User:Finell/My Sandbox

Helium hydride ion

 * SystematicName = Hydridohelium(1+)

The hydrohelium(1+) cation, HeH+, also known as the helium hydride ion and helium-hydride molecular ion, is a positively charged ion formed by the reaction of a proton with a helium atom in the  gas state, first produced in the laboratory in 1925. It is isoelectronic with molecular hydrogen. It is the strongest known acid, with a proton affinity of 177.8 kJ/mol.

Hydrohelium(1+) is the simplest heteronuclear ion, and is comparable with the hydrogen molecular ion,. Unlike, however, it has a permanent dipole moment, which makes its spectroscopic characterization easier. The calculated dipole moment of HeH+ is 2.26 or 2.84 D (D is a "Debye" or $$ 10^{-18}$$ statcoulomb-centimeter).

It had been suggested since the 1970s that HeH+ should occur naturally in the interstellar medium. Its first unequivocal astrophysical detection was reported in 2019.

Temporary scratchpad
By the way (and I am not saying that the Cheatsheet should mention it), I have come across a few Wikipedia pages (in project space, not article space) that do use real Level 1 headings (1 equal on either side). On those pages, the Level 1 headings are the top level on the TOC.


 * 1) The current policy is There should be a guideline for the whole encyclopedia and it should be applied consistently.
 * 2) The only viable guidelines are:
 * 3) If this RfC dictates a change in existing article titles, a bot can to it. That should not affect the decision of what the guideline should be.
 * 4) A couple comments say that italic or quotation marks are needed in the text to set off titles from the text, but are not needed when the title of the article is the title of a work. However, there are some article titles that combine titles of work with other text. One examples is Euclid's Elements (could be Euclid's Elements.

User talk:121.218.85.70
Thank you for your the several careful edits you made to several articles since June 20. Wikipedia need more careful editors like yourself who are sensitive to correct writing style, formatting, and the like. Personally, a lot of my own edits to Wikipedia are copy edits and edits to conform to Manual of Style, rather than contributions of new content.

Many of your edits changed correct British English spellings, date formats, etc., to their correct American English counterparts. As a matter of policy, the English language version of Wikipedia English language varieties.

Pages requiring attention
Special:Contributions/121.218.85.70


 * Hit single
 * Hit record


 * Covered
 * Cover version
 * Cover dab

Noether's theorem for gauge transformations
In electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics, in addition to the global U(1) symmetry related to the electric charge, there are also position dependent gauge transformations. Noether's theorem states that for every infinitesimal symmetry transformation that is local (local in the sense that the transformed value of a field at a given point only depends on the field configuration in an arbitrarily small neighborhood of that point), there is a corresponding conserved charge called the Noether charge, which is the space integral of a Noether density (assuming the integral converges and there is a Noether current satisfying the continuity equation).

If this is applied to the global U(1) symmetry, the result
 * $$Q=\int d^3x \rho(\vec{x})$$ (over all of space)

is the conserved charge where ρ is the charge density. As long as the surface integral


 * $$\oint_{S^2} \vec{J}\cdot d\vec{S}$$

at the boundary at spatial infinity is zero, which is satisfied if the current density J falls off sufficiently fast, the quantity Q is conserved. This is nothing other than the familiar electric charge.

But what if there is a position-dependent (but not time-dependent) infinitesimal gauge transformation $$\delta \psi(\vec{x})=iq\alpha(\vec{x})\psi(\vec{x})$$ where α is some function of position?

The Noether charge is now


 * $$\int d^3x \left[\alpha(\vec{x})\rho(\vec{x})+\epsilon_0 \vec{E}(\vec{x})\cdot \nabla\alpha(\vec{x})\right]$$

where $$\vec{E}$$ is the electric field.

Using integration by parts,


 * $$\oint_{S^2} \alpha \vec{E}\cdot d\vec{S} + \int d^3x \alpha\left[\rho-\epsilon_0 \nabla\cdot \vec{E}\right]$$

This assumes that the state in question approaches the vacuum asymptotically at spatial infinity. The first integral is the surface integral at spatial infinity and the second integral is zero by the Gauss law. Also assume that α(r,θ,φ) approaches α(θ,φ) as r approaches infinity (in polar coordinates). Then, the Noether charge only depends upon the value of α at spatial infinity but not upon the value of α at finite values. This is consistent with the idea that symmetry transformations not affecting the boundaries are gauge symmetries whereas those that do are global symmetries. If α(θ,φ)=1 all over the S2, we get the electric charge. But for other functions, we also get conserved charges (which are not so well known).

This conclusion holds both in classical electrodynamics as well as in quantum electrodynamics. If α is taken as the spherical harmonics, conserved scalar charges (the electric charge) are seen as well as conserved vector charges and conserved tensor charges. This is not a violation of the Coleman-Mandula theorem as there is no mass gap. In particular, for each direction (a fixed θ and φ), the quantity


 * $$\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty}\epsilon_0 r^2 E_r(r,\theta,\phi)$$

is a c-number and a conserved quantity. Using the result that states with different charges exist in different superselection sectors, the conclusion that states with the same electric charge but different values for the directional charges lie in different superselection sectors.

Even though this result is expressed in terms of a particular spherical coordinates with a given origin, translations changing the origin do not affect spatial infinity.

Bish
Jimbo blocked Bishonen for 3 hours on May 22. Bishonen's last two salvos were on July 3, on this talk page. That is 6 weeks. If Bishonen had simply endured her 3-hour block and then returned to business as usual, this issue would have ended on May 22. It is Bishonen who created this controversy and kept alive. Since her block expired, almost all of of Bishonen's "contributions" to Wikipedia have been her arguing, arguing, and arguing about Jimbo's 3-hour block. Throughout, Bishonen very skillfully shifted the issue from her personal attack of Daedalus969 (who deserved a reprimand, but not to be cursed at and then then repeatedly baited) to whether Jimbo's 3-hour block conformed to the letter of the blocking policy—she framed the issue as a misuse of the block to punish her—and rallied other admins and friends to join her campaign against Jimbo.

I don't know if Jimbo looked at Bishonen's prior edit history before he blocked her, but she also lost it a week earlier. Bishonen was supporting an RfA (the candidate was previously de-sysoped; the RfA failed) and got into an argument with someone who opposed it. Again, in addition to cursing at the other editor, she expressed anger that the other editor disregarded Bishonen's "advice" to stop arguing against the RfA. The discussion on Bishonen's talk page, which Bishonen later deleted, shows her uncivil conduct and contemptuous attitude toward another editor who crossed her (indents omitted): You mean supporters, no? And the talk page only shows the level of hate that Everyking will put forth, so I doubt it really supports your argument in any kind of regard. Thankfully, Crats don't do what Everyking would do (merely count votes) so your argument definitely wont hold up. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC) It definitely won't, will it? That's interesting. Are you suffering from some kind of hysteria, to be addressing me like that after I advise you to not—not—keep blathering against the opposers [sic: should be "supporters"]? Or are you trying to avoid the childishness of immediately doing what I asked you not to do, by posting on my page instead of on the RFA? Or, Machiavellian thought, are you deliberately making yourself look absurd in order to make Everyking look the better? Are you secretly on his side? Whichever it is, and, believe me, I don't really want to know, piss off my page and stay off. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC). Hrmph. A crude edit summary ["Har har. Piss off."] is fine in small doses. Use one too much and you ruin its mystique. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC) The mystique is perhaps not necessary, MZMcBride. Got any suggestions? What do you think of "Fuck off"? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC).

Bishonen's abusive behaviour toward editors, her continuing argument that Jimbo's 3-hour block of her was unjustified, and, most distressing, other admins' supporting Bishonen throughout her campaign, are germane to the community poll on the adequacy of Wikipeida's civility policy, the adequacy of the policy's enforcement, and particularly whether selective enforcement unfairly favors admins. Suppressing discussion of these issues of legitimate community concern is damaging to the already frayed morale of many active editors, and also ineffective. If there is concern that the poll questions should have been phrased more neutrally, that can be fixed (provided the facts are stated accurately). But the questions and the discussion should be restored to the poll. In fact, the civility policy poll is probably the least confrontational forum for discussing the matter. But if community discussion continues to be suppressed there, it will arise elsewhere. That is what happens when debate is suppressed, and why suppression is counterproductive. Finell (Talk) 07:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Risker: I very respectfully disagree with your removal of a large segment of the discussion, to which many Wikipedians contributed, and disagree even more with your reasoning. First, this is not a case of an admin who wants to put the matter behind her after serving her 3-hour block. To the contrary, she has kept stirring and re-stirring this issue constantly on her talk page, on a special sub-page, and on Jimbo's talk page (Jimbo quickly deleted most of her and others' posts there so the discussion would occur on Bishonen's special talk sub-page). On July 3, 6 weeks after her 3-hour block expired, she posts on Jimbo's talk page: Her discussion with Jimbo on her talk sub-page about the block is over, but the subject should be returned to Jimbo's talk page so that others who have expressed themselves on Jimbo's 3-hour block (i.e., her supporters) can "have a fuller discussion" of the subject. So they have been carrying on her battle back on Jimbo's talk page.
 * Second, as other remaining sections of the discussion on the poll page shows, there is a widespread perception that admins and other, favored, "experienced" editors get away with incivility, while sanctions are more liberally imposed on "ordinary" Wikipedians. The Bishonen incident—her flagrant misconduct, the mild sanction of a 3-hour block, and the expressed outrage of Bishonen and several supporters over the 3-hour block—are Exhibit A in support of that perception. If an "ordinary" editor had called another editor a "little shit", even without Bishonen's additional misconduct, no one would be upset or surprised by a 3-day block or worse. No one would be questioning whether the block was preventative (OK), punitive (not OK), or exemplary (not OK)In my opinion, the Bishonen incident, which is widely known and widely discussed, is one of the main reasons behind this re-examination of the civility policy and its enforcement (as well as a few other policy proposals). That is why the topic is relevant to the discussion. Further, your deletion of this topic, wiping out the thoughtful (and perhaps some less thoughtful)


 * With all due respect to Arbitrator Risker, in the long run her deleting that entire item from the poll, after the item had drawn very extensive commentary about a subject that is of concern to the community—wiping out 20–30 editors' good faith comments on all sides of the issue, including Jimbo's—is causing more, rather than less drama about the matter. And that drama is further exacerbated by another admin closing the Talk page discussion of Risker's action: Wikipedia talk:Civility/Poll. Silencing community members who express themselves on important policies and their application breeds resentment, not trust and collegiality. As other remaining sections of the discussion on the poll page shows, there is a widespread perception that admins and other, favored, "experienced" editors get away with incivility, while sanctions are more liberally imposed on "ordinary" Wikipedians. Personally, I believe this perception is exaggerated, but not entirely baseless. However, the whole Bishonen incident—her flagrant misconduct, the mild sanction of a 3-hour block, and the expressed outrage of Bishonen and several supporters over the 3-hour block—are Exhibit A in support of that perception. If an "ordinary" editor had called another editor a "little shit"—even without Bishonen's additional misconduct, subsequent unrepentant attitude, and 6 weeks of whining and campaigning against Jimbo—no one would be upset or surprised by a 3-day block or worse. No one would be questioning whether the block was preventative (OK), punitive (not OK), or exemplary (not OK). And if Jimbo himself blocked the plebeian-editor, without warning, no one would be clamoring to remove his "block button" or other nonsense.  In my opinion, the entire Bishonen incident, which is widely known and widely discussed, is one of the main reasons behind this re-examination of the civility policy and its enforcement (as well as a few other policy proposals). That is why the topic is relevant to the discussion. It was not primarily an ad hominem attack on Bishonen, as those who want to sweep it all under the rug maintain. And it feeds the perception that there is a double standard, and that the admins watch each others' back. As I say, I believe the perception is overstated. But the way admins rallied to Bishonen's defense, and attacked Jimbo for a 3-hour block, is one instance where the facts matched the perception. Finell (Talk) 04:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Socks


She also blew off Wikipedian who asked for list of her accounts.

RfC on lead image alignment (continued)
I strongly oppose the proposal to change the layout of the lead in Joseph Priestley.

In my opinion, the question in the RfC is misstated. The real question is: What is the best layout for this article? Comparing the two lead layouts above, the one with the left-aligned portrait is much more attractive than the alternative.

For those who believe that, as a matter of interpretation, the MOS statement about beginning an article with a right-aligned infobox or image trumps the recommendation about how portraits should be aligned, the answer is that it is permissible to depart from the MOS, which is a guideline, when there is good reason to do so—and in this case aesthetics strongly favor left-aligning the Priestley portrait. For those who believe that the MOS does not prescribe the alignment because these two MOS guidelines are in conflict, aesthetics provides the basis for resolving the conflict. This is not a matter of WP:IAR; that is a straw man, or red herring.

But wikilawyering over MOS interpretation is really beside the point in this case. For people with some background in art or design, right-aligning this Priestley portrait looks awful. To me, it is a bit like the sound of fingernails scratching a chalk board. (The lead of the George Armstrong Custer, cited as an example above, looks even worse, in my opinion). To many other individuals, alignment toward or away from the center makes no difference. Almost no-one believes that facing away from the center looks better than the alternative. Madcoverboy never said that right-aligning this portrait looks better or contributes to the article; his sole point is based on a narrow and rigidity reading of the MOS. Likewise, the argument is not merely that there is is a very long standing consensus in favor of the present layout, but that the supporters of the consensus do so for a reason.

The MOS's guideline about aligning portraits grows from a basic proposition about composing figures (people) in drawing and painting. Normal composition is for figures (people) to be generally oriented toward the compositional center of the work; the closer one gets to the edge of a painting, the more jarring (worse) it is for a figure to face the nearest edge. When a major figure in a painting is near the edge of the composition and is facing away, it is usually to signify that the person is alienated from the other people or to create a feeling of tension and unease. In photography, one is instructed not compose a shot so that people look like they "are running out of the frame"—unless the intention is to show that they are running away from the scene. This same principle carries into page composition in books and periodicals: were figures and text are combined, with the principle that if a picture of a person is aligned at one edge of the page or the other, the person should be facing toward the center rather than away; if the image is centered, it does not generally matter which way the figure faces, although the layout of other figures on the same page may affect this.

In this particular image, Priestley's body (a line through his shoulders) faces about about 60 degrees toward to the right of the composition (his left), his head or face (a line through his ears) is about 45 degrees right, and his eyes look straight forward. These angles, whichever way they face, make for a harmonious, graduated portrait. Priestley's black coat emphasizes, or strengthens, the body angle. This composition calls for left, or center, alignment.

Historically, the MOS-sticklers at the FA review promoted the article, although a couple of them questioned the left-alignment. However, the majority of the FA reviewers voted for FA without even commenting on the left-alignment, and the few who raised the question seemed satisfied by the reasons given for it. The discussion has followed the same path to the same conclusion on this talk page both before and after the FA promotion, and the consensus has thus far always favored the present alignment.

Introduction
Elements.

Livio..

Geometry
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Dodecahedron: DODECAHEDRON (Gr. SccSerca, twelve, and Spa, a face or base), in geometry, a solid enclosed by twelve plane faces. The "ordinary dodecahedron" is one of the Platonic solids (see Polyhedron). The Greeks discovered that if a line be divided in extreme and mean proportion, then the whole line and the greater segment are the lengths of the edge of a cube and dodecahedron inscriptible in the same sphere. The "small stellated dodecahedron," the "great dodecahedron" and the "great stellated dodecahedron" are Kepler-Poinsot solids; and the "truncated" and "snub dodecahedra" are Archimedean solids (see Polyhedron). In crystallography, the regular or ordinary dodecahedron is an impossible form since the faces cut the axes in irrational ratios; the "pentagonal dodecahedron" of crystallographers has irregular pentagons for faces, while the geometrical solid, on the other hand, has regular ones. The "rhombic dodecahedron," one of the geometrical semiregular solids, is an important crystal form. Many other dodecahedra exist as crystal forms, for which see Crystallography.

Aesthetics
This section would benefit from more references, preferably from books on art and design rather than books on the golden ratio, many of which have a promoting or debunking POV.

Research notes
"Not surprisingly, the Parthenon in Athens can be framed by a golden rectangle, as can many of the smaller areas within it. Much other Greek art made use of the proportions of the golden rectangle, as have subsequent works from da Vinci to Mondrian and Le Corbusier." p. 99

"The golden rectangle and the static harmony it exemplifies is typical of classic Greek geometry ...." p. 101

"Mathematical patterns sometimes reflect visual patterns that the human eye finds particularly aesthetic. One famous example of such mathematical pattern is the golden ratio. p. 108

"According to the Greeks, the golden ratio is the ideal proportion for the sides of a rectangle that the eye finds most pleasing. The rectangular face of the front of the Parthenon has sides whose ratio is in this proportion, and it may be observed elsewhere in Greek architecture." p. 108

Penrose discovered his tiling in 1974. p. 167 Dimensions are ratios of 1/φ, 1, and φ. pp. 167–69. Penrose tiling has local 5-fold symmetry, but the infinate tiling of the plane does not. p. 169.

Quasicrystal alloy Al5.1Li3Cu has 5-fold symmetry in the 5 rhombic facesthat meet at a single point, forming a starlike shape. Likewise, quasicrystal material Al65Co20Cu15 has local 5-fold symmetry. p. 169.

Pearl Drums
Pearl Drums positions the air vents on its Masters Premium models based on the golden ratio. The company claims that this arrangement improves bass response and has applied for a patent on this design.

Euclid
Mathematician and historian W. W. Rouse Ball remarked that despite the criticisms, "the fact that for two thousand years it was the usual text-book on the subject raises a strong presumption that it is not unsuitable for that purpose."

Citations in the text are to this online edition.

Heath's translation of the text plus extensive historical research and detailed commentary throughout the text.


 * Notes:

Nicolaus Copernicus
Nationality Polish:

While the Catholic Encyclopedia does not attribute a nationality, Encyclopædia Britannica and Microsoft Encarta introduce him as "Polish astronomer", while refering to the cities of his life by their German names, not the Polish ones.

Theremin






Manchester
Magellan: pp. 223-292

Subjects: Renaissance.

Learning and scholarship--History--Medieval, 500-1500.

Lavoisier
Lavoisier first established the law of conservation of mass.

Priestley
McEvoy, John G. "Priestley Responds to Lavoisier's Nomenclature: Language, Liberty, and Chemistry in the English Enlightenment". Lavoisier in European Context: Negotiating a New Language for Chemistry. Eds. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and Ferdinando Abbri. Canton, MA: Science History Publications, 1995. ISBN 088135189X.

For example, the 17th-century philospher Baruch Spinoza argued for absolute determinism and absolute materialism.

Like Spinoza and Priestley, Leibniz argued that human will was completely determined by natural laws; however, unlike them, Leibniz argued for a "parallel universe" of immaterial objects (such as human souls) so arranged by God that its outcomes agree exactly with those of the material universe. Leibniz and Priestley share an optimism that God has chosen the chain of events benevolently; however, Priestley believed that the events were leading to a glorious Millennial conclusion, whereas for Leibniz the entire chain of events was optimal in and of itself, as when compared with other conceivable entire chains of events.


 * Rutherford, Donald. Leibniz and the Rational Order of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. ISBN 0521461553.

Delicious
Bare URL and wikicode blunder

solemn apology, prior thread, self-outed

User talk:StephenBuxton Mentor (see archives)

Tools for Wikipedia
Tools

Citing sources

Diberri Wikipedia template filling Alternate URL: Enter ISBN, URL, DrugBank ID, HGNC ID, PubMed ID, or PubChem ID to fill out an appropriate template that can be pasted into a Wikipedia article; links to an ISBN database.

ISBNdb.com -- unique book & ISBN database: ISBNdb.com project is a database of books in different languages providing on-line and remote research tools for individuals, librarians, scientists, etc. Taking data from hundreds of libraries across the world ISBNdb is a unique tool you won't find anywhere else. Please check the FAQ for more details. As an additional service we also provide book price comparison, one of the fastest on the net!

Toolserver Table of Contents

User:AmiDaniel/WhodunitQuery

List of online encyclopedias

Magnus' toys
Magnus' toys can be discussed at Magnus' talk page

PrepBio
PrepBio can be used to prepare a biographical entry on en.wikipedia (templates, categories, formatting etc.). Get the source of this script. For more information, see PrepBio on meta.

Reference generator
Reference generator generates a reference (footnote) using the templates for citing news on the Web, a paper in a journal, or a Web site from a form. The following is an example journal cite:

Example.


 * References

Edit notices
Editnotice Editnotice

Templates
See Template messages

Citation
SeeCitation templates

Requesting sources and verification
See Template messages/Sources of articles

Article maintenance template messages
= Warning template messages = Template_messages/User_talk_namespace/Multi-level_templates

Syntax: ArticleName


 * '''uw-vandalism3 usage:

==Vandalism warning==

—User:Finell (Talk)

Vandalism warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. —Finell (Talk) 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

==Vandalism warning==

ArticleName —User:Finell (Talk)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Article name, you may be blocked from editing. —Finell (Talk) 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

==Vandalism warning==

ArticleName —User:Finell (Talk)

Semi-protect for 1 week. This new (crated 20:05, 28 October 2009), uncontroversial article has been continually vandalized by multiple IPs. The nature of the vandalism by all of them is quite similar, so it may be one individual or group with some peculiar kind of grudge. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 01:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request , a new (crated 20:05, 28 October 2009), uncontroversial article has been continually vandalized by a succession of anons:

The nature of the vandalism by all of them, after the first 2 quickly reverted examples, is quite similar, so it may be one individual or group. With the exception of one unrelated, innocuous edit by 165.82.84.121 on 17 September 2009, the only edits by these IPs are the vandalism of this article. All the IPs have been warned; 128.113.196.208 was blocked upon my request. The 128 ... IP address are registered to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; 165 ... is registered to Haverford College. I can't fathom why this article would be the target of this volume of vandalism. Can checkuser tell you more about these IP addresses, and possibly a connection with registered Wikipedians?

Does Wikipedia have a policy about notifying colleges when their networks are being used for vandalism?

The article was created by, who created that user account just before saving the article (I should welcome this new editor). That account's only edits are to this new article and to link the article from Euclid. Can you use checkuser to see if the vandals are connected in some way to this editor?

I requested semi-protection for the article.

I didn't mean for this to be so long. Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 01:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)  (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply, if any, here on your Talk page) 

Vandalism warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at ArticleName, you may be blocked from editing. AdditionalTtext —Finell (Talk) 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

==Vandalism warning==
 * Scratchpad

Euclid's Optics —User:Finell (Talk)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Article name, you will be blocked from editing. Additional text
 * '''Template uw-delete3 18:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Article name. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Additional text
 * '''Template uw-unsourced3 18:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Article name, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Additional text
 * '''Template uw-error3 18:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Composite warning
Warning based on uw-vandalism3, uw-unsourced3, uw-error3, uw-delete3

Please stop your disruptive editing. You have repeatedly introduced incorrect information to Johnny Mathis by changing information that was based on the sources cited in the article to different, unsourced content in violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, despite this having been pointed out to you before in the article's edit summaries. In addition, you unjutifiably deleted ohter editors' posts from Talk:Johnny Mathis with no explanation. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Software update history?
Is there a place on WP that announces updates to the software on which WP runs? Was there a recent change that adds more buttons above the edit box? Finell (Talk) 18:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Per the second question: there was a recent change at MediaWiki:Monobook.js, which added buttons. --Ligulem 18:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I would still appreciate, from someone, knowing where one can go to see recent changes to the software. For example, a software rev in late 2005 clobbered my signature, which used the documented Signature box trick on my User profile page. It took me quite awhile to find out what happened. Thanks again. Finell (Talk) 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You can see the recent changes to MediaWiki by looking at the release notes in subversion. The developers keep a pretty good track of what they've updated. Hope this is what you're looking for. Shards of metal  [ Talk •  Contribs  ] 22:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Special:Version, which also lists the revision number from SVN. SVN root is http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/trunk/phase3 (browsing ). --Ligulem 22:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That is what I was looking for. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 16:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

About toxic environments
My position, which I have held for quite some time, is that when we are excessively tolerant of toxic behaviors, we poison the environment and push good people to join in the bad behaviors - they end up with no other choice. This is one of the theoretical underpinnings of the wiki model, in fact. In unmoderated usenet groups, for example, the worst elements tended to dominate because users with behavioral problems could not be excluded, which meant that the only tool left for others was to yell at them. It's an unfortunate and all too common dynamic.

I stand by this theoretical analysis, and I think it is an apt description - even under Bishonen's own description of the events - of what happened. A good user - Bishonen - end up at the end of her rope and did something quite unseemly - and this is a direct consequence of our being too tolerant, for too long, of bad behaviors.

I regret very much that I didn't explain this all in a single breath when I first said it. I assumed - incorrectly - that people would know my general position and interpret my words correctly. I was wrong, and that's my fault. However, the block was a good block, 100% within policy, and it was not a symbolic block. It was exactly what we should be doing more of, more often.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)