User talk:Brycehughes/Archive 2

Slavery in Mauritania
This is in regards to the line I have changed a couple of time. My only problem with the line is that it portrays itself as a fact, when it is not even close. It is just one man's personal opinion, when in fact the issue is widely debated in the Islamic world. When I edited it with the Qur'an as source, I didn't know Wiki prefers secondary sources, so I'm not opposed to leaving the current sourcing alone, as long as we provide some indication that it is only one man's opinion. I propose something like:

Pro Slavery interpretation of Islamic texts, which not everyone agrees with.

Or something along those lines.

I hope this is the right place for this. Let me know your thoughts

Mark Beronte (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark, thanks for reaching out. What if we simply deleted the sentence? (Re right place: usually better to do this on the articles's talk page, but no biggie.) Brycehughes (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Bryce. Again I am a bit new to this so I hope I am replying to your post correctly, but it certainly doesn't seem correct to have to edit a page rather than hitting some kind of reply button, but that doesn't seem to be available so here I am. Anyway if I am going to be doing this more, I should go and read up on all the Wiki documents, which I will do tomorrow. I also believe I left a post on the article talk page as well, but perhaps I did something wrong there.


 * Anyway, now on to the topic at hand. Although deletion might make it better than it is now, it would also make the article highly inaccurate to not mention the Islamic texts when describing why the practice persists. Of course both the Imams and regular people use the Qur'an to justify their positions, and in fact it is probably one of the most significant reasons slavery still does persist. When you believe you have an infallible text from the creator of the universe, that accepts slavery as just a fact of life, it might very well influence your view of the subject. Can you think of a better way to simply put into words the idea that a pro slavery interpretation of the Islamic texts is a significant reason slavery persists, while being true the source, and indicating there are people who claim this interpretation is not correct?


 * 68.5.199.146 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, it doesn't matter what you or I can put into words; it matters whether we can find a reliable secondary source that supports the assertion. Do you have/can you find a reliable secondary source on this? (I.e. contra the New Yorker article) Brycehughes (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

ETC, ETC Group disambiguation
If you were involved in clearing up the ETC disambiguation page - thanks. Could you help me understand how ETC Group.org qualifies as "important or significant" more than any other company or organization? Please understand that my question is staight forward. ETC Group (Energy efficiency consultants) could also qualify as important or significant - for that matter many more companies could if you ask me. Could you just explain to me why you left them in the improved ETC disambiguation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoFocus (talk • contribs) 02:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, because I haven't looked at the ETC Group article, nor am I familiar with the company. In general, Wikipedia articles must be "notable." You can find the general notability guidelines here and the guidelines for companies here. Brycehughes (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Underground laboratories
Just wondering about your recent edits:


 * (Minor) Yes, the strikethrough is ugly, but since Wikipedia already deems the Kolar Gold Fields experiments notable enough to have an article, and I agree that it meets the criteria, it seems deserving of a place on the list. But I wanted some way to mark it as "of historical interest only".  Any suggestions?
 * (Major) As the article itself notes, there are two common short names used: LSM and Fréjus. When the navbox was first created, only the Fréjus Road Tunnel article existed, so that's what got linked, with a redlink to LSM to prod someone to write one.  Thank you for creating a dedicated LSM article, but do you think it's worth titling the link LSM/Fréjus or otherwise leaving the "Fréjus"?  I just thought it would help someone reading a source document in the field.
 * The contrary argument is that no other lab gets such a long name in a space-restricted navbox.

