# User talk:Incnis Mrsi

Current (compose a message) • Archive (2006 – May 2013)
See Special:PermanentLink/565600531 for the full (uncensored) version
of this talk since May 20 until July 24, 2013.

## Talk page, user page issues

Hello Incnis Mrsi. I got a note from 76.189.109.155  about this edit of theirs, for which you gave them this warning. In my opinion, such a warning--for vandalism!--is seriously overblown. So they made a mistake by posting a notice on the user page rather than the talk page; that's not vandalism by a long stretch, since vandalism is defined as a conscious attempt to disrupt the project and there is no reason to think that their edit falls under vandalism as defined in Wikipedia:Vandalism. In addition, your comment to them, "I am really happy that English Wikipedia has so few people here like you, 76.189.109.155", is blatantly uncivil. From what I can tell, this IP editor is a valuable contributor, and at the very least you should have applied good faith and refrained from personal insults; that kind of behavior creates a nasty atmosphere in which people will be less likely to want to contribute to our beautiful project. I hope you will cease to make such comments and leave such inappropriate templated warnings. In addition, I saw you archived your talk page right after that exchange; please allow me to point you to Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures, which says that moving the talk page to create an archive is now deprecated. Copying and pasting, as described in Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Cut_and_paste_procedure, is the preferred method. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There are reasons for which the cut-and-paste is preferred for frequently used public talk pages, but I do not see a problem in moving the old talk page; drop me a link if there were arguments against it even as a manually-controlled operation. Please, specify at least ten of my inappropriate templated warnings (or apologize for your defamation) and, possibly, I will continue to communicate with you. I am not willing discuss 76.189.109.155 publicly any more — reply to my email please if you have further questions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious: why do you want ten or more examples? Isn't one inappropriate claim of vandalism sufficient? Would it not just be simpler for you to acknowledge that you erred rather than drag the matter on? Oh, and unsustainable accusations of defamation don't help your position, either. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Sitush, for you only one case where I baselessly accused someone in vandalism on their user_talk would be sufficient. Diff, please. Otherwise you are not welcome here, like Drmies. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not willing to discuss such matters with you privately; there is no need to email me. We have talk pages for a reason: transparency is preferred in a collaborative atmosphere. The IP did not deface the user page; they made a simple and minor mistake. If you have complaints about their editing post them in the appropriate place; don't go looking for an excuse for that templated warning. And in your email you made yet more personal attacks against the editor. Now, what I should apologize for is not clear to me. It's simple: do not accuse others of vandalism unless you can make a strong argument that there was an intent to disrupt. And if you have any desire to be a team player, you'd apologize for your personal attacks on them--for saying totally inappropriate things like "I am really happy that English Wikipedia has so few people here like you". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You say "If you start a content dispute with me from posting to my talk page..." Does that mean you don't want folks to discuss content here? Toddst1 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly am not willing to host anything like user talk:Dirac66, because chunks of content discussions scattered over multiple user_talk:s, or, worse, their archives, seriously hamper the navigation. Sorry, I know that my English grammar is awkward. Unfortunately, an unregistered or red-faced WP:OR-pusher rarely reads my notice, and I sometimes experience their intrusions after reverting their rubbish: you can browse my archive if you are curious about them. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

## Colon

Glad that, after a presumably constructive edit, you took a load of time to write a cynical, unproductive, veiled personal attack in the es. You'll be a great editor some day. -DePiep (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I never realized why DePiep, a capable editor, so easily engages himself in a pettifoggery like this quarrel about [1]. DePiep, do you have a shortage in your self-esteem? Do you feel that you are rewarded insufficiently or disproportionally for your edits? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
How did you find out? It's supposed to be a secret. I guess you saw this and did this. -DePiep (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
And I can be specific: You writing we did it. -DePiep (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

## BracketBot, June 2013

I appreciate you have been emphasizing its use on WP. Let me clarify I

• favour it because of much nicer Greek and mathematical symbols in Times new roman than Arial,
• oppose it because it's less flexible, less general, in some cases less tidier than LaTeX, also creates work for other editors to implement it throughout an article. Used to fully oppose it for this reason, but not so much now.

You mentioned at one point that mixed {{math}} and MathJax looks fine when {{math}} uses MathJax fonts (Latin modern roman?), and I apologize for the neglection on my part (busy at the time, then everyone is). Seems admin permissions with convincing reasons and consensus are required for someone to make test edits at testwiki:.

