User talk:Neonorange

This is Neonorange's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 90 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback|your username}} on my page as I may have missed your response.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may place {{Talkback|Neonorange}} on your page in case you have missed my response.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Books & Bytes – Issue 63

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

One new partner
1Lib1Ref
Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics is not an opinion

Wikipedia's attitude is clearly skeptical and hostile towards Nostradamus. Invented prophecies, wrong solutions or forcing by some interpreters are highlighted. The blame for all this is subtly placed on Nostradamus and it is stated that his prophecies can only be identified after the events have occurred. Which is completely normal. Never has a cryptic prophecy been correctly exposed before it occurred. Prophecy is the message that God entrusts to the prophet to make known to men. There are two types of prophecies: explicit and cryptic. The explicit one is for example when God entrusts the tables of the law to Moses. The cryptic one is John's prophecy of the apocalypse, full of symbols, codes and figures that can hardly be interpreted before the events stated happen and in fact almost two thousand years have passed since its enunciation. My contribution is based on scientific and mathematical evidence specifying the source for which it can be objectively assessed. There is no adequate justification for removing it. It means wanting to also deny the Pythagorean theorem without giving a rational justification. 151.50.94.171 (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August music

Thank you for explaining for a new editor how to slow down! - I have three "musicians" on the Main page, one the topic of my story today, like 22 July but with interview and today's music at the Proms. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter and Lewis Capaldi relationship

FYI Lewis Capaldi is the 1st cousin twice removed of Peter Capaldi. ie he is two generations younger. His gg grandfather Giovanni Battista Antonio Capladi is Peter's grandfather. Giovanni passed away on the Isle of Man in 1946. I can send you a verified ancestry chart if you like. Peter McCaig (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter McCaig, I am afraid a genealogical chart will not help. I see two problems: information placed in Wikipedia must be from published reports (especially for biographies of living people) and such a genealogy chart would expose personal information of uninvolved individuals.

The only way forward would be to find the kinship information published by a source Wikipedia considers reliable. Wikipedia article content is supported by verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia readers must be able to verify information through citations to reliable sources, sources that have editorial management and fact checking abilities; scholarly journals, newspapers of records, and websites that meet the same requirements and that are not user generated.

If you wish to have wider discussions on your concern, try The Tea House or open a discussion on the talk page of the article you wish to edit.

In addition, try reading the guidelines and policies for Wikipedia editors in the welcome banner at the top of your user page. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 12:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC) —[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 64

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
Wikimania presentation
New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bitcoin on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Liam Payne on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curry page citation

The book already cited does not say anything about 'creation of what they curry'. It only mentions that anglo-indian dishes had ingredients from different part of India like mango in Bengal fish curry, coconut in mughlai dishes. These statements does not even remotely suggest that cuury was created. `mkund (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should add a quote from the book in the ref template that makes the point clearly or find another source. What you should not do is to continue to edit war with Chiswick Chap. It seems, from the similarity, that you have a single-purpose account that furthers the edits made by an IP editor. And now, it seems you are continuing to edit-war. Please take the discussion to the article talk page to seek consensus—edit summaries are not a discussion. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 15:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC) —[reply]

Many thanks for your assistance. Yes, their edits are strikingly like the IP that I gave warnings to earlier today. I've done no edit-warring here, just reverting vandalism/POV editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, as the more experienced editor, you should start a discussion at [[Talk:Curry]. The Edis by mkund are not vandalism; disruptive behavior, sure, but nit vandalism. ( I am past the age to eat curry. I have no dog in this this discussion). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 16:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC) —[reply]

I see you have started several curry talk page conversations, You can lead a horse, but. My apology for not reading Talk:Curry first. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 17:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC) —[reply]

No worries, I am glad you are on board with the discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]