I'm not sure if I object to your edits, but could you explain them at greater length? Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I got impatient and reverted the first change and added LSM/Fréjus as I suggested in the second. I'm still open to discussion, however; my problem is that I don't understand your reasons, not that I think they're bad. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't need to convey that it is of historical interest only in a navbox. A reader can learn that as soon as they click the link. Re the other, consistency. Again, we don't need to convey information like multiple names in a navbox; that's what articles are for. Brycehughes (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, we don't need to include the country, depth, or access method, either; that's also behind the link. The issue is the ratio of usefulness to space.  The information chosen to include are the primary figures of merit for underground laboratories.  As a text style change is very compact, it seemed worth including in the list.  I've seen indexes in books that use bold to indicate "primary reference to subject" and italics to indicate "brief mention".  (Because the details are linked, it's not necessary to have the abbreviations be unambiguous to 100% of readers; as long as it's useful to a good fraction.)
 * As for multiple names, the idea is that the navbox is an index, and sometimes you list alternate names in an index. In various papers, conference presentations, etc. the site is referred to either as "LSM" or "Fréjus", with no consistency.  Listing both lets someone who saw/heard a reference find it.  As well as makes it clear that they're the same thing.
 * "Not worth the space" discussions are worth having. Currently, the sites take up two lines on most landscape displays, three if the window is more than 720 pixels wide.  That seems reasonably compact.  If it's getting too cluttered, I agree with stripping it down.
 * But the biggest contribution to keeping it small is the choice of what not to include, described in the template documentation.
 * But does it really seem too big? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We're debating two things here. Let's address them separately.
 * 1) Is the strikethrough worth its admitted aesthetic trade-off for the sake of conveying to the reader that this is no longer an active site? I'd argue, no. We as those that care about the navbox can decide whether or not this site is worth retaining in the navbox. If it is, then it is just as worthy of a non-strikethrough mention as any other item in the navbox. You disagree. I'd love to find some compromise here, but I'm afraid this one is either/or. If it's worth retaining, why is the status of the site so necessary to convey in the navbox?
 * 2) Apparently the LSM site is also known is Fréjus. Wouldn't those who are confused (assuming this would happen) and looking for a laboratory named Fréjus be just as well served by typing the word "Frejus" into the search box and then being presented with either a hatnote referencing the laboratory at Fréjus or by a disambiguation page at Fréjus? (The former should probably happen anyway.)
 * --Brycehughes (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) What do you mean either/or? I haven't even figured out if your objections to distinguishing Kolar as closed extend to distinguishing INO as incomplete.  Do you object to any distinction, or is it just that strikeout is too ugly/illegible?  If it's the latter, there are other alternatives.  Unbuilt and closed could be combined into a "not operational" category designated by italics, or we could use parentheses, or many other alternatives.  It seems that there are a lot more than two options here, if I just understood the issues.
 * The other option that can be discussed is whether it's worth listing Kolar at all. As mentioned at the end of the template documentation, the inclusion criteria themselves are subject to revision.  (I just request that anyone changing them update the documentation to explain the new rules.  That was one of my big objections to your initial edit: the docs still said "closed labs struck out "; if you want to make a change, please change both.)
 * Reasons for inclusion are a combination of real-world significance and "does Wikipedia already have an article to link to?" Because there is a Particle experiments at Kolar Gold Fields article, and the experiments were historically significant, that seemed enough points to make the list.
 * 2) There seems to be a major communication problem between us on this subject. You keep pointing out  alternatives like the search box, and I'm Not Getting It.  It's certainly true that a mention in the navbox isn't necessary, but I fail to see how that constitutes any sort of argument.  If all we cared about was necessity, we'd delete all navboxes everywhere.  And redirect pages.  The raison d'etre of a navbox is not necessity but convenience: to provide a shortcut via a topic-specific index.
 * "Wouldn't those who are confused (assuming this would happen) and looking for a laboratory named Fréjus be just as well served by typing the word "Frejus" into the search box" If they're looking up a specific reference that's right in front of them, it would be almost as convenient.  But the point of a navbox is browseability: it's a menu that the reader gets to choose from.  If they're looking at a list of all the important underground laboratories, they can say "which lab was it that Fred mentioned in that talk?" or "oh yeah, I've heard of that."  For an index, completeness is a virtue.  The hard part (and what the template documentation spends time discussing) is what to exclude so it doesn't get out of hand.
 * The question is whether the synonym "Fréjus" deserves a listing in a space-constrained quick reference. I certainly agree it's borderline.  Why does that one lab get a second listing, and not SURF's other names DUSEL and Homestake?  The reasons boil down to:
 * It appears that "Fréjus" is in ongoing use; I keep seeing new references to that name. On the other hand, everyone seems to agree that Homestake and DUSEL are historical names and aren't using them in current papers and presentations.
 * In fact, based on frequency of use, I'd consider deleting "LSM" and keeping "Fréjus". The list already isn't official names, it's most common abbreviation.  Thus, "LSM" but "Canfranc" and many other choices.  (More research required before making such a decision, of course.)
 * But the official name has some preference. Unfortunately, it requires two entries because there's no obvious connection between "LSM" and "Fréjus".  "Kamioka" and "Kamiokande" are pretty obviously related.  "Gran Sasso" can be found under the only "GS" in the list (and most browsers provide mouse-over text that clarifies it further).
 * On a bang-per-buck (which in this case means usefulness-per-pixel) basis, "/Fréjus" is short. If I wasn't worried about space, I'd also include "DUSEL", "Gran Sasso" and "Homestake".  But they're larger and less useful, thus don't make the cut.
 * Now, I'm very willing to discuss that balance between usefulness and clutter, but if we can't agree that we're discussing usefulness, I don't know where to start. "Not necessary" is not a discussion I know how to have.
 * 2a) An upcoming issue is whether the expansion of Yangyang, called CUNPA, deserves an alias listing.
 * 3) I almost think a Fréjus (disambiguation) page is worth it. As a hatnote, it is getting a bit chunky.  Here's the smallest I can manage:
 * This article is about the region in France. Also named Fréjus are a nearby mountain peak and mountain pass, the rail and road tunnels under them, and an underground laboratory in the tunnel.
 * 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Woah, that was long :)
 * 1) You're right. It's not either/or. How about italics? Happy to change the docs, but let's agree first.
 * 2) I'd simply say that, were a reader looking for "Fréjus", then we can rest assured that they're relatively informed about particle laboratories, and thus could easily deduce that the sole laboratory in France was what they were looking for. If not, then search box (and we should make that easier for them, agree, although I certainly wouldn't do the fr links in the hatnote). So my proposal is—such that we have a sexy, uncluttered navbox—simply have LSM, and then have either a good hatnote at Fréjus or a disambig page. I'm borderline on this one too, so if you feel that strongly the other way, I'll give in.
 * 3) I'm with you on the disambig page. As soon as we agree on something here, I'll make one (if you haven't already).
 * By the way, you should think about making an account. You obviously care about this shit. Life's a bit easier on WP when you sign up; people don't automatically treat you with suspicion. In any case, thanks for your edits.
 * --Brycehughes (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

