User talk:DMacks/Archive 25

3288:, I will review what is readily available to me, however I note that you are once again making something simple (my question) very unclear and elongated (your answer). If you intend to debate the words "fair" and "valid" as being interpreted any other way besides "factual and without personal motive" then I have a hard time trusting in your credibility and or intellect. I mean absolutely no insult In any of this, but you don't need a college degree to interpret a word you learned in kindergarten. Sounding intelligent and being it are two different things. I shall respond to any reply when I review on my end. Once again I mean no harm, I would just respect a straight simple answer to a simple question. Additionally, "entirely rejected in the scientific community" does not mean it isn't factual. Readily I admit I have not followed Dr. Hovind or his work for a great deal of time however what I have dug into shows validity. 1767:. My first edit was at 03:52, 28 August 2015, when I removed allegations that ECHR had recognized that Tymoshenko had been tortured‎ in detention. I provided a reference to the actual judgement of the court, which explicitly rejects these claims. Lidaz then started an edit war to reinstate the false claim about the court's recognition. I asked Future Perfect at Sunrise for help. He rewrote part of the article which had been rewritten by Lidaz in terrible English. It turned out Lidaz was a sock and he was blocked indefinitely. Since IPs started reinstated the same edits, Dennis Brown semi protected the page. Sometimes after that another user, Gal777, started to reintroduce the same edits. He turned out to be a sock of Lidaz and was idefinitely blocked too. Now, Volunteer Marek changed " the Ukrainian Supreme Court closed the case and found that "no crime was committed"." into "the Ukrainian Supreme Court 3336:

superfluous regardless of valid point. I then ask this question (having now reread the entire article and reviewed some of the "sources" (and I say sources lightly seeing as links are broken or content is gone from their linked pages altogether)): If nothing about that article's content is to be discussed here on your user talkpage, why then do you believe you are a proper or adequate decider of the content of the page who is above reproach? Also, I notice that despite my stance for a professional discussion (save one lapse on both our part) I realize I am being pressing. I am however asking your (implied underline) thoughts and sources, not for you to hide behind WP policy which I have not violated by asking you a direct question for source material on the content you personally edited, seeing as the links on my end are broken or missing.

3234:, what exactly are the "sources and proof" that have in your opinion counted Dr. Hovind' work as discredited? And to also be "fair", I believe you gave too much of a runaround and difficult answer (and you didn't even answer the direct question) to the user Mickaelcadcock for a simple question. Purely, I am curious as to what exactly you've edited to his page as well as the "discrediting proof", seeing as I've monitored his description by Wiki users who can write whatever they so choose regardless of validity for quite some time now and I'm displeased that all I see are lashing opinions spoken in a negative and bias way. 3270:--an interesting essay that seems to relate to many editors' thoughts on that and other controversial articles and why "fair" or "valid" is probably not what most of them think that word means here (especially those who have strong feeling about the subject). You can see above and on the talkpage how the other user seems to have felt and acted in response to my and others' answers. Please actually read the article, I see for example several footnotes for "entirely rejected in the scientific community"--I assume you overlooked those details when you read the article? 2950: 3884: 3600: 3421: 1689: 31: 3172: 3385: 3023: 2944: 2645: 2589: 949: 3949: 3924: 3571: 3546: 2100: 3825:"Annoying animation" is exactly what it sounds like it means: the constant motion distracts the reader while trying to read the article itself. There is also an occasional glitch where a white square flashes in the upper-left corner. The animation itself appears to have several consecutive sets of the same sequence, making the file much larger (slower to download and start to display) than necessary. 3181: 765: 435:'s act as vandalism because there was a huge discussion about this issue in SPT talk and ANI a while ago, and I specifically pointed out about the link issue as well as others, and I thought it was settled. I urged him to join the discussion but he never did. And a couple of days ago, he deleted my writings and stole my link source as his again. I looked at 1820:"it doesn't matter who is really "right"" I could not disagree more with you. Knowledge's consensual approach and its positivist disregard for truth are very dangerous. There was consensus at Salem too. When the matter is inherently subjective and there is no objective way to determine what is true, I agree that consensus is the best method 524:. As I can now see, your edits are disputed by multiple other editors, therefore I was correct not to rely solely on your statements here, but instead to recommend you use venues that give multiple other editors a chance to discuss. You did not answer my quetion: what (if any) is your affiliation with the companies involved with this topic? 1772:

conservative. I tried to maintain the consensus reached with Future Perfect at Sunrise and Dennis Brown. Therefore, I do not understand why you accuse me of edit warring, while giving a free pass to MVBW and VM to introduce changes that are factually wrong. Ask Dennis Brown or FPS, they are well aware of the whole affair. Thank you.

