# User talk:Purgy Purgatorio

## Welcome!

Hello, Purgy Purgatorio, 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:

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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! : Noyster (talk), 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

## Purgy Purgatorio, you are invited to the Teahouse!

 Hi Purgy Purgatorio! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

## Shifting content in and out of a page

I have plans to remove some content of a page completely and to move an other part to an other page. I have anounced this plans on the talk pages of the target and the source page. Please, what is the time lapse considered polite and appropriate before I make my plans real? One more question, where do I apply for a reassessment of this page which is part of the WikiProject Physics, to get some hints what to improve or bring to Wikipedia standards? Thanks in advance. Purgy (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey ping|Purgy Purgatorio Welcome to the Teahouse. I can't really say that there's a particular time elapsed after which you can go ahead and do a move, but I do have a couple suggestions on how to get more editors to contribute to your discussion:
• Depending on how much of the article you want to split, add Template:Split2 to the top of the article or Template:Split section to the top of the section you wish to split off.
• If you're still not getting any input, try bringing up the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Since you are trying to split Jerk (physics), I'd ask for input at WikiProject Physics. Some WikiProjects are more active then others, so you may get varying results.
As for requesting re-assessments, simply leaving the assessment fields blank will place the page in a category of pages that need assessment. An editor from the WikiProject will hopefully assess the page in due time (or, you can make a request again on the WikiProject's talk page if you'd like one ASAP). Hope this helps! User:SuperHamster|SuperUser:SuperHamster|Hamster' User talk:SuperHamster|Talk Special:Contribs/SuperHamster|Contribs 19:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

## How to alert other users

Hello Purgy! Since I do not want to add to the confusion at the Teahouse, I thought I might write a note to you here. There are several ways of notifying other user about things, and they are not always too clear to a newbie. I have not been here so very long myself so I remember it well. The talkback templates are mostly used by senior editors when they are on "official business" like leaving answers at the Teahouse as hosts. Most of us other mortals use less sophisticated, but just as effective ways, and even if we get involved in a discussion at the Teahouse, most of us do not use the fancy templates, we just use the more common ways of communicating. They all result in the same thing: a notification on your page, similar to the one you got from the thanks.

• First is the one mentioned at the Teahouse where you write {{U|Purgy Purgatorio|Purgy}} or shorter {{U|Purgy Purgatorio}} These result in Purgy
• Then there is my favourite [[User:Purgy Purgatorio|Purgy]] resulting in Purgy. If you use this you can substitute the last part for another thing you might want to call the user like [[User:Purgy Purgatorio|My friend]] resulting in My friend.
• Then there is the "ping" {{ping|Purgy Purgatorio}} resulting in or the tiny ping if you think the user might be looking for the message, but you want to notify anyhow {{tping|Purgy Purgatorio}} resulting in @Purgy Purgatorio:

All of these are lazily called pings, "Just ping me." ect. And my explanation here at your page may have triggered a whole bunch of mysterious pings at you. Sorry, it was for a good cause. Pings on your talk page also generates a yellow-highlighted text next to the red number at the top of your page. If you have any other questions about life here as a newbie, please don't hesitate to ping me or leave a message at my talk page. It might be less scary or formal that at the Teahouse. All the best, w.carter-Talk 12:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

## First-order logic

Hi!

When you edited First-order logic#Loving relation, did you happen to understand what is meant by "they are examples"? I saw you added sentence 6 as another exception.

I have no idea who is "they" (The individuals a,...,e? The sentences/formulas 1,...,10? The matrices?) and of what they are examples. Can you help me with a brief explanation? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, , I am sorry that I missed your question which meanwhile has been answered, I assume, by just not being exhaustive for the given formulae. I was somewhat busy and fully off Wikipedia. If I find time, I'll have a look at that article again, but please, leave a note, if I might be useful. Regards, Purgy (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

## Correction of typo.

I've restored the first change you made in the article. Thank you for correcting the typo. As for the other change, I suggest you discuss it in Talk. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, , since you reverted my addition, I honestly would primarily like to get to know your stance to my statements on this topic. Especially, if just the poor use of the english idiomatics of me being not a native speaker, or additional, technical reservations caused that rebuff. I am not that much interested in this here topic to search for majorities to have my humble additions persist, if there are technical reservations, and be they barely yours. I just want to know about them and revise my own stance in case. Please, feel free to revert my edit of your talk page, I am not very accustomed yet to the habits around here and I certainly don't want to clutter your page. Feel welcome on my talk page in any case. Purgy (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It is fine to post to my talk page, but you would do better to discuss changes to an article on that article's talk page. Note: always post at the bottom of the talk page. If you post your suggested changes on the article's talk page, I and others will be glad to discuss them, and help you with a rewrite if necessary. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, , since I saw both of my independent, small annotations in the axiomatic section simply reverted, and now see you meticuously avoiding to answer, from your POV, my prime question above about the technicality of this, I have to ponder again my interests on this article, before I involve the whole specific community in this matter. I'm not interested in entering fields others consider their claim, I intended to shift the debate about 0/1, which is led mostly for wrongly understood reasons, imho, out of Peano's axiomatic realm to the scope where it belongs (monoids), and found that my only few, explaining words on a non-FOL-axiom and its exchange to an axiom scheme of FOL would improve the article, both for calming a debate on wrong premises and for slightly hinting to deeper material.
Perhaps you insert some words, fitting to your native speaker level, yourself, or take the lead in the discussion on the talk page there? Purgy (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not avoiding answering. I am telling you that the place for your question and my answer is the talk page of an article. I'll take a look at "monoids".

Hi, , meanwhile I feel increasingly reprimanded: after seeing two or three informative sentences reverted for poor writing (instead of them being improved) and learning that denying answering here (as politely asked for) is not avoiding answering, I'm told where I have to place my questions and to humbly expect possible answers: not here at my place! - and all this, when the elementary technicalites of my addenda are left to be looked up. Hic Rhodus, hic salta!

Honestly, I am, for the time being, not in the mood to discuss this topics on the talk page there, I rather refer to my paragraph above, encouraging you to be bold and, after your looking for monoids, to add or not to add remarks, you consider appropriate, in the article. Perhaps looking at additive semigroups for naturals starting at 1, and first order logic for the induction axiom might be advisable, too. Purgy (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

## Invitation

 You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed and it seems that this new Wikiproject would be interesting to you. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers Tetra quark (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

## Recent edit to Square root of 2

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Square root of 2, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

## Young at heart

Hey Purgy, I certainly did not mean to be patronizing in the physics forum. I used "kid" in the "atta boy, kid!" sense, as your strong bold voice reminded me of youthful intensity. I am so glad you read this vortex of recursive tendentiousness just right!! Regards, Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC) But the bullying never stops there Sigh... Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, , somewhat I feel honored that you let me know of this saddening development, and I feel like I wanna help in this bad end street, but I have no idea how.
As you will have noticed, I've seen the disaster regarding Linas Vepstas, who's blood has been brought to boil by diehard bureaucrats and who started to lose self-control as a consequence. The Prokaryotes, who caught my eye already a while ago with his, imho, exaggerated need for citations in articles which are far from that need, is now on this trip with two victims. From his personal interest, he seems to mix up the activities of IPCC and quite solid physicist's work. He is however, also imho, perfectly convinced that his activitites are for the higher glory of Wikipedia.
Is it sensible to try to get some assistance by WikiProject Physics? is it possible for YohanN7 to calm a bit down in the use of harsh words (I just lean on my age for this patronizing, sorry.)
Please, let me know, if you think I could be of some help. All the best. Purgy (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Purgy; no, I have no specific ideas. I asked the subject to propose in the talk-page of scalar field theory what he believes he'd like to see in the article, without trashing the article, which is what raises people's hackles and gets them outraged. Much of the (justified) alarm at the subject's depredations is his legal-vandalism revert actions, not his absurd rants and recriminations. Focussing on the content itself, while leaving the actual article frozen temporarily, might be the best solution. On your part, just awareness of the situation is sufficient. The subject's peremptory spasmodic acts are all made possible by the misperceived isolation of that page, and the illusion that nobody is watching! I don't see how the physics forum is relevant, yet. The subject is self-righteously and aggressively clueless, so I doubt there a bona fide scientific issue that needs to be settled. It's all bullying. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

## Electronic oscillator

Hi, Purgy. I didn't quite understand your last comment on the Talk:Electronic oscillator page. Are you saying you have changed your mind, and you are against adding the sentence "Quartz crystal oscillators can only be tuned over a small frequency range, of a fraction of a percent" to the article? --ChetvornoTALK 15:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi , I'm sorry that I wrote a text which led to this misunderstanding, and I hope to have it amended accordingly. I tried to express, that I am not sufficiently motivated to fight on against that spirit of conserving the holy texts as they are. I am afraid that in ongoing efforts to persuade the guardians to agree to SOME change, I might lose my countenance. Already in the medium range I try to avoid the paper shufflers. ;) I wish you all possible success to get that info into the article. Purgy (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you are tired of arguing with them; I feel that way myself. It's just that your sentence: "I see, "high quality" and "stability" are properties worth mentioning, "meager tuneability" is not. Be it." is not translated into English well. In English it is confusing; it sounds like you changed your mind and agreed with them. I think a better translation is: "For some strange reason, you think that "high quality" and "stability" are properties worth mentioning, but mere "tuneability" is not. So be it." This expresses what you meant to say. --ChetvornoTALK 17:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
A non-native is always thankful for hints like these. Nevertheless, I modified your suggestion slightly, and kept your "mere tuneability", even though I wanted to express "meager" tuneability. :) All the best. Purgy (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

## Pigeonholes

Hi Purgy,

I recently smoothed out the English of your contribution to Pigeonhole principle without changing any of the intent of the edit (I think!). However, I am now thinking that the statement isn't totally correct. If you had a reference this would help. The two meanings of pigeonhole have been around since the 1600's, and up until fairly recently the primary (or first) meaning has been about pigeons. I assume that with the decline of pigeon raising as an activity, the open slot of a desk meaning has moved into the first place. My take on the etymology is that the term was correctly translated to the then second meaning, but non-English speakers would have translated the term from English to their own languages with the first meaning (and thinking that the English are a little strange as well). I don't have any references for this, but it does make sense. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@Wcherowi:, thank you for smoothing out my non-native pigeon :) English. I am not a linguist, and have no sources about the timely gradients in the change of meaning for pigeonhole. I also have no sources about young Dirichlet being influenced to use "Schubfach" by his father working as postmaster in a pertinent environment of "pigeonholes". But I am, as native German speaker, able to supply the information, that associations of "Schubfächer" with "Tauben" are necessarily very far fetched, whereas pigeonholes and pigeons seem to me to be obviously related.
I can only speculate if Dirichlet's word choice "Schubfach" was intentionally transcribed to a word offering both a literally as well as an associatively satisfactory translation. It appears to me to be obvious that the furniture-meaning of "pigeonhole" is easily masked behind the "pigeon-in-holes" metaphor for non-native speakers. As the next paragraph in the article shows, the "Schubfach" was translated to more literally transcriptions without any pigeons in many other languages, and the mentioned "Taubenschlag"-principle is certainly an effect of back translation, and admiration of the pigeon metaphor.
I certainly will not go into any further linguistic research to save my, imho quite amusing, remarks against any puristic desire to delete not sufficiently sourced content. On occasion I'll have a look for possible refinement. Purgy (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

## Bot's misconception aka MOS:LQ

Hi there, re this revert: I agree. FYI, whenever I come across such edits, I revert and point to MOS:LQ example 2 in the edit summary. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

OMG! It never came to my mind, that reasonable behaviour were a question of style, and that there really could be a whole, citeable paragraph with examples dedicated to deprecate irrational punctuation in an overwhelming WP:MOS. But leaving only a few scent marks in Wikipedia taught me already about there being for some the necessity of such bureaucratic monsters. I honestly apologize that I am not prepared to dig into these and similar effusions (especially about safe spaces, urbanity, and the like), simply relying on my rational and decent upbringing. I also learned already that it is fully in vain to protest against the application of bots infusing commata everywhere after a "therefore,". The last comma is just to deceive them, and now I wait for a bot, making it "therefore", and then for the outbreak of bot's edit war, and then ... ;)
Getting serious again, I want to report that I greatly enjoy being addressed in a positive air, and therefore want to return gratefully your thanks. Cheers! Purgy (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
My pleasure entirely. There used to be an anon who was constantly pulling the punc within the quotes—ugly and illogical, yuck. Reverting with edit summaries like "not an improvement" did not help. Looking for something about punctuation in the MOS, I found this pointer. Finally I had something to wave with, so to speak. One mention was sufficient. Relief! - DVdm (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Speak softly, and wave with a big stick — be an admin, so to say? :p Purgy (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

## RfA

German speakers generally misinterpret the English word silly as only meaning doof, albern, or dumm. It has a lot of other meanings too. Depending on the context, for example I, as a native German speaker, would have to consider nicht geeignet, nicht angemessen, ụnangebracht, unaufrichtig, belanglos, usw. Anyway, here is something for you to read. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: "Wilkommen in meiner bescheidenen Hütte!" For politeness' reasons in the en.wikipedia the rest in my awkward English:
I did not want to refer to any interpretation of the word "silly" at all, I just postulated the general existence of a bias, which assumes properties preferredly on one side, but I consider both given examples to be silly reasons for a vote. Maybe this two-sidedness is not sufficiently expressed.
Just for improvement of our(?) non-native understanding I looked up "silly" in Merriam-Webster: "(1) having or showing a lack of thought, understanding, or good judgment : foolish or stupid, (2) not practical or sensible, (3) not serious, meaningful, or important". I admit that this is just the simple section and does not cover archaic or rare uses. Nevertheless, I claim that my native understanding of the German language is far from associating some notions you suggest to consider ("unaufrichtig"?).
May I also mention that I did not, and still do not intend to vote on this RfA, but, when I read about the claim that there were not enough "positivity", and, especially, that there were too much "negativity" (or sillyness on one side!), I feel urged to speak up against this, because I am strongly convinced that nowadays already the mere mentioning of (evident!) downsides is deprecated and frowned upon in a manner absolutely preposterous to reason.
For these reasons, I also do not indulge in really reading your link about RFAV, it suffices to me that, in skimmimg, I found that, obviously uninvitedly, I "joined discussions about back-room stuff"(sic!).
Let me wish you -in all civility- "Happy admining!" Regards, -Purgy (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

## ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Purgy Purgatorio. 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)

## Li ion battery

Hi, I just saw that you might be still having Lithium-ion battery on your watchlist. I used to watch it and it was one of the first articles I worked on, I don't anymore. I've recently discovered something that you might want to watch out for while digging through the archives there: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright, the editor you recently engaged with Special:Contributions/Elektrik_Fanne and an older Special:Contributions/DieSwartzPunkt, all socks. They've (singular) done good work I think, that is, in uncovering the dubiousness of batteryuniversity.com but they've been blocked nonethless. Be wary in future. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You are right in me having this on my watchlist, and, just faintly recalling my question about battery-university being blacklisted, I looked up my conversation then. I think I reacted quite cautiously to a lengthy but somewhat intransparent reply. Thanks, if your remarks are a warning, and please, let me know, if -in your opinion- I did something not de rigeur, or perhaps dangerous. I did not perceive up to now that my wanderings in WP would need wariness. There are nice guys and others, about whom I thought I couldn't care less: WP will be the same w/wo my remarks. :) Purgy (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
In retrospect, I don't know why I alerted you, ignorance is bliss after all, especially if you're trying to stay clear of trouble and such pointlessly complicated issues and focus on content. There's nothing we can do, actually, from my experience, it's frustrating to realise someone who you thought was a new editor and helped out, turns out to be a sockpuppet later.
Regarding batteryuniversity.com though, the only issue now is per the archives, it was just that editor who investigated it--no one else besides me who was just tagging along. Still there is no evidence of that site's reliability and the SPI investigation just shows the editor has behavioural issues but was good at editing. In my mind, there's a very tiny probability of finding something wrong with that editor's claims, but if you feel it necessary and have time, you can try to verify and fact-check whatever he said about that site in the archives--no harm done in the long run. I'm interested as well and can help. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
You are right again, I try to stay clear of trouble, even if I like to discuss almost pointless complicated issues in math, but that's an other story. Maybe I pity slightly that unconditional verdict on batteryuniversity.com, but I fully understand WP's requests on this matter and agree on them. OTOH, my current interests and this pity do not warrant an investigation by my side establishing batteryuniversity.com as a reliable source.
Even though I do not care much about sockpuppets (any group of ganged up editors is equally dangerous to me), I want to repeat my thanks for your caring caveat, and to assure you that I really enjoy any friendly encounter in WP. Looking forward to meet again. :) Purgy (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Then it's fine and no need to thank. You too as well. Have nice day. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

## Field (mathematics)

Hello Purgy. I did not think you were rude, though I find D. Lazard is. He's probably Parisian so he cannot know any better, poor man. ;) I always sign my talk posts and I simply forgot this time. Cheers Vincent (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crelle. 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) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

## Email

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

## I'll put this here as well as at ANI so you can't claim not to have seen it

Regarding your personal attacks on other editors and your making accusations of misconduct against other editors without providing evidence, if you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I completely understand that English is not your first language, but this is the English-language Wikipedia, but that doesn't absolve you from en-wiki's rules. If you don't have the ability to edit in English without spewing insults and unfounded accusations, I strongly suggest you don't attempt it. ‑ Iridescent 16:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

, pinging just to sooth your assumption I would claim something I myself considered dishonest, and to let you know that I am not interested in hiding. I also do not want to blow up that miserable fight at WP:AN, so I try to answer here. However, I consider your formulation as distinctively offensive, both here and there, and I will try to explain, why I plead innocent.
Explicitely, I do refer to that edit by Hasteur on 17.08.2017, which I consider, without any special WP background, in the meaning known to me, as canvassing for an arbiter - nothing to critisize about. Furthermore, I do consider the wording "Taku-cruft" as remarkably offensive, and, since the whole posting contains no mentioning of Hasteur's own involvement, I consider it, imho rightfully, as intentionally biassing. In no way I claimed that Hasteur were successful in his indisputeable efforts to bias Stifle. Finally, I assume that stubbornness is not an insult, but just a word for an unpleasant behaviour.
In my perception I gave a correct report on the facts, and so I deny having put forth any accusation of misconduct, and having spewed insults. I do perceive massive threatening from your side via blocking, and especially by "strongly suggest you don't attempt it", leaving it and any consequences of it in the open. Purgy (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Since you take such offense with the term, I note that Stifle used the word themselves at Deletion Review. Please the content of the remarks before you make unfounded accusations as you make yourself look incompetent. cc Iridescent. Hasteur (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I've noted this discussion but I don't consider a response merited. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

## Lithium-ion batteries

It's the "generally" that is the problem since the article says that such batteries use organic solvents, so unless you can provide a reliable source for there existing Lithium-ion batteries that use a non-flammable electrolyte solvent the "generally" stays out. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Purgy Purgatorio. 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)

## As you requested...

I'm pretty sure Wikipedia will have automatically notified you that your name was used in vain. But just in case, I thought I'd drop you a note inviting you to check out the discussion of my intentions that you had requested.

Looking forward to your response.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You certainly can rely on me watching a page where I asked response at, and yes, I'm into replying there. No pings, mentionings, TP-threads, or other measures required. :) Purgy (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

## Definition of algebraic number

Hi, Purgy. In restoring the word “essentially” in Irrational number#Transcendental and algebraic irrationals in the passage “real algebraic numbers (essentially defined as the real roots of polynomials with integer coefficients)”, you expained in the edit summary that this is “neither the only, nor a strict definition, just covering the "essentials"; including the argument)”. Could you help me by elaborating on that? (1) why is it not a strict definition, and (2) what other definition is there? Thanks, Loraof (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(2) I think (real) "Algebraic numbers" denotes a well circumscribed and agreed upon field of numbers. In an elementary approach this notion may be defined via polynomials with coefficients either from the domain of integers or the field of rationals. It may not be immediately evident that both approaches, via a domain, certainly not a field, or via a full blown field, end up in the same construct, and maybe, they have different advantages for theoretical musings. Of course, to make up reasonable definitions these must be proven to generate objects, which are at least isomorphic (if not canonically isomorphic) to each other and to the targeted field. A third well known possibility to approach the Algebraic numbers is to characterize them as the algebraic closure of the rationals, by extending the field of rationals by adjoining additional elements. This way the coefficients for the polynomials are taken from a still broader construction, the Algebraic numbers themselves. I am no expert to name a fourth obvious way for "defining" these numbers, but would not be surprised of additional concepts.
(1) Honestly, I am surprised to have to reflect on why a small apposition cannot supply a strict definition in all necessary rigor. E.g., the zero-polynomial is not excluded, the range of the substitution of the indeterminate is not made explicit, while the domain of the coefficients is crucial, not to talk about the polynomials themselves, certainly not rigorously available in an article like this (The lead of Linear differential equation just scared me).
"Essentially" is to me exactly the word, not to express in a weasely way some vague "more or less", but the word purporting confidence that the following phrase contains the "essential" details of a definition, and is just omitting some "clerical" details, without claiming that this essence is the only way to look at this notion under scrutiny. If you still estimate this word as a weasel word, go ahead and remove it, I won't interfere. Purgy (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, let’s just leave it there. Thanks! Loraof (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

## Numbers

Hi there. I saw you undo my edit here.
Don't you want to leave some links to the Large and Small numbers in this article? Why it should be discussed?
There almost no linking between Numbers and its highly related large and small counterparts that surely should be mentioned.
Don't you want to bring these changes back by yourself or explain why you reversed them? 109.206.156.72 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

First, it's up to you to discuss your amendments on the appropriate TP, and, no, I won't bring back your suggestions, because I object both to the place, where you inserted them, and also to them belonging to this article's topic at all, covering "numbers", where "large" and "small" are not even definable. Besides, I estimate the untagged "small number" as worse than the already tagged "large number". However, I would not object to links in a "See also" section. Now that I have declared myself, please, in case you desire, continue any discussion on the TP there. Purgy (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Purgy: I'm just asking you to provide reasons that you presumably followed when removed my contribution. Just want to know if your intervention was justified or not.
If you simply «object» the place where I've inserted titles and you know nothing about wiki rules (especially about WP:AGF) then I would consider to revert my changes back.
So, what do you mean by «not even definable» and «untagged» and what the article you think the Large and Small numbers should be referred by? Thanks.109.206.156.72 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

## Prime gap argument

Thanks for your edits to prime number again, and all the edits you made over the course of the GA review. As you probably saw, I undid your edits again, but it was not because I thought there was anything particularly inappropriate about them. The issue was that the factorial argument for large prime gaps was supposed to have been moved to the elementary properties section in the reorganization of the article that happened during the GA review, but there was a little bit left over in the summary of the analytic properties section that accidentally got left behind. Your edit expanded that left-behind bit, but I think the better thing to do was just to remove it. So the problem that led to the undo was actually from something I did earlier (neglecting to remove a passage) rather than anything in your edit. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Unaware of the reviewer's preference I faced the decision to remove the duplicate gap argument either from the "Open questions", which it is certainly not, or from the "Analytic properties", where there are a lot more of math-tags. Sorry, I took the wrong way. (Honestly, it is more "wrong" to me now). Anyway, cordial thanks for bringing that much glamour to my humble TP. :)
BTW, I did not change this one class-attribute in the TP-header because I thought it to belong to Version 1.0 on CD, only. Regards, Purgy (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

## Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
119 Analytic number theory (talk) Add sources
412 (ε, δ)-definition of limit (talk) Add sources
1,070 Riemann zeta function (talk) Add sources
896 Limit (mathematics) (talk) Cleanup
32 Mertens function (talk) Cleanup
301 Positional notation (talk) Expand
82 Austria–Prussia rivalry (talk) Expand
112 Plastic number (talk) Expand
304 Tetration (talk) Unencyclopaedic
1,381 BASIC (talk) Unencyclopaedic
23 Mathematical folklore (talk) Unencyclopaedic
246 Network science (talk) Merge
1,403 Maximum likelihood estimation (talk) Merge
40 Inductive type (talk) Merge
53 Harmonic conjugate (talk) Wikify
87 Instantaneous phase (talk) Wikify
12 Timeline of numerals and arithmetic (talk) Orphan
3 Repetition variation (talk) Orphan
26 Quantum optimization algorithms (talk) Orphan
153 Argument of a function (talk) Stub
12 Ernesto Cesàro (talk) Stub

Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mathematical induction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Range (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

... repaired. Purgy (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

## Hawking revert

Re: [1]

