User talk:Adumbrativus

Welcome!
Hi Adumbrativus! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Neo-Jay (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Meredith d'Ambrosio article title change attempt failure
It said: "The page could not be moved, for the following reason: / The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. / Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved. / Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC
 * Thanks for the clarification! I'm not sure exactly what the message means technically, but anyway, at worst someone will come along in a few days to handle the requested move. Adumbrativus (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Schwarz function
Hi, I plan to undo your edits to the Schwarz function article, because they were not improvements, and fatally obscured the simple point of the article as written. Please reply here if you find this objectionable, instead of starting an edit war. Thanks! Eleuther (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Eleuther, let's try to find points where we agree. To break it down, I made several changes:


 * 1) To add a hatnote to Schwartz function.
 * 2) To say what a Schwarz function is in the lead sentence rather than in the second paragraph.
 * 3) To correct the fact that it was introduced in Davis and Pollak 1958, not in Davis 1974.
 * 4) To clarify that, despite the name, Schwarz did not explicitly use the Schwarz function.
 * 5) To include examples.
 * 6) To add references.
 * Among these, what do you agree with and what do you disagree with? Reverting would seem to suggest that you disagree with everything, which I hope is not the case. Finally, I hope you don't disagree merely with the increase in the length of the article. Adumbrativus (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, very sorry, I withdraw my objections and have self-reverted my reversion. On my first two readings I couldn't get past the loss of readability from starting directly with technical language with no background or motivation. But hey, this is Wikipedia, so I shouldn't care about such things. Now that I've read it a few more times, I understand the issues better and would like to thank you for the contribution. In particular, I didn't know about the 1958 paper, which is obtuse of me, since it is cited in the book. I will now butt out and leave you to carry on as you see fit. Eleuther (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful reply! Adumbrativus (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Gigantic prime
You might consider whether to bundle the very similar article Titanic prime at AfD. --JBL (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I have proposed Titanic prime for deletion. --JBL (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leonhard Euler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harmonic series. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

United Australia Party
Please don't undo moves with unanimous support because no one has gotten around to formally closing a discussion, a step which often takes an extremely long time. This is a complete waste of everyone's time, and you're far too inexperienced on Wikipedia to be effectively (if temporarily) thwarting consensus outcomes on a technicality. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear The Drover's Wife, I understand your concern and would like to clarify the reasons for my move. The move which I undid was Clive Palmer's United Australia Party → United Australia Party (2021). The chosen title "United Australia Party (2021)" had no support at the talk page. It may well be that "United Australia Party (2013)" has or will have consensus, but certainly "United Australia Party (2021)" did not have consensus. For these reasons, I undid the move. Lastly, I respect your concern about WP:BURO, and I hope this makes clear that I did not act merely for the sake of procedural formality. Adumbrativus (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"Megan (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Megan (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 22 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Qwerfjkl talk  13:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Xinren Wang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yin Hang.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Medford Rogues (Far West League)
Hello Adumbrativus, you need to close the RM discussion before moving a page. If not, other editors will assume the RM is still open. Judekkan (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Judekkan, I moved and closed within one minute of each other. This is not like if I were to have moved and later closed after taking an hour to write a closing statement or something, which would be problematic and I wouldn't do. I imagine you are writing not because of theoretical concern for the editor who hypothetically might have seen the page during the less than one minute in between and hypothetically might have been confused about why the RM still seemed open, but because you in fact actually did see the page during the less than one minute in between and actually were confused, and for that I am sorry. Thanks, and I hope this addresses your concern. Adumbrativus (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Performing a move without closure can cause a technical issue with RMCD bot, causing the bot to resend notifications to the already-moved pages because the bot does not know the RM discussion is done. This issue is more noticeable on a multi-RM request. What I'm telling you is not hypoththetical, it's based on past-expereices. Judekkan (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't really thought about that aspect. So, if I understand it right, depending on how the timing lines up with RMCD bot's 15-minute cycle, the bot might post a second message on the other talk pages of a multi-move request, or, less commonly, WikiProjects. While this doesn't seem particularly consequential (the messages can be removed, and, in the case of talk pages, are on pages which would have appeared on watchlists anyway), it's not like I had a particularly strong reason to do it the other way either, so all things considered I will avoid it. Adumbrativus (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Adumbrativus!


Happy New Year! Adumbrativus, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Adumbrativus. Thank you for your work on Tyler v. Hennepin County. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   16:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Megan (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Megan_(upcoming_film)&redirect=no Megan (upcoming film)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Adumbrativus. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move discussion
There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Go At 2022 Asian Games
Hello! Looks like we've both got an interest in keeping these relevant articles up to date as the games continue. I wanted to let you know that there are drafts for the Go at the 2022 Asian Games – Men's team and Go at the 2022 Asian Games – Women's team pages, if you're so inclined to work on them. The games are happening about 14 hours ahead of me, so I might be slow to update them. Thanks! DyinRich (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi DyinRich, thanks for the friendly message! I'm happy to see your contributions on these go articles. I haven't been following the team competitions in the rounds so far, but in a pinch we could copy (translate) from 2022年亞洲運動會圍棋比賽 or Go ai XIX Giochi asiatici – Maschile a squadre / Go ai XIX Giochi asiatici – Femminile a squadre. Adumbrativus (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"Latin America Highland Games" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Latin_America_Highland_Games&redirect=no Latin America Highland Games] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello
@Adumbrativus You can please check the move request. At page Maitraka time of seven days is completed, but any action has not yet been taken by any page mover. Would you like to see the request if possible.?103.138.222.164 (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, it hasn't yet been a full seven days (168 hours). (Sorry about sounding so bureaucratic!) Also, in ordinary circumstances there's no need to reach out to any individual editor seeking that a requested move be closed, as there are many editors who review the backlog. I'll decline to take action at this time. I wish you the best! Adumbrativus (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Adumbrativus. Thank you for your work on Moyle v. United States. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   03:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Technical move request
Hi dearest editor,I saw the recent of my request at WP:RMTR here and I want to ask what to do next. I moved a page and wants it's revert though I have relisted the discussion at WP:RM. — Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I believe I carried out the RMTR as requested. The page title is, at least for now, back at Mike Hall (musician). Let me know if I've misunderstood the request! Adumbrativus (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hi Adumbrativus. Thank you for your work on Women's Guksu. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

WikiProject Linguistics
Hi - editors are currently discussing the topic "Should we keep delimiting diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes?", which you may be interested in. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics Best wishes - 1RightSider (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

On the article of Dirichlet L function
The text of reason seems to be cut maybe by character limit. So I put the whole text (minor changed) here:

"One source of the usual symbol for the root number is https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Artin_root_numbers. I can show you many sources (papers) other than this. And f is intended to stand for the conductor (the conductor usually denoted by f or sometimes c, as you know (I hope)).

The biggest problem is the definition of complete L function Λ (the usual symbols are  Λ, L^\tilde, L^* and so on. ξ is not included(, this is used for complete Dedekind zeta)). This is absolutely inappropriate, because it should be a special form of the complete Hecke L function (see for example Neukirch "Algebraic Number Theory" p.503) but the previous one is not so. Other symbols are certainly my favourite, so I don't complain if you change those." Ys1123 (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for the comments. I have no doubt that you are more familiar with algebraic number theory than me, so I appreciate your viewpoint.
 * Overall, I would say we should not switch to f. The other changes like δ I'm willing to accept.
 * For modulus vs. conductor, I think Neukirch p. 434–443 is a good illustration: he writes χ mod m and conductor f; but whenever χ has already been assumed to be primitive (as is the case here), he writes m and not f. Generally sources that use q or other letters for the modulus don't switch from that letter to a different letter just because χ is primitive.
 * You brought up Hecke L functions and such, which are fair and natural connections to make. I would hesitate against giving such matters too much weight, as, generally speaking, there is no requirement that styles of notation and convention must be invariant between a topic and generalizations of the topic. In the balance among sources, the greatest weight is on those that are directly about Dirichlet L functions. For example, https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Artin_root_numbers is written with some choices of notation, while https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Dirichlet_L-function is written with different choices. The latter view matters more for purposes of this article. I think there is nothing unusual about ξ, but of course nothing unusual about Λ either.
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Davenport, chapter 9
 * $$q$$
 * $$\mathfrak{a}$$
 * $$\xi(s, \chi)$$
 * No symbol
 * Montogomery and Vaughan, p. 333
 * $$q$$
 * $$\kappa$$
 * $$\xi(s, \chi)$$
 * $$\varepsilon(\chi)$$
 * Iwaniec and Kowalski, p. 84
 * $$q$$
 * $$\kappa$$
 * $$\Lambda(s, \chi)$$
 * $$\varepsilon(\chi)$$
 * Apostol, p. 274
 * $$k$$
 * $$a$$
 * $$\xi(s, \chi)$$
 * $$1 / \varepsilon(\chi)$$
 * https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Dirichlet_L-function
 * $$d$$
 * $$\delta$$
 * $$\xi(s, \chi)$$
 * $$1 / \varepsilon(\chi)$$
 * Neukirch, p. 440
 * $$m$$
 * $$p$$
 * $$\Lambda(\chi, s)$$
 * $$W(\chi)$$
 * }
 * Adumbrativus (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, on the modulus, I can accept your claim (but I don't think it must be changed). So you can change f to another symbol.
 * I want to remark on the symbol ε, there is confusing concept "ε factor" in the theory of Tate's thesis, it is not equal to the root number (but similar in certain sense). So I think it is not good idea using the symbol ε.
 * On the complete Dirichlet L, I know Davenport, Montgomery etc write as such way and there are many descriptions relying on them unfortunately.
 * But I would say nothing should be more mathematically-natural in its descriptions than sources of information that are as well-known and widely viewed as Wikipedia. If it isn't so, inappropriate descriptions increase and make people confused (in fact, I'm one of the people who confused by the description).
 * Wikipedia is also viewed by many mathematicians who have many backgrounds (as for me, I am studying the Tate's thesis). To put it dramatically, I cannot stand by and watch the world get even a little worse. Ys1123 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, on the modulus, I can accept your claim (but I don't think it must be changed). So you can change f to another symbol.
 * I want to remark on the symbol ε, there is confusing concept "ε factor" in the theory of Tate's thesis, it is not equal to the root number (but similar in certain sense). So I think it is not good idea using the symbol ε.
 * On the complete Dirichlet L, I know Davenport, Montgomery etc write as such way and there are many descriptions relying on them unfortunately.
 * But I would say nothing should be more mathematically-natural in its descriptions than sources of information that are as well-known and widely viewed as Wikipedia. If it isn't so, inappropriate descriptions increase and make people confused (in fact, I'm one of the people who confused by the description).
 * Wikipedia is also viewed by many mathematicians who have many backgrounds (as for me, I am studying the Tate's thesis). To put it dramatically, I cannot stand by and watch the world get even a little worse. Ys1123 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)