1) You're killing me here. Your response implies that I managed to guess right, but I'm still guessing; I still haven't seen a clear statement of your rationale.  As all this verbiage hopefully makes clear, it's not immediately obvious.  Currently my best guess is:
 * "My personal, subjective aesthetic opinion is that strikeout is too ugly to live."

... okay, and my personal subjective aesthetic opinion is that it's a little bit ugly, and the information conveyed is worth it. If there are no non-subjective aspects we can discuss, I'd write it up for the talk page and ask for a WP:3O. (If you want other uses, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Strikethrough?namespace=0) 2) "the sole laboratory in France was what they were looking for" Now that is a good argument!  For some reason, I kept thinking Canfranc was in France, but no, it's only close.  And there are two 500m deep radioactive waste disposal projects: Meuse/Haute Marne Underground Research Laboratory and one at Bure. If I just wanted to save space, converting m of water to km of water would allow stripping "00" from every entry (and adding a decimal place). 3) If you want to make a disambig page, please go right ahead. Yes, the :fr: link in the example hatnote is not proper, but I wanted to include it somehow, as I suspect the mountain is actually what everything else is named after! (Mountain names pass, pass names region that trades through pass.)

Right now, it's late and I'm tired and I'm worried that I've put too much energy into this discussion to stand back and be objective. I'm going to sleep on it for a bit, and maybe submit the whole thing for a 3O this weekend.


