User talk:Porphyro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, ImperviusXR! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Closedmouth (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Small Text


Hi, i work on a navbox for ways of obtaining science in two related field, scientific method from philosophy of science and dikw pyramid from information science. i need help of some people like you to finsh this,

you can see a prototype of navbox in my sand box: Plutonium 16:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


I noticed you put a message saying you wanted to be adopted on your user page. If that is still the case, I'd be happy to adopt you, so I've put {{Adoptoffer}} on your user page. If you would like to accept this offer, just leave a message on my talk page, and we can start. If you don't want to be adopted, or want to be adopted by someone else, leave a message to that effect on the same page as above. Cheers, Kakofonous (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! We can start working. Is there anything specific you'd like to know, or do you just want to get general information about Wikipedia? Kakofonous (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. The first thing we should do is decide whose talk page we should be using to discuss adoption-related things, because having it fragmented between the two is not very helpful, as we'd have to go back and forth all the time. I would suggest using yours. After we decide this, I'll work on some stuff to show you (which may take 30–45 minutes). Kakofonous (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let's discuss this on my page, and thanks: your help and advice is much appreciated. ImperviusXR (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First things you should know[edit]

I'll first give you a more ideological overview of the project, and give some more technical info later in the course of the adoption.

Probably one of the most important things that you will need to know during your (hopefully lengthy) time here at Wikipedia is the notion of the five pillars: a list of five principles that summarize what we are trying to do here, which I have summarized in turn:

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is pretty self-explanatory. It basically states that what is included must be verifiable, backed up by reliable sources. You might have encountered the phrase "extravagant claims require extravagant evidence" or something to that effect before, which is an accurate summation of the verifiability policy.
  • Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. If you browsed the site before signing up for an account, you probably came across quite a few tags for neutrality on articles, meaning that some editor thinks the page has a point of view. Of course, true neutrality is almost impossible to attain, depending on how technical you get. But having articles present information that is not biased in its coverage or phrasing allows people to take the information and be informed by the facts, rather than someone's personal interpretation of those facts.
  • Wikipedia is free content. All contributions are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see the full text), which means that they are essentially free, with a few provisions. When you edit pages, you will always see "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." This means that copyright infringement is (obviously) prohibited.
  • Wikipedia has a code of conduct. You will often see references to "Don't be a dick" (sorry for the language, but it's a good essay). This sums up the idea of conduct fairly nicely. Essentially, the code of conduct instructs editors to be respectful and civil to each other, a (sometimes unspoken) rule in most projects or institutions.
  • Wikipedia does not have firm rules. From this page: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I can't really phrase it any better.

I know this is a lot to digest, and there is more coming, but once you get going here all of this will become more obvious, not just a ton of words and pages. Next, I'll tell you about some more technical stuff, like blocks, admins, signatures, etc. Cheers, Kakofonous (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Second things you should know[edit]

This is a list of technical bits that are useful to have in mind when writing articles and doing stuff around the 'pedia.

  • Signatures. This is something that can get annoying if you don't do it, because, among other things, you'll get never-ending messages from this bot, saying

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!

It's easy. All you have to do, in most cases, is write ~~~~, which, for me, produces Kakofonous (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

Five tildes will only give the date and time—18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)—while three only give links to your username and talk page—Kakofonous (talk).

  • Headings. Headings on a page are made with equals signs. They decrease in font size and weight the more you put in. The top-level heading:
== Test == produces


=== Test === produces


and ==== Test ====


  • Indents. On a talk page, discussions are usually written as follows, to avoid confusion. Note that paragraphs on articles are broken by a line space, not indents.

Blah blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah? Kakofonous (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blah, blah blah, blah blah. Kakofonous (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

These indents are not made by simply typing spaces before the word or using the tab key, which results in a weird little box like this:

 Blah blah blah blah blah.

which has the added obnoxiousness of not wrapping to the page's margins, causing it to go wider than the page and make everything look bad.

You simply puts a colon in front of the text you want to indent, like so: :Blah blah blah. which produces

Blah blah blah.

Then use two, three, four… colons after to continue to indent the discussion.

Blah blah blah.
Blah blah.
Blah blah blah.
  • Bulleted and numbered lists. I've been using a bulleted list so far, which made the little teal/green squares to the left. This is really simple. One asterisk (*) produces one bullet:
  • Blah blah.