As an alternative, maybe we could just extend the scope of the {{math}} template like in these sites:

There is already {{bra}}, {{ket}}, {{bra-ket}}, {{vec}}, {{intmath}}, etc., so why not ones for displayed sums, products, and matrices? At least if we could create and use more WP templates then there would be more of a reason to use HTML displayed throughout an article, as equally footed as possible with LaTeX.

I can't get the matrices to work, presumably because of the tags used for the tables in normal HTML, and the WP code for tables failed. In time, I'll try to create larger delimiters, radicals, sums and products, perhaps larger integrals etc and eventually work up to matrices. Regards, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 19:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, made some progress (after stealing some code admittedly). Still experimenting... M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 07:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In case this will be read and you happen to have any opinions, I may (or may not) have made progress:
I'll stop posting from now on. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 23:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

## Likely

Thank you for your note on my talk page.

"Likely" is a good English word, in its place, and does not need to be exterminated, but there is a real split between British and American English and also between formal and informal use. See (for instance) here, where oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com says "In standard British English the adverb likely must be used with a word such as most, more or very: We will most likely see him later. In informal North American English likely is often used on its own: We will likely see him later. ◇ He said that he would likely run for President." Moonraker (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

## 1999 in film

I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate you giving me a CONSTRUCTIVE message on how to restore my work rather than simply deleting it without viewing it. This is the first large edit I've made to Wikipedia and having hours of effort undone by an overzealous imbecile with just a few clicks of the mouse is quite aggravating. In the future, however, I will try to be more thorough in the explanations of my edits.

Regards

107.199.100.90 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

## Hyphens in images

Thank you for your note on hyphens in images. I am usually careful about that, but I will check through my uploaded images and correct this. It is indeed confusing. Lfahlberg (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

## Re: Observable universe

I can't give you a specific diff because there aren't any; he basically rewrote entire sections of the article offline and then added them in a single massive info-dump. I suppose I could ask him to tease out the figures for us. Serendipodous 15:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your utter lack of civility. The post you cited was a response to someone's question on my talk page. Unlike you I prefer to answer on other people's talk pages, thus making sure they don't have to put my talkpage on their watchlist. As for the RfC, well it was a bit of a shot in the dark. The observable universe article was maintained by another user for years, but he hasn't edited since April. Recently a guy made a massive series of changes to the article without discussion. I would try to help but I am not properly versed in cosmology to answer this guy's objections and, as usual, I appear to be the only person with the article on his watchlist that gives a flying crap. So I am looking for advice from someone better qualified. Serendipodous 16:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

## Moronic?

I wonder if you might consider changing that to "misguided" or "ill-informed" ... "ignorant" maybe? (if you want the comment to retain some degree of insult). The discussion is not moronic, but it may display an ignorance or poor grasp of policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Incnis Mrsi,

In this edit, you wrote that, somehow, you have come to know that a photo was "recently approved by OTRS". Although your user page does not seem to mention your OTRS member status, I will believe you. However, your statement about this photo still remains surprising and unexplained, considering that this source had never released their photos under a free licence in the past and considering that no other OTRS member has mentioned this new development. If, in the last few days, you had privileged access to a communication from this copyright holder, could you please mention on the file description page on Commons what free licence this copyright holder has explicitely informed you of, and please add the corresponding licence tag, so that the other users can now be informed of this important information. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked at [2] made by a license reviewer commons:User:Ktr101 and had no contacts with the copyright holder. I do not know which exactly license the image currently has and whether is it Commons-compatible, but « Nous vous autorisons à publier notre photo dans votre article de Wikipédia à condition que la source soit spécifiée » is certainly an approval to use the image in Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

## Biting newcomers

This [3] is completely unnecessary. Fixing redirects is a good thing. Biting a user with few edits it not conducive to encouraging new editors to stay. Please refrain from doing so in future. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Mangling clear links dotless i into a form like [​[Dotted and dotless I|dotless i]] is a bad thing. Thanks for your message, you are a rare twinkler capable to a reasonable communication, even when you mistake. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by 'mangling clear links'? Redirects are generally a bad thing aren't they? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
No, such ones as İ and dotless I are not bad things. They point to the same (combined) article currently, but can eventually be separated. BTW, even if you do not agree with me (and an established guideline), then this is not a good way to help a newbie in this situation. Remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground, unlike certain other communities. There is nothing wrong with your love to fables about defenceless hobbits an evil orcs – just do not project these characters to the Wikipedia community. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
You really need to follow your own advice. Especially WP:BITE. There is no real posibilty of dotless i being expanded into it's own article. This is just a case of cock waving and attempting to slap down a newbie. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 08:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
You think there is not, I think there is… but IP’s edits are anyway not a real improvement and the guideline supports my opinion, not yours. If you want to earn a bit of respect here, then stop to assume a bad faith of your opponents. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please can you clarify what you mean here by "unusual redirects", ideally with diffs? Thanks! GiantSnowman 10:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly I can (a relevant link sent via Email), but it’s an exam for Huon, not for me. I’d appreciate your query even for hundreds of diffs, but on my RfA. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try and take a look in a few hours before I go on holiday so I can comment at the RFA. GiantSnowman 14:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

## Overcategorization? How come?

OK, so now please explain, why don't you want the term "Anti-Polish sentiment" to be labelled as "racism" while "Antisemitism", "Antiziganism" and all of the other anti-national sentiments ARE LABELLED AS RACSM AND HAVE 4 or 5 categories? Because I assume that my last edition of the articly did not contain "overcategorization". Your actions are inconsistent with the Wikipedia laws. You try to block the article "Anti-Polish sentiment" to have more categories, because you don't want people to find it. It's not good for you so you try to give me a badge of an idiot who tries to lie on wikipdia. And in fact, the one who's blocking the facts is you. Please admit. OR, please explain why such articles like Racism has 6 categories. Nazism has 17 categories. And when I try do make 5 categories on "anti-Polish sentiment" you claim it is "overcategorization". Explain. --Yatzhek (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

All other, are you sure? Russophobia has only two categories (its main one and Category:Anti-national sentiment), Anti-Americanism has four direct categories (its main one, American studies, Political terminology of the United States, and Political theories), and neither is included to category:Racism. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You said: "there should be no category:racism in anti-Polish sentiment!". Oh really? Then why articles like Antisemitism in Europe or Anti Middle Eastern sentiment have this category? I'm not trying to be rude or have an opponent in you. I just don't understand and I search for the reason, that's all. --Yatzhek (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Because there is a notion of Semitic race (which is idiosyncratic to Europe and represented almost exclusively by Jews there), but there is no notion of Polish race (Polonic race), or even of Slavic race (note this is simply a redirect to Slavs). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Icnis, you are wrong. from Racism: Racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to the United Nations convention, there is no distinction between the terms racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.... Staszek Lem (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

## You contribution on Chjoaygame's talk page

you posted this on Chjoaygame's talk page.

Damorbel, sorry to disappoint you, but Wikipedia does not discourage personal opinions at talk pages and in edit summaries. Concentrate on the problem with definitions, and do not distract yourself to WP:Lawyering.

Why? I have a talk page too. Chjoaygame may think you are pestering him.

Please explain where in the WP:Lawyering Wikipedia does not discourage personal opinions at talk pages and in edit summaries

Perhaps you really do see personal comments about other contributors as useful in editing Wikipedia, I don't. --Damorbel (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Tsk, sorry not to have explicitly announced the ANI request at Badanagram's page. I guess I was relying on the new Echo function, but that only went to Toddst1.

I suppose nothing is going to be done about this admin's poor record. Typical of a broken system. Tony (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

## Verifiability, No original research, No personal attacks

Re [4]: Please carefully read our policies on Verifiability and No original research.

See also WP:NPA. Calling a well-intentioned fellow editor's edits "trolling" is a clearcut and unacceptable personal attack.

On a related note, since you have not edited the article before, I can only presume that your policy-violating revert happened in reaction to my well-meaning comment here. Please consider not performing edits when you're upset for whatever reason.

Be that as it may, it is obviously unacceptable to restore unsourced original research, as you did. I restored the policy-compliant revision, and it's up to you to either leave the unsourced original research off the article, or to introduce reliable sources to make that material verifiable in accordance with our core content policies. Thank you. --85.197.3.203 (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Mostly because of [5]. But since I do not watch it, I confess that… yes, it was your stickery that initially attracted my attention to your contributions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

## a mighty piece of careful work; thank you

You have just done a sterling job. Congratulations and thanks.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I rarely receive thanks in Wikipedia for any careful work I made. And this one was not particularly useful for the encyclopedia, unlike many others. Move on. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

## A cheeseburger for you!

 It was good you removed Tamara's $500M bond section. Those bills are a Pan-Eurasian scam. Also, the seal and Obligation are too modern and the bond is simply just a$1,000 bill crudely edited on MS Paint. Thanks. Yang Long (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:CSD#F8 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