Hello. I gather you feel that |newspaper= is meant only for the paper version of a newspaper, not the web version. That has not been my experience, and if it were true the template wouldn't allow |url= with |newspaper=.
Regardless, you could have changed |newspaper=The Telegraph to |website=The Daily Telegraph or |work=The Daily Telegraph—they are all aliases of the same parameter and the choice has no effect on what readers see. If you'll look at the infobox in the article The Daily Telegraph, you'll find that the value of its Website field matches the domain name of the |url= in the citation template. The media group is a holding company and has no place in that parameter. Nobody reads Telegraph Media Group. ―Mandruss  18:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I was led to the article by the link The Telegraph, which was given in the References section, being a disambiguation page. My concern is not that The Daily Telegraph or the The Sunday Telegraph would not both use the url: www.telegraph.co.uk, but rather that both newspapers are not immediately involved in the linked content of the references. The content displayed with all these references is licensed to Telegraph Media Group, which is, as you stated, not a newspaper or a work. In damb'ing I removed the link The Telegraph and re-replaced with the plain text "Telegraph Media Group", and hinted to my reservations in the edit summary. I am still concerned that e.g. ref#171 in the article, which still contains the text "The Daily Telegraph", may be wrong, because of the content, belonging to this ref, is explicitly attributed to the "Telegraph Media Group", and I see no reference therein to any rights of "The Daily Telegraph".
I know that the users do not see this parameter, but to me it is questionable, if just any actual newspaper of the factual content owner(?) should be inserted under "newspaper". Purgy (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Seems like overthink to me, but if you see a significant problem here, you could use |publisher=Telegraph Media Group instead. ―Mandruss  20:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I copied the above to the article TP. Please, start a new thread here, or comment there. Purgy (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

## regarding Scalar (physics)

I just published an explanation for my edits to Scalar (physics). Please comment there or send me a message. Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I will comment there within reasonable terms, if I decide to; no notifications of any kind necessary. Purgy (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

## regarding Scalar disambiguation page

My edits to the disambiguation page removed links to unrelated articles, video games, angelfish, and a double link to pseudoscalar. None of these articles have any reason to be on disambiguation page. Brian Everlasting (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I will comment there within reasonable terms, if I decide to; no notifications of any kind necessary. Purgy (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

## Edit revert: Enyuropean/European

I'm sorry you had to revert that. But the awkward fact is, I didn't alter it in the first place; or at least, not intentionally. I was scrolling down through a particularly long chunk of prose to edit something right at the bottom (as I recall, it was to edit compareably to comparably). If I hit something else on the way, and accidentally jammed a couple of letters in, I certainly never noticed it at the time, and it must have been completely by misadventure. So, thanks and sorry. Nuttyskin (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

... that's what the summary typo was intended for to express. No problem. :) Purgy (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trigonometric functions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Purgy (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

## July 2018

Thank you for your contributions to Square root of 4, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox instead. Thank you. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

would you, please, mind to inform me, if your dated(!) and stern indoctrination above already took into account that I, as fast as I could, reinstated the status quo ante of the article, and/or if it pertains only to the -admittedly- cheeky edit summaries? My intention was, to keep up the value of WP as an encyclopedia, but also to add to motivational content, accessible to insiders only, who -considering the development of contributors- might perhaps need some fun. BTW, my edits were both factual and neutral, and in fact, the article has not changed in its appearance to the reader of WP; whereas I perceive both the dating and the color of the icon as threatening, and the dishonest, flowery phrase assuring thanks as an inappropriate ridicule of an editor with a standing type. Most respectful regards, Purgy (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Unless I'm misunderstanding, your edits were made forty minutes before my warning. You re-added inappropriate content to mainspace, and despite reverting it, left edit summaries that indicate you think this is a game. I was well aware that you have some level of experience here when I left you a warning, but the points raised in the standard warning template are still valid. This sort of disruptive editing, even if reversed, causes recent changes patrollers to waste time investigating, and for new page patrollers to waste time re-reviewing the "new page" triggered by the re-creation of the redirect. Because you reversed your edits, I have little interest in pursuing this further, and I am far more concerned about the 100k+ edit editor who created the page in the first place, who I gave a similar warning. Take this how you wish, but your humour was not understandable for me as a native English speaker, and you would be well advised to keep humour in Wikipedia or User space in future, where it is heartily encouraged. TheDragonFire (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
A timestamp is no reliable evidence for a state of knowledge. I asked, to be sure, and take your friendly hint to 40' as an affirmation of a state of awareness. I formally protest against calling the template accusations valid. Of course, I want to apologize for causing that much patrolling, investigation, re-reviewing and, most of all, that heavy warning, including the 100k+ editor. I also never noticed that being understandable for a specific person is a fundamental requirement in WP, but I do -again- perceive some sinister threat (at least severe condescension) in the formulation you would be well advised .... I share your lack of interest in pursuing this further, even when your last advice leaves me clueless. In the undesirable case of need for further exchanges, I humbly ask for appropriate respect. WP:AGF is appropriate here! Purgy (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

## Constant

Yes, we have a better method: we call it a constant. Its derivative is a property, not a definition. Why would you revert an edit to make an article less clear? complainer 09:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, perhaps calling something a constant has different meanings in our universes of discourse. But, especially in physics, calling something "a constant", or to "be constant", or to "be conserved" implies nuances, and to resort to the precisely defined "time-derivative is zero" is not only a necessary, but also a conveniant tool for establishing exactly the desired property for some item under consideration in specific settings. In the case of "conserved quantities" it is not about calling them "constant", but to prove this specific property, them having "zero time-derivative". I think I do understand your intentions, but I do believe that they are inappropriate in this math-loaden context. BTW, I also would not call the involved apparatus "calculus". We could continue on the TP there, in case ... Hopefully, not less but more clear. Purgy (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

## Copy from Teahouse

Last week I encountered a strange alert. When I clicked the bell icon, on the top of the list an unread prompt popped up, which vanished completely when I clicked the blue dot to mark it as read -- strange!

When I checked my mails, I found a message from "HsfBot‬", referring me to https://id.wikipedia.org, were I am obviously already known as user, and was "invited" to log in (I did not!).

I do not know of any action from my side regarding the Indonesian WP, and feel a bit unsecure about the circumstances of vanishing alerts and unsolicited user pages.

I tried to be concise and short, but certainly I am prepaired to give additional details in case they are needed to explain this to me. Thanks in advance. Purgy (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Purgy. Your account was created at the Indonesian Wikipedia Saturday [2], probably because you clicked a link to it while you were logged in. Two minutes later HsfBot‬ posted a welcome message on your talk page [3]. This causes a notification at other wikis but after you have read it, it only remains at the Indonesian Wikipedia. Just ignore it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation of the automated processes, which I started by inadvertently clicking a link to Indonesian WP. Is there a chance to get rid again of these unintentional remnants? I would prefer to have no userpage there, especially not, if the same password applies. Purgy (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The user page which you can see there is the one which you created at meta:User:Purgy_Purgatorio. That is used in any Wikipedia where you don't have a specific user page. See WP:Global user page. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! It's too late to regret having thought that contact with Wikimedia might not necessarily be at least regretful. Purgy (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Purgy: More precisely, meta:User:Purgy Purgatorio is shown in Wikimedia wikis where your account has been created but you haven't made a user page. Special:CentralAuth/Purgy Purgatorio shows where the account has been created. It's common to accumulate many account creations by clicking links to other wikis while logged in. Accounts cannot be deleted but the global user page can be deleted on request by placing {{Delete|1=User request}} on meta:User:Purgy Purgatorio. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

## Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. Varcin2 (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

(above remark must refer to this, no other contacts -- Purgy (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC))

 Hi Purgy Purgatorio! You created a thread called Strange alert at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