3783:, a really basic idea that should definitely have been covered in a standard organic chemistry course, and is usually covered even before than in a chemistry curriculum. It involves the relative directions of the bonds coming off each atom. At the level of organic chemistry, it is especially related to 2458:

Qubool Hai was indeed a terrible review job in its own right (I commented at that article's GA-review page). And Digvijay411 does appear to have either trading softball reviews or acting poorly towards other editors who are active in this genre. I'll give it a day or so to see if it gets any bites at

1791:

is very clear that it doesn't matter who is really "right" or which content eventually winds up in the article. By a brief look, I don't see a discussion with clear consensus on the talkpage. Feel free to discuss with the other editors involved, especially those who currently disagree with your edits

1367:

problem is that everyone in the world who are using internet.org gets assigned IP in the face:b00c range and internet.org system cycles the ip on a global scale, not regionally. so, because of some vandals in the ip range, innocent users get blocked. and the vandals can get away by creating accounts

415:

to join the discussion, but he never did. The following link -Zatsuwa, Monosagu (2005). "Beware, soft ground and the standard penetration test" (in Japanese). Public Works Research Institute.- is without a doubt what I found and he repeatedly kept deleting my writing as well as the link and stole the

1824:

it is accompanied with systematic doubt. As things stand the most vocal, and therefore more biased, voices get their way. In the case at hand, things are easy. Just read the ECHR judgement yourself. If you find any decision by the court that "no crime was committed", I will apologize. Please, if you

1313:

addresses with FACE:B00C in their range are used by internet.org app service and not "geologically localized" in that a person in south asia can get allocated an address for a time which will be later cycled to any person in EU or NA. blocking entire ranges is too much collateral damage. please look

866:

I knocked it down to pending-changes, and will check back in a day or so to see how it is surviving. For the record, we can't see "attempts at vandalism" that semi-protection is preventing. The software completely disables editing for those who are prevented from editing, so we cannot tell what they

504:

It is true that anyone can use a link to support his writing as long as his writing follows the source material. He cannot read Japanese, and he does not understand PWRI article. Anyone who has read the article know he never read it. His writing is quite different from the PWRI article. Although you

489:

was rejected (and I similarly reject this as a simple/obvious case) given that it has already been to AIV. I have no idea what it means to "steal" a link...links are just sources, and anyone can point to them to claim they support some fact. Perhaps this is a mis-translation of some other language's

3335:

Incorrect on your statement of my "paragraph" question/answer. If you review my very first involvement, only one sentence was annotated with a question mark, making it the only (short and simple) question. The rest was response opinion/fact to your prior actions and I see you took it as generally

2561:

is the tutorial: essentially you click a button on the existing page to start the "move" process, then enter the new name you want, then click ok. If it doesn't work, or you make a typo and need to undo it or move it yet again, or want to remove the short-lived mis-capitalized remnant after moving,

1396:

That is the nature of range-blocks, yes. And I along with several other admins and vandal-patrolling editors felt it was an acceptable trade-off given the circumstances. I have re-examined, and I stand by my position on that. There are multiple methods used here, which also might prevent the vandal

552:

that can cause harm to people and environment, how does one decide "too many quotes"? If you read through the quotes in this entry, you'll find that they wind up contradicting each other -- that this chemical is safe but then is banned in the EU and (under Toxicity) according to the UN IPCS and US

2670:

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

2614:

2127:

Hi my name is Gabriele Corcos, you just deleted my page (twice). I am setting up a bio page and will absolutely release my content from copyright, just wanted to let you know that this is me, in first person and all copyright in question is mine (no share holders). Please let me know if I am doing

927:

Yes, admins can hide the IP-address of individiual edits in a page's edit-history. My link is available if you'd like to use it (ping me here so I know to check that account). Or you can email OTRS and someone who monitors that queue will handle it (those agents are vetted for handling non-public

