User talk:Qflib/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Qflib. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Your submission at Articles for creation: Philip Bunker has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bkissin (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)- Thanks! I'm happy to help. KeeYou Flib (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Getting in touch
I have been trying to find an apprpriate citation proving that Philip Bunker was at Battersea Grammar School I have found the following https://www.oldgrammarians.org.uk/cgi-bin/ School_Magazines_Images_View.asp?PIM=Battersea%20Grammar%20School\1959\00000495.TIF Can that be used? Are any other citations required? Cheers Phil Bunker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkerpr (talk • contribs) 13:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- This looks fine to me. I'll add this to your page. KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like you already added it yourself. PLEASE stop editing your own page. I don't want you to be censured or something. KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Is this where I can send you a message? If so please tell me using xxxx and I can fill you in with details. Phil Bunker (sometime adjunct professor at Carleton University for the purpose of supervising graduate students. And a person who likes to add infoprmation to Wikipedia rather than remove it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkerpr (talk • contribs) 19:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, fyi this is a public page where anyone worldwide can see what you post, so you might not want to put your email address here (I took the liberty of xing it out above). Anyway, I'm glad to hear from you and keen to help improve the page about you (after all, I'm the one who wrote it in the first place!) but all wikipedia discussions need to happen on wikipedia, not "offline" via email. Also, the best place to discuss needful changes to a wikipedia page about yourself is to the "Talk" page connected to the actual article. That way all editors (not just me) can see it. All you'd have to do is ask for changes to be made, and then either I or other editors can make them as needed. KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Based on your comments above, as well as on the fact that I now know that it's you who have made the edits, I've made some changes to the page that I think work well. If you could just clarify the business about being an adjunct at Carleton it would be helpful since there's nothing on your web site or theirs to confirm that. Do these individuals list you on their web sites or online CVs as their thesis advisor? That would help a bunch. Also the students listed there will all have to be checked to see if they meet Wikipedia's unique criteria for "notability"since they don't have wikipedia pages of their own (yet?) - they they don't meet the criteria they have to be removed. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! This is Phil Bunker again. Maybe the template on my wiki can now be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkerpr (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- First and foremost, and I say this with greatest respect, you've got to stop editing your own page. The editors have already warned you that this is a violation of Wikipedia's policies, and there's no way that template will be removed as long as you keep editing the page yourself. You have already been flagged for this: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bunkerpr#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest. If I remove the warning template while you're still editing the page as you see fit, someone else will just put it back up again. KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
From Phil Bunker. Citation number 1 does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkerpr (talk • contribs) 15:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed, although I had to move it to "External links" since it does not seem to properly format as a reference. Incidentally, it's traditional to add comments to the bottom of a talk page section, not the top. No problem from my end, I'll just keep moving it down. KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
From PRBunker again. So my attempt to improve the opening paragraph of the Wiki for Christopher Longuet-Higgins has simply been removed. Maybe you can put back what I wrote and please edit it if you think it needs it. I won't bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkerpr (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I have spent some time rewriting bits of the wiki on molecular symmetry. I really hope that nobody just deletes the result without thought and with little deep knowledge of the subject. I am really trying to make it clearer and more correct for the student. I am user bunkerpr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkerpr (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you've gone ahead and made additional edits, so I have left it alone.
- I also see that you removed the box on the Philip Bunker web page. Once again, please stop editing your own page. When you are one of the parties involved in a controversy, you are not supposed to take actions like that. Remember - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bunkerpr#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest - you have a conflict of interest with regard to this page, and you should leave it strictly alone. Let someone else- myself or a different editor - make changes as needed. KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Schwartz (engineer) has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Theroadislong (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)- Thanks! I'm happy to help. KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Double group
Thank you for your work on double group. Unfortunately a serious issue remains.
It concerns contributions from user Mathsci. This user has added two sections which are completely irrelevant. The 2nd and 3rd sections are off-topic and contain no reference to double groups or any in-line citations. I deleted them with an explanation on the article talk page. They were immediately reinstated, without explanation.
As far as I know, the only example of an application with a double group occurs in magnetochemistry, as described in first section of the article, which I created and wrote to deal with it. I can claim some expertise. My book "Vibrating molecules" (1971) contains detailed chapters on theory and applications of group theory in chemistry.
I wish to avoid an editor war. With great reluctance, I must add that the named user has been banned from editing WP articles on a previous occasion.
Please reply on my talk page. Petergans (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done. KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- An AfD was started for "Double group" by D.Lazard. Various users contributed to that discussion, but User:Petergans seems not to have acknowledged that these terms are well understood in physics and mathematics. That was explained carefully in the AfD discussion, where, apart from Petergans, there was WP:consensus.
- The conclusion of the AfD was not that Petergans could create arbitrary content on Double group. Four mainstream text books in physics and one in mathematics appear in the reference section and describe in great detail double groups (character tables of crystallographic point groups and the double groups). SO(3) and its double cover SU(2) are discussed in undergraduate courses (some using unit quaternions). Their representation theory is part of second year quantum mechanics and angular momentum, including spin representations, character formulas and Clebsch-Gordon rules; similarly the character theory of finite groups is taught in undergraduate mathematics courses. Cornwell's "Group theory in physics. Vol. 1", and the four other books, covers both the theory and its applications, sometimes in a pedestrian way. The finite groups studied in physics, material sciences, chemistry, etc are subject to crystallographic restriction rules (possible orders of group elements are 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6).
- Petergans' edits are disruptive because he has attempted to delete content and references to text books on physics and mathematics that unambiguously discuss double groups; and because so far his edits show no coherent sentence about "double groups" in the lead. Declaring that these references and subject matter are irrelevant is hard to understand in scientific terms. Until fairly recently, there was mathematical expertise on this topic at the University of Leeds (quivers and the MacKay correspondence, see here); given that all those text books are readily available in several of the university's libraries and online on bookos, why have all these text books and their content been deemed to be irrelevant? On wikipedia, the standard process, when editors question the relevance of references, is to list those references on WP:RSN—in this case the five text books and Bethe's 1929 article in German and English. Given the AfD and Petergans' deletions, there is a possibility that the article will be either speedily deleted or subjected to a further AfD. Mathsci (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Although I agree that deletions were not the best way to address the issue of a lack of clarity in the article, the fact is that clarity is still needed. It should not be necessary for a general Wikipedia user to read an entire textbook on group theory to understand why the latter two sections of the article are connected to the topic at hand, i.e., a double group. Rather than writing for an audience of experts, Wikipedia is best served by our writing for an audience of generalists who become interested in a topic and want to learn more about it. Would it really be so bad to add a couple of clarifying sentences to the article in order to improve it? KeeYou Flib (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Petergans' edits are disruptive because he has attempted to delete content and references to text books on physics and mathematics that unambiguously discuss double groups; and because so far his edits show no coherent sentence about "double groups" in the lead. Declaring that these references and subject matter are irrelevant is hard to understand in scientific terms. Until fairly recently, there was mathematical expertise on this topic at the University of Leeds (quivers and the MacKay correspondence, see here); given that all those text books are readily available in several of the university's libraries and online on bookos, why have all these text books and their content been deemed to be irrelevant? On wikipedia, the standard process, when editors question the relevance of references, is to list those references on WP:RSN—in this case the five text books and Bethe's 1929 article in German and English. Given the AfD and Petergans' deletions, there is a possibility that the article will be either speedily deleted or subjected to a further AfD. Mathsci (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
For the record, due to the edit warring that's been happening on that page, I refuse to have anything to do with any of this until everyone decides to work collaboratively. Please refrain from posting here as well. KeeYou Flib (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Jiří Čížek has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Rusalkii (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)- Thank you! Glad I could help with this. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Radian
Hi Qflib. I have had problems editing the Wiki on the radian. You can review the history. The article by Mohr and Phillips is not fringe theory (Phillips is a Nobel Laureate) and I think it, and its views, should be referenced in the interests of giving the reader a complete picture of the problems that arise because of the SI convention of making angular measure dimensionless. Can you do anything about making the Radian Wiki more balanced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkerpr (talk • contribs) 13:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, this is not something I have expertise in. My first advice is to choose your battles and listen to what other editors are saying even if you strongly disagree.
- In my opinion the best way to deal with edit conflict issues is to have a polite discussion with the person(s) who disagree with you, either on the talk page for the article or on their own talk page if that is active. Sometimes this fails, I know, but sometimes it succeeds, and it's worth doing in order to avoid WP:edit warring.
- Also, I recommend that you avoid citing your papers or those of your close collaborators if possible, to avoid accusations of WP:COI. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Lennard-Jonesium
you left the following note on the Lennard-Jones potential article: "The meaning of the phrase "theoretical chemical element" needs clarification if it is to remain in the article." Thank you for that valuable comment and thank you for mentioning this relevant point. However, I think, discussing/ explaining this in detail in the abstract here would cause only noise in the text. I think the clarification of this could go in a footenote or in the main text section. What do you think? The text go something like this
"Chemical elements are indicated by 'ium' endings [Koppenol, W.; Corish, J.; Garcia-Martinez, J.; Meija, J.; Reedijk, J. How to Name new Chemical Elements (IUPAC Recommendations 2016). Pure Appl. Chem. 2016, 88, 401−405]. The Lennard-Jones fluid itsself is of such fundamental importance that is it often called 'Lennard-Jonesium' in publications to indicate or imply that the properties of the Lennard-Jones substance itsself are what is of interest and this fictitious substance is actually viewed as a chemical element itself. "
Of course there are many many references available using the term 'Lennard-Jonesium' and that in combintaion with the above reference ('ium' ending for chemical element names) exactly indicates that the Lennard-Jones substance is viewed by scientists as 'fictitious' or theoretical element. --TimeStep89 (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think your edit improved the problem and is sufficient as far as I'm concerned. I'm well aware of what you're talking about, but just because I'm an "expert" - and Wikipedia is designed for everyone, not just experts, so it is important to be crystal clear. Anyway, I actually just went to remove the "Needs clarification" tag but you edited it and added an unusual amount of text into it (which I confess, I did not read-messages like that belong on talk pages IMO). Anyway, feel free to remove the tag if you like. Happy editing. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, if you read my note at the top, I've asked that discussions like this not happen on my talk page. Please put notices like these on the article talk page, not on personal pages. That way other editors can see the exchange and weigh in. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
HBJ Hamiltonian
citation: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0016365 There are many more if you want it but this is one of the more recent 2607:FEA8:BDA0:13F0:9A9:6810:3125:B7F2 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) This message is from bunkerpr
- If there are changes you'd like made, please request them on the article's talk page, not here. You have every right to request changes, but those requests cannot happen on individual user pages. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have given up on Wikipedia. Writing books is less frustrating and more useful. I do object to you having removed reference to the HBJ Hamiltonian in my Wikipedia page. It is well cited in the literature and is something I am proud of!! Bunkerpr (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is why it’s not appropriate for you to edit an encyclopedia page written about yourself. If this particular Hamiltonian is truly notable, then there should be a Wikipedia page about it that stands alone. Then it would be obvious that it should be specifically pointed out in the page. Without that, it smacks of self-promotion. Of course, I could be wrong about that, but this is one of several reasons why you need to make your case on the article talk page, not here. If other editors agree with you, then they’ll say so and action can be taken. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have three graduate students and they could be put in. The citation would be https://mathgenealogy.org/id.php?id=262707 Bunkerpr (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- As I said above: "If there are changes you'd like made, please request them on the article's talk page, not here. You have every right to request changes, but those requests cannot happen on individual user pages." Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Fine. So maybe you can put back the text introducing the HBJ Hamiltonian using the citation http://acronymsandslang.com/definition/4642636/HBJ-meaning.html
- and add it to the 'known for' list. I have added this to the talk page of the article.
- Cheers
- Phil Bunker Bunkerpr (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- As I said above: "If there are changes you'd like made, please request them on the article's talk page, not here. You have every right to request changes, but those requests cannot happen on individual user pages." Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing from you on the talk page for the article, which is here: Talk:Philip_Bunker. Perhaps you put something onto your own user talk page? BTW, that source is not reliable. Its contents can be supplied by anyone who wishes to provide content to it. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I do have a suggestion. If you are up for it, you could develop a description of the HBJ Hamiltonian which would be suitable for inclusion on the existing Wikipedia page molecular Hamiltonian, complete with citations - this would immediately follow the description of the Watson Hamiltonian that is already on that page. Then everyone would benefit from a summary of your work, and it would be easy to link to that description from your bio page. I suggest that you develop such a description in your sandbox, and when you are happy with it, I can review it and put it in the molecular Hamiltonian page and make the other changes as well. That way there will be no doubt in anyone's mind as to notability, and no one will unfairly accuse you of self-citation or self-promotion. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for visiting my Guest Room!
I hope you enjoyed your stay in my guest room.
Here is an ice-cold glass of lemonade as a thank you, complimentary.
Visiting my guest room also means you've gained a new talk page watcher! ––FormalDude talk 11:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Mm good, cheers! Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely some good suggestions on here, thanks! Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Andrew Gordon (British Army officer) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kron Gracie on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Evangelos Zappas on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- declined. that rfc is...interesting. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Benevolent dictatorship on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:John Harbord, 8th Baron Suffield on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jason David Frank on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maurice Mehl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burlingame High School.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- thanks bot - its been fixed Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Editing the wiki page about oneself
See https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64033028 for the ridiculousness of not being an expert on one's own biography according to Wikipedia, and, therefore, not being able to do such editing! 2607:FEA8:BDA0:13F0:65EC:270E:129F:96F9 (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't make the rules, and if you disagree with them I strongly encourage you to bring your concerns to the attention of the Wikipedia administrators.
- I think the idea is that editing one's own article can lead to self-aggrandizement that is inappropriate for a Wikipedia page, and hence the policy. It's nothing to do with concerns about inaccuracy, since only confirmable facts belong in an article. I don't know if you saw that in the USA wee've had problems with a politician who claimed all sorts of interesting things about themselves that turned out to not be true (George Santos). People can, and do, lie about themselves and exaggerate their own accomplishments.
- Finally, I think it's important to keep in mind that these pages are not biographies. A Wikipedia page is an encyclopedia entry, and that's not the same thing. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Franz Schubert on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Verifiability
Hi Qflib. You removed a couple of cn tags that I had added over at Daniel Lazard. While I am aware that the subject added that information himself some time ago, and it is not promotional etc (so the level of sourcing required is not high); I don't think that it satisfies verifiability as stands. Am I missing something? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- I feel that basic biographical data, when confirmed by the subject on the talk page, need not be supported by citations. If you feel strongly otherwise you may put the tags back again. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Feeling strongly about it is an exaggeration, but I did revert to re-add the tags. I'm not suggesting that we remove these facts by any means, but it would be worthwhile to source them, at least to the subjects CV or an interview or other WP:SPS. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I don’t disagree, but marking facts as needing citation can result in their eventual deletion, which to me doesn’t seem warranted. Anyway, I will defer. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Russ, did you see the note recently posted in Talk:Daniel Lazard? Given our exchange here I’m not sure how to respond to it. Your input would be valued. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Qflib, thanks for bringing this up. I saw the note, and have been intending to get back to it. I looked through in detail, and it looked like part of the edit was completely uncomplicated to make. The other part I'm not entirely sure about, but I found a possibly-useful link in the ENS library. (See the talk page.) Note that a library record for a thesis is a secondary source (although the thesis itself is primary). I'll also put a note about the cn tags on the talk page -- I think we agree that the material belongs in the article, and also that it should at least ideally have an external place where one can verify it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:OffSec on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pelé on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Victor Salva on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Libreboot on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- This turned out to be a misfired request. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Three bad correction made to my wiki page (Philip Bunker) by Grimes2.
The previous way my talk at The Ohio State University was referenced was correct. If you ask people at 'The Ohio State University' at Columbus what their university is called you will find out that the 'the' is necessary(!). Also the use of upper case letters for the title looks stupid. And the reference to the fact that the talk was at the spectroscopy meeting is important. 2607:FEA8:BDA0:13F0:1C59:7589:D781:F635 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Also the youtube video used to start at the correct place. It seems to me that all three of Grimes2 changes should be undone. It maybe that a student of mine will see these incorrect changes and undo them.
- I agree with you about OSU, but there are several editors lurking about who make these sorts of changes. Apparently using "The" conflicts with the official Wikipedia Manual of Style but I couldn't tell you where off the top.
- The new YouTube link style is also something that's being required by Wikipedia for some reason, and YouTube links can no longer start in the middle of a video. I think that this is being implemented site-wide.
- The use of uppercase only does indeed look ugly, I feel like I can go in and change that out of hand - will do that now. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. It looks better now, and thanks for the info about Wiki style requirements. Bunkerpr (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ernest Edmonds and I are cousins. It would seem relevant to put that in since both of us have Wiki pages. But Grimes2 disagrees. That is a pity. It is totally subjective as to what is relevant and of interest. Of course, I do not know of a citation for this. Any suggestions? Bunkerpr (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- You'd have to ask him directly but I think Grimes2 thinks it's not relevant to your page, absent a professional relationship in addition to your personal one. For example, if your cousin and you had collaborated on artwork, or on science, or something interdisciplinary, that would be relevant. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Also, if you had close family ties which are documented, that might make it more relevant because it was an important part of your biography. For example, if you grew up in your uncle's home and your cousin was like a brother, those would become important biographical details and could be kept. That sort of thing. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hard pass! Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Family of Joe Biden on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mikhail Baryshnikov on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
red links in wikipedia
Please don't remove red links pointing to not-yet-existing articles which should eventually exist. See WP:RED: "remove red links if and only if Wikipedia should not have any coverage on the subject".
In particular, all of the subjects which were red linked from Color science are clearly notable subjects for which verifiable sources certainly exist. They are currently red because nobody has made the effort to create them yet. But when editors come across red links, they might be encouraged to try. –jacobolus (t) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you say so. I can't help but wonder why no one has made that effort. Can you shed light on that? Pun intended. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Color science is a relatively small/obscure field (despite its applications to tools and systems people interact with every day), with only a few journals, a few conferences, and a few graduate programs around the world. The preeminent journals aren't even necessarily subscribed to by many large universities. Wikipedia articles about all sorts of color science topics range from altogether missing to substantially incomplete. Subjects that are the topics of whole fat textbooks have just a few paragraphs here. Researchers who have won the field's top awards, run their own research labs, etc., still don't have articles about them yet. And so on.
- (This is not by any means unique to color science; there are many similarly sustantial subjects that nobody has bothered to make good Wikipedia articles about yet. Wikipedia has some excellent articles scattered here and there, but is by no means comprehensive or universally high-quality.) –jacobolus (t) 21:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Clarification requested on spurious and specious rps?
I am at a loss as how the various Template:Rp used for a reference on the Gano Dunn page were either spurious or specious as noted in the Edit summaries.
Looking up the meaning of the terms (see following), I am left with the implication that the rp's were removed as being being false. Perhaps I misunderstanding this?
spurious
spyoo͝r′ē-əs
adjective
- Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine.
- Not trustworthy; dubious or fallacious.
- Born to unwed parents.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
specious
spē′shəs
adjective
- Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious.
- Deceptively appealing.
- Presenting a pleasing appearance; pleasing in form or look; showy.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
Which of the meanings support the removal of the rp templates which reference page numbers in the online PDF copy of the source cited? Were they "Born to unwed parents" ☺ :-)
I understand that copy editing brings clarity to Wikipedia, and therefore watch page edits to improve my own edits. As an example, I am repeatedly awestruck at the amazing edits to the page on John M. Conroy which I started back in 2010.
As I strive to improve with my own Wikipedia edits, I ask, when you have time, might you explain the Edit summaries, as they unclear to me?
Wishing you happy edits... --Lent (talk) Lent (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Those edits were made a long time ago but I think that they may refer to numbers that appeared to not actually link to citations. Those don't belong according to the MOS, because they can't update as more citations are added. If you want to fix them and connect them to formatted citations so that the numbers auto-update, then that would be appropriate. But I had no way of knowing which citation connected to which number without extensive research. At least that's how I remember my POV when carrying out those edits. Anyway, restoring the citation numbers with actual formatted citations would be a big improvement to the article. Cheers! Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding the primary use of Template:Rp. The number following the colon after the source number is the page number in the source of the citation. I could see the confusion as page 31 in the source is sheet 3 in the PDF, and first two PDF sheets (Title and Frontispiece) are unnumbered.
- As a note, if new citations are added, the page number will remain the same, but the citation number will automatically change.
- So no worries.
- I think I see what happened. The first source link was redirected as the domain was re-used. The page numbers therefore
- made no sense. The new site does have the original source, but with a different URL. I'll correct that.
- Thanks for the quick reply.
- Lent (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- You’re welcome. Incidentally you may not have been aware of it, but your initial tone came off as a little condescending. It’s not the best way to collaborate with other editors. Particularly on my own talk page. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
correction to wiki for philip bunker.
Battersea grammar school website has been renamed to bgsoldgrammarians.org Can you correct it? Bunkerpr (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was able to fix the second of the two links, but the first one apparently was not fixable simply by changing the domain name. If you can provide the correct link to the image, I can do the rest. Cheers Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am having a hard time with this but will persevere! Bunkerpr (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe the third External link should be just to the Old Grammarians website by writing it as
- See 1959 Battersea Grammar School magazine at https://bgsoldgrammarians.org/homepage/bgs-magazines/ Bunkerpr (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Should say "See Autumn Term 1959 Battersea..." Bunkerpr (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am having a hard time with this but will persevere! Bunkerpr (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Ref 16 should have link to https://www.wiley.com/en-br/Computational+Molecular+Spectroscopy-p-9780471489986 the current link has expired with Prof Jensen, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunkerpr (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I believe this is now fixed. Cheers! Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Polyvagal theory on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Joseph Stalin on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)