User talk:Adakiko

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

4

WikiDefcon 4: 2.03 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot

Hudson River is not a Fjord

Please restore my edits, Adakiko.

The page used to substantiate the claim that the Hudson is a Fjord no longer exists. This is an active page from the same source stating that the Hudson is an estuary. The Fjord reference has been deleted: https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4923.html

This may have caused the confusion as it says "fjord-like". https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/hudson-river-estuary/hudson-river-valley-geological-history-landforms-and-resources/437396AB8C9F8ED509D5E2084C63B7E3

This Clearly separates the Hudson from a Fjord as it is considered a Salt-wedge Estuary https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_estuaries/est05_circulation.html

National Geographic, with a clear definition and no mention of NY or the Hudson; only Alaska https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/fjord/ 67.82.170.88 (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adakiko, can you verify that my edits have been restored?

I only have your claim that the source was withdrawn. Do you have any evidence for this? Adakiko (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the IP about mixing advocacy (they appear to be opposing the "Hudson Valley Fjord" trail) and geology, and trying to use Wikipedia as part of that campaign. Acroterion (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Administrator changes

Ingenuity

CheckUser changes

Courcelles

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hi! I added a source. Thanks. 2001:999:70C:A669:B9E5:53AF:DF55:FCEB (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User Drmies

Hi I just wanted to express disappointment on user Drmies, I have an issue with the user deleting country comparison, from many of the pages such as “United states Soviet Union relations” and “Russia and United States relations” I ask if you can restore that please. Or what resources can I reach out to get that restored and ask the user to stop deleting the country comparison. Jesus231 (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

<tps>Why do you think all that belongs in that specific article, and why are you removing everything else in retaliation? [1] Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesus231: I would suggest you take discuss personal issues with Drmies on their user talk page. Article-specific content should be discussed on the article's talk page. See help:talk pages. BTW: I would avoid taunting the tiger Adakiko (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm "tiger" is flattering but an overstatement. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do have this reputation...

Adakiko (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits?

I made some edits to Tricky Dicky to be more up to date, but you reverted them. Why? 2600:6C5A:417F:794E:2C23:3F05:A66D:15C3 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. Your edit was unsourced and appeared to be wp:original research. Please see wp:citing sources. My apology for not leaving a message. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edits weren't originally resources. I've been reading the Beano (on the Internet Archive) and no issues past March 2021 have featured Tricky Dicky. 128.92.166.70 (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hey, not gonna template you, but you hit the edit-warring threshold on Our Lady of Perpetual Help. Pass it off to the relevant admin board and let them handle the IP; after how they were with my requests for comment yesterday, the IP will likely get a short block that forces them to engage in dialogue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Thanks! Hard to keep track of the count with all the other RCP. I wish Huggle would keep track. Thanks again! Adakiko (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wouldn't worry—it's obviously an accident. Hey, saw you went to AIV; recommend Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring instead. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by reversion

Hi, I notice you reverted my edit on Gray code [2] with the only explanation being "says that".

As it stands, the article reads:

"the least significant bit follows a repetitive pattern of 2 on, 2 off ( … 11001100 … ); the next digit a pattern of 4 on, 4 off; the nth least significant bit a pattern of 2^n on 2^n off."

For a 4-bit encoding, this would imply that the last (least significant) bit follows 2 on/2 off, the second-last is 4 on/4 off, the third-last (the second bit) is 8 on/8 off, and the fourth-last, i.e. the first, is 16 on/16 off, as 2^4 = 16.

However, as the 4-bit example in the article shows, this rule is not correct for the first bit. Both the first and the second bit follow 8 on/8 off; since the whole sequence repeats with period 16, it would be impossible to have a 16 on/16 off pattern. The most significant bit is an exception to the 2^n rule stated in the article.

Can you please clarify why this edit was reverted? I'm not sure what "says that" is meant to mean. 110.23.152.248 (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]