User talk:Tigraan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Earthquake sensitive AfD discussion

FYI: I found some of your comments at WP:Articles for deletion/Earthquake sensitive persuasive, and even enlightening in raising my awareness of some ambiguity that I think we had not appreciated. But I was not able to comment before User:Sandstein abruptly - and in my opinion, prematurely - closed that discussion. I am going to see if I can get that reopened in order to resolve the notability question. I point out that I agree that the article was crap, but I think there are other formulations that might be satisfactory. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think closing was prematurate as well - I stand by my opinion that the subject is not worth a standalone article, but there was no consensus yet. Not sure it is worth a revdel, but if so please ping me there. Tigraan (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Climate Action Plan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Climate Action Plan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Action Plan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you contributed to the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change, I wanted to ping you and let you know that your input would be valued. I am posting this notice on the talk page for every editor who has contributed to that discussion and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate action, regardless of their vote or apparent viewpoint. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 17:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Widr‎

Irony is really tough to convey through a keyboard. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Psychotherapeutic postural integration - Recent deletion request for elaboration

Hello Tigraan, I find the rather hurried deletion over the Easter holiday period of "Psychotherapeutic postural integration" was not very collegial as it left no time for fair discussion, especially where you said that "my first link, I take it "scientific validity", did not do me any favours". Can this point please be elaborated on? I simply cannot follow. On what terms of judgement was this conclusion reached? The terms of assessment on which the page was deleted were not disclosed. Except that the page appeared not to conform to the Wiki-medical world's definition of "scientific validity". But every "industry" has its own specific definition of scientific validity, pharmaceutics, organic foods, Olympic sports, physiotherapy and so on. To apply medical scientific validity standards to a non-medical related method, in this case body-psychotherapy, is simply not correct. If the independent bodies EABP and the EAP and their combined findings and publications concerning this (or other methods) are not in the view of Wiki-medics an independent secondary source, what then will ever qualify as such? Of course I understand, the whole area of complimentary methods are regarded with suspicion in some parts of the medical world, in Europe most doctors view them positively, even practice them themselves. Osioni (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Osioni: First of all, what follows is my view on the matter and maybe the closing administrator for that AfD, User:Sandstein, disagrees. If you think the discussion was closed inappropriately ("rather hurried deletion"), please discuss matters with him first, and then go to WP:DRV if neither of you changes his mind (but make sure to read the disclaimers there).

It was decided on the specific Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV (Cullen's comment links it) and WP:GNG (all the mentions of "not notable", which has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia): we need reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject at length. Scientific validity is only a secondary problem in that theories supported by a well-established academic consensus are presumed more notable than those that are not (but that is not the only way to be notable, see for instance Creationism or Acupuncture). For more details, see WP:NFRINGE.

My criticism of the EABP comes from the fact that the "scientific validity" page that you linked includes multiple red flags; the same could have been written about a subject that is completely bollocks. Specifically, the writing style is not very professional (and if the style was not carefully checked before publication, maybe the content was not either), and the part saying the whole process is political is at best "I don't like my industry's standards" and at worse conspiracy theory. So, while the EABP may be independent, I highly doubt that it is reliable, and you provided nothing that would make me change my mind (or other editors') (and no amount of material from their own website would, what is needed is external established sources). Tigraan (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Tigraan for taking the time to elucidate on some of the grounds this deletion was actioned. The evaluation given on the EABP and its "scientific validity" page is appreciated and indeed of value. I have no connection to that organisation or coals to burn for it, other than for methods they accredited which have supported me greatly in my life. I will pass your well substantiated judgement up the line. Might well be beneficial. With Greetings, Osioni (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for removing the AFD bot thing - I assumed the bot thing was automatic so figured I'd keep the article tab open and just hit refresh every hour or so! .... Anyway thanks again for keeping everything in tip-top order :), Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 14:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Article patrol, articles for deletion, etc.

Copper in energy-efficient motors

I am the creator of “Copper in energy-efficient motors” that was deleted three weeks ago while I was on a remote excursion (in Nepal) and was unable to address the concerns that had been voiced. The two major criticisms of the article stated were a lack of peer-reviewed citations and an excess of context information. There was also a comment about an absence of cost comparisons.

There has been extensive research, development and peer-reviewed publications over the past 15 years on the use of copper in premium energy-efficient motors and in induction motors with die-cast copper rotors. A list of over 30 such articles is included below. This topic is considered to be a very important development by vehicular and motor engineers all around the world. Premium-efficiency motors are now helping to meet new energy efficiency standards. Induction motors with die-cast copper rotors have just in the past few years been incorporated into high-performance, hybrid and electric vehicles, such as Tesla’s Electric Roadster, Model S and Model X; Mercedes’ model B250e, and Oshkosh’s HEMMT severe-duty fleet of trucks for the U.S. Army. Other major automotive manufacturers (Toyota, BMW, and Nissan/Renault) are evaluating/testing or designing die-cast copper rotor motors for their future models.

Please let me know the process for revising and reinstating the article with peer-reviewed published citations, as appropriate, and with the background context eliminated. Cost comparison information is also included in the body of peer-reviewed references.

Sorry to take up space on your talk page, but just to demonstrate how active and important this subject matter is, a peer-reviewed and motor industry society publications list about the importance of copper in energy-efficient motors in included below (with abstracts to help clarify a few titles):