 * I give up. Please don't post userboxes on my talk page. All the best, Brycehughes (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't post userboxes on my talk page. Oops! Was that improper?  It was just a quote from the top of my talk page, nothing more.  If there was some additional consequence, I apologize (although I'd be curious what it might be.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No biggie. I'm just tired of this conversation. Brycehughes (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I typed up a (hopefully fair) summary of the discussion on the talk page and asked for a WP:3O. I'll give it a few days or a week to collect opinions.
 * "This is hopefully an easy one. It's not about content, but appearance/presentation, and a tie-breaker or three are needed to settle "artistic differences". The discussion isn't particularly acrimonious, but both parties are sick of it, yet too stubborn to concede out of pure illegitimi carborundum."
 * 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Melbourne". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Scorch (talk &#124; ctrb) 10:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't recall anything about this. Brycehughes (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Notices
Hi Brycehughes, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! S warm  ♠  20:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. S warm   ♠  20:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Brycehughes (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

REverts
has been blocked (under a large number of IPs) since 2012, or maybe 2011. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the analysis. If you consider the edit constructive, you are welcome to re-insert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

JKL
Hi! About this edit the company does use the acronym JKL on its website, so I'll add the acronym to the article and restore the link WhisperToMe (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Sorry, lazy late night. Brycehughes (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

PPU and Transportation (disambiguation)
Hello Brycehughes, you reverted my above sorting with the question "Why". I ask "Why not"? My alphabetical sorting (as noted in my edit) is correct! Regards -- Sweepy (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:DABORDER it is not correct. Brycehughes (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please tell me the exact rule for my "wrong" sorting. Thanks -- Sweepy (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello once more. Your revert is in my eyes not o.k. Please tell me the exact rule as at PPU, too, for my correct sorting. Thanks -- Sweepy (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * #3. Brycehughes (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * O.k., and all that I've done correctly...Regards -- Sweepy (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. You are sorting alphabetically, which is not correct. Brycehughes (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the rule #3 (as shown above) the same I did correctly! -- Sweepy (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Where does #3 say you should sort alphabetically? Brycehughes (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

1.Articles with a clarifier in parentheses: e.g., Moss (band) 2.Articles with a clarifier following a comma: e.g., Moss, Monterey County, California 3.Articles with the item as part of the name: e.g., Moss Bros (Only include articles whose subject might reasonably be called by the ambiguous title.) 4.Synonyms: e.g., Tincture on Spirit (disambiguation)
 * Are this examples not alphabetical sorted? -- Sweepy (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no rule, too, editing in any WPs...And all do it...My sorting is once of them, because you find faster by sorting alphabetical or not? -- Sweepy (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. What it is saying is you should sort by how similar the entry word is to the title of the disambiguation page. It says that this means you usually sort in the following order:
 * Entries that have the exact same name as the title and are followed by a description in parentheses go first. For example, if the title of the page is Moss, then Moss (band) would go first.
 * Entries that have the exact same name and are followed by a description after a comma go second. For example, Moss, Monterey County, California
 * Entries that have the same word as the title as part of their name go third. For example, Moss Bros
 * Entries that do not have the same name as the title go last.
 * It does not say you should sort the entries alphabetically, which is what you are doing. Does that makes sense? Brycehughes (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * About doing sense, please see my comment. -- Sweepy (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you. In any case, I am bored with this conversation. Just know that you will annoy other editors if you keep doing what you are doing. And, generally, they're a lot more emotionally invested in this encyclopedia than I am. Good luck. Brycehughes (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you want understand? Please see above my reason once more and you will see that I will'nt annoy other editors! The reason is faster finding with my doing... Regards -- Sweepy (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And I see you are now blocked indefinitely. Brycehughes (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Go easy on the dab pages please
Hello, I came across a couple of your edits where you're using a rather hard brush to go through disambiguation pages. I'd like to ask you to consider a more lenient approach to interpreting the rules as deleting too much is doing more wrong than good. By overdeleting, people, in particular those involved with disambiguation, may not necessarily find anymore what they were looking for, resulting in links to dab pages being either deleted, or linked to the wrong target. As an example, schools, sports clubs, dioceses, etcetera, can all be referred to by their name, without the appendix of school or football club. E.g. he went to St Catherine's. And, also, there is more than one way to deal with DABRL. It doesn't mean one has to delete all red links that are not being used elsewhere. You could also look for articles where the term is being used, or has been used in the past, and create a link within that article, or add the information so that the term becomes referenced. It avoids having to delete good references. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Brycehughes (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Are so-called "good faith" edits not welcomed?
Hello!

