# User talk:Robo37

## Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Robo37, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Heptagon. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nsaa (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

## Re: Characters of Halo

As it says in the lead, it's a list of recurring characters. Having every character would turn into a mammoth list that wouldn't be useful. Characters from the novels and such are covered in their own articles, and most one-shot characters remain in their video games articles as well (there are exceptions, such as Kurt-051 and Tartarus, but for those there is enough out-of-universe information that their placement is somewhat justified.) I removed the Rookie, I simply can't patrol the page often enough to catch everything. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

## Re: Black hole

Although your enthusiasm is noted, I've reverted your recent contribution. You have to understand the subject thoroughly before writing about it. You're welcome to discuss changes on the talk page. Dmitry Brant (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

## ∞/∞ = ∞?

1   1   3     3   1   11     11   1   50     50   1   275     275   1   1770          ∞
- + - = -     - + - = --     -- + - = --     -- + - = ---     --- + - = ----        = -
1   2   2     2   3   6      6    4   24     24   5   120     120   6   720 ...       ∞


Robo37 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In some cases, when the numerator and denominator both diverge to infinity, the fraction itself diverges to infinity. In some such cases, the fraction converges to a finite number. In some such cases, the fraction oscillates or otherwise fails to converge without diverging to infinity.
Why do you write 50/24 instead of 25/12, and 275/120 instead of 55/24, and 1770/720 instead of 59/24? If you write the fractions in lowest terms, it's not so clear that the numerator and denominator diverge to infinity. If the two denominators are 6 and 4, then the least common denominator is 12, not 24. If they are 120 and 6, then it is 120, not 720. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For any number n, n times infinity equals infinity. Thus, infinity divided by infinity equals n for any n. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.71.124 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

## Hyperoperation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hyperoperation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

## what's with the sqrt

It's not clear what transformation you're thinking of in changing that equation to involve a sqrt, but it's not right. Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. I think I agree with him on that one. \sqrt is the TeX symbol for a general root, the equation for the xth root of x really should be $\sqrt[x]{x}$. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
See nth root.
$\sqrt[n]{x} \,=\, x^{1/n}$.
Robo37 (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. But it's no more simple, and arguably more complex and confusing, than the version with the explicit exponent. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
$x^{1/x}$ has 3 terms, x, 1 and x while $\sqrt[x]{x}$ only has 2, x and x. If you can express a function by only using 2 x's and nothing else then that is often the preferred function. Robo37 (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

## August 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at 0 (number). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. this diff. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please remove the link to if and only if in most mathematical articles, or than those in mathematical logic. They do not add information to the reader. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The first thing you see when you click on the link to if and only if is 'In logic and related fields such as mathematics and philosophy, if and only if (shortened iff) is a biconditional logical connective between statements.'. So far in every single article (not just the ones about mathematics) that I've seen the phase 'if and only if' in it's a link. Robo37 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss at WT:MATH, if you disagree, but I thought the convention is that simple logical expressions are not linked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the reason why it is linked to everywhere else is because some people might not know the difference between 'if' 'only if' and 'if and only if' and might therefore get the wrong impression. Robo37 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
No. The actual reason why it is linked elsewhere is that it used to read iff, and linking this cryptic abbreviation is useful for non-mathematicians. Then somebody ran a bot (or maybe it was semiautomatic using AWB or some such, I don't quite remember) which replaced "iff" with "if and only if", but unfortunatelly left the links there. There is no reason to link "if and only if", because it is an ordinary English phrase. — Emil J. 10:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

## Number articles

Please do not remove large sections of articles without consulting the project. You've shown that you understand neither Wikipedia nor mathematics (or possibly science, in general, but I'm only a mathematics expert); please seek consensus before making major changes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I only removed the radix bits because it was under 'List of basic calculations', and I don’t think of radixes as basic calculations. Besides the other number's between 1 and 20 had the same 'List of basic calculations' section but without the radix bit so it didn't make any sense to only have one or two with it while the others didn't. And how come whenever I make an edit it's always you who reverts it? Do you just not like me? Robo37 (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Because, when you make a bizarre edit, it's usually in one of the articles I'm watching, so I check to see what other bizarre edits you've made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
In what way are they 'bizarre'? Robo37 (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Arthur reverts you because he's quicker than some of us. Among your "bizarre" edits, this one has an unwarranted unsourced UK-centric assertion, that's not even about the number, but rather about a digit sequence. Don't do that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Go to 911 (number). It says that it is the emergency phone number for the US right in the middle of lead and is unsourced as well but I didn't see anyone revert that when someone put it in, in fact it's been there for quite a while. Robo37 (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
999 (emergency telephone number) specifies it's in many countries, not just the UK. Your addition there is still UK-centric. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It says '999 is the United Kingdom's official emergency telephone number, and can be used to summon assistance from the three main emergency services, Police, Fire and Rescue and Ambulance, or more specialist services such as HM Coastguard. Calls to the 999 service are free. Calls from the European Union standard emergency number 112 are automatically routed to 999 operators.', the UK is the only country with 999 as it's official emergency telephone number, and in fact although it isn’t the only country to have 999 operators it is the only one that has 999 as the actual phone number because the European Union's is 112. If you weren’t happy with the way I put it I can't see why you didn't just reword it to include the European Union. Robo37 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I've linked that via "See also"; same with 9-1-1; we'll see if those stick. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the links to specific years because anyone who searches for '911' or '999' will get sent straight to those articles anyway. Also, isn't it a bit pointless to have a link to the phone number at the top and then the exact same link at the bottom? Robo37 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it looks better as a hat note than as a #See also, but I agree that they're not both needed. What is important (which wasn't done until today) is the disambiguation page link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point; I forget to look for hat notes, but that's a good place for it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Grothendieck inequality, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

## CYA

As a relatively new editor, you probably are not aware of all the policies and guidelines around here. I suggest you read the following concerning this edit.

• MOS:DAB "The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term"
• WP:DICDEF "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide". Wiktionary is the right place for this
• WP:BRD If you are reverted, discuss the issue on the talk page, don't make the same edit again, that is edit warring and is not good

SpinningSpark 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

## Pentation

Sorry about calling it vandalism; you have added clearly false material before, such as the value of e^^^-&infinity . However, 1^^^-1 (and probably 1^^^0) is undefined, and some of the other values for negative b may be undefined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never done anything concerning the value of 'e^^^-&infinity', and yes, the value of 1^^^0 is undefined, as it is equal to slog1 1. Robo37 (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

## Infobox at e (mathematical constant)

Hello Robin. You reverted my removal of the infobox in the article e (mathematical constant). I hope you don't mind, but based upon a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#"Infoboxes" on number articles, I intend to remove that infobox again (as well as in other articles). If you continue to think that the infobox belongs in the article, would you please join the discussion there before reverting again? Thanks and regards, Paul August 12:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't bother me that much, so if a better one cannot be made I'm happy for it to be removed. Robo37 (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Robin, are you aware of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Irrational_numbers_infobox? You better join in, and probably ought to back out your bunch of changes until we come to some consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you weren't around, and since I got support and no objection at the math project, I rolled back all your infobox changes. I hope I didn't go too far. Please check when you get a chance. Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As there has so far been nothing done about the infoboxes, I'll join the discussion and see if I can persuade the offer wikipedians into either allowing them to be changed or removed. Robo37 (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

## Stop reverting my constructive edits, please

Please see WP:Reverting, notably, "revert a good faith edit only as a last resort" and "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". You have twice now reverted all of my edits to a page. Can you explain to me why you feel it is reasonable to blanket revert my work? was it vandalism? grossly inaccurate? etc.? Please be more considerate, I am trying to improve this encyclopedia, just like I am sure that you are. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought that the edits you made to decimal were adding content form those articles that you added redirects to. Though I would still prefer it if you discuss these things on talk pages before making changes too dramatically. Robo37 (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Not every change has to be talked about on the talk pages. Like I said, if you have constructive edits to make, go ahead, for example, the list of other natural language number systems I compiled might be a bit much for the section it's in. So if you had some idea for what to do with it, that would be cool. Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Please join the discuss at Category talk:Positional numeral systems#Notability, I am lonely there. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll see what the others think of my views on the matter, don’t have a tantrum if they're not the same as yours. By the way, Slig, what do you think should be done with the super-root issue? Robo37 (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Who said anything about a tantrum? My problem with you has been your blanket reverts of my edits, not your different point of view. That's why I'm welcoming you to the conversation at Category talk:Positional numeral systems#Notability, where you haven't yet commented. What is your view on the matter? That all ideas should be articles, no matter how obscure and un-noteworthy? that these pages are noteworthy? that you think I am too quick to merge article rather than let them develop? I am glad to discuss any of this with you, if you actually make a statement.
As for super-root, I still don't see any claim to WP:notability and I think that it is all WP:original research, the article is developing a bit, but it is still short enough to be a section in tetration. Is there some reason that you appose it being a section in tetration? Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
There does seem to be reasons to keep each one of those articles, but I understand some of those reasons are stronger than others. From a mathematical viewpoint it would make sense to have articles about bases that are multiples of 6 or powers of 2 while if we only have articles about bases that have actually ever been used we'd have ones about base 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 24, 27, 32, 36, 64 and 85. I'll post this in the discussion later but atm I'm kinda busy doing other stuff.
And I think that super-roots are just too different to tetration for the two to be combined, and it does seem to have a number of unique properties that, in my opinion, should be credited with their own space to be explained. I have found a discussion about these properties [1]. Robo37 (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
So, this doesn't really establish notability as it's not a WP:Reliable Source. It seems to me that the problem with these tetration-derived functions is that they are not studied by mathematicians in peer-reviewed journals. You can only find a few links to forums discussing some properties of the functions. It seems to me that the super-roots page is being used as a place to discover properties rather than document accepted knowledge. That's the issue here, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of facts. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion about super root, had you looked at the tetration page before reverting the merge? Very little content has been removed and I think that most of the pertinent information from super root fits nicely there. Take a look for yourself. I look forward to discussing this with you at Talk:Tetration and encourage you to continue expanding coverage of the subject until its notability can be clearly seen by all. Cliff (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question; no, but it would have made little/no difference if I had of. I guess there was just a part of me that felt wrong with there being articles on both nth root and exponentiation but then one on tetration but not on super-root, and then furthermore so with there being super-logarithm and not super root, although there does seem to be considerably more facts, sources and mathematics than super-root did. Personally I would keep all the articles but the argument doesn't seem to be in my court. I'll happily continue add whatever information I may find - in fact, I've just discovered that when x>e the limit is e1/e as well as finding this; if that's of any interest. Robo37 (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

## The Stig

Please provide some justification for this edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManasShaikh (talkcontribs) 04:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The information that was added was misleading, and as that fact is already mentioned several times throughout out the article I fail to see the point. Robo37 (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

## Articles for deletion nomination of Non-integer representation

I have nominated Non-integer representation, an article that you've contributed to, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-integer representation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Thought you'd like the heads up, Rob. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

## Neutronium

Why should neutronium have an infobox? Why do you intend to revive a dying editing-war?Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

## AfD nomination of Legacy of Kain timeline

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Legacy of Kain timeline. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legacy of Kain timeline. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain this revert of a non notable single that fails WP:NSONG and how according to your edit summary that it satisfies, thanks. Mo ainm~Talk 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Addiction reached #33 on the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart, and it also features a highly famous metal guitarist; Zakk Wylde. I can't see why Dope shouldn't have any articals about their singles while every other famous metal band I know, like Disturbed, have all of their singles with articles. Lots of lesser known bands like Saliva have these articles.
WP:NSONG states ...a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article... can you provide this? Mo ainm~Talk 13:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

## License tagging for File:Famous Keytarists.png

Thanks for uploading File:Famous Keytarists.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

## Raziel

That's a way better image for Raziel than the Defiance fankit one or the one from SR1 which that guy wouldn't stop reverting back in. I really like it. Nice work! --Monere (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

## Fair use rationale for File:Raziel.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Raziel.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

## January 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Surrealism. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:Raziel.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Raziel.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

## February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article 16 Cygni, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Aldebaran66 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

## There's mentioning of magnetic monopoles and vacuum bubbles, but no explanation

Re the LHC, I believe the idea is essentially that the observed physical vacuum is not the lowest energy state possible, but one which is somehow caught in a higher energy state, from which it cannot easily decay (? I think "frustrated" is the term for such situations?). Then a very high energy event might somehow trigger or catalyze a local transition to the ground state, which could then grow like super-cooled water crystallizing on a seed crystal, effectively producing an detonation wave that would propagate out at about the speed of light. This would probably have distasteful effects on the entire Universe, as vast quantities of energy would be released by every cubic cm of space. As far as I know the main argument against such scenarios is that (given the existence of much higher energy cosmic rays) it should already have happened, starting somewhere long ago. Wwheaton (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for that. Very interesting stuff there, I still haven't got a clue about these magnetic monopoles or false supernovas, and I've still only got half a clue about the bubbles, but that was very helpful. (I do personally don't believe any of the idea, encase you're wondering.) 23:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

## Image on Tetration#Inverse functions

Look specifically at your image where x is just less than 1, say x=1.9. At that value of your domain, x, there are two resultant values of your range, y. This image is not the graph of a function of x, so either the image is wrong, or the super root is not a function. Which is it? Cliff (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, if this image is correct, then the super square root is not a function. It has been proven that it is a function, therefore your image is incorrect. As the image purports represent mathematical fact, and is incorrect, and has no source other than having been created by you, I must assume it constitutes original research. Cliff (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CALC. Cliff (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I see now that you are correct. This means that the section needs a lot of edits, because it means that the super root is not a function. Your help is appreciated. Cliff (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

### Tagged for deletion

Since the image we are discussing, File:The graph y = √x(s).png, is incorrect. And because it constitutes original research, having no source, I have tagged it for deletion. Cliff (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

## File:The graph y = √x(s).png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The graph y = √x(s).png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cliff (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Cliff (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

## fag

ffaggot 71.97.77.140

If you are recieving warnings for vandalism, calling people names isn't going to make anything any better. If you want to voice your oopinions about people you should be doing so on wedsites other than encyclopedia such as this, such as a music forum if you still have something about Marilyn Manson. You're just going to get yourself blocked if you carry on like this. Robo37 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

## No

You need to stop doing stuff like this right away, per WP:BLP and libel laws in general. Thanks. There won't be any more warnings. Herostratus (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Via the talk page guidlines:
It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.
Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.
Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:
Robo37 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Note that it was not the WP:BLP that the comment infringes that I disaproved of but rather the deletion of the comment itself as quoted above. Robo37 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, but "removing harmful posts" seems to cover the redaction of the comments, yes? And even if not, WP:BLP trumps the talk page guidelines. And while some other editing rules may not apply to talk pages, WP:BLP applies fully and equally to all spaces on the Wikipedia -- I'm living proof of that, and also see Wikipedia:Material concerning living persons in non-article space (which I wrote) and which failed pretty decisively. Herostratus (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

@Robo37: In general I agree that it is a bad idea to remove other people's messages, but for your information, that practice is reasonably common. Perhaps you work in areas where it does not occur, but there are lots of contentious areas where trolls periodically post inflammatory messages, and it is routine to remove their unhelpful talk page comments, even when they are not clearly violating WP:BLP as the post in question was. The main issue concerns WP:DENY: how would it be if a vandal/troll could post "[some politician] is a faggot" on a talk page, and a whole lot of rigmarole were required to remove it? It's far better to DENY trolls the joy of seeing their words retained, or seeing editors wasting time arguing over whether their posts are sufficiently bad to warrant removal. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't try to restore libelous material again. Ever. The material was removed from view because it is long-term defamatory trolling by blocked/banned users, and is patently disruptive. TPO is trumped by half a dozen policies, the most critical of which is WP:BLP. The second and third bulleted items that you quoted cover the issue in any case. However, you may have inadvertently revealed a bug, which I'm going to see about fixing, because you shouldn't have been able to do it in the first place. Acroterion (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

## October 2012

Hello, I'm Titanic225. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Template:Periodic table (extended) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. You removed elements 211 through 218. There's no end to the periodic table. Titanic225 (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"There's no end to the periodic table." is opinion. I have found many sources claiming that there is an end that lies in between z = 170 and Z = 210.
Robo37 (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
But do the sources state a reason for this end? (Walter Greiner says that there is no end to the periodic table: the article from RSC in question only focuses on the Z = 173 limit, and totally ignores the Z = 210 limit; that limit comes from Britannica, anyway, which isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia, being a tertiary source.) Double sharp (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Regardless, the vast majority of scientists agree that it is imposible for element 211 or higher to exist and so listing these elements is misleading and carries no factual information. It would be like speculating on a 6th platonic solid on that page, interesting but entirely pointless. Robo37 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, no. There is no reason given by any of these sources why Z = 210 in particular should be the end, as opposed to, for example, Z = 209 or Z = 211. The Britannica article only states that the end should be "around" there. However, it can be easily proved that there can't be a 6th Platonic solid. Double sharp (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Just a brief comment here, although this discussion should be on the talk page. The references are rather poor. Philip Ball is writing in the Royal Society of Chemistry magazine. It is not a journal. He quotes Walter Greiner saying that there is no end to the periodic table, but the reference is to a book, Quantum Electrodynamics, 4th edn (Springer, Berlin, 2009). Has anyone read that book and seen what Greiner actually says. I suggest that is rather week evidence to support having such a large periodic table. Since row 9 is way beyond what is likely to be found, I would stop it at row 8 and add a comment that row 8 is given in full to show what it might look like if a g block was added, but that evidence for that these elements might exist is rather thin. Adding row 9 is a bit misleading. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)