Collapsed by Tigraan

1) U.S. Department of Energy; Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy; Die Casting Copper Motor Rotors; 2) Sathishkumar, G.K., Vimalraj, N., Sivakumaran, T.S., and Paramasivam, A; (2015); Design and Fabrication of High Efficiency Squirrel Cage Induction Motor Using Finite Element Method; ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences; Vol. 10, No. 4, March; ISSN 1819-6608; This paper presents the design and analysis of a die-cast copper rotor cage, to improve the efficiency of three phase induction motor used in industrial applications and also it describes the various factors affecting the efficiency of motor. The proposed copper rotor motor has better efficiency and increase in torque with minimum losses. An incremental difference in the efficiency is also discussed with different values of loads. Simulation has been carried out using Finite element Analysis (FEA) and experimental results are shown. Simulation and experimental results presented here demonstrates the feasibility of the copper rotor motor. 3) Goss, James, Popescu, M. and Staton, D. (2012). Implications of Real-World Drive Cycles on Efficiencies and Life Cycle Costs of Two Solutions for HEV Traction: Synchronous Permanent Magnet Motor vs. Copper Rotor Induction Motor; SAE Electric Powertrain Technologies Symposium; 11 October; Stuttgart, Germany. 4) Liang, Daniel, Yang, X., Yu, J, Zhou, V; (2012). Experience in China on the Die-Casting of Copper Rotors for Induction Motors; XXth International Conference on Electrical Machines (ICEM); pp. 256 – 260; Published by IEEE; ISBN: 978-1-4673-0143-5; DOI: 10.1109/ICElMach.2012.6349874; 5) Dorrell, David G., Popescu, M., Knight, Andrew M., Evans, L., and Staton, David A. (2010). Comparison of Different Motor Design Drives for Hybrid Electric Vehicles, IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition; September; pp. 3352 – 3359; ISSN: 2329-3721; DOI 10.1109/ECCE.2010.5618318; (requires subscription) or (no subscription) This paper reports on a study to compare the performance of an interior permanent magnet drive motor (IPM), a copper cage induction machine (IM) and a switched reluctance machine (SRM). The paper illustrates that the permanent magnet motor is not the sole solution to specifying a drive motor for this application. 6) Kirtley, J., Schiferl, R., Peters, D., and Brush, E., (2009). The Case for Induction Motors with Die-Cast Copper Rotors for High Efficiency Traction Motors; SAE Technical Paper; 2009-01-0956; doi: 10.4271/2009-01-0956. This paper considers the application of die-cast copper rotor induction motors in the drive system of parallel gas/electric hybrid vehicles and compares performance in a realistic driving scenario to that of a permanent magnet motor where efficiency is substantially reduced by PM drag loss. It is concluded from this analysis that the induction machine has a substantial advantage because it can be de-excited when it is not producing torque, eliminating no-load rotational magnetic and electrical loss. Application of die-cast copper rotor traction motors in the hybrid drive system of the latest generation of large U.S. Army severe-duty trucks is then considered. Results of two different electric motor designs are presented, one with a cast aluminum rotor cage and one with a die-cast copper rotor cage. The copper die-cast rotor motor is shown to be 23% lighter and 30% smaller than the aluminum rotor machine. 7) Tudorache, T., Melcescu, L. and Petre, V. (2009); High Efficiency Squirrel Cage Induction Machines; International Conference on Renewable Energies and Power Quality (ICREPQ’09); European Association for the Development of Renewable Energies, Environment and Power Quality; This paper highlights the benefits of replacing the classical cast aluminum cage with a cast copper cage in the manufacture of future generation of high efficiency induction machines used as motors or generators. The numerical analysis carried out in the paper is based on a 2D plane-parallel finite element approach of the induction machine, the numerical results being discussed and compared with experimental measurements. 8) Manoharan, Subramanian, Devarajan, N., Deivasahayam, Subbarayan M. and Ranganathan, Gopalakrishnan (2009); Review on Efficiency Improvement in Squirrel Cage Induction Motor by Using DCR Technology; Journal of Electrical Engineering; VOL. 60, NO. 4, pp. 227–236; ISSN 1335-3632; and Induction motors account for approximately 50 % of the overall electricity use in industrialized countries. In the agricultural and commercial sectors also, power consumption by ac motors is quite substantial. On an average, the energy consumed by a motor during its life cycle is 60-100 times the initial cost of the motor. Therefore efficiency of the motor is of paramount importance both during selection and operation. Even small increase in efficiency improvement can make a big difference in energy savings with accompanying decrease in air contamination. High electrical conductivity of copper in the rotor structure of a squirrel cage induction motor can achieve a reduction in overall energy losses of around 11% – 19 % and a consequent increase in energy efficiency. This paper reviews the implementation of Die-Cast Copper Rotor (DCR) Motor, Efficiency improvement, Energy saving potential, adoption of DCR Technology in India and the comparisons of various efficiency standards besides the application of DCR motor in agricultural pump sets. The needs and tasks regarding the technology are also discussed. K e y w o r d s: induction motor, premium efficiency, efficiency improvement, die cast copper rotor, DCR technology, and efficiency standards. 9) Dyess, Nicole Kaufman and Agamloh, Emmanuel (2007). Copper Rotor Motors: A Step Toward Economical Super-Premium Efficiency Motors?; ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry; and This paper presents the design and analysis of a die- cast copper rotor cage, to improve the efficiency of three phase induction motor used in industrial applications and also it describes the various factors affecting the efficiency of motor. The proposed copper rotor motor has better efficiency and increase in torque with minimum losses. An incremental difference in the efficiency is also discussed with different values of loads. Simulation has been carried out using Finite element Analysis (FEA) and experimental results are shown. Simulation and experimental results presented here demonstrates the feasibility of the copper rotor motor. 10) Peters, D.T., Brush, E.F., Kirtlet, J.L., (2007). Die-cast copper rotors as strategy for improving induction motor efficiency; Electrical Insulation Conference and Electrical Manufacturing Expo (IEEE); 22-24 Oct. 2007; pp. 322 – 327; ISSN:2334-0975; DOI: 10.1109/EEIC.2007.4562636; This paper reviews the advantages of substituting copper for aluminum in the rotor squirrel cage as a central strategy toward reaching substantially higher efficiency. Short die life has discouraged production of copper rotors, but recent development of a heated nickel-base alloy die technology has solved the manufacturing problem; this is briefly reviewed. Copper rotor high efficiency motors are now commercially available. Performance characteristics of example motors are presented and design modifications employed to optimally utilize the high conductivity copper are outlined. Weight and cost savings realized by European manufacturers with high efficiency copper rotor motors compared to aluminum rotor designs with the same efficiency and performance characteristics are discussed. Applications for these motors in defense systems are now being examined for both 60 and 400 Hz equipment. Induction motors with copper rotors for traction also appear to have real advantages. Use of this motor type in the series hybrid drive system of a heavy duty Marine Corp truck is reviewed. 11) Kirtley, James L. Jr., Peters, Dale T., Cowie, J.G., and Brush, Jr., Edwin F. (2007); Improved Hybrid Vehicle Traction Motors Using Cast Copper Rotor Induction Machines; International Exhibition and Conference Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies, March 29-April 1; Monaco. 12) Kimmich, R., Doppelbauer, M., Peters, D.T., Cowie, J.G. and Brush, Jr., E.F. (2006). Die-cast Copper Rotor Motors via Simple Substitution and Motor Redesign for Copper, International Conference Electrical Machines (ICEM 06), Conference Proceeding CD, No. 358; September; in Chania, Crete Island, Greece. 13) Kirtley, J. L., Cowie, J. G., Peters, D. T., and Brush, Jr., E. F., (2006). Die-Cast Copper Rotors for Smaller High Efficiency Automobile, Traction Motors – A Design Study; SAE International; 07PFL-196; ; We consider drive motors for hybrid or electric vehicles. In particular, we explore the relationship between induction machines constructed with die-cast aluminum and copper rotors. Approximate size, weight and performance metrics are deduced for drive motors capable of 60 kW at 1,200 RPM. It is found that the use of a cast copper rotor can result in a drive motor that has an efficiency more than two percent greater than a geometrically similar motor with an aluminum rotor, or that a motor with similar efficiency can be made smaller and lighter than the aluminum rotor motor. A comparative cost analysis for the three induction motors is presented. 14) Zeraoulia, Mounir, Benbouzid, M.E.H., and Diallo, D., (2006). Electric Motor Drive Selection Issues for HEV Propulsion Systems: A Comparative Study; IEEE Transaction on Vehicular Technology; Vol. 55, No. 6; pp. 1756 – 1764; ISSN 0018-9545 ; DOI 10.1109/TVT.2006.878719; This paper describes a comparative study allowing the selection of the most appropriate electric-propulsion system for a parallel hybrid electric vehicle (HEV). This paper is based on an exhaustive review of the state of the art and on an effective comparison of the performances of the four main electric-propulsion systems, namely the dc motor, the induction motor (IM), the permanent magnet synchronous motor, and the switched reluctance motor. The main conclusion drawn by the proposed comparative study is that it is the cage IM that better fulfills the major requirements of the HEV electric propulsion. 15) Kimmich, R., Doppelbauer, M., Kirtley, Jr, J. L., Peters, D.T., Cowie, J.G. and Brush, Jr., E.F., (2005). Performance Characteristics of Drive Motors Optimized for Die-cast Copper Cages, Energy Efficiency in Motor Driven Systems (EEMODS 2005); Fourth International Conference; September; in Heidelberg, Germany; (pp. 110-117) Performance of a series of industrial drive motors designed expressly for high conductivity copper in the rotor cage is described. These motors are to replace a series of standard efficiency aluminum rotor models. Efficiencies of the copper designs meet the EFF 1 targets and are generally less expensive to build and lighter than aluminum rotor designs modeled but not built. An example of the use of MATLAB software to optimize a motor design feature, the effect of rotor skew on stray load loss, is presented. 