You have recently undone a minor edit of me with the comment "Reverted good faith edits by Sae1962". Are such edits not welcome?--Sae1962 (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the reason I gave was MOS:DABORDER, since disambiguation pages aren't generally sorted alphabetically. Brycehughes (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
You are either most ignorant fool or most belligerent moron that has ever edited or has admin privileges on Wikipedia, or just a conservative nutjob. Either way you have made Wikipedia totally unreliable source of information when you allow a corporate entity to post a pr page how great they're and call it Wikipedia information about the company, yet removed any information on funding and where their interests lie. One quick search on the internet you can easily find everything you wanted to find about these conman and scam artist pretending to be a think tank. With brainless idiots such as yourself no wonder these scam artist are allowed to run a mock on Wikipedia. No wonder no one wants to edit wikipedia or use it as any credible source, you've become a laughing stock of the internet, no credible attempt to follow on claims, verify sources and get in touch with anyone posting such a glowing PR report. 207.188.255.98 (talk • contribs) &  -207.188.255.98 (talk)   these IP adresses belong to the very same institution article is written about, you ignorant fool you just allowed a company to post its own PR on wikiepedia with a glowing references, comparing itself to Max Planck Institute, citing itself as better than MIT, Caltech, JPL and score of other scientific institutions with Noble prize winners. The entire think thank is a joke and run by a right wing neo liberal conservative group with links to Koch brothers. They're not non-partisan or independent, getting significant finance from the Federal Budget as well as private mostly few wealthy donors with ulterior motives. Of course you'd find out that if you bothered to research bit on the supposed think tank nobody heard off.

Entire article about Information Technology and Innovation Foundation should be removed as it is a corporate spin PR piece, has very few relevant information but doesn't meat even the basic requirement of Wikipedia, it was written by staffers at the supposed think thank, ffs,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.57.160 (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote a lot of it, and I don't work there. Please stop removing reliably-sourced content. Please propose your edits on the article's talk page per WP:BRD or be bold and add reliably-sourced content to support your claims, but don't be offended if you are reverted and editors ask for discussion instead. Brycehughes (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Zone defense in American football
Hi Brycehughes,

I was browsing the Zone defense in American football article, and noticed that you had a discussion on the talk page about merging Zone defense in American football and American football coverage shells. I would support such a merge, and was wondering if you had the time to do it. Both of those articles appear to cover the same topics.

Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'd like to, but it's probably more than I can take on right now. Brycehughes (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

your stub edit
As Lugnuts keeps reverting my edits on his talk page.... I said, "Lugnuts, where does it say you must revert?  You just did a pointless revert.  That would fall under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it 'unnecessary' without claiming that the change is detrimental."   Lugnuts clearly violated the rules.  He should not have reverted.  You edit was perfectly fine.   He left a message on my talk page saying I violated the rules, plus made threats and insults.  We both edited an article Lugnuts created.  He has issues with ownership.  Bgwhite (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Thanks. When I meet people like him around here I tend to just smile and back away slowly... Brycehughes (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Money Pump
Thanks for reverting -- I dont like Wikipedia to be providing ERRONEOUS information, but dont have time to provide all the style and details required for a super clean article, there are several queries on the current version which are ALL answered in the references provided, perhaps you can update

Standard economic theory[specify] assumes that preferences are transitive.[citation needed]

This should be replaced by: Economic theory is constructed on the assumption that people have utility functions. The existence of utility functions requires transitive preferences.

CITATION: ANY ECON TEXTBOOK --

However, many[weasel words] people[who?] have argued that intransitive preferences are quite common, and often[weasel words] observed in real world settings.[citation needed]

The SEP article cited Hansson, Sven Ove; Grüne-Yanoff, Till (2012). Edward N. Zalta, ed. "Preferences". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 ed.) (Stanford University). sec. 1.3 Transitivity. provides a list of authors who have made this argument and references to their published work

The Money Pump argument was invented[by whom?] to show that rational behavior requires transitive preferences.[citation needed]

The following quote is taken from entry on Dynamic Choice in SEP, which is citation number 3.

Given the famous “money pump argument,” which is suggested by Frank Ramsey's reasoning concerning dutch books (1926) and is developed by Donald Davidson, J. McKinsey, and Patrick Suppes (1955), it is clear that intransitive preferences can be problematic. Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy article "Preferences"[1]

Similarly all places where (citation needed) occurs are either so famous (like transitivity required for utility) as to require no reference, or else taken from the sources cited.

