Jump to content

User talk:SocraticOath

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

Welcome!

[edit]

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

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SocraticOath, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi SocraticOath! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Redirect

[edit]

Hi and welcome. To make a page be an automatic redirect (we just call them plain old "redirect"), just make an empty page with this one line complete with all the [ and # symbols:

#REDIRECT [[Target-article-name-here]]

Thanks, and again welcome! CrowCaw 22:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

S&P Dow Jones Indices
added links pointing to Index and Indices
Ngee Ann Kongsi
added a link pointing to Teochew

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 13 March

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Greetings, Thanks for referencing the article “Grey box completion and validation”. It made me aware the article was available. Your link has now been removed together with others. I have approached Wikipedia for advice regarding these actions See below. I do not understand why there could be such a bias against the article.

info-en-v@wikimedia.org

Removal of relevant links Greetings

I was notified by email “Grey box completion and validation” (previously an orphan) had been linked to “Model theory”. Possibly not the most relevant link there, but relevant for a wider interpretation of model theory. Until this notification I was not aware this item was available on Wikipedia.

Having made several further relevant “See also” links (important as grey box information is not common, although much used informally) I find these have been systematically removed (see below). I had understood inter linking was an important part of Wikipedia.

I do not wish to be involved remove/restore warfare so seek your advice how to proceed. I note the person involved does not have/use a talk page.

In particular: Are the additional links appropriate? How can the links be reconnected without the likelihood of being removed again by the same parson? Does Wikipedia have a method of resolving this? Should I remake the links?

Regards Copy: User:SocraticOath


Model theory

• (cur | prev) 05:36, 10 March 2015‎ 109.144.177.32 (talk)‎ . . (33,980 bytes) (-41)‎ . . (→‎See also: remove irrelevant Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

• (cur | prev) 17:44, 24 February 2015‎ SocraticOath (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,021 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (→‎See also) (undo)

Mathematical model

• (cur | prev) 05:37, 10 March 2015‎ 109.144.177.32 (talk)‎ . . (30,560 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (→‎See also: add System identification, and delete Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

• (cur | prev) 06:21, 7 March 2015‎ 60.240.149.42 (talk)‎ . . (30,573 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (→‎See also: Added see also * Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

Realization (systems)

• (cur | prev) 05:21, 10 March 2015‎ 109.144.177.32 (talk)‎ . . (4,328 bytes) (-43)‎ . . (→‎See also: single column; add System identification, and delete Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

• (cur | prev) 06:33, 7 March 2015‎ BillWhiten (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,371 bytes) (+135)‎ . . (Added "See also" section and references) (undo)

Estimation theory

• (cur | prev) 05:13, 10 March 2015‎ 109.144.177.32 (talk)‎ . . (15,516 bytes) (-41)‎ . . (→‎See also: remove Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

• (cur | prev) 14:24, 8 March 2015‎ 46.65.23.141 (talk)‎ . . (15,557 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎See also) (undo)

• (cur | prev) 06:39, 7 March 2015‎ BillWhiten (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,557 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (→‎See also: Added see also * Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

Nonlinear system identification

• (cur | prev) 05:14, 10 March 2015‎ 109.144.177.32 (talk)‎ . . (15,371 bytes) (-41)‎ . . (→‎See also: remove Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

• (cur | prev) 06:43, 7 March 2015‎ BillWhiten (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (15,412 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (Added see also) (undo)

System dynamics

• (cur | prev) 05:22, 10 March 2015‎ 109.144.177.32 (talk)‎ . . (22,212 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (→‎See also: →‎See also: add System identification, and delete Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

• (cur | prev) 06:49, 7 March 2015‎ BillWhiten (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,226 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (→‎See also: Added * Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

Systems theory

• (cur | prev) 05:26, 10 March 2015‎ 109.144.177.32 (talk)‎ . . (34,426 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (→‎See also: add System identification, and delete Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

• (cur | prev) 06:53, 7 March 2015‎ BillWhiten (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (34,439 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (→‎See also: Added see also * Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

Statistical model

• (cur | prev) 10:45, 9 March 2015‎ 109.154.56.141 (talk)‎ . . (12,121 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (→‎See also: add System identification, remove Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

• (cur | prev) 06:59, 7 March 2015‎ BillWhiten (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (12,102 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (→‎See also: Added see also * Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

Simulation

• (cur | prev) 05:24, 10 March 2015‎ 109.144.177.32 (talk)‎ . . (84,685 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (→‎See also: add System identification, delete Grey box completion and validation, and sort) (undo)

• (cur | prev) 07:14, 7 March 2015‎ BillWhiten (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (84,698 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (→‎See also: added * Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

Design of experiments

• (cur | prev) 05:32, 10 March 2015‎ 109.144.177.32 (talk)‎ . . (38,896 bytes) (-38)‎ . . (→‎See also: add System identification, delete Grey box completion and validation, and make 2-column) (undo)

• (cur | prev) 07:18, 7 March 2015‎ BillWhiten (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (38,934 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (→‎See also: added * Grey box completion and validation) (undo)

BillWhiten (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings, In reply to you comments: 1 The topic is not controversial in fact unknown would be a more apt description. 2 I have no idea who might be inspired to remove references, but note System identification was being added.