519:

You are the one who raised the issue with stealing a link, a concept that makes no sense. Nobody "owns" a link, we (editors) all just use links as references to support content we write ourselves. I'm glad his writing is different than the content on some other website...if it were the actual same

1771:

closed the case and found that "no crime was committed"", thus associating the ECHR to the judgement of the the Ukrainian Supreme Court, which is factually false. He seems to enjoy the support of My very best wishes who strangely contradicts his own previous edits. In any case, my action has been

1351:

the reason a rangeblock is a reasonable solution. And indeed this case is a vandal jumping among many IPs in the range you cite. Maybe internet.org should stop running such an abusable proxy system? I'm not on their administrative or technical staff. Collateral damage of non-vandal users is often

1292:

No. You and others with interest in that article have demonstrated that you are incapable of creating an acceptable article there (or elsewhere), so you will need to use a sandbox/draft-space so that an administrator can make sure it's acceptable this time. Consider it as an alternative to having

2821:

article. Neither of us has an academic background in chemistry or the physical sciences. Would you be willing to review the article content as relates to the subject's academic career and work in chemistry, and perhaps do a little sniffing around for additional content to round out the related

147:, edit-warring will get your edit-privleges revoked. And violating our policies on use of quoted material will get your edit-privleges revoked even more promptly. Do not continue down this path. I am saying this as an administrative warning, not related to the value of the content on this topic. 1850:

about behavior. Following such a simple behavior policy is a great way to get your ideas heard and possibly implemented. In this case, it seems there are quite obvious disputes about what sources to use, what they actually say, and/or how to write about them. The ultimate form of the article is

794:

You're welcome! The analysis of the structure as being "catechol", "phenethylamine", etc is too obvious to need refs, but the definitions of those terms could be taken from their target articles if someone complains. The general idea of formulating amine drugs as salts for solubility reasons is

1695:

I brought up a discussion on IRC regarding potential cross-wiki abuse for this SPI case. However, the consensus from enCUs and steward appears to suggest that cross-wiki CheckUsers team are already collaborating on issues like this. However, prior to my persistent reporting, users did not seem

3316:

You asked a paragraph, I answered as such. The short answer for you is: "nothing about that article's content is to be discussed here on my user talkpage". The longer answer included more details, including where to go instead, and the general nature of WP that you (still) seem to be missing.

1239:

Copyvio of the content as a whole and license violation of the image. It's only "your own" page in that it is associated with your account; it is still within the Knowledge site and governed by certain rules. I recommend you spend some time re-familiarizing yourself with our core policies, as

4060:

The other protection had expired, so I was testing to see if there was any hope of a reduced level being sufficient. The answer seems like a clear "NO", so I reprotected to the higher level again for another month. Let me know if any other administrative action is needed.

3265:

guidelines and have read previous discussions so you don't waste everyone's time re-hashing the same arguments that will almost certainly have the same outcome. Hopefully you're not here solely to slant some article towards (as your username suggests) the

3671:

DMacks, I would like to contact you regarding the indefinite blocking of an account by you. My query relates to our decision on how to dispose of the matter with the individual in question. Therefore, How would I contact you in private to discuss?

1851:

subject to consensus once it becomes clear that there are genuine mis-readings or that one source is clearly at odds with many others. Please dial down your urgency and strident actions so that your ideas themselves can be taken for what they are.

427:

One more thing about three-revert rule in Boring(earth). I know about three-revert rule, but i though I could revert more than three if it was reverted by more than one other user. I am no expert in Knowledge, and I never intended an edit-war.

2822:

sections of the article? I have three graduate degrees (one in economics, two in law), but I am clearly off the reservation when I start discussing academic chemistry and related research. Please let me know if you can help. No rush.

678:? The previous sentence talks about the movie that was her "debut". That means that movie was her first one. Some other movie would not be "previous" to it, but instead would come after it ("next"). Are you thinking "next" means "after 799:

article--the ref looks like a reliable secondary/tertiary source. That this drug is formulated this way (•HCl rather than •HBr or other combinations) does need its own ref--I know about chemistry but not this chemical in particular.

110:

i haven't undone contributions of others, it's the opposite : others (meaning : usually black metal's fans) have undone my contributions because they think wikipedia is about point of view, not about telling the truth. So do you ?

1792:

to try to persuade them that you are right. Ask those with whom you claim you currently have consensus to weigh in as well. All of this goes on the article talkpage so nobody can claim some secret deal, bad-faith explanation, etc.

3404:

You will be able to upload images to Wikimedia Commons from inside the wikitext editor by clicking "Upload" in the "Insert file" dialog. You will also be able to drag and drop them into an article when using the visual editor.

1647:

Oops, thanks. I put the key info in the caption, but didn't notice that there was description rather than just citation in the footnote. So I removed the (now-incorrect and seemingly redundant) description from the footnote.

419:

If you examine the SPT talk page,and its history as well as ANI, I am positive you would understand that I have provided all the necessary and reliable source to validate my writings, and I never enforced my points to

387:

NeilN protected it. Unless the IPs spread their crap to other pages, I'm content to leave it as "they chose a target, it got protected, they gave up". I think the IPs are not part of a reasonably blockable range:(

1671:

Read your updates on the case linked above. I'm thinking of designing an edit filter for this non-privileged users placing privileged templates. Any thoughts? Have you noticed any trends? Ping me upon reply.

1346:

on the accounts is not an effective or efficient solution at this point. If a pool of IPs that is assigned to a certain service provider is being abused by a vandal who rapidly jumps within that pool, that's

3103:

I'm not sure what "fair" means to you in this context. But the statement seems to be a reasonable summary of the overwhelming and well-cited opinion discussed elsewhere in the article. It's in accord with

588:

work for you, and do you agree the rest are short enough? (While I agree with you in general regarding quotes, when it comes to technical matters I find that nuance can often go missing when summarized.--

3802:

compound, the two rings are twisted compared to each other, not both parallel and cupped down as you drew. And the carbons that have a double bond (each with a hydrogen attached) you made approximately

3112:

that this wording is proper, according to the history of the article's talkpage. Feel free to read those many previous discussions and then start a new discussion there if you have new points to raise.

1528:

The Content Translation tool can give translation suggestions. This feature will now be available in more languages: English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Turkish, Japanese, Italian, and Catalan.

1787:

You are the one who made the same edits several times, whereas multiple others who are not socks made rational edit-summaries disputing it. I am acting solely as admin here, not taking sides here, and

847:

are coming out, and the article has been semi-protected (without a visible padlock) since last December. There have been no attempts at vandalism since then - could the protection level be changed to

1081:

expired for most of Tuesday 15 September. To reach Wikimedia Labs and Tool Labs securely you had to ignore your browser's security error message. There was no risk to data security during this time.

465:

rule is a bright line regarding each individual's behavior, not "per opponent". But I do notice you have a history of uploading media files whose license/source tags are incorrect and often are

2633: 4045:? I think you introduced the pending changes but it does not seem effective, or does it? I believe the previous type of protection was better. Or perhaps some other solution exists. Thanks, -- 3086:

Why did you rollback my edits to Kent Hovind’s wiki? I don't think it's a fair statement to say that the entire scientific community discredit all of Kent Hovind's claims. Would you agree?

3790:

As I wrote on the image-deletion nomination, "Surely incorrect geometry of central C (not reasonable for 4-bonds, and not "spiro" per name)". The central carbon you created is approximately

568:

It's worthwhile mentioning the different and contradictory positions. But that doesn't have to be done by extended direct quotes. Instead, summarize the relevant material in your own words.

4210:

Don't worry about reverting the page any longer. I shall be replacing the references with 3rd party refs. the IP is being a total dickbag about it, but I'll edit it to suit wiki standards.

2577: 1910:

Right there is a great reason there needs to be a public and centralized discussion, so that anyone else looking at it can see what led to the article being in the form it ultimately has.

457:

I am not taking a position on the content at this time. As an admin, I am merely stopping a content dispute, forcing you (plural) to talk about it, get additional editors' input, etc (see

1125:

You can now choose whether to extend a link or not when editing one in VisualEditor. This means it is easier to choose how much of what you type before and after the link is part of it.

881:

Thanks for that! I've seen some spurious edit requests on pages which have been vandalised in the past, so I took it as a good sign that there was none of that on Hockey's article. --

403: 1060:

More Wikipedias can now use information from any Wikidata item in any Knowledge article. Previously they could only use the Wikidata item that matched the subject of the article.

1530: 3300: 3239: 1873:, unless Againstdisinformation objects to clarification made by Alex Bakharev (he should not based on his previous edit). Saying that, I do not mind it be protected for weeks. 3715: 4089:

under G12. This page was then created by some other editor. I just wanted keep you informed that I have recreated this page. Let me know if you have any observations. Cheers,

903:

Dmacks, if an editor edits logged out, the IP adress is revealed- if it was accidental and unintended, is there a means of deleting the IP address from the edit history (re.

1113:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 22. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from September 23. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 24 (

307:

ContentTranslation will show more data on the Special:ContentTranslationStats page. For example, it will show translation trends and information about deleted translations.

275:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 15. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from September 16. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 17 (

1895: 1826: 1773: 3953:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on

3932:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from November 10. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from November 11. It will be on all Wikipedias from November 12 (

3575:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on

3026:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on

2757:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on

1512:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 29. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from September 30. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 1 (

1086:

Last week the notification system was split into two parts. This was temporarily undone because of a bug and performance concerns. It will return to two parts this week.

3177:

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! With these night owl nights you're always pulling, here's some hydration.

2684: 451: 3767: 3740: 3554:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from November 3. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from November 4. It will be on all Wikipedias from November 5 (

3392:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 27. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from October 28. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 29 (

3296: 3235: 2733:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 13. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from October 14. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 15 (

2628: 1988:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 6. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis from October 7. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 8 (

2198:

is currently vandalised by many anonymous users. Could you please protect the article from getting vandalised by adding protection for few days. Yours Sincerely,

1834: 1725: 1665: 2986:

The deployment of the new MediaWiki version was stopped on October 14. No new code was deployed for the rest of week. This meant planned changes did not happen.

2868: 2021:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

1554:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

1142:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

289:

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on

4004: 3634: 3445: 3340:

I am not willing to discuss any article content issues (including access/functionality of cites) of that article anywhere except on that article's talk-page.

3049: 2780: 2058: 1595: 1187: 329: 3133: 3089: 227:

Belarusian-Taraškievica Knowledge was moved from be-x-old.wikipedia.org to be-tarask.wikipedia.org. This caused some issues, but most of them were resolved.

4176: 3814:

Almost all wikipedia articles about organic structures have a diagram that you can rotate manually to see different shape ideas. Look for the link in the "

2740:

You will be able to upload images to Wikimedia Commons using the visual editor. When the image is uploaded it will be added to the article you're editing.

506: 443: 4024: 3954: 3654: 3576: 3465: 3069: 3027: 2800: 2758: 2346: 2078: 1615: 1555: 1207: 1154: 1143: 1049:

Last week a few issues with UploadWizard were fixed. Before this was done, UploadWizard would stop you from uploading your files if something went wrong.

820:

In response to your edit summary, I did not add the content that you are concerned about. The uncited claim was in the article before I ever edited it.

349: 290: 2136: 2022: 1733: 937: 2908: 1406: 1361: 660: 1903: 1860: 1801: 543: 119: 3720:

The benzene structure of Spiropentadiene was 3D animation and also part of my midterm assignment was to add the 3D struture, please understand me.

3326: 3279: 2319:

which was not needed at all. Just bringing to your notice because you have administered Bohra's page and might know the history of these editors. §§

1882: 1815: 1388: 1334: 3684: 2453: 2362: 1302: 562: 2411:

Ahah, thanks! I had diagnosed it as far as a case of fractal radiation jamming the backbone, but couldn't figure out where they were coming from.

439:, and it seems his act fits the description of vandalism. This is why I reported. I honestly do not know if this reporting is an act of edit-war. 313: 308: 3834: 1284: 3219: 3156: 3122: 2521: 2496: 1729: 1169: 613: 4199: 890: 876: 533: 514: 499: 478: 4070: 3700:

I have my link available. No guarantees I would be willing to act or continue to discuss "not on-wiki" though (lack of transparancy, etc.).

1705: 1657: 1384: 1330: 1225: 860: 2148: 695: 2841:

Hi DMacks, Khowar language, is currently semi-protected please set the protection level to; Pending changes protected (level 1). Thankyou

2420: 2406: 2376: 2254: 553:

CDC can cause harm to the environment (which is the intended use: to effect the environment, starting with tree roots)... Respectfully --

397: 156: 2981:

Some templates were misplaced in the Flow description bar. This could make it impossible to click on links. This will be fixed this week.

2339: 1233: 1001: 921: 4164: 4117: 3680: 1440:

In UploadWizard, the dialog to see an image preview has been removed. You already see the images in the thumbnails when you upload them.

1314:

deeply into this. block the sock accounts, not ip ranges. speaking as a victim of ip rangeblock associated with someone I did not know.

1261: 809: 597: 577: 505:

say it is only a matter of the link, but he deleted my PWRI summary and took its link as his. I don't see why you don't find it strange.

2571: 1752: 640: 3900:

Some translations for the Thanks and Echo extensions were missing. Translators have been asked to help and this should be solved soon.

1919: 1249: 1219: 621: 2184: 3709: 3304: 3201: 2888: 2155:

As the copyvio alert on your talkpage says, "If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see

4102: 726:

without discussion. So the user is applying same rules over these pages according to him/her. Please take action on this. Regards,

3332: 3285: 3231: 2156: 1280: 4012: 3876:

You can now switch between the wikitext editor and the visual editor without saving. You will not lose the changes you have made.

3856: 3841: 3747:

I beg your pardon, I need your explanation, please. "Incorrect structure", please explain. "Annoying Animation", please explain.

3642: 3584: 3493: 3478: 3453: 3371: 3356: 3057: 2929: 2914: 2788: 2705: 2690: 2066: 1951: 1936: 1681: 1603: 1428: 1413: 1195: 1022: 1007: 337: 206: 191: 2717:

The database size lists have been updated. These control special page update frequency and which wikis use global abuse filters.

2460: 1781: 1737: 4000: 3958: 3630: 3580: 3514:

If you are using the mobile version of Knowledge, you can now see Wikidata descriptions under article titles in search results.

3441: 3045: 3031: 2831: 2776: 2762: 2054: 2026: 1963:

The link editor in the visual editor now shows results below the search box. This improves the usability on desktop and mobile.

1591: 1577: 1559: 1183: 1147: 829: 325: 294: 185: 3308: 3243: 2634: 2578: 2122: 2114: 834: 607: 424:

or others; I have been very open to discussion. He is the one who kept deleting my writings and cussing without solid reasons.

3975: 2857: 167:

The vandal thought he or she was being funny or insulting, but you made me laugh when I saw your response in the edit summary

4222: 4008: 3804: 3763: 3736: 3638: 3449: 3249:

Thank you for your opinions. You are welcome to visit the talk-page of any article to start a discussion about that article--

3230:

Only beginning a new discussion seeing as I am unable to post my thoughts on the existing thread. Anyway... Out of curiosity

3053: 2884: 2881:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2784: 2659:, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. 2603:, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. 2062: 1599: 1191: 381: 333: 3822:

itself, the article even tells you the exact geometric parameter, and the various cited refs discuss the geometry in detail.

1542: 4137: 3141: 3097: 2516: 2448: 2334: 2213: 1632:

When you substituted a new diagram (set), you did not correspondingly amend the footnote, which refers to the old diagram.

1255: 259:

The Wikimedia mailing lists should have been upgraded on September 9. It didn't work as planned and will now happen later.

1454:

You can now edit music scores in VisualEditor. You can add new sheet music scores and get live updates when you edit one.

168: 3791: 2861: 1308: 882: 852: 821: 232:

Language preferences might not be changed immediately when you adjust them. Language selection might work slower. Please

3868: 3399:

The first time you use the visual editor, pop-ups will explain why and when you should use the citation and link tools.

2235: 1165: 1094: 844: 668: 631:

who edits rapidly when he gets in the mood. Doesn't make it any harder to clean up, just more noise in the watchlists:)

369:

is at it again. I have requested page protection, but thought the other two IPs inserting crap about killers/murderers

4076: 3808: 2260: 2144: 997: 917: 251: 3855: