Jump to content

User talk:Minimumbias/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Minimumbias, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 23:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Minimumbias. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael O. Rabin

He wasn't Visiting Associate Professor, he was Associate Professor. Also, many entries on List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ber31 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


If you look at his CV carefully, that's a visiting position (associate professor). Also, if you think many entries are wrong in the Berkeley list, you may correct them with reliable sources instead of coming to me and leaving such a general comment. Minimumbias (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

Concerning Todd and Debye, here is my argument: [1].

As far as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is concern, in 1947, it became incorporated into the new system of the United States Atomic Energy Commission; it was separated from UC Berkeley. SLAC is managed by Stanford University. In case of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, it is managed by the University of California System, and not just by UC Berkeley. Ber31 (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

- For Todd and Debye, I agree with you. For LBNL, it seems tricky. Will post update later. Minimumbias (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

- For LBNL, the official source (http://history.aip.org/history/acap/institutions/inst.jsp?lbl) states that:

1) "When the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was established in 1947, it became the primary patron of the Radiation Laboratory, and the laboratory was often counted a part of the AEC's system of national laboratories."

2) "Radiation Laboratory staff continue to be counted as members of the Berkeley physics department until Lawrence's death in 1958. However, that historical divide should be considered more-or-less arbitrary. Berkeley physics professors, post-docs, and students remained heavily involved in the work of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and information on this page should be cross-referenced with the ACAP page for that department."


Hence, 1947 should not be viewed as the year when LBNL was separated from UC Berkeley. Will have to figure out a better "turning point", if there is any. Minimumbias (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

UC Berkeley Nobel laureates

As far as Felix Bloch is concerned, I agree with you. He should be on the page. He was affiliated with the lab before 1947 (or 1958). In case of David J. Thouless, he wasn't affiliated with Berkeley Physics department. He was affiliated with the lab.[2] Only those laureates who were affiliated with the lab before 1958 should be included in the list. Ber31 (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


Reply: It is true that Ernest Lawrence died in 1958 (August), and in ACAP website, "staff at the Radiation Laboratory are generally treated as members of Berkeley's physics department up until Lawrence's death in 1958 (when the lab was renamed after him)." However, as ACAP itself has repeatedly pointed out that "the historical divide should be considered more-or-less arbitrary."

- http://history.aip.org/history/acap/institutions/inst.jsp?lbl - http://history.aip.org/history/acap/institutions/inst.jsp?berkeley

Hence, no one can really specify a particular date. One can only propose a reasonable time (year) and if most people agree then we will use this as a convention for counting Nobel laureates in Wikipedia.

Now, I do not agree that the time should be "before 1958". It should at the very least include the year 1958 (whole year). There are three reasons. First of all, Ernest Lawrence died on Aug. 27, 1958, not before 1958. Secondly, one simply can not use the exact death time of a person to judge the affiliations of thousands of others. It is not official and lacks formality. Thirdly, a more official event is the renaming of "Radiation Lab" to "Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory", which was voted & approved by UC Regents in September (http://history.lbl.gov/1950s/). Overall, it it much more reasonable to include the Nobel laureates who were affiliated with LBNL by 1958 (inclusive) - although this is already a most conservative view (one can also use 1960, allowing some grace/transition period). Minimumbias (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


In addition, since you have restructured the page of Berkeley's Nobel Laureates, you should at least complete the names of Nobel laureates (e.g., who are "Calvin" and "Cech" under the Chemistry category?). Moreover, since you have created tables for different categories, what is the meaning of saying "Nobel laureate in XXX" for each person again in the table? It seems redundant to me. Minimumbias (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

UC Berkeley Nobel laureates and citation

I restructured the page after looking at similar other pages. I am also learning how to cite on pages. I think you should use publisher=Nobel Foundation (name of the publisher) rather than website=www.nobelprize.org (or www.berkeley.org). Here are some pages you may want to look at:

I want to make the Berkeley Nobel laureates page the very best. Thank you for your work for this website. Other pages (Fields Medal/Universities and Turing Award/Universities) that you have created are also very useful. :-) Ber31 (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

90

Arthur Kornberg makes the cut. There is another entry who was at Berkeley only for one summer session. He will be removed. As far as Berkeley lab is concerned, James Cronin and David J. Thouless will make the cut, and Richard E. Taylor and Michael Levitt will be removed. I have also unearthed 3 more Nobel laureates who had affiliation with UC Berkeley and they are not currently in the list. Overall, three names will be removed and three names will be added. 90 will be the final number. Ber31 (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi,

- 1) I don't remember having discussed "Arthur Kornberg" with you anywhere. - 2) We had discussed Berkeley lab, which I think is important because it is directly related to the criterion regarding Laureates working in a research organization affiliated with a university. It is not about a specific person. - 3) I am not sure why you wish to discuss the Berkeley count with me in details now. I don't remember having edited the Berkeley page a lot, except for a few times while I was restructuring the Nobel Laureates list last year and I realized something went wrong with the Berkeley count. - 4) But as a neutral Wikipedia editor, I think your work on the Berkeley page is constructive and I'd encourage you continuing the work. However, please remember that Wikipedia is not a research paper and nothing is "final". People can randomly drop by and make some changes. Most importantly, none of us is a final judge or holds the authority over the criteria of these Wikipedia pages. On the other hand, you may want to become a watcher (if you haven't done so) of the Berkeley Nobel laureate page in order to "protect" the page from vandalism or unreasonable changes.

Minimumbias (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your assistance and contributions. Ber31 (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

University-affiliated schools

Hi,

I would like to thank you for your extraordinarily work on the wiki pages. Some universities run university-affiliated schools. Some universities such as the University of Illinois count prize winners who have graduated from their university-affiliated laboratory schools. The lead part of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation should say that graduates/attendees of university-affiliated laboratory schools are excluded. What are your thoughts on this matter? Ber31 (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, your contribution and collaboration is also appreciated. Yes, they should be excluded, and we had thought about that issue long time ago. That is why at the very beginning of the Nobel counting list there is a sentence: "an individual laureate who received the Nobel prize while working at a research organization formally affiliated with or operated by a university is counted as an affiliate of that university." The emphasis is on research organization. In addition, for UIUC, there are such notes: "1) The University Count includes Philip Anderson and James Tobin as affiliates merely because they graduated from University Laboratory High School - Urbana; these two laureates are thus not included in the following list." Feel free to let me know how you think Minimumbias (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

T. S. Eliot

Hi,

See Talk page of List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Chicago. Ber31 (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, seen. Minimumbias (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Minimumbias. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aleksandr Prokhorov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of companies founded by MIT alumni

Hi, I'm Whoisjohngalt. Minimumbias, thanks for creating List of companies founded by MIT alumni!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This is a very useful article and will get more references over time. I will add some when I have time. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Whoisjohngalt (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Harvard

I just created List of companies founded by Harvard College alumni. It would be great if you could contribute to it. --Macrakis (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Sure, I'll contribute. In fact I had planned to create that page earlier but didn't have time. Minimumbias (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
One problem. Why is it only for "Harvard College"? Graduate students should also be included, as in the lists for other universites. Minimumbias (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Because Harvard Business School is quite a different organization, most of whose graduates did undergraduate work elsewhere. (Many fewer companies have been founded by Law, Medical, etc. graduates.) I suppose it could be for Faculty of Arts and Sciences graduates. --Macrakis (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay. But out of fairness and to avoid controversies, I will create another list later to include all Harvard alumni. This list for Harvard College can stand alone. I will link the four lists now. Minimumbias (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


A Barnstar for You!

The Socratic Barnstar
For your remarkable contributions to academics pages in Wikipedia. StanLeeP (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Minimumbias (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Minimumbias. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Nobel Prize controversies you included material copied from Gilbert N. Lewis. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Copying without doing this is a violation of our licensing terms. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@User:Diannaa, I will pay more attention to what you said here. But you have to understand that for these Nobel Prize pages, the content I moved was all written by me. I am the author. It is true that Wikipedia has its own policies and the contributions from editors are not protected by copyright, yet I think it is better if you could understand the background of these Nobel Prize pages and perhaps be more respectful. They exist as they are today mainly because of me, and it is simply weird to mention "attribution" for some content I wrote myself. Minimumbias (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, please look carefully that I'm not the person who started the war. They started massive deletion on many Wikipedia pages without using Talk Page and involved in possible sock puppetry: there are investigation cases that are open [3][4]. Minimumbias (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't matter who started it. And opening a sock puppetry investigation does not give you permission to edit war. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I am 100% aware of the 3RR rule, which I did not violate. Minimumbias (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
User:NinjaRobotPirate, do you want to give them a warning too? You can see they are continuing and escalating the edit war without using the Talk Page. Minimumbias (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, someone already alerted Onetwothreeip at User talk:Onetwothreeip#March 2019 about edit warring policy, so you can report the editor at WP:ANEW upon a violation of 3RR. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Numbers

Can you please tell me how are they important? They are in "Summary". Ber31 (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's in MIT's talk page. Minimumbias (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Military projects during World War II at various US university-affiliated labs

Most of the researchers who worked on MIT Radiation Lab during World War II mostly worked on military projects. What about the UChicago and its Metallurgical Laboratory? What should be done about those who worked on the Manhattan Project at the University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory? The main page (List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation) should explicitly state these rules. Ber31 (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

In general, to avoid controversy and to not break the "no original research" rule, the best way I can think of is to exclude the laureates only when the reliable sources explicitly classify their work as "pure military" (as the case of Edwin Millikan at MIT radiation lab). Other than that, it is not possible for us to distinguish whether the affiliates at MIT Radiation or UChicago's lab were doing military projects. It's too complex and is original research. For instance, laureates at UChicago were building a nuclear pile, which was not a weapon. It had military applications (atomic bomb), but it also had non-military applications. The same logic applies to radar. Hence, it is not our job to determine whether the project was purely military. We should probably respect what the sources explicitly say, and thus most of the UChicago's laureates and MIT's laureates should remain intact. Minimumbias (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, in case of Millikan, his work was classified as "pure military" by the National Academy of Science. Your logic is good. Ber31 (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For creating List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard University. Keep up the good work! The article is quite high quality, you might even be able to get it promoted to a Good Article (see the process at WP:GAN). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the brownie! Minimumbias (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

self-reference

Hi, please see this part of the self ref manual of style. We should avoid referring to our internal jargon/policies as described there - there is no need to "emphasize" on article text that policy is being followed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, in this case I believe the manual needs some adjustment. The reason is that many readers do not really know the Wikipedia policies (e.g., not a journal, not a forum, no original research), unlike what this manual assumes. In the past, many readers including people from academia would argue that different types of affiliations in these Nobel/Fields/Turing lists should not count equally, which made it very hard to maintain the lists. The readers would sometimes use their own discretion and modify the lists using their own "assignment of weights". After citing the Wikipedia policies, however, no such incident has occurred. Minimumbias (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The general practice for that would be to use WP:EDITNOTICE (which I can set up assuming you don't object to me removing the text and adding an edit notice) and/or a comment in the wikitext. This allows regular readers to not be confused by wiki policy while notifying people who are editing the page that they shouldn't weight the affiliations differently. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see what it would look like. So please go ahead and do the modification. Minimumbias (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ENS and Fields medals

Hi,

This has changed over time, but: École_normale_supérieure_(Paris)#Domestic_partnerships: "Since, traditionally, the institution does not have the powers to grand university degrees, students have to follow courses in other universities in Paris.". Technically, normaliens (in the traditional sense: trainee public servants hired with a competitive examination, as opposed to students) are not compulsorily ENS graduates (diplômés, but "former pupils" (anciens élèves) of the ENS. So you cannot expect them to have an ENS-awarded BS (which AFAIK don't exist at ENS Ulm) or even, for some of them, an ENS-awarded MS, like you could expect from a "normal" university. What matters in France, when speaking about normaliens, is not which degrees they got during their ENS time, but (at least for the general public) the mere fact that they are normaliens. Anyway, we are not supposed to guess what is not stated explicitly in the sources. Apokrif (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

HI, I agree that the final things that students obtained when they graduated from ENS may have changed over time, and they may not always carry the exact names as "master in science" or "bachelor in science" or "PhD". But what I care more is if these degrees/diplomas/others are equivalent to certain academic degrees used nowadays and/or in other places. For example, if you look at Ngô Bảo Châu's CV [5]: his ENS studies was categorized as "B.S"; and if you look at Pierre R. Deligne's CV [6], there's a similar statement. I'd explain in the article for now that the "M.S" or "B.S" are equivalent "degrees". If you have time, I'd encourage you to add more explanation as "Notes" to the article itself, like you did above. Thanks for your contribution. Minimumbias (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
" the final things that students obtained when they graduated from ENS may have changed over time": the point is, the point of ENS is not graduation (being awarded some degree), but to spend some time (4 years, while being paid and housed) in the school (and showing some academic achievements so as not to be expelled). The final year at ENS can be devoted to, for instance, agrégation or the first year of a PhD, not to a degree. The two examples you give are primary sources and one of them is about a Belgian university degree anyway.
"I'd explain in the article for now that the "M.S" or "B.S" are equivalent "degrees". If you have time, I'd encourage you to add more explanation as "Notes"": I'm not sure what you want to explain and we should avoid original research as well as wrong or misleading statements (e.g., saying or implying that ENS awards bachelor degrees). We should, rather, focus on what is covered by reliable sources: that the relevant people were ENS pupils or students. Other info would probably be factually wrong, or misleading (questionable translation of degree names), or original research, and not very relevant anyway (neither the general public nor prospective students really care which specific degrees are awarded to normaliens: depending on the year, the programs specifically targeted at normaliens (not always able to understand all the technicalities even if they try) can be 2- or 3-year magistère or master programs and degrees managed by one or several schools and universities, which not always have an obvious American or British counterpart). Apokrif (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
1) There is definitely a "graduation" from ENS (the time they stopped learning in ENS), as early as the time of René Thom [7]: "In 1946 Thom graduated from the École Normale Supérieure". As for what they actually obtained, either a degree (which ENS has begun to award since some time ago) or a diploma or any other proof which could show they studied in ENS, I'm not that concerned. I care more about the fact that they were actually students in ENS [8], which could be at undergraduate level or at graduate level or mixed. The two sources I mentioned above were offered to show that some people tend to compare their experience in ENS with "equivalent degrees" in other places. And that's what I intend to do in the Wiki article. 2) Indeed, there is a no original research policy here. But what I meant was you could try to add in what you know about ENS with certain sources (English or French) that may describe the education system better. At the end of the day, I believe they can just be called "ENS students" to avoid any sort of controversy. Minimumbias (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Would you be interested?

@Minimumbias: perhaps you would be interested? You started the list a while ago and someone has started an FLC on it. Wretchskull (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Thanks for the notice. I've created a number of similar lists for top universities, and to keep neutrality, I generally refrain from focusing too much on a particular university. But I appreciate their efforts to make some of the lists a featured article, and I'll keep an eye on the progress. --Minimumbias (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

OCNative (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Haha

Minimumbias, when we are dealing with ...remove, what can we do? Haha. My standard do get dragged down when I am dealing with ...remove. Remove. Ber31 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Ignorance sometimes comes with arrogance. And I believe that Wikipedia, in effect, provides a platform to this type of people. They think they understand an area well enough and can freely make comments in discussion that may not be true, but are arrogantly reluctant to change their minds in discussion. Unfortunately, the list is just an example: they may think since everyone attends college, so who doesn't know about universities and professors! But the reality is universities are more complex than they think, because universities also house the major part of academia and most students never participate in any type of research. So, I think, this is a weak point of Wikipedia. For many topics, it runs like a political battle ground and everyone has the right (protected by Wiki policies) to participate in discussing some subject they may know or may not know, thus affecting how information is presented to readers. And since it's anonymous, an editor does not have to suffer consequences for being wrong (e.g., little guilt for spreading misinformation). This is sometimes really a problem.--Minimumbias (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Because of a complain by another user, I have decided to remove some of my comments. Maybe I shouldn't have used such a word. Anyway, you understood what I was trying to say! Ber31 (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I totally agree with you. Ber31 (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Better strategy

Dear Minimumbias,

I would like to thank you for everything you have done to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation and the sister lists. I would also like to thank you for guiding me. "Articles for deletion" can be cruel. It can turn into a political battle ground! Imagine that you have worked on a page for so long, and out of nowhere, a bunch of egoist editors would try to destroy the work by trying to delete the page. Some editors use dishonest means to "win". They will make wild and unjustified accusations, and inappropriately use "Wikipedia policies" to mislead other editors. I have been involved in a research where the participants have to make decisions under uncertainty and quickly (i.e. within a given period of time). In such cases, people tend to use their intuition rather than reason while making decisions. People also tend to follow what other people did. I am seeing such behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Just look at the "votes" before you and I intervened in that AFD. Without our intervention, more editors may have "voted" to delete that page. That is a dangerous sign. We have to figure out a better strategy to preserve List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation and the sister lists. Ber31 (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear@Ber31:, I completely agree with what you said. This is also what I meant in our discussion above on this Talk Page. In addition, I appreciate your hard work here in Wikipedia, and I think your research (in real life) seems quite interesting! Anyway, I agree that we will have to think about some better approach (e.g., perhaps emphasizing the universal/objective descriptions in the introduction and changing the citation formats). But let's be patient and wait until the cases are closed. Minimumbias (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Ber31 what did I tell you about refraining from personal attacks? There is no need to call other editors “dishonest” and “egoist” and generally assume bad faith. If you keep this up you’re probably going to get reported to admin noticeboard for incivility. Dronebogus (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Dronebogus: Why are you coming to this page and telling me what to do? I wrote: Some editors use dishonest means to "win". That is my personal opinion. I have not name any names, and I have not personally attacked any INDIVIDUAL. Got it? This is a private discussion between me and Minimumbias. Other editors shouldn't be interfering. Ber31 (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Dronebogus: I have not violated WP:Incivility. Please don't make unjustified accusations. I have dealt with “dishonest” and “egoist” editors, for instance User:PrincetonNeuroscientist. In most cases, I do assume good faith. I do behave appropriately with decent editors, but I don't tolerate dishonest editors. Ber31 (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    • You do know that nothing on Wikipedia is really “private”, right? Dronebogus (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
    • You’re also seemingly implying in your first statement that all the participants that you disagree with at the above AfD are dishonest egoists. I’m not sure if that’s a syntax accident, but it certainly doesn’t sound like you’re assuming good faith. Dronebogus (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Dronebogus: I haven't NEVER implied that all the participants that disagreed with me at the AfD are "dishonest egoists". Making such comments would be an assumption of bad faith! People have a right to "vote" on AFDs as per their wishes. By the way, I don't know that nothing on Wikipedia is really “private”. Is that the case? IMO, if two editors are discussing something, the discussion should be considered as private. Does this website has moderators to check what is acceptable and what is not? Ber31 (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
    • “Haven’t never”? That’s a double negative, do you mean you “never have” or “usually haven’t”? And it’s “not private” because because literally anyone with an internet connection can read this. And in case you are wondering the closest thing WP has to mods would probably be the admins, who can be alerted at Administrator’s noticeboard/incidents. Dronebogus (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Dronebogus: That should have been "I have NEVER implied ...". :) Thanks for informing me about Administrator’s noticeboard/Incidents. Wow! This website has more stuff that just articles. Ber31 (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Better sources

Dear Minimumbias,

You pointed on my Talk Page that we should have a more standard format for the sources. I agree. We should have better standard for sources on List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation and sister lists. In List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation, for Shing-Tung Yau, the source is doctoryau.com. A much better source would be [9]. The pages on MacTutor is currently being used as sources for many entries on List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation. The URL of MacTutor has been changed. [10] isn't working, but [11] is working. We should also change the URL. Ber31 (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear@Ber31: yes, definitely, we should work on improving the URLs later when the cases are closed. Those st-andrews URLs for the Fields Medal list are indeed much better, and that's why I used them in the past. But in case a URL changes or gets removed, I found a web archive tool [12] where you can screenshot the webpages and save them. I look around and notice Wikipedia allows us to add these saved URLs in the sources, and I'm considering adding some of these saved URLs to the lists. Minimumbias (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Retirement

Dear Minimumbias,

I have decided to retire from Wikipedia. I would like to thank you for everything you did to me. I would like to wish you all the best for all your future endeavors! Goodbye! Ber31 (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ber31, I am sorry to see you leave. I'm not sure if you are still reading the messages, but we are appealing the case in the "deletion review" [13], which I hope you can join if you see the message. Minimumbias (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I had already decided to retire, so I wasn't sure whether I should join the discussion or not. The closing admin will determine whether my "vote" will count or not. There are some fatal flaws on this website, and I don't think they can be fixed. I was also disturbed after what happened to User:Attic Salt. I am not happy with the way admins behave on this website. Editors have no problem with lists such as Lists of best-selling video games by platform or Lists of PS one Classics or List of best-selling Game Boy video games or Lists of fictional characters by work, but they target academic lists such as List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation or List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation. I do have a problem with this one. These are the reasons why I decided to quite Wikipedia. Ber31 (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Ber31: I fully respect your decision, and I also hope that you have a good career. In addition, I just want to let you know that, for all these years, I have been working on Wikipedia not for myself or anything personal, but for a better and unbiased understanding of the academia from the public. And I believe you are the person who best understands my intention and my work, and we shared many motivations. I deeply appreciate your work and your collaboration. Finally, as we have discussed above, Wikipedia has its weak points - it sometimes runs as a political battle ground, "exploiting" the time and energy of editors, and certain editors are constantly monitoring each other like in 1984. So your decision to retire also "inspired" me to reflect on whether I should make a similar decision if the lists are not to be recovered. Anyway. Good luck! Minimumbias (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate that you worked tirelessly all these years for a neutral and sophisticated understanding of academia for the general population. In case of 50/50 cases, admins can use subjective interpretations to block an editor or delete a page. That is the main reason why I want to abandon Wikipedia. Anyway, I enjoyed my time here. I also learned a lot. You taught me a lot! The time has come for me to leave! Ber31 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I will retire after the final decision on the list. I think we should fight back! Ber31 (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University/archive2

I have nominated List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. TompaDompa (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Where are you?

Dear Minimumbias: It looks like you have left this website. I was thinking of leaving this place, but there are some good things about this website. I won't be a regular editor, but I will contribute once in a while. I have started a discussion: [14]. If you see this comment, I am inviting you to join the discussion! Your views will be critical! Ber31 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Rockefeller University help?

Hello, Minimumbias! I work at Rockefeller University and I am looking to add an update to the university's Wikipedia article. I made a request at Talk:Rockefeller University that essentially turns a list of discoveries into a narrative and adds sources. Since you have edited the article previously I thought I'd reach out to see if you could review my request. I will not edit the article myself because of my conflict of interest. Thanks! KFenzRockefeller (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Minimumbias/Archive_1&oldid=1077047839"