Following a reply to email to Wikipedia which suggested putting on the talk pages that I would undo the change if the are no objections after a few days, I have done that to most of the articles (omitted Model theory for the time being) and wait to see what happens.

Regards BillWhiten (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shorea robusta seed oil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neat. 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) 09:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A very strange edit

[edit]

This is weird, not to mention incorrect. Model theory? This is quite remote from model theory, and I would think that would be obvious from the content of the article. This belongs in statistics, not mode theory. (Capitalizing the initial "m" is "model theory" is also a bit strange.) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point... edit already changed back. Keep in mind this was a total orphan when I found it! SocraticOath (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your actions in my talk page

[edit]

Blessings, Ben-Yeudith (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{reflist-talk}}

[edit]

Hi SocraticOath. I wanted to let you know that if you use {{reflist-talk}} at the end of any talk page post in which you have included footnote citations, it will ensure that the footnotes stay with your comment, as opposed to floating to the bottom of the page.- MrX 21:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions

[edit]

Please don't assume editor's political/social stances. You are being reported :) Pipsy3 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hey - I just wanted to make you aware that abortion-related articles on Wikipedia are generally subject to a 1-revert rule (1RR). This means that no one should "revert" more than once a day. There's more at WP:3RR, but in general a "revert" is defined pretty broadly as any edit that undoes a previous change, in whole or part. The rule is designed to help encourage discussion and discourage rapid back-and-forth reverting or editing, which destabilizes the articles. As you might imagine, abortion-related articles have seen a lot of nonsense over the years, so they tend to be kept on a shorter leash. Anyhow - I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, but just wanted to let you know that this rule exists so that you can mind it. Thanks. MastCell Talk 18:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understandable... Thanks! SocraticOath (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abortion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labor. 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) 09:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 1 October

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 6 October

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Valve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flow. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Late termination of pregnancy

[edit]

Hi -- what's the goal of requesting a reassessment of that article? Do you think it shouldn't be B class, or shouldn't be High importance, or what? Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see -- it looks like you weren't aware that the WPMED template goes on the talk page rather than the article itself. Since it is already there, and the article has already been assessed in a way that looks reasonable, there is probably nothing to do, right? (I removed the misplaced template from the article, by the way.) Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Looie496:, would you please check the article before my revisions from today? I just listed this article on a few projects today and it's possible that I accidently made it look like it had been assessed already when it had not been. Thanks, -SocraticOath (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Talk:Late termination of pregnancy, to the box that says "This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects", and click "show" -- you will see WikiProject Medicine there. In fact the article was added to WPMED and assessed in 2007 (diff). Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we're done here... thanks for your input! -SocraticOath (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion/Breast-cancer article

[edit]

Hi, according to the "Weight" section in the TALK page of the "Abortion-Breast-Cancer Hypothesis" article, descriptions of individual articles such as the one you posted (the Chinese meta-analysis) are not appropriate and do not belong. If we included your description, we would for consistency also have to include descriptions of other primary-source articles on the subject (or at least other meta-analyses) and the article would degenerate into a scientific literature review, not an encyclopedia article. Stick to secondary sources and general summaries, please! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

[edit]
please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Alleged links between Donald Trump and organized crime. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Donald Trump. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Donald Trump – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 21:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed content for Trump article

[edit]

Hi there! I'm reaching out to you because of your involvement on the article. In the "In Popular culture" section, do you think it would be appropriate to add mention of notable comedic impressions?

There's Tony Atamanuik:

Who does a well-known "Trump vs Bernie" series:

Jimmy Fallon:

Dana Carvey:

I believe inclusion of these comedic impressions is notable and especially worthwhile in the "Popular culture" section. What do you think? Feel free to ping me for a reply. BBoyle81 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BBoyle81:There has been some significant back-and-forth about pop culture references. I think that with critical mass of material and a lot of your own elbow-grease in creating the article, a separate article on the pop culture trivia of Donald Trump would be great. Perhaps you should first create an article about something inconsequential so you can do it quietly and learn the process first? I would suggest an article on rainbow unicorn glitter kitten, or something you know well yourself. You could also write about a less-well-known scientist or author.SocraticOath (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trump International Hotel and Tower. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SocraticOath reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2

[edit]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 16 March

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring content on BLP's

[edit]

Greetings, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE the burden is on editors restoring content to obtain consensus before doing so. Pls seek consensus for the content regarding money laundering charges at Donald Trump.CFredkin (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CFredkin, I restored a part of the content that had achieved consensus, while excluding the content that had not achieved consensus. This is OK per WP:BLP. SocraticOath (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, including content in Trump's BLP which is sourced to an article which doesn't mention him is WP:original research, and that has been stated in Talk multiple times.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#BLP Violation. In my opinion you should wait for someone else to restore the content involved, to avoid any possible charge of edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of John Curran (journalist II)

[edit]

Hello SocraticOath,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged John Curran (journalist II) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Dschslava (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about editing process and experience

[edit]

Hi, User:SocraticOath. My name's Chris, and I'm a reporter for The Washington Post. I'm currently working on a story about edits made to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's pages during the presidential election. I'm interested in speaking with you about your contributions to Trump's page. Please let me know if you'd like to talk by pinging me here or shooting me an email at: chris[dot]alcantara[at]washpost.com. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswapo (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, SocraticOath. 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SocraticOath&oldid=1084153638"