Two asterisks produce an indented bullet:

  • Blah blah.
    • Blah blah blah,

And so on, exactly like the colons. To make a numbered list, substitute the asterisk for a number sign (#), and it works exactly the same, only now things are ordered by number:

  1. I like the number 1.
    1. I like the number 1.5.
  • Bold and italic text. To make something bold, do this:

'''bold''', which produces bold. To make something italic, use two single quotes around the word/phrase instead of three: ''italic'', which produces italic. Bold and italic text just combines the two, like this: '''''bold and italic''''', which produces bold and italic.

And… I'm finished with this installment. If you have questions, write them here. I'll find them. Kakofonous (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of a test

  1. do indented
    1. numbered
      1. lists
        1. always
        2. start
          1. with
          2. one?

ImperviusXR (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Third (belated, and possibly last) things you should know[edit]

First off, sorry for my lateness in this installment. I've been doing a lot of stuff (both here and in "real" life), and I guess it just slipped my mind. Anyway, in this installment I am going to just give you some info about things I haven't mentioned before that fall somewhere in between the two categories I put the previous stuff into (technically and community-based).

  • Consensus. This is an extraordinarily important aspect of many processes that go on here. The idea is that, when you write something in an AfD, RfA, RfC, etc., you are not voting, just commenting. This is why it is important to explain your position in one of these discussions with (hopefully, but it often doesn't happen that way) reasoning. The way one of these processes is closed is not by an administrator simply counting how many comments say, for example, delete or keep (in the case of an AfD). Instead, they determine the community's consensus on the matter, by weighing different viewpoints raised.
  • Positions in Wikipedia. I mentioned the idea of an administrator above—this is one example of a position that can be held here. The position that everyone—you, me, him, her—holds is that of an editor. Without editors, Wikipedia wouldn't work. Simple as that. Every other position simply adds a few extra tools to an editor's arsenal, so that they may help the site in different capacities, besides just contributing to articles, reverting vandalism, etc.
    • Rollbackers. The rollback feature is a tool that allows people with an interest in removing vandalism from Wikipedia to do it more efficiently.
    • Administrators. Administrators, if they haven't requested it already, get the rollback tool, as well as a couple other capabilities. They can delete, restore, and protect pages, block other users, close AfDs by determining consensus, give other users rollback, and a couple other things. Administrators are given their tools as a result of successful requests for adminship.
    • Bureaucrats. Bureaucrats have all the tools administrators have, and also have the ability to grant other users administrator, bureaucrat, or bot status. There are some other less common positions, like oversight and CheckUser, but I won't go into that here.
  • Good and featured content. You may have seen the image at right in the top right corner of some articles (for example Wilco). This means that the article has gone through extensive review and is considered to be some of our best work. The featured article criteria page has more information on what this is considered to be. There are other types of featured content, like lists and pictures, each with their own criteria. Another classification of article quality (this one doesn't apply to other content) is the good article classification. Good articles aren't nearly as rigorously reviewed as featured articles—any editor can review and pass an article on the nominations page by comparing it against the good article criteria.

If there's anything else you want to know about in depth, I can probably give you the info (or at least point you to somewhere or someone that can)—these installments are meant as a brief introduction, and are by no means comprehensive. Hope they were useful! --Kakofonous (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I removed your edit because they are inappropriate. The IUPAC name for ethanol is simply ethanol. There is no ambiguity about the position of the hydroxyl group. See also "propan-2-one" and DHMO. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetry collaboration[edit]

Quill and ink.svg
WikiProject Poetry invites all members to participate in the current article improvement drive!

Our goal is to improve the quality of important poetry-related articles. There is no set deadline and participation is purely voluntary.

The current focus is: Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Suggestions for future collaborative efforts are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry. Thank you for your support!

--Midnightdreary (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to participate in University of Washington survey on tool to quickly understand Wikipedians’ reputations[edit]

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington. In April, we met with Wikipedians to learn what they would like to know about other editors’ history and activities (within Wikipedia) when interacting with them on talk pages. The goal was to gather feedback to help design a tool that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you. Your quick contribution would be very valuable to our research group and ultimately to Wikipedia. (When finished, the code for this application will be given over to the Wikipedia community to use and/or adjust as they see fit.)

We are particularly interested in feedback from new editors! We want to make sure this tool meets your needs.

Willing to spend a few minutes taking our survey? Click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Thank you for your time! If you have any questions about our research or research group, please visit our user page. Commprac01 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Additional details about our research group are available here.

Possible Sockpuppet[edit]

Notifying you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ImperviusXR. -OberRanks (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Porphyro (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

While this is unlikely to affect me for much longer, I thought I should point out that I have apparently just inherited this Dynamic IP address and am now blocked. I imagine that before the block expired, others may inherit this address and might want to edit wikipedia :) Porphyro (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

you should no longer be affected by this Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

AFD discussion[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Porphyro. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majeed Pejajj.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP Poetry and The Canterbury Tales task force[edit]

As someone who is listed as a participant for WikiProject Poetry, I hope you will be interested to learn of an attempt to revive the WP and alongside this the creation of task force to improve coverage of The Canterbury Tales. We are currently looking for participants to help set up the basics. Please get involved if you can, and we can hopefully revive this important project within Wikipedia! Many thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fortifying wikiquanta[edit]

Hi, I seek volunteers for this. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I can see your point but I'm having a hard time imagining what the articles you say should be written should actually look like! A vast swathe of quantum mechanical articles have sources for experimental verifications of the predictions of quantum theory. Porphyro (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
To your first phrase: Yes; indeed, I feel the same.
To your second phrase: "verifications of the predictions", sure; but are they about entangled states?
The feature of both attacks (on affine spaces and quantum mechanics) is that the attacker is not stupid. He likes the theory! He objects to a careless overuse of the good theory (as he understands it).
The "quantum attacker" likes the wave function and all that. His red line is, an entangled state of a composite system whose subsystems are addressed separately. This case was indeed not experimentally available to the founding fathers. But now it is available; its "verifications of the predictions" are mentioned mostly in our articles on quantum information, and these are hardly accessible to non-experts, and do not emphasize this aspect: not only technological progress, but also verification of entanglement theory.
Now, back to your first phrase: maybe, a new section in the "Quantum information science" article? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In order to "centralize" the discussion I've copied this to my talk page; hope you do not object. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quantum contextuality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

quantum nonlocality[edit]

Dear Porphyro, I agree with your claim that the first sentence defining quantum nonlocality might contradict the option of quantum nonlocality without entanglement. The correct solution, in my eyes, is to correct the first sentence to enable more general quantum nonlocality, as defined in the paper quantum nonlocality without entanglement. Please also invite Tsirel (Boris Tsirelson) to suggest modifications in this Talk page of yours. I hope it is OK with you that I opened a new section. I am a new Wikipedian and hence I do not know where is the optimal place to have this discussion between the three of us. Tal Mor (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tal, thanks for taking the time to get in touch. Opening a new section on the talk page was the correct thing to do in this circumstance, so please do not think you have breached any sort of wikipedia etiquette! In general, the best place for this will be in the talk page for the quantum nonlocality article which is here. I will start off a discussion there and alert Boris. Porphyro (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Note please that it might be very difficult and time consuming to reach an agreed definition of "quantum nonlocality". A better approach might be to change the title, so that it fits the current definition, e.g. "quantum nonlocality of a single quantum state". Then it is natural to put back my change from last week, but only into the section on nonlocality and entanglement (a section that MAYBE should become an article on its own). Best regards. Tal Mor (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Porphyro. 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)

Edit war warning[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Fenugreek shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Necurs botnet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spam. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


My reset was in good faith. I reset the blanking because you should not just blank entire sections just because they are bad. On Wikipedia we try to improve our content, not to just do away with below-par material. It was not as hopeless as some WP:TNT situations have been. groig (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. On wikipedia, WP:BOLD edits are to be encouraged, and this section is a perfect example of WP:JUNK. Any attempt at a section rewrite here will amount to mostly blanking what is currently written. I think all the salvageable content is duplicated elsewhere on the page. Porphyro (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantum nonlocality[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Quantum nonlocality you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doctorg -- Doctorg (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantum nonlocality[edit]

The article Quantum nonlocality you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Quantum nonlocality for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doctorg -- Doctorg (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)