16) Parasilliti, F., Villani, M., and Chiricozzi, E. (2005). Design Strategies and Different Materials for High Efficiency Induction Motors: A Comparison, Energy Efficiency in Motor Driven Systems (EEMODS 2005) Fourth International Conference, September; in Heidelberg, Germany. (pp. 69-80). The paper presents the results of a research project concerning the efficiency improvement in industrial three-phase induction motors, making use of three different design strategies: substitution of copper cage for aluminum cage with standard and premium electrical steel; design optimization of copper cage motor by changing the stator winding and the stack length only; design optimization of copper cage motor by changing the stator winding, the stack length and the stator and rotor slot shapes. 17) El-Refaie, A.M., Jahns, T.M. (2005). Comparison of Synchronous PM Machine Types for Wide Constant-Power Speed Range Operation, IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, Hong Kong, October; pp. 1015 – 1022, Vol. 2, ISSN 0197-2618; DOI 10.1109/IAS.2005.1518478 This paper presents a detailed comparison of the high-speed operating characteristics of four synchronous PM machines for applications that require wide speed ranges of constant-power operation. These machines include surface PM machines with both distributed and fractional-slot concentrated windings, and two interior PM machine with distributed windings. These two versions of the interior PM machine include one with and a tight constraint on the machine's back-emf voltage at top speed and one without this constraint The target application is an automotive direct-drive starter/alternator requiring a very wide 10:1 constant power speed ratio (CPSR). Detailed comparisons of the performance characteristics of the machines are presented that include important issues such as the back-emf voltage at top speed, machine mass and cost, and eddy current losses in the magnets. Analytical results are verified using finite element analysis (FEA). Guidelines are developed to help drive designers decide which type of machine is most suitable for high-CPSR applications. Tradeoffs associated with choosing each of these machines are presented. 18) Hsu, J.S, S.C. Nelson, P.A. Jallouk, C.W. Ayers, R.H. Wiles, S.L. Campbell, C.L. Coomer, K.T. Lowe, T.A. Burress (2005). Report on Prius Motor Thermal Management, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL/TM-2005/33; 19) Stark, C., Cowie, J. G., Peters, D. T. and Brush, Jr., E. F. (2005); Copper in the Rotor for Lighter, Longer Lasting Motors; ASNE Fleet Maintenance Symposium; San Diego Section; September; This paper reviews the advantages of substituting die-cast copper for aluminum in the motor rotor. This advance in motor technology has been long sought by the motor industry but short die life due to the high melting point of copper frustrated attempts to manufacture by pressure die casting. The nickel-base alloy hot die technology developed to solve the manufacturing problem is briefly reviewed. Development work done prior to the present program and commercial motors derived from that work have focused on the increased electrical energy efficiency achievable by using copper with its higher electrical conductivity in the rotor. Performance characteristics of example industrial motors are presented. Modification of the conductor bar shape to control in-rush current and starting torque to accommodate copper in the rotor will be discussed. Modeling by motor manufacturers has shown that by using copper in the rotor, a lighter motor than an aluminum rotor motor at the same efficiency can be built. An example of weight savings calculated for a 15 Hp (11 kW) motor is presented. Data presented here show that motors with copper rotors run cooler. Industry experience shows that cooler operation translates to reduced maintenance costs, improved reliability and longer motor life. 20) Peters, D.T., Cowie, J.G., Brush Jr., E.F., et. al., (2005). Performance of motors with die-cast copper rotors in industrial and agricultural pumping applications; IEEE International Conference on Electric Machines and Drives. pp. 987 – 992; ISBN 0-7803-8987-5; This paper adds to the growing body of data showing improved efficiency and cooler running temperatures for copper rotor motors. Test data for motors where copper has simply been substituted for aluminum with no change in design are presented for a series of motors built in India for pumping water for agriculture and two industrial motors are described. Design modifications to better utilize copper in the rotor and resulting motor performance for two other industrial motors are then reported. 21) Kirtley, James L. (2004). Designing Squirrel Cage Rotor Slots with High Conductivity; This paper describes an investigation into ways of taking advantage of the higher conductivity of cast copper in rotors of induction motors. Deep bar and multiple cage effects are useful in design of such machines. It is shown that a useful understanding of how different slot shapes work may be developed through the use of frequency response curves that describe rotor slot impedance as a function of rotor frequency. Good starting, running and stray loss characteristics can be identified in such frequency response curves. 22) Chiricozzi, Enzo, Parasility, F. and Villani, M. (2004). New materials and innovative technologies to improve the efficiency of three-phase induction motors. A case study; The paper presents the results of a research project whose aim was the investigation of the efficiency improvement of industrial three-phase induction motors when high quality electrical steel is adopted in combination with die cast copper rotor cage, in order to define the design strategies; to verify the actual efficiency improvements; to verify the arrangement of the motors respect to the European Classification Scheme (EC-CEMEP). The results are related to the cheapest design strategies when "premium steel" and copper rotor cage are used instead of standard steel and aluminum cage, with standard and higher stack length. The considered motor sizes are 3 and 7.5 kW, 4 pole, 50 Hz, 400 V, TEFC. 23) Parasiliti, F., et. al., (2004). Three-Phase Induction Motor Effficiency Improvements with Die-Cast Copper Rotor Cage and Premium Steel; Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion (Speedam); June 16-18, Capri, Italy. The paper presents the results of a research project whose aim was the efficiency improvement in industrial three-phase induction motors, making use die cast copper rotor cage and premium electrical steel. The study concerns with industrial low voltage three-phase induction motors, 4 pole, 50 Hz, 400 V, TEFC, in the 0.75÷22 kW power range. The results are related to the first step of the project, when a premium steel and copper rotor cage have been used instead of standard steel and aluminium cage. 24) Brush, Jr., E. F., Peters, D.T., Cowie, J.G., Doppelbauer, M. and Kimmich, R. (2004). Recent Advances in Development of the Die-cast Copper Rotor Motor, International Conference Electrical Machines (ICEM02), In: Recent Developments of Electrical Drives: Best papers from the ICEM’04; pp. 349-359; September; in Krakow, Poland. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4535-6_29; ISBN: 978-1-4020-4534-9 Performance of several motors where copper has been substituted for aluminum in the rotor squirrel cage is reported. Copper rotor motors die cast in India for agri-pumping were dynamometer and field tested. Copper rotors resulted in higher electrical energy efficiency, slightly higher rotational speed, lower operating temperature, and higher pumping rates and volume pumped per unit of input energy. SEW-Eurodrive motors with copper rotors are also described. A 1.1 kW motor with copper simply substituted and a 5.5 kW motor with redesigned rotor and stator are described. The copper rotor reduced losses in all major categories. Full-load efficiency was increased 6.7 and 3.1 percentage points, respectively. Finally, a study to minimize formation of large pores in die-cast rotors is summarized. 25) Ayers, C.W., J.S. Hsu, L.D. Marlino, C.W. Miller, G.W. Ott Jr., C.B. Oland (2004). Evaluation of 2004 Toyota Prius Hybrid Electric Drive System Interim Report; Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL/TM-2004/247. 26) Brush E.F.; Cowie, J.G.; Peters D.T.; Van Son D.J. (2003). Die-Cast Copper Motor Rotors: Motor Test Results, Copper Compared to Aluminum, in. “Energy Efficiency in Motor Driven Systems”, Editors: F. Parasiliti, P. Bertoldi, Springer, pp. 136 –143, ISBN 3-540-00666-4. 27) Parasiliti, F. and Villani, M. (2002). Design of High Efficiency Induction Motors with Die-casting Copper Rotors; Proceedings of Energy Efficiency in Motor Driven Systems (EEMODS 2002) Third International Conference; Treviso, Italy. pp. 144-151; The paper deals with the use of copper cage in three-phase low voltage induction motors and gives a design guideline to optimize their efficiency, according to the new European classification scheme. An accurate motor design allows to “move” the motor from lower to upper efficiency classes without affecting the starting performance. 28) Peters, D.T. et. al., (2002). Use of High Temperature Die Materials and Hot Dies for High Pressure Die Casting Pure Copper and Copper Alloys, Trans. of the North American Die Casting Association, Die Casting Congress, Rosemont, IL, USA. 29) Peters, D.T. et. al., (2002). Advances in Pressure Die Casting of Electrical Grade Copper, American Foundry Society Paper; No. 02-002, Kansas City, MO, USA. 30) Paris, C. and Walti, O. (2002). A New Technology to Make Rotors with Copper as Magnetic Conductor, Trans. of the Energy Efficiency in Motor Driven Systems Conference; p. 152-161. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-55475-9_23; ISBN 978-3-540-00666-4; by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; Our study aims at showing a new technology to make rotors with copper as magnetic conductor. It deals with copper’s pressure die-casting rotors production. It will be very interesting also to compare these new technology to the usual to make rotors with copper as magnetic conductor; but also to study the electromagnic’s behaviour of the copper die-casting rotor in comparison with the aluminium technology. 31) Finley, William R., and Hodowanec, Mark M. (2000). Selection of Copper versus Aluminum Rotors for Induction Motors; IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications; Vol. 37; Paper No. PCIC-2000-19; IEEE/PCIC Conference Record; pp. 1563-1573; ISSN 0093-9994; DOI: 10.1109/28.968162 ; by IEEE Industry Applications Society. On squirrel-cage induction motors, there is an important choice between utilizing a lower cost die-cast or fabricated aluminum rotor versus the more expensive copper bar rotor. Utilizing the wrong rotor construction for the application can either increase costs unnecessarily or lead to catastrophic failure. This paper provides the background necessary to assist in making the proper choice. The fundamentals of rotor construction and basic information on how the induction motor works are discussed. Additionally, the effects of various materials and types of rotor construction on motor performance are analyzed.

Sincerely, Enviromet (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Enviromet: Well, the venue for reopening deletion discussions is WP:DRV, but I am not sure the case meets criterion #3, and in any case you should contact the closing administrator first. Those are for procedural disputes.

I would rather advise you to go to the talk page of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Copper_in_energy-efficient_motors to discuss content issues. It will not reopen the case, but it will allow to discuss with whoever took part in the AfD.

I doubt the deletion decision will be overturned in any case. It does not prevent you from recreating a similar article, but make sure to address the concerns that were raised, otherwise (1) same cause, same effects -> article will get deleted, and (2) you might get in trouble for it. If you are not 100% sure what those "concerns" are, ask at the AfD's talk page - I could answer you but here is not the place to discuss content issues that involve multiple editors. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Enviromet (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Tigraan, my new contribution on the article's talk page (as per your request) was automatically removed. I was not surprised because the top of the page indicates that the discussion is closed and not to revise anything. I will contact User: Edgar181. Enviromet (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Enviromet: I did that. You posted on the AfD page ("Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Copper (etc.)"); I moved it to the corresponding talk page ("Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Copper (etc.)"). The page itself should not be modified. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah...didn't realize there was a Talk page there (although you mentioned it). Thank you! Enviromet (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I have restored the article as a userspace draft at User:Enviromet/Copper in energy-efficient motors. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Rajeev Kakar

In one of your comments you mentioned that Forbes Middle East might not be considered as WP:RS. Well, for any notable person related to business, I believe that Listing by the Forbes would be a great deal and clearly a mention of its notability. (I am convinced about most of your other comments. Just doubtful about this one.) Insights would be highly appreciated. -- Abhijitborkar (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Abhijitborkar,

I have no doubts Forbes is a reliable source in most circumstances. However:

1. this does not confer trustworthiness to all its local editions (including FME) if those are more than mere translations. It is common knowledge that some print newspapers are reputable but their web edition is subject to a different (usually looser) editorial control, for instance. (I am not claiming FME is not reliable, I am saying that "Forbes, hence RS" is an invalid argument, and would like further evidence)
2. Just being mentioned in a reliable source is not enough to establish notability. The subject has to receive significant coverage. Now we can debate to death about what constitutes significant coverage but that is a different threshold than verifiability.

Please take further discussion of the specific sources and issues for that article on the AfD page. Other general questions can be asked (to me) here, or at the teahouse where you will find editors that have more experience both in Wikipedia editing and question-answering than me. Tigraan (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

IFW Techno Creations Pvt Ltd

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Bharatifw1 (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

there is a article on wikipedia with the title "List of ERP software packages". When I added IFW Campus ERP to that article, a message shows that the product or company must have a page on wikipedia. However, the article is resubmitted keeping the copyright issues and the content is also changed.

What do these dates mean? (Chonkanyanukoon School)

Your open question. Ans. Not everyone is Christian. See here. Victuallers (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I incorrectly thought the manual of style demands customary English dates as primary system, but it is not the case. As per the relevant entry (MOS:ERA) I linked to the WP entry for that system.Tigraan (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Estonian Women Students' Society

Hello Tigraan!

About the page - Estonian Women Students' Society - the academic society in Estonia is as importaint as Estonian Students' Socity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Students%27_Society Because of that I want to make similar informative article on EWSS. Soon I will make additions to this page. Is there a time limit to make an article? Today I just started it

the work is going on the website and all the images of various schools will be uploaded soon. please I request that you should wait for just few time as the work of website will finish as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsachan12 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Chitra group of institutions

sir/madam the work in website is going on and it will be finished as soon as possible, then all the images of various schools will be uploaded. I request you sir to kindly wait for some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarsachan12 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhodri Jones (photographer)

This article is being created as part of a Wikimedia event. please do not delete until the article has been created (not before 5pm GMT) for more information contact user:jason.nlw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansphoto1 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Vat19

Thank you for your efforts to improve this page. I'll search for more sources to add further notability to the page, but I'm very curious why you deleted much of my original text and even removed details that had externally linked sources to establish their credibility. For example, you condensed all information of the history of the company and essentially left it as "they used to do this, now they do this." I understand that facts are what a Wikipedia article is meant to convey, so I'm curious why you removed the facts of why the company changed directions in its past, since background material is obviously not "promotional". Their frequency of uploading videos to YouTube is not promotion either; it's a fact that anyone who uses YouTube regularly will value knowing. You also removed the name of the video that trended in January 2016, which is an extremely basic fact, not a promotion of anything of theirs. Thanks in advance for clarifying and reconsidering. I'll be updating the page with more external sources soon. Andreaheck (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andreaheck: Since this is mostly about editing the article (and not so much about WP's policies in general), let's discuss on the talk page instead. Tigraan (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

List of Thermal Conductivities

Thanks for the barnstar. Also I don't agree with the people who have rated the list as a thing of low importance. But apart from that I noticed a recent comment in the talk section where some Mike says that someone should clean up this data dudes and etc. and it does seem to be ridiculously cluttered up with unnecessary reference footnotes. Since I didn't know how to do these sorts of things I had copied the fashion of those who came before me. But they were doing a different thing and now I tend to think that each section should only get one reference footnote per authority like what I did more recently in the coppers and iron sections. Not my old fashioned way like what I did in the section for Aluminum oxide for example. And now since you seem to be an official of some sort or someone like that can you give me any advice on this matter? Could I improve on the list by conforming it to the fashion of it's latest parts with the fewer footnotes like at coppers and iron and silver and gold? And is there something else also wrong with my formatting and why does everyone else have fancy brackets with sometimes some Nts and sometimes some Ntsh and also some mysterious number after it and am I doing it wrong by just putting the brackets with the rh to create the various sections (which I learned by trail and error) and then adding everything else wherever it fits? Thanx, Patriot1423 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Patriot1423 (talk · contribs),

First of all, I am not an "official" on WP (that is an abbreviation for "Wikipedia"). I just have some familiarity with the proceedings here, but I hold no special authority and I represent only myself. If you need advice here, one of the best ways to find it is to follow this link; the teahouse is a place dedicated to answering new editors' questions.

Before giving an opinion on the specific questions you ask, I will point you to an important guideline, WP:BOLD ("be bold"). What it basically says is that it is extremely easy to fix editing mistakes, so it is better to be bold and do things even if you fear it may be incorrect: if it is, someone will eventually come up and correct them. There can be a need for discussion in some cases, when opinions differ, but do not censor yourself before you have identified that there is a disagreement.

