucleus]],

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You appear to have some expertise in the visual system. I've been bothered for some time about the definition of "visual"! Back in the day, there were rods and cones and visual had to do with sight. Full stop. Then came chronobiology and later knowledge of intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells which have (almost) nothing to do with sight. I see the word visual used to include these 'new' cells and the work they do. But I also see this 'new' system described as non-visual.

According to the article visual system, Wikipedia clearly means that all of it is 'visual'. Is it simply wrong to refer to "non-visual" functions of the eyes & optic nerve etc.? That feels non-intuitive to me. I feel that vision = visual perception = sight.

(You needn't bother with this if you don't have time as it's borderline related to editing the encyclopedia.) --Hordaland (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interesting (and amusing) reply!!

"One could argue that circadian regulation itself almost deserves to be regarded as a part of the visual system: we track night and day for the in large measure for the sake of synchronizing our wakefulness with optimal seeing conditions." Yes, and circadian regulation certainly appeared (long) before vision/sight. --Hordaland (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Letter frequency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, high-intensity interval training , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roger Schank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cognitivist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CouchDB, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Erlang. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rexall Place, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jason Smith. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steven Poole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scribner. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Omni-Path, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seagate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Daron Acemoğlu page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add more references for your large amount of new text that you added to Interrupt handler article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert any and all of my un-referenced additions to interrupt handler if you think that improves the article over how it now stands.

Note that the previous scope of the article was insufficient, whether referenced or not referenced. If the goal here is to arrive at a sufficient article, which should come first? Clearly this article wasn't attracting necessary editorial attention in its previous form.

It would take me an entire day to hunt down references for what I learned over thirty years of working on microcontrollers off and on. I don't have that day for this project. I do hunt down references all the time for my smaller edits, because on those edits I'm learning as I go, rather than restudying material I already know cold.

I've already put a dated comment in the talk page concerning my large addition. If this work is reverted in toto, an enterprising future editor can still dig it up and salvage anything of merit.

My preference is that someday pares the new text down by about 30% so that any OR inherent from my too many decades of history is less self-evident, while also leaving it obvious that the new scope deserves a better high-level organization. In the profession of editing, structural editing is a different job description from content editing. The hope here is that such a person comes along. The previous version failed to attract content editors, so personally, I would try out this new approach for a while to see how it goes. — MaxEnt 17:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For all edits, it is your responsibility to add references, per Wikipedia:Citing sources. I don't remember any rules that say a person can ignore the rule, just because it takes a bunch of your time to do it. Wikipedia isn't a blog where we post life knowledge and life experience, because that would fall under WP:USERGENERATED and/or Wikipedia:No original research. Remember that Wikipedia must meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Obviously, a person doesn't need to add a reference after every sentence, but at the same time "no references" or few doesn't pass the guidelines either. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why I'm cool with the next person A) helping my work over the bar, or B) burying it six feet under. I'm not flouting policy, I'm just taking a different short-term view of division of labour. There's an analogy here with the evolutionary developmental biology. People tend to forget the "devo" part, yet no evolutionary adaptation is viable without also having a viable development process (this was probably discussed in a video discussion between Dawkins and Steven Rose, where I realized that I was guilty as charged, and had also fallen into this particular state of sin). In my opinion, Wikipedia culture is a little bit too heavy on the "evo" side, and ignores the "devo" side, leading to a lot of articles meeting the dress code, but not the need. I'm in complete agreement with the Wikipedia standards for articles that actually get there. So either a process begins to bring my addition into conformity (an ultimate evo standard with which I wholly agree), or it gets immediately removed (a devo standard which I regard as short-sighted).

As for the problem with a few, look at this, it's typical of what's broadly available:

• Chapter 7. Interrupts and Interrupt Handlers

It dives right into the kind of gory detail that already makes this article too technical for casual neophytes. I'd have to wade through bushels of this kind of prose with tweezers, to pick out one sentence from each that takes a higher level view. I don't think that randomly scattering a few of these into the article improves matters (though it might superficially appear to do so), and what it would take for me to filter this down to where it would improve matters lies well beyond the scope of my enthusiasm. — MaxEnt 18:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit to Slave trade for a number of reasons. First, please do not turn an existing redirect with incoming links into a disambiguation page without discussion and consensus for such a change. Editors often make links using redirects with the expectation that the redirect target will be on the other end, and it is unfair to these editors to change that target without alerting the community. Second, when consensus exists for such a change, it is expected that incoming links will be fixed before the nature of the page is changed, to avoid disrupting the systems that report disambiguation links. Third, this is very clearly a WP:DABCONCEPT, and not an ambiguous topic at all. Your page merely listed different routes or kinds of slave trade, and did not disambiguate anything. It was therefore incorrect and a misapplication of disambiguation guidelines to create this page, which you would probably have discovered from a discussion on the matter. bd2412 T 19:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely right. My apologies. In the moment, it just didn't occur to me that slave trade could serve as a useful inbound link to history of slavery. I just assumed someone had made the link long ago, and it was basically moribund. This is actually a classic cognitive error. Almost all of my driving incidents occur when I fail to realize that another driver might make a weird choice, because I would never make such a choice myself. My gut response to slave trade being used as an active, inbound link to history of slavery was that it was simply too weird and dysfunctional to exist if anyone else with a working brain knew about it (read what I just said carefully: quite simply—now that you've reminded me to think from above—my gut was in the wrong). Also when driving on the public roadways, I need to rein in my false assumptions, as I clearly failed to do here. — MaxEnt 19:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that we could have an article on the slave trade itself, as a broad topic. I recently created Slave market in response to a similar concern. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent addition. Cheers! to you too.

By the way, I propose template {{sad-reality-redirect}}, expanding to: Slave trade redirects here; it probably shouldn't but it does. Likewise the slave trade redirect page itself could contain text (or an HTML comment) to warn the next speedy dunderhead that this is, for the time being, a known sand trap. Less facetiously, one could hat note—perhaps at section level: "slave trade redirects here; for specific slave trades, see slave trade (disambiguation)."

As I explained, I was only into this to address (what I falsely perceived to be) a minor bit rot, and now that I know this is live ammunition, I'll leave the next step to those who regularly edit in this dank pond of human history. — MaxEnt 21:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left your recent edit alone for now, but it should really be sourced when you have a moment. I don't doubt that it's true, but since this article is lacking proper sourcing all over the place, the last thing we want to do is contribute to the mess. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick search for whether dual-link permitted running separately displays via a splitter, the references I could source spoke about the use of the DMS-59 for this purpose. Here's what you end up with:

DVI supports dual-link. ... Using DVI, you can drive two displays off one DMS-59 connector, but this is not dependent on dual-link.[citation provided]

Is this weird non-sequitur an improvement?

Finding a quick source on splitting dual-link DVI suffers from the problem that apparently it can't be done by any normal means, so HOWTO space is a little thin.

Citations are great. I care about the befuddled reader first and foremost. Wikipedia suffers from stiff-upper-lip syndrome. We aren't allowed to say "if you search for dual-link DVI splitters you won't find much (as of June 2017), infer from this what you will". So between the two edicts, we just leave the hapless reader running around blind in negative space (that which is not spoken about can be neither cited nor its absence mentioned).

I put the DMS-59 link in there because people like me remember having using a single DVI connector to split displays once upon a time. Once the ball lands on an oddball connector, it resets my supposition that today's dual-link is perhaps the same thing.

I realize I have no authority if another editor reverses my change for the reasons given. But at the end of the day, I'm happier this damage to the reader wasn't done on my part (just because a policy makes sense under the hood, doesn't mean the reader benefits).

While I do see this as mildly increasing the editorial mess, I also see this as decreasing substandard service to the end reader. Probably a great deal of the rest of the editorial mess has less justification (because good citations actually exist for most facets of the treatment).

Finally, there's opportunity cost. Ten minutes here and there scouring for an elusive citation in what's obviously a negative space subtracts from other forms of contribution where my time is better invested.

TLDR patois: I've looked at this from both sides now, and it's the cloud's confusion I forestall. — MaxEnt 18:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I realize where the confusion is now. You are making a statement explaining that the term "dual-link" does not mean DVI can be split into two separate DVI signals to two separate DVI monitors. While that is true, it's not necessary to point this out to the reader. You are assuming that the reader might interpret dual meaning two displays, but the term dual link is clearly explained in the following section: Digital Visual Interface#Connector. There should be no confusion, and your edit is just a redundant statement. Therefore, I've decided to remove it. If you want to discuss this further, then lets take it to the article's talk page. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of apex predators. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

If I switch on a light, clearly 0% of that comes from renewable sources like wind and solar; because they haven't reacted to the light, they just put out a continuous amount of power, based on the weather etc. so there's no marginal contribution from renewables, and it's just the fossil power that takes up the slack!

Likewise if I plug an electric car in, *none* of that electricity comes from renewables!

And by extension, since all of the electricity in my house gets switched on sometime, none of the electricity in my house ever comes from renewables!

Clearly something is wrong with that logic. When you work out what it is, you'll understand what is wrong with the section you added to the talk page at Talk:electric car.GliderMaven (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources do you for adding this prose? ww2censor (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude but I saw this and had to ask - pansy or stringy thing?? :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dmitry Klokov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Cohen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MaxEnt: Welcome to Wikipedia!! I removed that tone tag, as the page has been copyedited fully 8 times and both statements are referenced. As a a middle-aged, white male from a G7 economy with a long career in a STEM profession, I am curious as to why you think the tone is needed. scope_creep^Talk 01:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your edit. I think the article is unbalanced and far too positive. I'm pretty sure there is substantial criticism of Guns, Germs, and Steel but have never had the time to do any research on it. Which is bad of me because if I'm right we are probably over-using it as a source. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 13 June 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Podcast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaxEnt!

Thanks for taking the time to participate in the user feedback round for our desktop improvements prototype. This feedback is super valuable to us and is currently being used to determine our next steps. We have published a report gathering the main takeaways from the feedback and highlighting the changes we’ll make based on this feedback. Please take a look and give us your thoughts on the talk page of the report. To learn more about the project overall and the other features we’re planning on building in the future, check out the main project page.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FBI Index, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Progressive Labor Party, National Renaissance Party and Socialist Workers Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stirling's approximation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Population count (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxEnt: Hi, what you've added to the article head is nice by itself, but it's better suited for the main article on HGV's (Boost-glide), which is wiki-linked in the definition of "Avangard". So, you might want to consider moving it there. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PIC microcontrollers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tablet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Debug port, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ESD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mathematical anxiety, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social engineering.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you interest in improving the article. As a Wikipedian since 2007, surely you know that you have supply your additions with references to reliable sources. Unreferenced text may be deleted at any time. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Virtual internship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MSNBC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Partisan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Concert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Molecular machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elongation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 23 November 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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irreducibility, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complexity theory.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hammer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elastic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaxEnt, hope you don't mind me reaching out. I'm a Wiki newbie looking to contribute on WikiMed specifically Global Health content like the IHME and Burden of Disease as this is the topic of my graduate thesis. I want to ensure I understand the language/tone that has to be used. I saw you have been active in discussions on this issue on the IHME talk page. Can you help me understand why you boldened certain words in your post and flagged these as too personal? Want to make sure I avoid something similar! Thanks!

--Whiskiz (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angela Merkel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jennifer Rubin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a sentence with two parts joined by "and" is nothing to do with run-on. The term is often pejorative, so best avoid it, specially when used loosely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Direct current, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resistance.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaxEnt,

I was reviewing your CSD nomination for this page and I didn't quite understand your request. Could you elaborate a bit? We usually don't delete redirects for being redundant but for things like misspellings or if someone wants to create an article on that page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Keyboard shortcut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keyboard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trans-Canada Highway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sudbury.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sea surface temperature has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this interesting Wikipedia:Logical quotation on Wikipedia. Editor2020 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of definite/indefinite article in your "Electronic noise is common component of noise in signal processing." edit awakened my curiosity: a common component is the safest edit/update, no? ; this would still my copyediting impulse (I will watch this page). The common component would overlap the signal processing and electronic articles (apparently your intent? , since signal can still be extracted in the presence of noise). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Kenny Wood? Beev9763 (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is my friend? He’s been missing for so long. Tell me! Beev9763 (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monotrophic diet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect High-residue diet and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#High-residue diet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and good day. I've noticed your last three mainspace edits to Neoteny in humans, Compose key, and Surface-to-air missile, have been less than NPOV and somewhat editorialized. I'd like to give you a friendly reminder that Wikipedia articles should endeavor to maintain a neutral point of view at all times, meaning sarcastic quips, editorializing, and personal beliefs should be kept off the mainspace. I hope this helps, and have a good day! GabberFlasted (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, those edits were outright vandalism that any experienced editor should know look absolutely ridiculous. Your recent edits to Talk:Kanye West also seem to indicate you do not take your editing remotely seriously. If I catch you inserting WP:POINTy nonsense into articles, summaries, or talk pages again I am absolutely reporting you. Dronebogus (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to answer your question at Talk:Boolean algebra#CS guy tackles modus ponens with mixed results. I'm posting here, because you wrote that you were a "tumbleweed unlikely to return". I thought you'd like to know. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a bit of your paragraph here due to WP:PEACOCK. Logoshimpo (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]