## RfA

Hello, Hahc21 closed your RfA per WP:NOTNOW. As an experienced editor, he is able to do this. RfAs that start with a string of opposes rarely succeed, if it has ever happened. I would have opposed as well, due to the concerns that the others raised. I suggest soliciting feedback from these others on your editor review page. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you (and Hahc21) to express a vocal opposition. There is nothing wrong with oppose votes. But I’ll accept only closure from a WP:bureaucrat, period. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, reverting a close of your own (unsuccessful) RFA was a poor, poor move as it now (in my opinion at least) jeopardizes your next RFA should you choose to run again... GiantSnowman 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You're making it look worse. Now you've made it to where this situation is going to go downhill... fast. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Incnis, I appreciate the stance you're taking - but it's a stance that is against policy and procedure for RFA. You don't get to choose who stops the snowball - accept it graciously and step back knowing you might have been shown some mercy in the process (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I have re–opened your previously closed RfA. If you wish for it to be closed again, you may withdraw it at any time. 02:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Accepted. I’d prefer bureaucrat’s action, and when I asked about it, myself, but now it happened as it happened. I hope nobody will not upset. Now let’s move on. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. Your editor review request has been reviewed. Best regards and happy editing. Alex ShihTalk 01:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't work out.

Anything I said on the talk page, I said to help, although I realise you might not think that is the case right now.

If you need any help, with anything (some say I'm pretty good with graphics, for instance), my talk page is always open, and you don't have to bring beer, although it is always accepted .

I look forward to supporting you next time, when you think you are ready. 19:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

## Re: Perl

You, along with Gryllida, asked me back in spring of this year to take the issue of how to refer to Perl to the WikiProject page. I've done this now and would like to invite you to comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Perl#Perl_must_become_Perl_programming_language Mithaldu (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

## Subdifferential

For non-convex functions that need not be locally Lipschitz, sometimes non-convex subdifferentials have advantages. 18:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, remove {{retired}} please both from user: and user_talk:. You should not demonstrate how this wikipedia “indignifies” and “mistreats” you, especially if it could confuse or mislead innocent visitors. After that I go to discuss this matter willingly at talk:Convexity in economics. Not before and not here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Your quotes are misleading and falsely impute to me words I've not used. 20:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I’m sorry, a poorly expressed thought. I had to say: you should not demonstrate grievances about English Wikipedia in such way. My proposal to remove the contradiction between your userspace and your current state here is still in force. You may not simultaneously be retired and vote on an RfA. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology. Perhaps you could reflect on the distinction between retired and dead, etc. 16:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

## Message

Hi. No I didn't notice any +. Which Talk page are you referring to? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, possibly related to the above - what is your basis for this edit? All seems normal to me, whether logged in or logged out; whether using Vector (tabs are "Article", "Talk" (gap) "Read", "Edit source", "New section", "View history") or Monobook (tabs are "Article", "Talk", "Edit source", "New section", "History"). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great circle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shape of the Earth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hell Incnis Mrsi. Regarding Talk:Abdul Majid al-Qa′ud#Request to purge OR from the title. I've been looking into guidelines and practices for Arabic transliteration, and I find there is a tendency to keep unusual letters out of the *titles* but allow them in the article text. See the precedent of Ta'awwudh which is using an apostrophe. We are talking about Romanization of Arabic here which is bound to be inexact. It's not a case like Turkish where we can use the exact word from the language once we have the technical means. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)#Printability. I've consulted others at User talk:Carlossuarez46 and User talk:AnonMoos since they seem to be familiar with this stuff. Your move proposal objects to the use of a 'prime' character for ayin but how about an apostrophe? If you find that an apostrophe would be acceptable, I may close the discussion soon. The practice of using apostrophe for ayin is mentioned in our article on Romanization of Arabic (footnote 4). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My point was primarily to get rid of the prime. Do whatever you want: I’m not interested in the case anymore. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Kind Regards, Susan Grayeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan.grayeff (talkcontribs) 07:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your attention is required, can we remove the "tone" lede of that article? Any suggestions? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radiative_equilibrium#Remove_of_tone_notice Prokaryotes (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Incnis Mrsi for the improvements to Radiative equilibrium. Btw the notice i made "..independent of temperature" was based on "all bodies radiate heat, no matter how hot or cold they are." about temperature are from Pierre Prevost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Prevost Prokaryotes (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

## Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by , Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration