User talk:Volunteer1234

Presidency (country subdivision)

I hope it is not too much of a bother, but can you solve the (at least) 224 links to disambiguation pages created by your edits on Presidency (country subdivision)? To be positive, that number of 224 related to the number of used of Template:Terms for types of country subdivisions where the link to "Presidency" is used. 10:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know of this oversight. I will look at this now. Volunteer1234 (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Another editor has changed the page to a redirect, so it is not a serious problem now. See WP:NOTBROKEN Volunteer1234 (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Frieze group

One problem with the edit is that the phrase "according to the symmetries of the pattern" formerly modified the verb "to classify", but now it is not clear what it modifies. Another issue is that, in my opinion, the lede should define the subject of the article and not some other, related concept. Also, "frieze group pattern" is not, to my knowledge, standard mathematical terminology. In mathematics one is more likely to say "pattern with frieze group symmetry". Could you explain what you are trying to accomplish with this edit? Perhaps I can suggest something.Will Orrick (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Will, thanks for your comment! "A frieze group is a mathematical concept used to classify designs..." is extremely wordy and makes it a process of classification rather than a symmetry. This contrasts with the very simple diagram to the right, which actually says "Examples of frieze group patterns". I see the problem with "according to..." I think there is a simple solution to this, and I look forward to your suggestions. Volunteer1234 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
One possibility is "A frieze group is the set of symmetries of a pattern on a two-dimensional surface that is repetitive in one direction." This isn't 100% accurate since a frieze group, by definition, contains only isometries, which are distance-perserving transformations, including translation, reflection, rotation, and glide reflection. Some patterns may have additional symmetries - for example permutation of colors combined with an isometry. Another slight inaccuracy is that to specify a concrete frieze group one needs to specify certain geometric data such as the width of the unit cell and the position of any reflection or rotation axes within a unit cell. When one says that there are seven frieze groups, one means there are seven up to a certain notion of equivalence in which these data don't matter. This is why the formal definition later in the article says that a frieze group is a "class of discrete symmetry groups". One thing that can be said for the previous wording is that it is non-specific enough not to be factually incorrect. Will Orrick (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with that wording. It is better than the previous wording. Generally I'd like to see math articles begin with something a general reader (like me) can understand. I know this is difficult at times, but with this article it is possible. Thanks! Volunteer1234 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about this. What I'm leaning towards now is replacing the first paragraph with something like "In mathematics, a frieze or frieze pattern is a design on a two-dimensional surface that is repetitive in one direction. Such patterns occur frequently in architecture and decorative art. A frieze group is the set of symmetries of a frieze pattern, specifically the set of isometries of the pattern, that is geometric transformations built from rigid motions and reflections that preserve the pattern. The mathematical study of frieze patterns reveals that they can be classified into seven types according to their symmetries." The obvious problem with this is that the subject of the article isn't introduced until the third sentence. One advantage is that it introduces the word "classify" early. For mathematicians, one of the most interesting things about frieze groups is that they can be completely classified, and that we know there are exactly seven types. The word "classify" occurs twice in paragraph two, and omitting mention of classification from paragraph one would require that the second paragraph be rewritten as well. Still hoping for a better idea though. Will Orrick (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANDOR

If you are the past WP:ANDOR editor, keep in mind that, per this RfC (which I partly started because of the WP:ANDOR editor), WP:ANDOR is only a guideline and is allowed in some cases. This is why that guideline's wording was updated. And, per MOS:QUOTE, "and/or" should not be changed in quotes unless the change is somehow needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at your edit history, it appears that you are not the same editor, but I'm not 100% sure since this account started editing around the time that Μαριλιάνα Σερέτη (talk · contribs) stopped editing. At the moment, you remind me more of a different past editor. Either way, please keep the WP:ANDOR RfC in mind when removing "and/or." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the MOS survey! I will take that into consideration. Of course I don't alter quotes, that doesn't make any sense. I do not know of Μαριλιάνα Σερέτη. I'd like to think edits stand on their own, no matter who made them. Volunteer1234 (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Fiber (naive set theory) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis, this isn't a copy-and-paste move but a splitting of an article. – Uanfala 23:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I realized that after I found the second half, as you didn't put that information into the talk pages. Nevertheless, this split isn't a good idea and I'm going through the process of undoing it. This is a short article, both of whose meanings are closely related, and so there's no real reason to split. Moreover, there are some serious problems with the text in the article, which I'll work on cleaning up after this is all sorted out. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
No opinion on that, but just noting, that your current interlocutor isn't the same user as the one that this talk page belongs to. – Uanfala 23:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Right, I also realized that after the fact; sorry about that. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I caused a mess here. I was just trying to do what I thought was an obvious split. The article still implies there are two topics. Maybe the lead could be improved to have a general definition of the topic? Volunteer1234 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fiber (algebraic geometry)

A tag has been placed on Fiber (algebraic geometry) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Undoing a not-well-thought-out split from the original at Fiber (mathematics), along with the other half at Fiber (naive set theory)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fiber (naive set theory)

A tag has been placed on Fiber (naive set theory) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G6, undoing a page that was created from a not-well-thought-out split attempt from the original at Fiber (mathematics); the other half is also under request at Fiber (algebraic geometry)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Note, sorry for the double notification, but I redid the request as (noted above), I didn't realize this was from an attempt to split. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Deep diving

Thanks for trying to improve Deep diving, but there isn't any agreed definition of deep diving and the article history and its talk page history are full of disagreements about how it may be defined. In addition, the article already had a substantial lead - you can't subdivide a lead into sections using level 3 headers in the way you tried to. Moreover, level 3 headers must be preceded by a level 2 header - see MOS:GOODHEAD.

As a result, I've restored the previous version of the article. Perhaps you may wish to suggest other improvements, or perhaps attempt a more comprehensive lead section per MOS:LEAD. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I've tried again without the sections. I am attempting to start a MOS:LEAD. Can we move this discussion to the talk page? Volunteer1234 (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a silly goat

Sorry for reverting you at Cooloola Tramway. It wasn't my intention. I was thanking you because I agree that "use" is almost always preferable to "utilise". But the thank button is immediately next to the undo button in the interface so I am guessing I clicked the wrong one by accident (I have a permanently broken right arm so my control of my right hand, my mouse hand, is a bit unreliable, particularly when I am tired). Thank you for questioning it; normally I would have given a reason for a revert.

Kerry (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! Sorry about your arm. Volunteer1234 (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Good job

Good job in third world article.Be careful nobody disruptes it.Really good!Kingofwoods (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish it wasn't such a battle sometimes. I lost to the (only) editor of Horkey today.[[1]] Volunteer1234 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You well described third world.First and second world are already well described.This is the real world.Developing and not developed are just hipocricy words.Follow also these to articles.Nobody can damage them changing.Thanks.Kingofwoods (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Volunteer1234. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit on Intelligence

Hello, just checking if you saw my edit and if you think that the given reason is consistent and compatible with the chosen wording of the page's lead section :-) Drow (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. Obviously I prefer my edit "to include". None of those are definitions, they are attributes that may be included in varying degrees in different definitions. I'd actually prefer if the sentences were reversed:
Intelligence is generally described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. It has been defined in many different ways to include the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, and problem solving. Volunteer1234 (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I changed the lead section but, if you don't mind, can I ask you if you are an English native speaker? If so, could you please read the entirety of the new lead section with calm and, in doing so, check whether the pace, elegance, and clearness of the section are OK for an encyclopedia? Thanks. Drow (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

List of portmanteaus

Hey mate, just wanted to let you know that a word being a proper noun does not exclude that word from also being a portmanteau. Take a look at the entire organizations and companies section or most of the art, literature, and entertainment section for the matter. Also, I provided citation from the IEEE for the definition of Wi-Fi in both the list and the article itself, so hopefully that clears things up. Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree about an album title being a portmanteau. A portmanteau is a word, as in something that would be in a dictionary. But anyway the wifi one is just wrong. Maybe you can find one reference back you up but there are hundreds that actually explain how wifi is just a brand name and is based on hifi. You can start here: Wi-Fi Volunteer1234 (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Intercultural communication

I missed the edit summary. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)