User talk:Incnis Mrsi/Archive 2

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 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your notice above

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And I can be specific: You writing we did it. -DePiep (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BracketBot, June 2013

One instance fixed, another was intentional (not a typo)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Orthogonal basis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"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:

\left\{\begin{array}{ll}q(\mathbf{e}_k) & j = k \\ 0 & j \ne k

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, an unmatched left curly bracket is perfectly correct. This syntax does not provide a right counterpart. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spectral color may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:

N. Svoronos. ''CRC Handbook of Fundamental Spectroscopic Correlation Charts.'' CRC Press, 2005.<br>[http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html#c1 Color</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the math template...

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∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 19:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, made some progress (after stealing some code admittedly). Still experimenting... M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 07:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case this will be read and you happen to have any opinions, I may (or may not) have made progress:

{{overset}}, {{underset}}
{{ldelim}}, {{rdelim}}, {{delimiter-es}}
{{drndbracket}}, {{dsqbracket}}

I'll stop posting from now on. M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 23:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

… stuck in a 19th century mindset about how color vision works

Virtually a duplicate of user talk: jacobolus #… stuck in a 19th century mindset about how color vision works

Are you upset that I contested your original research on how to map Munsell hues to sRGB? I am possibly stuck in 19th century with my real projective spaces, straight lines, and convex sets, but I think that your “high color science” is far from infallibility. Open this colorimetric sheet, make fgrep ' 5B ' to extract relevant rows, locate them on CIE 1931 chromaticity diagram, and you’ll see that for a reasonable colorfulness 5B do not belong to sRGB at all. Of course, for desaturated variants the hue can shifted with various chromatic adaptations, encoding ambient white points, and so on beyond recognition. After I attracted attention to several of such high-color-science deceptions, your predictably become to make remarks about my mindset. Popular standards, such as sRGB, is a lie. Thanks to Wikipedia I realized how much they lie. And you certainly know how much does sRGB lie too. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no original research involved anywhere along here, but in any event, I’m not upset, just frustrated, because I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall. You are looking at the rows for hue = 5B at value = 1, which is something very close to black. That’s an entirely different color than we’re talking about. To usefully see what these Munsell colors look like on a computer display, you must (1) find a reasonable value/chroma at hue 5B, then do a chromatic adaptation from Standard Illuminant C (by which the Munsell colors are defined/measured) to Illuminant D65 (I recommend CAT02 or if you prefer the Bradford CAT), then convert from XYZ to linear RGB space, and finally apply the sRGB gamma function. Until you understand how those steps work, you’re going to be stuck. –jacobolus (t) 02:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say anything about V = 1, where for C = 10 the sheet lists a blatantly unphysical chromaticity (look at

x, y

values; http://www.cis.rit.edu/research/mcsl2/online/munsell.php apparently tries to explain this), but for C = 8 it does not differ greatly from, say, V = 5 at its maximal C: these are shades of approximately the same hue. I say you the third time: there is no reasonable [for sRGB] chroma at hue 5B: one has to choose between (approximation of) out-if-gamut colors and a use of tints, where your chromatic adaptations can distort the hue greatly. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Here’s a picture showing chromaticity coordinates for Munsell colors at value 5: http://i.imgur.com/vTtzlHo.jpg (note the contours shown are at steps of 2 chroma). I don’t have time right now to overlay the sRGB primaries on this picture, but you should be able to do that yourself if you desire. –jacobolus (t) 14:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what? I overlaid the triangle from File:Cie Chart with sRGB gamut by spigget.png and saw the same I talk to you for several days: 5B @ V = 5 runs along a slightly curved line (going from white approximately through steel blue, cerulean, towards spectral ≈ 481 nm), it crosses sRGB’s green–cyan–blue line shortly after C = 7 and continues towards the spectral locus until C = 16. V = 5, C = 7 is a tint (or a tone; it is not important). When you implement it as a paint under (a slightly bluish) Illuminant C and then switch to a slightly cyanish Illuminant D65, you expectedly push its hue further towards cyan. From there was derived; I agree now that it is scientific, but it is unrepresentative. 5B is a fail for sRGB, which achieved a reasonable coverage of so named warm colors, which are traditionally preferred (BTW I read it at www.handprint.com, thanks :D), on the expense of these cool colors. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, to check the wisdom of your “chromatic adaptation from Standard Illuminant C to Illuminant D65”, could you compute sRGB values for Munsell white? ☺ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That’s right. All of the colors along that curved line, when you paint a small patch with each one and put it on a neutral background, appear to have the same hue. All the bits outside the triangle made on the chromaticity diagram by the RGB primaries are outside the gamut of sRGB, so the brightest example we can see on a typical computer display is something like the 5B 5/7 that you mentioned (although as we’ve been discussing, that might be slightly shifted by the chromatic adaptation transformation). I don’t know what you mean by “unrepresentative”, “a fail”, etc. If you mean that sRGB is very limited in colorful middle-to-high-value blue and blue-green colors, that’s quite right. In response to your second question: these chromatic adaptations are defined such that they map white to white, so in this case Illuminant C will be mapped exactly to D65. –jacobolus (t) 01:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you might be misunderstanding here: 5B is not supposed to be any particular sort of “blue”. The Munsell “red”, “yellow”, “green”, “blue”, and “purple” hues were chosen to be equally spaced in hue, not to precisely match those color names. In fact, 5B is a bit on the green side of the “cyan” CMYK ink, and not within the range of colors that the ISCC–NBS system puts within the label “blue” (that would be 9B through 7PB), as you can see on that picture I pasted in the sRGB talk page discussion. –jacobolus (t) 03:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A misplaced posting about Leon Trotsky

No relevance to Incnis Mrsi (only few vandalism rollbacks there)

Hi, I am Ejdearmas with a suggestion:

Can you please check the information about Trotsky's first and second wives? According to the document below, their names were Alexandra Lvovna and Natalia.

..........................................................................................

Source: Gérard Rosenthal, Avocat de Trotsky. Paris, Robert Laffont, 1975; Translated: for marxists.org by Mitchell Abidor; CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2009.

Trotsky had had four children by his two wives. He had two daughters with his first wife, Alexandra Lvovna, Nina and Zina. Nina, whose husband was deported after Trotsky was exiled from the USSR, died of tuberculosis. Zina, whose husband was also deported, left the Soviet Union in 1931, a woman weakened both physically and morally by the family’s traumas. Stripped of Soviet citizenship, threatened with expulsion from Germany, where she was living in exile,, she committed suicide in 1933.

Trotsky had two sons by his second wife, Natalia, Leon Sedov and Segei. If Leon was the most faithful of his father’s disciples, Sergei had nothing to do with politics. This didn’t save him however, and he was arrested in 1935 and was apparently executed in 1936 after participating in a hunger strike in the penal camp in Vorkuta. When Leon Sedov died in 1938 only Zina’s son Sieva was alive and at liberty. After Sedov’s death Sieva was in the custody of Seov’s companion, Jeanne Martin de Pallières, also known as Jeanne Molinier, wife of the French Oppositionist Raymond Molinier, who Trotsky was to break with.

Trotsky hoped to have Jeanne bring his grandson to him in Mexico, but Jeanne was reluctant to do so. Trotsky wrote his grandson the following letter, care of his Jeanne Martin.

................................

Thanks.

Ejdearmas (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Serendi ^podous 15:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Serendi ^podous 16:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:Lac_megantic_burning.jpg license

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Huon

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

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)[reply]

Thanks, I will try and take a look in a few hours before I go on holiday so I can comment at the RFA. Giant Snowman 14:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arguing from Yatzhek with a long sheet of examples hidden

Incnis, there is (WAS) a notion of the "Polish race" maintained by the Nazi Germany. Check the quotes at - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anti-Polonism --> it's just one, but there were many like that: "with orders to them to send to death, mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish race and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need."

What is more, you did not explain WHY you delete the category "Anti-national sentiment" from the article.

Why:

Anti-Americanism‎ (1 C, 37 P)
Antisemitism‎ (21 C, 185 P, 6 F)
Antiziganism‎ (5 C, 18 P)
Anti-Arabism‎ (1 C, 8 P)
Anti-Armenianism‎ (2 C, 16 P)
Anti-Asian sentiment‎ (5 C, 6 P)
Anti-British sentiment‎ (3 C, 8 P)
Anti-Bulgarian sentiment‎ (1 C, 5 P)
Anti-Chinese sentiment‎ (4 C, 16 P)
Persecution of Copts‎ (8 P)
Anti-English sentiment‎ (6 P)
Francophobia‎ (1 C, 9 P)
Anti-German sentiment‎ (2 C, 25 P)
Hispanophobia‎ (4 P)
Anti-Hungarian sentiment‎ (12 P)
Anti-Indian sentiment‎ (1 C, 32 P)
Anti-Iranian sentiments‎ (1 C, 10 P)
Anti-Japanese sentiment‎ (5 C, 17 P)
Anti-Korean sentiment‎ (1 C, 7 P)
Anti-Pakistan sentiment‎ (2 C, 10 P)
Anti-Quebec sentiment‎ (4 P)
Anti-Romanian sentiment‎ (1 C, 4 P)
Russophobia‎ (1 C, 12 P)
Anti-Serbian sentiment‎ (2 C, 13 P)
Anti-Ukrainian sentiment‎ (5 P)
Anti-Western sentiment‎ (6 P)

and

Anti-Zionism‎ (8 C, 86 P)

are all in that group, but Antipolonism known as the Anti-Polish sentiment‎ can not be there?

I expect a good explanation. I'm sorry, I tried to be nice, I even wanted to apologize you for my previous assumptions about you not wanting the people to find the article about antiPolonism. Only an anti-Polish racist doesn't give a reason of his actions of blocking the facts, so please explain, what's this all about?--Yatzhek (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notification

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A posting of user:Ramendoctor

Virtually a duplicate of Special:PermanentLink/565495739

"I hardly see any improvement in [1]. Please, either learn WP:Manual of Style/Linking thoroughly, or switch your activity to content creation from present sprinkling of the blue paint into articles edited by tens of competent editors for many years. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)"

I do not wish to appear to be incredibly knowledgeable of this matter, because, quite frankly, I am not. The linking to other pages that I did was not intended to deface or ruin the work of those competent editors, and I certainly admire what they did. Wikipedia, however, is intended to be a source of information, and a handy one at that. Linking to other articles allows the reader to follow those links and thus explore Wikipedia, connecting one concept to another, and more fully accessing the enormous bank of information that is this online encyclopedia. I do not feel that my linking in any way hurt the article, and I believe that, in due time, many curious readers will click those links and read about more interesting topics. I do, however, concede that linking to "germany" may be a tad bit irrelevant in an article about a chemical element; if you wish to delete that link, then please do. But I added in a few other links, links that I believe are more pertinent and wish you to keep. In the future, I will limit my linking to more germane topics. But, I ask you, what harm did I do?

Cheers,

Ramendoctor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramendoctor (talk • contribs) 12:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]