## Splendid

First, why do a full reversion of this edit just to capitalize one letter? The other edits were necessary for grammar and to take out the hard sizing. Second, even on the page for splendid isolation the 's' is not capitalized except at the start of a sentence, nor is it capitalized in source titles. You really ought to change it back. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

may I apologize for having missed the changes below the "Splendor"? Certainly, this was my fault. I do not intend to argue much about capitalization in WP, and my edit was targeted just to be seen as a suggestion, the "undo" generating a certainly not missed alert for re-reversion, in case.
Obviously, I am not bound anymore to reinstate your version, but, perhaps you might want to re-exchange the "underscore" to a "space" within the link, per WP:MOS. Sorry, again. Purgy (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Linear equation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indeterminate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

repaired. Purgy (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

## ÖWB

Hi Purgy, about this edit comment: "A citation for the rm content would suppress the main intent and content of the ÖWB". I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say. Neither my edit nor yours changed anything about the citations in that article. Damvile (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Damvile, sorry for not expressing myself sufficiently clear the first time. I removed the sentence "The dictionary's stated mission is to document differences between Germany's and Austria's vocabulary and orthography". Obviously, this needs a source granting verification. I do not doubt that this sub-target is included in the "mission" of the publishers of the ÖWB, but it should not be mistaken for the broad collection of targets covered by its state-aided edition. From my peripheral knowledge of the editorial pages, and opposing comments on the occasions of the issues, and also considering the ratio of the volume of differences to the whole content, I am convinced that explicitly mentioning only this sub-target violates WP:NPOV, "suppressing the main intent and content of the ÖWB". So I'd prefer to leave this claim about the "mission" out, at least in the info-box. May I suggest to –in case you wish to– continue a dialogue on the article's TP? Purgy (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, I think I understand now. I agree there is no need to talk about the mission of the ÖWB in the infobox and the infobox is probably better without the sentence. What matters to me is that the infobox shouldn't claim (or suggest) the ÖWB is like the Duden. No Duden comparison, no problem. Damvile (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

## Originally wrongly placed and untitled rant

Purgy,

Square root is defined by the numbers not by the words. That is if f you are not a numbers person, at heart. you'll have ittle chance to digest a 3,800 year old topic. The binomial theorem expands first approximations

(A + 1/2A) times itself.

Let me start there. Is this point clear?

Milo

I will not comment here and will not answer such questions. Please, direct your questions to the TP of the linked article, and DO NOT continue here. Purgy (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2018 election voter message

 Hello, Purgy Purgatorio. 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)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Function (mathematics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interval (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

repaired Purgy (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

## Logarithm

When I took out the bit about informing psychophysics, I had the Weber–Fechner law in mind – a "law" for which the properties of the logarithm were never sensible, but people continue to talk about it as if it's plausible, which it never was. But I see there are others such as Zipf's law and Fitts's law that may be closer to being sensibly "informed by" logarithms. So, it's OK; they're just models. Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Thanks for the reply. I just noticed that I mixed up your term "discredited" by using "deprecated" in my summary: sorry. Nevertheless, I was surprised seeing even one of them in connection with "psychophysics", which is to my measures one of the most scientific parts in whole "psychology". (I have to admit that I am rather ignorant, even careless, wrt to certain valuations of allowed and disallowed areas of research in the humanities).
My expertise both in psychphysics as in the use of the English language does not suffice to suggest a better formulation for "inform", but I took it in the sense of "providing a basis" (for calculations), which seemed possibly exaggerating, but still reasonable to me. Even when nowadays "thresholds" promise better predictions, I understand the wish to keep up a smooth approximation for calculations, like the logarithm might be one.
In now way I wanted to start any animosity. Purgy (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
No prob, I just wanted to explain why I took it out, and then noticed that it's OK that you put it back. I have a whole chapter on logs, partly related to psychophysics, in my book; see machinehearing.org. Dicklyon (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

## Continuous function

A part of your edit of 12 Dec 2017 is reverted now (diff). Indeed, it is not easy (but possible...) to understand what you mean. Probably you should say it differently. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

... tried at least. :) Purgy (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Nice. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

## Exponentiation

If you object to my changes please explain why on the talk page and contribute to the discussion or self-revert. "Consensus takes time" doesn't justify reverting to Jasper Deng's version of the article, which is entirely different from the original. Stemdude (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's stay on the TP there, and do not rush, please. Purgy (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

## Sorry nowrap

Just to say sorry I didn't see the nowrap extended past the math template. Dmcq (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. D.Lazard seems to have devised the optimal no-wrapping structure, and kept even the parens. :) Purgy (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

## Diotima and Plato

... copied to TP there and answered there. Purgy (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

## Template:as of

I do not care about the following issue except as it leads to many pointless edits on my watchlist, so please feel free to ignore the following message:

It appears that you have an idiosyncratic view of the meaning of the phrase “as of”, particularly in the context of the template Template:as of. I suggest that you discuss this issue at an appropriate venue (Template_talk:As_of, or the Teahouse) rather than continuing to do one-off reverts, some of which are becoming a sort of very slow edit war. —JBL (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

watch this, in case ... Purgy (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

## Edit reversion in Chaos Theory

Regarding an edit of mine that you recently reverted here: My edit comment didn't mean to imply that the contrast itself (between strange attractors on one hand, and limit cycles or fixed-point attractors on the other) was extraneous. If you read at that paragraph in context, you'll see that it's in the section of the article titled "Strange Attractors", so using introductory language ("...known as strange attractors") in that paragraph is extraneous – it's established by the previous two paragraphs. That's all I was removing.

I don't expect to press the issue any more, but please do review your reversion if you get a chance. Thanks! /ninly(talk) 21:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ninly: thanks for your kind reaction to my revert! As I perceive the setting, my revert concerned the surroundings of the third occurrence of "attractors" in the article: (1)in the TOC, (2)in the section heading, and (3)in the affected phrase. Maybe the contrasting could occur earlier on in the section, but I think having it in place is better than re-reverting my edit. I also do not heavily insist on specific versions, but I do expect readers, who jump to specific paragraphs. Best regards, Purgy (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

## Edit reversion in Fundamental theorem of arithmetic

The product of a multiset is undefined at best? Well, I meant it to be the product of all the items in the multiset. Seems straightforward enough to me... KarlFrei (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@KarlFrei: I copied the above to the TP there, replied there, and suggest to continue contingent discussions about this topic also there. Purgy (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

## February 2019

Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. (Refers to this.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I consider the above templating, especially the dating header, as hostile and inappropriate, as I consider MarkH21's gatherings as blatant, unfounded imputation, for which he only vaguely, if at all, apologized meanwhile. However, his misunderstanding is still prominently present in his post. Next time I will avoid marginal striking and use the means provided for libel. Without a proper apology, please consider yourself as not welcome here. Purgy (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
To avoid further misunderstandings, beyond the one leading to below, the formulation above addresses the means provided by WP with the WP-RPA template. Purgy (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. . Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I only just noticed this, but if I would like to clarify what was considered a blatant, unfounded imputation, for which he only vaguely, if at all, apologized meanwhile. Again, the first paragraph of my !vote here was to state how I perceived the mentioned discussion at the time of the discussion. I did not mean to imply that this was the actual content of your or any other editor's comments and I tried to emphasize this distinction with my word choice (particularly of "gathered"). The reason that I wrote it in this way was because the nomination mentioned that it would seem that there was a rough consensus not to use this. However, I just noticed that it has been added to a number of articles.. Since this implied that I implemented the infobox after observing a consensus against, I wanted to clarify that I did not perceive there to be a consensus against the particular infobox when I decided to implement it. I hope that clears things up and I do apologize for any confusion this may have caused!— MarkH21 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems our ways to the other's TP crossed each other. Just to repeat the petitesse: I doubt your right to gather/perceive/.../assume "general opposition" for all three on your list from the discussion. Purgy (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
What does that mean? One does not have the right to state what they once thought at one point in time? — MarkH21 (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's not that simple, but yes, cum grano salis. Take an example: Hypothesize, I think just now about you as being a corrupt single purpose sockpuppet, paid by the international infobox mafia (hypothesis end), I have no right to state these thoughts and build my argumentation against your opinion on this. I just had the right to confess these thoughts of libel and vow to repent. Considering your troubles with thinking these clauses, I suggest you remove the recently added "mathematician"-(info-)box from your UP. I experience that you restructure, compress, truncate, expand, re-interpret, ... arguments such that they fit your outcome. Purgy (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I wrote what I thought was the content of other editors' comments and I specified that this is what I thought at the time. This was in direct response to a claim in the nomination that my implementation was against consensus. I have every right to do that. I was not casting aspersions by claiming that you or anybody else was doing anything wrong unlike the sockpuppet example. You clarified your position and I duly noted that underneath my original comment. I do apologize for saying that I thought you meant something that you did not. That was not my intention and I understand, it can be annoying. However I maintain that I had a right to do so.
Considering your troubles with thinking these clauses, I suggest you remove the recently added "mathematician"-(info-)box from your UP.: Please refrain from making personal attacks. This is a not the first occurrence of your commenting on the contributor as opposed to the content. Stop. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, my turn to apologize to you. I am sorry for my remarks about you feeling as a mathematician. It should not have happened and I have stricken this.
However, I on my side keep up that you are not allowed to use an imputation on me as an argument, and I consider this factual flaw as very "like" to my hypothetical sockpuppetry, a deception, not fully clarified at TP:FLT, but sufficiently apologized for above. I suggest to leave it at that. Purgy (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
My statement of my past understanding (the "imputation") was not an argument for the infobox, but to clarify why I had implemented the infobox, i.e. it was intended to be a procedural clarification rather than a content argument. I completely agree that an attempt to use that as a content argument would have been improper and I regret that my statement may have had that appearance.
But I am glad that we have overcome these non-content misunderstandings and that the non-content issues elsewhere involving a number of other editors seem to have come to an end. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The ANI-thread dealing with my blocking was archived here. Purgy (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

## I have been blocked while writing the reply below

It is true that Pigsonthewing was and is, now even stronger, not welcome on my TP, so thanks to Boing! said Zebedee for notifying me that my not absolutely unmistakeable formulation (cited in the charge) is considered as "legal threat". To be as clear as it is possible to my non-native capabilities of using the English language, I herewith state that I never ever even considered uttering any legal threat here on WP. As an Austrian citizen with no whatsoever residence abroad I consider uttering any such threat on my behalf as rendering myself as ridiculous. My cited wording is and was always intended as announcing, for my future use, the means provided by WP with the WP-RPA template. I will avoid, just striking my name from an imho defamatory list and correcting to the new entry count. I will amend my comment on my TP accordingly to save anyone from feeling as a legally threatend victim.
I am disinterested in additionally wasting anyone's time on this, but please, let me know if further information I could provide is necessary or useful to someone in charge. Everybody can research this incident by starting at the link given in the indictment. I cannot recall any further encounters with Pigsonthewing. Purgy (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there this short a deadline to answer bills of indictment? To be more precise, I had the above text entered in the edit window of the WP:ANI, could preview it, but was denied to publish it (I have the denial still open in a browser tab) more detail offered 09:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC). I got notified yesterday evening (UTC +1), but decide to go to bed and completed just my morning routine during breakfast, and only then turned my attention to this matter that requires a calm self, since it is in my terms an inexcusable act of revenge (private opinion). I know now about the ultimate priority of this drama board, nevertheless, I hope never to be drawn here again.Purgy (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to more fully document this bureaucracy gone urgent: I performed FIVE UNDOs during breakfast, before I focused on the one and only real threat: having spent 2 hours with not knowing having threatened a fearsome grownup with pigs on his wings, 8 hours with reading and sleeping in bed, and say two hours more with breakfast, undoing "good faith edits", finally, I could be blocked indefinitely. It took another 2 hours to have me unblocked, while a third admin suspected I would have a list on my UP, "not a good one!". Link to WP:ANI:Legal_threat_by_User:Purgy_Purgatorio Purgy (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The ANI-thread dealing with my blocking was archived here. Purgy (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

## February 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.
You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
You failed to respond at WP:ANI despite being notified that a discussion of your legal threat was underway there. You resumed editing despite the fact that your legal threat still stands. In order to be unblocked, you must unambiguously withdraw your legal threat. This is a matter of policy. It is your right to take legal action against other editors if you choose to do so. However, you will not be permitted to continue editing Wikipedia while your legal threat stands. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Request reason:

Please, see the comment above the blocking entry. Purgy (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

It seems clear from the statement above, which says "To be as clear as it is possible to my non-native capabilities of using the English language, I herewith state that I never ever even considered uttering any legal threat here on WP" that no legal threat is intended or extant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I will let another adminstrator evaluate your unblock request. About ten hours passed between the time that the ANI discussion began, and you didn't comment there, although you resumed editing several articles. You only responded here on your talk after I blocked you, and one minute before I posted the block notice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The ANI-thread dealing with my blocking was archived here. Purgy (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This was placed as retorsion by RexxS on 26 February 2019‎ to an ill formulated edit summary of mine in reverting a bold addition of an infobox, the application of which was rather declined on the TP of Project Mathematics, and which was TfD'd also. Purgy (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No, this goes to every editor who may not be aware that specific rules are in effect in specific areas of editing, here infoboxes. I received the same last year. It says no more than be aware. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As of my current knowledge:

• RexxS is obviously aware of the peculiar state of debates about IBs, he has (contrary to some suspicion) no template about this slapped on his TP, even when he is considered by some reputable editors to be at the possible begin of an edit war.
• The template on my TP, which is NOT just an informational one, but puts me for one year on a watch list(!), and forever(!) leaves a marking, therefore, appears to me to have been applied for intimidating purposes I feel uncomfortable and intimitaded. A non-official remark about the DS-state would have served the same purpose in a way more collegial manner. Adding RexxS' remark, enforcing and exploiting my above expectations: I took considerable care to check the guidance and the logs, etc. before slapping, so it was not quite as unconsidered as it may have seemed, makes it obvious to me that he intends to intimidate me, even makes it even more intimidating to me, especially using (logs!) my recently being indef'd for a totally skewed misunderstanding (check my claims, my guidance and not only the bare log-entry!)
• I consider the state of the meanwhile stale discussion at TP:PMath as objecting to even creating this IB.
• I still do not understand why introducing an IB in one article is no bold edit, especially considering the mentioned, declining discussion on a most competent WP-project TP in charge of this topic. I do understand that a discussion on the article's TP overrides the former.
• I am still unaware, in spite of abundant repetitions, why any edit summary (even when only clumsily referring to the factual context) might render the reversion of a bold edit inappropriate.
• The declining discussion took place before the introduction of the IB at FLT. It advocated for good reasons an only "sparse use" of IBs in math articles, and denied by majority the general usefulness of this specific IB.
• The last (as of this 09:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)) entry in the discussion, not done by the author of the IB, was on 19:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC).
• The IB was added (boldly, I claim) at 10:05, 16 February 2019‎, I reverted (with inappropriate summary) roughly 6 hours later.
• Entry to TfD was 05:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC).
• Pre-edit war (no consensus imaginable then) started 18:51, 25 February 2019 by RexxS.

I do not want to be taken as silly. Purgy (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You have made two personal attacks – contrary to the policy WP:NPA – against me in you post above:
1. "The template ... appears to me to have been applied for intimidating purposes";
2. "RexxS' remark ... makes it obvious to me that he intends to intimidate me";
I am now asking you politely to remove them from your talk page: WP:TPNO expressly forbids personal attacks. I followed the instructions to deliver the alert above scrupulously, including due diligence in checking logs, etc. to ensure that I did not deliver a duplicate alert. I object to your characterisation of my motives as anything more than informational and to satisfy the requirements laid down by ArbCom. If you still don't understand why much of what you write above is inappropriate, and you still don't understand the nature and limitations of Wikiprojects, then please consult my post at User talk:Gerda Arendt#BRD, FLT, infoboxes, ... (and a long gone matter), where I've more fully addressed my concerns with your posts. --RexxS (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I want to spend as small amounts of time as possible on this battle on IBs. So even when absolutely not understanding how describing personal feelings and perceptions could be personal attacks, for courtesy I will change the two above mentioned positions, hopefully making it clear that the reason for feeling intimidated is in my personal sensibility.
For the rest of accusations against me and my writings I refer to the text at Gerda Arendt's.
1. I cannot recall ever having wielded a stick. I never even "warned", "informed", nor "threatened" anybody, no action of retaliation, not even retorsion did start on my behalf.
2. There is nothing wrong in my claim that "being informed" by an official template of DS puts one in a state of being supervised. If someone is templated, then it is required to be with the official one. Never did I state that I was templated against any rules, but I claim that I did not provide a good reason for being put in this state of supervision. No one had to alert me.
3. I never needed any explanation of WP:CONLOCAL, to the contrary, I wrote I then intended to find out whether the author's enthusiasm or the reservations formulated on TP:PM prevail in the discussion. It is an imputation to derive from "Wikiprojects, in charge of the topic", addressing the professional competence for FLT, that I would want to supersede a local consensus. Nevertheless, there is a competent opinion.
4. I did not count how many times I tried to explain that my silly edit summary was not intended to demand a discussion before a bold edit were admissible, but was intended (sorry for my non-native English) to remind of the held discussion, and was just an unlucky, accompanying edit summary of a legal revert of a legal bold edit. I am convinced that the bold editor must have been, based on the previous discussion, aware of an immanent revert. I too feel the mentioned WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
I really want to have peace for my person, I may have attacked IBs, but opposing opinions and expressing feelings of intimidation are no attacks. Purgy (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

At ANI, a couple of editors have raised concern about your userpage. It looks to me like you're trying to keep a sort of diary of your Wikipedia activities, but in places it veers into keeping records of people you've disagreed with and how you've disagreed with them.

Would you consider removing this material? Our guideline on userpages forbids keeping this "record of wrongs" type of material. GoldenRing (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, well, it's not really a diary, as you may judge from the respective intervals of entries, but yes, it records moments, experiences, and valuations about editing in WP, what's the fun and what's the downside of contributing to this project.
As you also may notice, I recently changed the content, specifically anonymizing it, to take care of the reservations Nil Einne pointed me to. Please, also notice that I record positive encounters too, so my UP is certainly no record of wrongs. Furthermore, disagreements are not necessarily wrongs, but also may be seen as spots for improvement. Not being allowed to have slight remembrance of one's activity is no joyous afterglow, and how should I argue, when starring in a RfA, if I have no records about my innocence, when asked about me having been indef'd?.
May I ask, to be informed about the absolutely necessary, minimal removals that allows for me not being sanctioned? I am perfectly aware of not having any rights, but just enjoying enormous privileges. Purgy (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The ANI-thread dealing with my blocking and the above matter was archived with my referral to my above post as last entry here. Purgy (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

## Thank you

I was tempted to reply this to your DS comment, but let's start new. Assume good faith. A DS template is only given when it is possible that the user in question is not aware of the condition, to prevent her or him running into trouble. RexxS is probably the person best aware, and no need to inform him. Others know how to prevent the template, but really: it's no harm. Assume good faith ;)

Today on the Main page: my topic of the year: we give thanks. My user page is too small to list all people whom I like to thank, so I run an extension. One user whom I thank often is Boing! said Zebedee. In this 2014 case, he said it best (what I didn't feel I was allowed to say, nor could have said it so well). I guess we agree for him? Perhaps get to know others a bit better first? Thank you for trying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not know what to make of this. I expect my reply to get a TL;DR, may bulletizing ease the reading.
- !"Thank you"! ?Who for what? As header this hints to me being thanked, but I am totally unaware of having done something that deserves to be be thanked.
Well, I think I reply bit by bit. I thought I was clear: "I thank you for trying (to get to know others a bit better before judging)." GA
So it was a "thanks in advance"? Sorry, undeserved. I am disinterested in knowing those that template me and get me blocked for factually nothing. PP
- Next, considering more of the text: "gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam": agimus is 1. person plural, subjunctive, opening a wide tar pit of meanings, e.g., addressing "let's ..." (hortativus), "we are due ...", "we always do ...", "we have the chance to ...", ... Putting aside the original theistic contexts (way to personal), is there anybody glorious around here? And if, for what should I, could I, was I, am I obliged... (to) be thankful, besides for you treating me nice? For the mere existence of WP? But then, to whom? Jimbo? Really?
Gratias agimus tibi is from the mass, but I took the freedom to apply it more generally, - finding thanking - even for little things - much more constructive than criticizing. I also like the "we"-aspect. GA
When the most is rubbish, encouragement for little bits is fine (but constructive only for the ego!), criticizing is constructive, when the most is fine. I am more an individualist than a social animal. PP
- I am not SchroCat, even the same voo-doo would not help on my TP.
You don't need help. - I didn't feel stigmatized, - where's the difference? GA
??? I do need help against the regulars, virtuously juggling acronyms, I am stigmatized by the blockers and templaters. PP
- I do assume good faith (any meaning for the wink in Smiley's eye?). RexxS and Pigsonthewings (you too, Bruta?) are full of good faith that it is best for WP to keep any voice against broad application of IBs, e.g. me, silent, if not silence it at all (I did not read at length the link you provided, is Pigs on the warpath again?).
Good if you do. Somehow it didn't come across too strongly. GA
Ah, I see, I should've started to summon others for factually nothing to WP:ANI, and template them, just so they know that they are under scrutiny now, and are not tempted to behave wrongly, and thus my good faith came across strongly. :\ PP
- I was not aware of the DS, but it fully had sufficed to informally let me know about them. Neither templating me for a settled matter(Pigs), nor overstretching "legal threat" to get me erroneously indef'd(Pigs in revenge), nor templating me for DS (RexxS), evidenced a slightest trace of them assuming good faith on my side, with respect to my insinuated or anticipated WP-crimes. It is not true, that all these things are purely informational and are no harm, no, they impress inextinguishable stigmata on me, that found already (cited above: guidance, logs) good use by RexxS. All in the name of their "good faith", and assuming lack of it on my side. Assuming "good faith" in the sense that the opposing side would support the other side, is ridiculous. The good faith of those talking soft, but carrying a beagle is sh*t, I prefer clear wording, and avoiding intimidation and, of course, violence.
DS: without the template (= the awareness), the rules can't be applied, but as long as you don't do anything "wrong", they will not be applied. GA
What do you not understand in "informally let me know", "assuming slightest trace of good faith on my side", "impress inextinguishable stigmata", "cited above: guidance, logs", "carrying a beagle is sh*t"? PP
- There are people, I'd really would like to know better, but betrügst du mich einmal, Deine Schuld, betrügst du mich zweimal, Meine Schuld. So there are people where I do not pursue this interest.
You are cordially welcome on my TP. Purgy (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome ;) - How do you like Boing's comment that I fondly remembered (and found!) 5 years later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

### Re "statement by Boing"

I am strongly averse against all these events on drama boards, so I won't dig into the real cause. As a resume from just the short paragraph: I do not like it at all.

- "I'll be more than sad - I'll be disgusted.": This is not only an attack on judges' empathy (sad), but also an inappropriate attack on their authority, in case of a "wrong"(!) (disgusting) outcome.
- "obviously an improvement ..." in this context is obviously a bias, requesting forbearance, because imposing the own POV is under indictment. Must it be really "obvious" that the others are degrading something? What is obvious to whom?
- "pedantic process-wonkery, personal vendettas, ashamed of yourselves, clearly only desire to improve the encyclopedia": I'm sufficiently vain to appropriate the last phrase, and impute the first three to my opponents, at least for the sake of the (my) argument.

Does the end really justify the means, should there be a Jesuit reduction of the IB-opposers?

### Should we stop the exchange?

It appears to me as obvious that we disagree not only on IBs, but also on the valuation of sanctions applied to editors, effects of warnings and informational templates, on individuality vs sociality, and, ..., you name it. It is just our (may I say this?) similar cultural background, or decent upbringing (who knows?) that allows a civilized exchange. I see no interest on your side to accept, or just reflect on my problems with people you seem to hold dear, and (sadly ;) ) I rather would require their apologies than being interested in getting them to know better (but I am not disgusted). I do not feel safe in this now already repeatedly described environment and with the not well understood winks in your smileys.

In any case, you remain welcome on my TP. Purgy (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You decide if we stop. I tried to make you understand something, but you didn't look. (You looked at Boing's statement but not at what caused it, which seems to make little sense, to me. This seems better than this, by all standards I can think of, but you may have different ones. The edit taken to Arbitration Enforcement was formatting an infobox properly that someone else had added.)
Your choice if we continue. - I am no friend of the formality of Arbitration (an institution I didn't know until 3 years into my wiki-life, and I lived happier without it), but it's there. A DS template is part of it, an informal notice is not enough, do you understand? I hope you don't seriously expect an apology for applying the protocols of arbitration. You will be disappointed if you do.
I thank you for having thought about it. Everybody is welcome on my user page. In 10 years of history, there was one comment so bad (about a friend) that I deleted it (but restored it later). There was one so hurtful (about a friend who had just died) that I archived it quickly. "Every editor is a human being." - I had that quoted in my edit notice until quite recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Gerda Arendt, I take it as in my interest (quiescat consentire videtur) and even responsibility to refute unfounded accusations and to refer to open questions put on my TP:

• I was pointed explicitly to a specific comment and I valuated it to my measures. My verdict was formulated without any necessity of referring to the negotiated cause (I vaguely suspect it was the formal breach of a topic ban). Even when fully agreeing to the quality judgement above, I do not agree to the comment being bound to the matters of fact, instead it is strongly appealing to emotions, favouring distinctly the commenter's preferred outcome. The comment does not mention whether the accused matter is only "formally" a breach of rules, just a minor breach, does not invoke any extenuating causes, or anything along legally important lines, it is just claiming how unjust, verbally "disgusting", any measures against its intentions were. Nothing of this is bad to any of my measures, but it is no good plea, imho, so I do not like it. I explicitly do not comment on the outcome of the cause. There is nothing in this fight of regulars (a topic ban must have a history, I am not interested in) at the local High Court that is common with the successful attack on my immaculacy, and is therefore worth to show me. I am disinterested in getting shown the unrighteousness in this world.
• NO, I do not understand a neutral necessity of templating me. Assuming the slightest trace of good faith on my side, an informal note would have sufficed to make me know. Of course, it may appear useful for pro-IB-warriors to put as many IB-antagonists as possible under supervision. Putting a DS template on my TP and soon afterwards referring in an pertinent suggestive tone to my "guidance, logs, etc." are unnecessary, offensive acts, putting me for one year at a higher risk level. I can't hear anymore that those in good conduct have nothing to be afraid of (never seen admins go rampant?). Just for me arguing strictly against this template on that article I was put at risk by some pro-IB warriors. MarkH21 put his IB on FLT. I was not given any reasoned argument yet, why I should not call this a bold edit. I even call this a bizarre edit because of the discussion at WT:PM, dismissive wrt to any use of this template. Nevertheless, it is an edit fully de rigeur. I reverted, unluckily with a mistakable summary. There is to my knowledge no rule, why this revert could be taken as unruly for its summary not being fully unmistakable. As in the rules suggested, a (somewhat hostile) discussion on the TP commenced. Even after uttering my wish for a change of and an apology for my bad summary, my edit, reverting fully de rigeur, is still depicted there as inappropriate and the retorsions are partly based on this.
• NO, I certainly never ever did expect any apology. In my experience, people doing the things above (among your friends?) do not apologize.

On an aside, I do not strive the least to acquire any capabilities, not to mention art, to take undeserved criticism undisputedly from those who do not belong to my loved ones. I am not hooked on WP. Purgy (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope I won't disappoint you too much confessing that with every response longer than the one before, I am afraid I won't have the patience to read it fully and with the attention to detail in which you will have written it. My command of English is not up to your vocabulary, and my free time not sufficient right now to look things up.
1. I accept your comment to Boing's comment, but not "formal breach of a topic ban". As RexxS explained (a little above Boing in the same AE discussion), and as the admins accepted in closing without punishment, there was no formal breach, although it looked like one when looking superficially.
2. I may be wrong assuming (as I do) that a DS warning has to be given formally in template form in order to be actionable, and ask Bishonen for guidance in that particular question.
3. Fine if you don't expect apologies, - I must have misunderstood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

## My state of being "warned"

This new section is mainly for a terminatory revisiting of a story, initiated in the thread about Discretionary Sanctions alert and continued in the thread above, in which I am continuously, substantially, and potentially even intentionally misinterpreted, in part by simply truncating facts. It was triggered by the comment by (courtesy ping), refactored from immediately above to here. I do not assume that this refactoring violates any rules and is not fully de rigeur. Purgy (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I archived some of the long thread on my talk. - In reply to your last comment there (I understood that you wished to be not in a state to be warned ...): The warnings go to everybody who comes near the danger, regardless of "state", - it's meant to prevent harm. I hope you are in a state to understand that. - And yes. Bishonen said it has to be formal, and an arb told me in which arbcom case the DS were installed, - it was in 2018, and I had already forgotten because I had nothing to do with it, happily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thank you again, for not only warning me of a potentially dead link caused by any archiving, but especially for the kindness of repairing this situation. I fully understand your desire to clean up the clutter I left. However, for documentary reason for myself, I feel obliged to rebut your shortened view on this "warning", and repeatedly point to the expansions, which are constantly swept under the rug, on the state I am in after this hostile act. For the time being, I expect (hope?) this to be my last comment on a development that I perceive as an absolutely unfounded, but widespread hostility under the mask of conserving a valuable encyclopedia against a horde of uncivilized apes, unable to believe in the eternal good announced by those of good will.

>> soon to be elaborated << ... would be fighting against windmills, considering the prejudice, again manifest in the post below. Purgy (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
In your writing in this matter, the word "hostile" appears often, sharpened by "widespread". - Warning you - as I see it - was done in the interest of your "safety". What is in the way of you seeing that? - Iridescent suggested to talk to you in German, but I don't think this is overly complicated in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

your comment above saves me from elaborating as announced: it appears to me now as meaningless, reformulating for the umpteenth time my efforts to explicate my deteriorated position in WP, caused by several actions concerning my editorship in WP. It will also safe myself from the task to disprove time and again all the untenable claims, like the word "hostile" appears often, sharpened by "widespread" (I used "hostile" twice in my TP and in your TP in the identical settings of me being templated; I ascribed it once to the discussion on the TP of FLT (see yourself: I was uninvolved!), and the term widespread hostility I used exactly once, for WP's necessity of e.g. two arbcom cases for IBs); or like warnings go to everybody who comes near the danger, regardless of "state" which insinuates that I was "near danger". BTW, the scare quotes in this thread are seriously intentional. It's a pity, if I exceeded someone's attention span, but it is beyond me to explain my cause shorter, better, more clear, more basic, ..., at least in English.

Everyone can safely assume that I am not a linas-type, even when I consider his contributions of greater value than all the DYKs in whole WP. RIP! I have no unquenchable desire to express my opinion on other editors. Purgy (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

## Spline page array index

Hey, I notice you undid my edit, commenting that there is no ${\displaystyle \alpha _{i-1}}$ for ${\displaystyle i=1}$; however, all of the other arrays in this description appear to be indexed from zero, and in fact, ${\displaystyle \alpha }$ is actually zero-indexed in step one. Additionally, I have just implemented this algorithm in Common Lisp (my code can be found here), and it fails to work with ${\displaystyle \alpha _{i}}$ (as there is no ${\displaystyle \alpha _{k-1}}$), but works perfectly with ${\displaystyle \alpha _{i-1}}$. Goose121 (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It's about this edit. It is correct that all of the other arrays in this description appear to be indexed from zero, (emphasis mine), but it is not true that ${\displaystyle \alpha }$ is actually zero-indexed in step one. Step one is about an array called a, which unluckily looks very similar to α. The array a is indexed from zero, but the array α is not. I will edit α to β to make the difference more obvious. I do not doubt that your implementation works, but I am convinced that the current description is correct, and maybe describes a different implementation of an equivalent algorithm. I will copy all this to the pertinent TP and suggest to continue there any following discussion of this matter. Purgy (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

## DYK

Did you know that I do a daily little DYK article as kind of exercise, and looking for someone to thank the same? The higher goal is advanced quality. I like the concept of peer review, when others are invited to comment how an article could be improved. I have one open, feel free to comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

well, not that explicitely. Now I know that you don't shy away from iterative (or recursive?) DYKs about DYKs. I explictly do not know the meaning of the phrase looking for someone to thank the same. I do not like either, neither DYKs nor peer reviews. The former is simple disinterest, the latter is complicated: besides disliking the concept, I am no match for you in writing DYKs, I am rather ignoble, and I've seen too many peer reviews to believe in any value at average of them. I've even read several (pseudo-)theoretical rubbish papers about peer reviewing as asessment, the way that EDs do science, on this topic. Nothing compares to a well-founded, scientific valuation of an expert, maybe two (not such "lies-damned lies-studies", published by those governing the current mean -no- mainstream). As a weak exchange I offer you another hero of mine: user:silly rabbit.
I am aware that I might have -time and again- overstretched your interest in my statements. Purgy (talk)
I like this statement, and understand. I obviously failed saying clearly enough that DYK (Did you know?, like these) is only something small and unimportant for me, no more than a daily exercise. - I like peer reviews, and the collaboration in them, - certainly not the same in all of them, but one can always try. This one is a new topic for FA, no standards established yet, so I am interested in the reactions of outsiders. What I also like about peer reviews is that you can add just one observation, unlike GA reviews where you are responsible for the whole thing, - something I refuse to do because my English is simply not god enough. - I am mourning Michael Gielen and promise to make more of his article. - Thank you for your hero, - made me smile. My most missed friend has a similar name. At some point he had enough of this "community", with reason. I miss him anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I liked the peer review for Rossini, an article that just became "featured". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)