• About the importance rating: I am not sure how those are chosen, and frankly they do not matter that much - it is more of a guide for Wikiprojects to have an overview of the advance of various articles (they have automated tools to gather the ratings, make statistics, etc.). However, you can notice that the page "thermal conductivities" is identified as high-importance. In my opinion, it is not unreasonable for the page about the concept to be important while the list of numerical values is not. WP is (in theory) written for an average (smart) person, not for engineers in need of data.
• About the programming stuff: I knew nothing of nts/ntsh/rh before you asked, so I encourage you to search by yourself; let me just help you to do that. Wiki markup commands between {{braces}} are "templates", and the documentation for each of those can be find at the page "Template:X" (where X is the command). The beginning of the URL for almost all pages here is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/, so for instance I could visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ntsh and learn that this template generates no visible output but is useful for sorting tables. Other commons prefixes are "Wikipedia:"/"WP:" for internal pages (guidelines, manuals, etc.), "Talk:"/"T:" for talk pages, "User:" for user pages, "User_talk:" for user talk pages. One of the most useful templates is Template:User which allows you to send a notification to a user (I just did that at the beginning of my comment, by typing {{User|Patriot1423}}).
• About the style: I do not think it is a big problem to have tons of references per each material. The only problem would arise if we reported multiple measurements with conflicting results from different sources, but so far it is OK; it is actually better to have multiple independent references for the same value than only one.

Finally, I have to tell you that "there is no deadline". Editing Wikipedia is volunteer work, and you can edit it when you want, putting in as much or as little work as you want. If you wish to learn a bit more about the inner workings, my above links could be useful, but you are absolutely not compelled to read them as long as you contribute constructively and stay civil. Keep it fun! Tigraan (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Patriot1423 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

ASG-Cypress

This article is being based on a web search for Virtual Printers. The product ASG-Cypress is a precursor of Virtual Printers concept. It has millions of users and thousand companies around the world. In Brazil, for example, the most extensive payroll of the Country passes through ASG-Cypress. The article will have more research and more updates on next weeks. It would be great if you don't delete this article. Lasherbr (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2016 (BRT)

Rural Support Programmes

Hi there,

While it is true that there was a page made by myself (a day or two back) titled Rural Support Programmes, i asked for it to be deleted the same day it was made. It was a test page, and i'm new to Wiki. This page is an improved version of the one deleted. Finally Aga Khan Rural Support Programme refers to an organisation implementing/testing the Rural Support Programme approach/philosophy whereas the Rural Support Programmes refers to the povery alleviation philosophy. While the Rural Support Programmes philosophy is adopted/executed by the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme, it is at the same time adopted by other organisations/agencies/public-private partnership. I am sure as others contribute to the article the vastness and distinctness of the article (from others available on Wiki) will become even more clear. I therefore suggest and request that the article is not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capital contributor 101 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

(Capital Contributor 101)

RfC: Should current and recent candidates for US President be called "politicians"?

Tigraan, would you consider assessing the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016‎#RfC: Should current and recent candidates for US President be called "politicians"? (Initiated 3127 days ago on 18 April 2016)? While the RfC has generated responses from approximately 35 editors, constructive responses to this RfC have dwindled to only a few in the past week as other controversies concerning the US Presidential election and candidates overtake this question. However, I think the question is still relevant and ask for assessment and closure, while the answer to the question is still useful. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 15:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: I am afraid I must decline. I started very recently to pick RfCs from WP:ANRFC and close them, and I try not to dwindle into the controversial ones, since (1) I am not experimented with that and (2) I enjoy little if any consideration from the general community (I am not even close to being an admin). Just to be clear, the problem is not that the topic is controversial, but that the RfC itself is controversial - with arguments from both sides or/and an history of escalation towards an edit war involving multiple editors on each side.

Moreover, I do not think it would be proper to close after a request on my talk page. Your comment is neutral, but one could always suspect that you stalked all my edits and determined I was more likely to close in the direction you prefer. To stretch it to the extreme, imagine I had a "this user supports politician X" userbox; asking on my TP to close an RfC "should allegations of sexual harassment against X be mentioned in the lead" would be canvassing at its best. It can be frustrating that requests go unaddressed at ANRFC for a long time, but it seems a reasonable process to me. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it. FWIW, I noted only that a) you have recently closed RfCs, and b) that among the RfCs you have closed are those related to politics and political candidates (both presumably, and especially together, making you a reasonable candidate to close this one). I hadn't actually even read any of your closing comments, so was not anticipating what your position might be on the question. General Ization ^Talk 15:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I guessed so :). I actually think you request was reasonable, but you know, Caesar's wife and all that. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jean Lapierre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jean Lapierre. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eidetic memory

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eidetic memory. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Helen Molyneux (June 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ringbang was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Helen Molyneux and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ringbang (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Tigraan, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ringbang (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC closes

Hi Tigraan. Thank you for your well-considered closes of RfCs like Talk:Emmaus Nicopolis#Request for Comment and Talk:Pantomime#RfC: Is this article about pantomine or mainly British pantomime? in response to WP:ANRFC requests! I hope you continue your good work at WP:ANRFC whenever you have the time and inclination. Cunard (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Garden of Eden (cellular automaton)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Garden of Eden (cellular automaton). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Your closure

[1] is an entire policy violation of WP:CLOSURE, because votes are not consensus, there is no policy that rejects sourcing from reliable sources, even you agreed that content is reliably sourced.[2] It will be better if you just revert your edit and closure. D4iNa4 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• @D4iNa4: I did not "agree that content is reliably sourced". Actually, I agreed to nothing at all - that would be a WP:SUPERVOTE.

All I did is evaluate the consensus for or against inclusion of the mention based on the strength of the arguments presented. On the "support" side, your argument boiled down to "the mention existed before a COI account edited", and Ghatus's to "here are RS that support the mention". On the "oppose side" there was (1) that the mention is not supported by the sources and (2) that it violates WP:NPOV. So, while there kind of is an implicit consensus that the sources are reliable, there is an explicit consensus that they do not support insertion of the mention. As such, I discounted your argument since it does not matter - if Jimmy Wales himself inserted the mention it would still have to be removed.

In addition to that (but that is not the rationale for the close), some editors (Sheriff and Pincrete) said something along the lines of "if the sources did support the mention, it would still be POV-pushing and unsuitable for inclusion". I guess the underlying argument is that reliability depends on context and that if the sources are making that argument it would cast doubt on their RS status. I thought I could as well mention it in the close.

If you want my opinion, that second argument if wrong, but it does not matter in the end because it is not the grounds for closure. I am not going to revert my close, but I can amend the closing statement for clarification if you so desire.

If you still think the close was inappropriate, the standard process calls for WP:AN per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures. (Make sure to notify me if you decide to go there) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Windows 10

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Windows 10. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

1 foometre closure

Hi, following up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 myriametre, since you made this mass nomination, could you please put the appropriate merge tags on all articles? Thanks,  Sandstein  09:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sandstein: while I am at it, I could as well perform the merges. Will try to clear that up within a week. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, thanks,  Sandstein  17:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Horizontal line test

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Horizontal line test. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sigma-algebra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sigma-algebra. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing comments

I think your comments for closing the RfC at Stormfront were inappropriate. First, there was no "oppose" argument. I merely asked questions and clearly said I was undecided. Instead, you paint me as opposing. Second, you said it was "because two editors were somewhat stressed. Chill down, and follow the BRD standard before escalating issues in the future." I was perfectly happy discussing it. The nom couldn't wait more than 7 hours. I wasn't "stressed" or not following BRD, so characterizing me that way isn't appropriate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Niteshift36, I did not wish to paint you as opposing, and I thought the closing statement was clear on that. I can reformulate if you wish me to. This being said, you and others did make (even implicitly) an argument favoring "oppose" even if none of you !voted on it, and that argument was not in direct contradiction with elementary logic or policy, so I thought the closing statement could as well address it.

I did not wish to paint you as not following BRD either (actually, that part was intended as a "warning shot" against being too quick to jump on the RfC button). Again, I can clarify if it matters to you.

Finally, about the "stressed" part... It is clear from the talk page that you and the nominator are not the best friends in the world. You both are at least tiptoeing around the WP:CIVILITY line on that page. I will not take part in your silly dispute (unless I am compelled to by an ANI notice), and I will not try to sort out who is "right" and who is "wrong", but it looked obvious that if I did not address the editing climate (again, I do not care whose fault it is), it could soon turn into a battlefield. Honestly, "stressed" is the most diplomatic word I could find; while I am open to a suggestion for reformulation, I will not blame one side more than the other, and I will not pretend to not have seen anything. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Constant of integration

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Constant of integration. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

please comment the revised article 'Particle teleportation'

Dear Tigraan,

I have finished the revision of my draft. according my understanding on comment I received from reviewers. Can you see whether suitable? I am new and I am willing to improve the article, please guide me In detail. Davy2016 (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Davy2016, it seems that you resubmitted your draft Draft:Particle_teleportation, so it will get a second review from the ones who are most competent at it. I am not sure why you contacted me.

I think your article will get rejected again. The problem is that the topic is not notable, the article is based off a single paper that did not attract much comments from the scientific community. Notice that no amount of work can overcome a lack of notability, so it may just be that the topic is not suitable for Wikipedia (at least yet). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tigraan, I contact you because I think you comment on the first draft was relatively more supportive than others'. I read your new explanation carefully and now understand The policy and my problem more, even if finally it is rejected. Thanks a lot. Davy2016 (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SIG MCX

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SIG MCX. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jaedon Staples

this page that people are saying is about me is not about me, it is about a youtuber, a youtuber that I like and would like to make a page for Jadestaples (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Jadestaples. If you are not Jadeon Staples, I suggest you change your username, as it is likely against policy. See WP:RENAME for how to do it.

Moreover, it seems unlikely that this person is a suitable topic for Wikipedia. Wikipedia only covers "notable" persons, which means (roughly) those that have been the subject of a lot of independent coverage (usually articles from reputable newspapers). Here, the youtube channel has only 7 subscribers, and I could find no press coverage. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Tigraan I will not change my name as my name is Jade Staples, Jaedon Staples it not

'Edit company page'

Hello,

I would really like to understand how I can edit and update the company page where I work. We made recently a rebranding and the information is not updated. Can you please help me? :Many thanks,

Nádia Nadiacgvieira (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jaguar (microarchitecture)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jaguar (microarchitecture). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neonicotinoid

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neonicotinoid. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting comment

I think the RfC is going to kind of fizzle from fatigue, but I was intrigued by your comments, "there is an internal bias (the Wikipedian is a twenty-something white educated English-speaking male nerd). Everyone, I think, agrees on that. The most visible aspect of that "internal" bias is the tendency of editors to create articles on some particular topics (computer security and porn rather than the history of slavery), however it is certainly plausible there is also some bias at AfD, RfCs etc., and it makes sense to try to address that." and "I could be convinced by an addition to WP:NPOSSIBLE along the lines of "it's not because you haven't heard of it that it is not a reliable source" (e.g. a book in Swahili vs. the New York Times)..." I think that you have nailed one of the bigger problems quite precisely. The "I've never heard of it so it's not notable" attitude really does need to be addressed. Rather than clutter the RfC page, I thought I'd open a discussion with you directly to see what further ideas you have to address that particular concern. I like the idea of adding something to WP:BEFORE or NPOSSIBLE. Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well Montanabw, I am not sure I have anything to add. After a good minute of deep meditation, I could draft an addition to NPOSSIBLE: ...editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Some reliable sources may be harder to locate than usual, because they are in foreign languages, offline, or for cultural reasons. Now of course the last part is an awfully vague formulation for "you do not know it, but the world does not revolve around you", but I do not see how to write it in a way that has the slightest chance to pass an RfC. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's not bad phrasing. I wonder if addressing the internal bias issue head-on would help. (Perhaps with softer language, such as "digital natives may not realize that some source material still exists only on microfilm or paper" —OK, even that's a bit snarky, but my internal thoughts were, "duuudes, there are these things called 'books' and they are actually a reliable source." LOL! ) I see problems with recentism and narrow world view. There is some work being done on the article creation side to better educate new editors, but that doesn't reach the newbie who comes to wikipedia without mentoring. Montanabw^(talk) 18:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, that didn't take as long as I thought

So I'll just say thanks very much for closing out the Diesel engine RfC so very quickly and well.  :) Gracias. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 13:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vani Hari

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vani Hari. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SIG MCX

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SIG MCX. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing page: Adrian Solgaard

Hi Tigraan, I made some edits to the adrian solgaard page - I saw you requested that there are links to other wikipedia pages so it's not an orphan. I included links now and removed the message. Jesperxson (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Periodic table

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Periodic table. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Norepinephrine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Norepinephrine. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Folding@home

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Folding@home. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tigraan. 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)

Outstanding contributions recognition

Outstanding Contributions Award

Hi Tigraan, I've noticed your work and contributions across Wikipedia. Not only are they exemplary, but with intelligent and most helpful inputs, you also exhibit immense maturity and empathetic understanding of the culture that drives different interactions at Wikipedia. For that, and more, here's this small token of an award from me. Keep up the great work! :) Lourdes 05:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Graph database

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Graph database. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:KIC 8462852

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:KIC 8462852. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Drugmakers' concern, or lack thereof, about local flora and fauna

I found your comment comical, though sad. I posted a reply, also in small type. Curious if you want to go there and reply. Could potential cocaine-snorting celebs be encouraged to publicly show some social and environmental conscience, and encourage their fans to do the same? Destroyed rainforest, dumped toxic chemicals wreaking destruction, and hundreds of thousands of dead bodies of murder victims - all so that the rich celeb and high class party crowd can have their fleeting "high". You're probably best replying there, not here. Eliyohub (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

OSE

"Delete - obvious policy reasons beaten to death, but I will add that even for someone reasonably knowledgeable about the subject, the WP article (I am not going to dig the ArXiv source) is unclear or incorrect. The claimed difference with the Grand canonical ensemble is impossible to understand (the GCE does not "have a fictitious surface on its boundary")."

You are strongly confident that GCE has no fictitious surface on its boundary? Well, let's find out. You willing to publicly admit mistakes? Luksaz (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Luksaz: Sure. Would you mind posting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_statistical_ensemble so that others can profit? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Boson

Hi Tigraan, just letting you know I changed the formatting (but not the content) of your !vote on this page. There is a check script that checks for duplicates/etc and it was a little mad. If this in anyway changed your meaning, please let me know. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• No problem at all. That is actually better. I was just taking a peek at the code to know how to properly format a line break after a numbering. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  It's very messy :) On most other pages #, #:, #:: style would be fine, it was really just because the vote checking script (see report) was mad that the vote line didn't contain a signature block. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

CMA

On the Help Desk, you said you were unfamiliar with this acronym.

You aren't American, are you? American fans of country music would know the term CMA, referring to the Country Music Association.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it appears you meant to say CMA1. CMA has many meanings.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: yup, that was specifically CMA1, the question was about a possible title conflict between the gene CMA1 and the "first CMA" (is that even an acronym? I could not find anything on the web) which took place at the same meeting as the COP 22 (United_Nations_Climate_Change_conference#2016:_COP_22.2FCMP_12.2FCMA_1.2C_Marrakech.2C_Morocco). Without a number, the acronym has so many meanings that the DAB page is needed, I think. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Milky Way

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milky Way. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of earthquakes in 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of earthquakes in 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Inside (video game)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Inside (video game). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Helen Molyneux

Hello, Tigraan. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Helen Molyneux".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Euphoria

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Euphoria. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doxycycline

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doxycycline. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pedophilia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pedophilia. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hamad olatunde

You left a message on his page about an edit that Dr.KavehOstad-Ali-Askari made. The edit Hamad olatunde made is still mostly visible (minus a redacted phone number) at Wikipedia:Help_desk#ABOUT_JOB_SUBMISSION. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Oops, indeed. I should have checked more carefully. Thanks for pointing that to me.

I will redact it (not move it, since the correct account to warn has been blocked already). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Nosler AfD

Hello. I am the creator of the WP:AfD for the .22 Nosler. I like your idea of redirecting to Nosler. But I also like your idea of creating a merged article for these Nosler ammunition articles. I just don't know which is best. I mean I can merge these to the main Nosler article - as subsections of "Company developments". Or I can create a list article, as you mentioned in the AfD. Which of these sounds best to you? In the meantime, I think I will go ahead and start the List article, and merge as much information as I can from each of these. I will leave a link to that article once I get going. Thanks for the ideas, and again, please let me know what you think. And of course you are welcome to help out. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

Here is the page I created: Nosler proprietary cartridges. I rescinded the AfD and then merged two articles. I will try to merge the few or several others in the days to come. If you want to merge one or two, feel free. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Lancelot Cooper

Thanks for your explanations - I can't help thinking that on the basis of Wikipedia's definition of 'notability' the lives of many historical women who are known today would have been rejected by Wikipedia when they were first researched Alantaylor17 (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Alantaylor17: that is correct. Wikipedia never leads, it follows the sources. In that respect, it differs quite a lot from the original encyclopedia, which was also used as a manifesto and a vehicle of new research. A common trope is to say that if Wikipedia was written in the early 16th century, it would write that the Sun rotates around the Earth, and treat proponents of the alternative theory as fringe scientists.

BTW, if ever you want to say "thank you" but have not much else to post, you can use WP:THANK. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

So Tigraan Wikipedia can be summarised as being reactionary rather than proactive. In my opinion this is a pity but I suppose there are good reasons for this approach.Alantaylor17 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MAKS Air Show

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MAKS Air Show. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, FYI

Hello Tigraan, thank you that you use WP:AGF on my mistake with canvassing. There was in german wikipeda a anonym IP who started an editwar and blamed me. How ever it think it is good if I can show you the answer of the administrator (-Kurator71) [3] Important part (for german wikipedia) " Canvassing ist nicht verboten.". So sorry that I made this mistake here nin the english language wikipedia. It is sometimes not easy to keep calm if some people trye again and again to delet what you had createt in a good faith.FFA P-16 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Lancelot Cooper Draft

Hello Tigraan. I note that my draft for this subject still is awaiting acceptance or rejection and looking at the other submissions of the same date there are very very few remaining which have not received some kind of official comment from a senior editor. Just disappointed with the whole process Alantaylor17 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I think something went wrong

Hedostratus (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Huh? Thanks for pointing that out, I have no idea what I did here. It's certainly not intentional. I corrected it in the finished RfA. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Link current revision

Template:Link current revision has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pppery 22:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Transmed Holding

Hello Tigraan,

Thank you for your help in the tea house, really appreciating your feedback. However, the problem is most of the reference i found online were considered as a press release (either an interview with one of the shareholders, or a statement announcing that Transmed won the sales excellence by Clorox etc..) In addition, since Transmed is a whole distributor for international brands in the Middle East and Africa, the articles that can be considered notable will be mentioning Transmed as a distributor for P&G or other brands. On another note, regarding your comments for YES, do you advise that i should remove it, taking into consideration that the Product is now owned by Transmed (as stated in the reference provided.

Really appreciate your assistance. MJHAB (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hi MJHAB!

Unfortunately, if you could not find anything, Transmed is probably not notable for a standalone article. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, but if there is a parent company with an article, a mention on the broader article may be warranted.

This being said, if Transmed won a prominent award given by an independent organization, it could be an indication of notability. (It should be sourced to the award-granting organization rather than a PR from Transmed though.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Field-programmable gate array

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Field-programmable gate array. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Memphis Meats

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Memphis Meats. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Appreciation

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		I've seen you give several very clear and supportive answers on the help desks recently, such as this one ColinFine (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your help desk response

I believe the person was referring to a letter from 1819, not a photo. It's easy to see how you would have misinterpreted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Vchimpanzee: I believe so as well (I guess the OP found the dated letter and the undated photograph together, and made no conclusions about the photograph's date.) Notice that my answer did not assume the OP claimed the photograph was from 1819, either. I just put it there to avoid others do not make the confusion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, right. Didn't think of that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:American Pekin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Pekin. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

LEDs

If you're that interested, look at Luxeon and their online calculator.

Optimum colour depends on species and its usual habitat. More Northerly (sic) rather than tropical plants can use more red. Originally the first LED growers were using predominantly blue, especially those growing flowers. However red is crucial and these days some growers might be using a 2:1 red:blue ratio (by electrical power). Red is also more wavelength sensitive. Using dual band red is pretty common these days, for serious installations (not just Chinese lamps off eBay). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL

you made my wikiday xD. Lil Johnny (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:HD/image

Hello Tigraan, thanks for preparing this. I have taken the liberty to include the template in the documentation at Template:HD/doc. The text is a good summary of all basic aspects imho, and minor tweaks are always possible if anyone else has suggestions. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• You are welcome, GermanJoe. Putting the doc in Template:HD/doc was my plan as well, but I wanted an extra pair of eyes on the copyright aspects beforehand: inducing a newbie into committing a copyvio is worse than pointing them to the wrong reference desk, for instance. But I did not get any feedback apart from yours, so I am going to assume #1 of Warnock's dilemma. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Borderline personality disorder

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Borderline personality disorder. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Orders of length

Why did you start removing the 100 nm section and removed all the sections until 1 Megametre, why cant you just remove all the secotions. I do not think there is a need to remove 100 nanometers, 1 micrometer, 1 centimeter, 1 millimeter, 1 decameter, etc. People need those sections for rescarch and size comparisons anyway, so why did you remove all sections until 1 megametre? 24.150.136.68 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• The ultimate objective that I see is to selectively merge all sections (including those beyond 10^6m) into the general list, keeping only 3-4 examples for each range, but it takes some time and I am basically the only one to do it (you are of course welcome to help). All those were created after this RfC said that multiple subarticles should be merge; I tried to get a clarification about what to keep and under what form at this mass AfD, but all that happened was a copy-paste of all the subarticles into Orders_of_magnitude_(length) which left a lot of redundant stuff.

If you disagree with that objective, I am totally OK with discussing it (at the talk page of the article). Not only did the RfC/AfD not get many people to work on the article, but they also failed to say what should be done, so I will not pretend there is a solid consensus for the endgame I envision. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, but you just appeared to stop at 1 Mm after you removed 100 km. 24.150.136.68 (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox software

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox software. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Streisand effect

Amazing. I read your advice on the Help Desk at the very same time the radio played "You Don't Bring Me Flowers".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC

Hi,

I was concerned to see your edit comment diff. The RfC is still open and you can raise any comment you wish. If something indicates otherwise, I'll happily look in to the problem. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Fæ: Apparently, the discussion has moved on from the merits to whether the RfC was neutrally worded, and that it would be closed on Sunday (in two days). This leaves little time to anyone to answer any comment I would leave. Furthermore, I cannot commit to logging in before the close, so any comment I leave will be my "final word" on the subject.

Sometimes in RfCs we reach a point where reasonable people can disagree depending on taste etc. and then it comes to a head count. If that was the case here, I would have been fine with dropping my name in the support column. But most of the times, a long path of policy interpretation and logic (where reasonable people thinking long enough about it would agree) must be made before the sticking point appears.

I think that the "doublespeak" oppose !votes deserve a serious (attempt to?) refutation that they did not get so far; but I do not wish to drop in there so late, because per above the outcomes are either (1) nobody answers and it comes down to the closer to do whatever they please with my argument, (2) someone answers but I cannot change my mind or counter their argument before the RfC gets closed. Not commenting at all is to me preferable to either of those. Sorry. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. No problem, as nobody should feel under pressure to take part. Longer term views may be worth adding to the essay talk page, as given in the proposal. Depending on the closure there may yet be another stage of discussion about how implementation works. As for the comment you refer to, several others have expressed views on that; I'm amazed that some have defended this way of writing in a sensitive RfC. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ: Yes, some of the "doublespeak" !votes have been criticized because of their form, but I feel that the bottom of such comments ("Wikipedia should not prescribe a manual of style, especially one that is controversial (for whatever reason) in the outside world, for its guidelines") has not been addressed. Anyways, I am preaching to the choir, so I am not sure it is worth pursuing on this page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:W56

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:W56. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Medical resources

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Medical resources. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Money.Net

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Money.Net. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sciences Po

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sciences Po. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Family Supper (June 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kvng was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:A Family Supper and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~Kvng (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Tigraan, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~Kvng (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Xbox One

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xbox One. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Link to Wiktionary

Thanks for replying to my Helpdesk query! When I use the specified format, the article text displays 'wikt:exhort' (I am trying to link to the wiktionary page 'exhort'). This doesn't seem right. User:ClivemacdcClivemacd (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Clivemacd: [[wikt:exhort]] produces wikt:exhort, as intended (otherwise, how would you differentiate a link to Wiktionary, to es-wp and to en-wp?). You may be looking for [[wikt:exhort|exhort]] which produces exhort. The syntax is similar to regular in-en-wp links. Is that clear enough?

Also, since I am not sure why exactly you are asking: you shouldn't randomly link to wiktionary inside mainspace article body. Even if it is to a sister Wikimedia project, it counts as an external link, and is thus subject to restrictions outlined at Wikipedia:External_links. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

For some reason an editor has created a placeholder link to 'exhort' in the body of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy#Christianity , which I was seeking to fulfil via Wiktionary, as there isn't a Wikipedia article 'exhort'. But on reflection I think I'll remove the placeholder.Clivemacd (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey! Thanks for the helpful message. I know it was bot because I used Template:Cookie to give to a computer as a play on the HTTP Cookie. I apologise if this may seem ridiculous and my well-intentioned joke was maybe lost in translation. Also, I chimed in with @Primefac: who has been patient and nice enough to extend some necessary advice with regard to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates as had @Murph9000:. All in all, thank you.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 02:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcoming etiquette

I added a section on bots to Wikipedia:Welcome committee#Welcoming etiquette, but I'm not sure if it's worded well enough. If you want to improve upon my edit, feel free to do so.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 19:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Hello Tigraan, your BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Tigraan-testbot) has been approved. Another 'crat will add the bot flag soon, then you will be good to go. Check the rights log to determine it is ready. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic calendar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic calendar. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:0.999...

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:0.999.... Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Taxonbar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Taxonbar. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Calendar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Calendar. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carbylamine-choline-chloride

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carbylamine-choline-chloride. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

International Phonetic Alphabet

Thanks for your helpful comments about my concerns over this topic. I have sent a message to Sweyn78 on his own Talk page. RoachPeter (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Talk:Irena Bjelica. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Plimpton 322

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Plimpton 322. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Tigraan, thank you for your comments at my RfA, and sorry for wasting so many bytes answering your question which should have been pretty simple. Your support is much appreciated! And I have definitely started using edit summaries everywhere, feel free to call me out if you see me forget. ansh666 22:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Retrospect (software)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Retrospect (software). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Plasma (physics)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Plasma (physics). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Revert on Retired Editor

I have just reverted your previous edits on Talk:Plasma (physics). If you disagree, I do suggest and welcome an WP:ANI, as the provocative editor has likely used the 'complaint' for other purposes, and has bypassed the usual procedures of discussion on an article Talkpage. I have done everything feasible to justify my edits without response. Please legitimise these current reverts. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your information

I had a hard time finding your actual answer since it had scrolled off https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=prev&diff=802297484#Fair_use_image_given_to_me_by_press.2Fpr_department_-_what_to_enter_to_be_allowed_to_use.3F I am not a press agent, I am the spouse. I used the Wikipedia upload wizard instead of commons and I hope that is acceptable. I understand that Wikipedia is not to be used for SEO, however no need for the help pages of SEO to create useless noise. Thanks again for the explanations. Mplungjan (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bipolar disorder

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bipolar disorder. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jianianhualong

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jianianhualong. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox element

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox element. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying

Thanks for all you did but it looks like all it achieved is that I have two of them and no one from the outside. 'John from Idegon' brought in his friend [4] "Can you point me toward the discussion? Kinda hard, at least for me, to even know where to begin it. Anmccaff (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)" These two seem set on eliminating even the small mention as they measure how many feet outside of the exact city limits the park sits.[5][6] Thanks again for trying. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Gilmore, you can strike that accusation of canvassing, or you can open it at ANI, but if you leave it here I will open a filing. Anmccaff (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff did I state something that was in factual error that is not supported by the linked pages? Please point out the error and I will remove it and appologies, immediately. Thank you ahead of time, for pointing out the exact detail in error. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI, then. Anmccaff (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Great, now they have begun the edit warring, by changing the section of the article currently under RFC; with Anmccaff readying an ANI case.[7][8] Just what I was trying to avoid, well it was worth a try and thanks again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Folks, I would be grateful if your attempts at communicating took place elsewhere than on my talk page. I think I have made clear than I am not going to involve myself in your dispute beyond what a TeaHouse hosts does when answering a question there. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Substance abuse

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Substance abuse. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

How do I close a RFC discussion?

Sorry to bother you, but I don't know how to end it? And sorry again that others followed me to your page. Perhaps you would be so kind as to place the answer on my talk page. Thanks again for your kind help. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• @C. W. Gilmore: I prefer to keep threads where they started, if you do not mind. My beef above was not about people using my talk page, but about people ranting on my talk page about subjects I chose not to address; in the exchange above, the responsibility is about 50-50 between Anmccaff and you. Moving on...

Since you did not mention which RfC closure you intended, I assume this is about Talk:Ridgefield,_Washington#RFC_Should_the_Recent_History_section_be_renamed_Jefferson_Davis_Park_and_content_expanded. In general, you should not close an RfC in which you were involved. If you started it, you can withdraw it, under the condition that the proposal has not attracted any substantial support. Because the responses are not an unanimous wall of opposes, I am not sure that would be proper; I left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:Ridgefield.2C_Washington.23RFC_Should_the_Recent_History_section_be_renamed_Jefferson_Davis_Park_and_content_expanded, and I strongly advise you wait for someone else to close it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I posted a comment stating that the consensus was against it and that I accepted that majority opinion, but I didn't know where to go from there. Thanks again for the help. I'm an older person and not that good with technical issues on websites. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo-Michels.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo-Michels.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tigraan. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
Message added 07:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Plasma (physics)

Hi Tigraan, for your information, the request for comment has expired. Not sure what happens next. Attic Salt (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Attic Salt: it stays open (though it is not advertised on central locations) until someone uninvolved (usually an admin) decides to close it, or it slides into the archives. I left a note at ANRFC, which is the place to request such closures, but I am not sure anyone can extract a relevant consensus from it - the WP:WALLOFTEXT tactics seem to have deterred large participation... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:A Family Supper concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:A Family Supper, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Red panda

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Red panda. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:RD/C question about integer enumeration

Hi, I have tried to change the [question ] so that it ain't XY problem anymore. Kindly oblige me by relooking at it. And please reply  Jon Ascton  (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jon Ascton: See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Any_logical_sequence_for_this... where I gave you the "here's a fish", since apparently the "how to fish" was not enough. Granted, coding is not a second nature to everyone, but asking questions about enumerating numbers with some property is not common either. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right, man...and Thanks  Jon Ascton  (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oncotarget

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oncotarget. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)