For example about the focusing effect, the LINKED Wikipedia entry provides the information asked for.

best wishes Asaduzaman (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, sure, yeah I'll take a look when I get a chance. Brycehughes (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have decided to copy this to the Money Pump Talk page, where it probably belongs. Asaduzaman (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Can You have a look at this?
There was an obviously biased comment about the Social Science Citation Index. I did not delete the comment, but added the SOURCE of the comment to show that it was made by an interested party. My edit was reverted recently. Can you have a look and invoke suitable Wikipedia bodies to look into the matter? Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Sciences_Citation_Index&oldid=prev&diff=709308617

Asaduzaman (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, I seem to be taking a break from Wikipedia at the moment. I'll be back when the mood strikes me. Best, Brycehughes (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories for N-letter disambiguation pages have been proposed for deletion
Here's the discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Aurochs
Please don't be an entitled dick, and avoid screwing things up in the first place rather than expecting others to painstakingly clean up your edits.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? Those weren't my edits. Brycehughes (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "United States" from city, state names
It looks like you saw the discussion at. I think I (or a few other editors) have reverted or undid all of your removals of U.S. as part of a place name.

Thank you for fixing the wildly inconsistent use of USA! —EncMstr (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to revert. Brycehughes (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

TWA Flight 841 (1979) -- your reasons for discrediting the best source on B727 N840TW
On 15Dec2016, you edited that web-page:

"... emiliocorsetti.com is not a reliable source..."

Brycehughes -- is there any justification for your statement? NOT RELIABLE?

Can you cite any err in his work?

This inflight upset of B727 N840TW on 4Apr79 may be beyond your S&C capabilities.

Unless YOU can show some err in Corsetti's work, please retract your opinion & your edit.

Consider seven decades of airliner inflight upsets, from my perspective (having flown at Boeing Flt-Test and TWA during 1979): Corsetti's book is one of the BEST sources on N840TW.

Bryce, I'll lead you one step further -- that NTSB AAR-81-8, and Wikipedia, are the unreliable sources.

The USA's "independent" Safety Board has retained an undeserved reputation: infallible, flawless.

[http://photos.failure-interactions.com/i.ashx?gallery=4487694&mid=91640555&mt=Photo&standardsize=1600x1200 "independent"? of Boeing?] of FAA?

Learn something about the history of Yaw x Roll airliner upsets, then maybe you can claim to be the "reliable" source, then maybe you could critique Corsetti's work.

Learn more -- go read these old threads. IGhhGI (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

UC Berkeley riots
Have a look at this and you'll see why UC Berkeley's events needs to be updated, concerning ongoing riots and whatnot. Just a heads up. VGN34D (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, but I reverted your edit because it made no sense. Brycehughes (talk)
 * Yeah. I wasn't able to put in any source so I sent you a link for you and anyone else to update the UC Berkeley page. I'd do it myself, but it can rather be a chore to do everything myself. VGN34D (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'm not really convinced that a sentence regarding these riots belongs in the article. I mean, yeah, decently big news story today, but not that big from a historical perspective and, given the brevity of the article's history section, I'm worried adding it would give the event undue weight. Brycehughes (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

National Academy of Construction (disambiguation page)
Thanks for taking care of deletion. I meant to ask about that when we were discussing NAC page deletion.MaeInJune (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. It should disappear after a week or so. Brycehughes (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Kirke Mechem
Bryce, I have thanked you for your most recent revision, the deletion of the "Trivia" section. However, you were mistaken when you wrote that it was unsourced. If you go back five years or so, you will see that this entire section was sourced as coming from the composer or from yearbooks from his high school. This was done before I ever heard of Wikipedia; I haven't the time to find out when or by whom the article was created or who removed the sourcing. It's not worth the trouble. Stolzing (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A source by the composer could possibly qualify as a reliable source per WP:SELFSOURCE, but you should of course provide the source. That said, the material is inane and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I agree that it is not worth the trouble. Brycehughes (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Claire Kittrell for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Claire Kittrell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Antonioatrylia (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

requested move to United States federal government continuity of operations
I agree with your recommendation to re-title the article Continuity of Operations. I have requested a move and would like your vote of support at Talk:Continuity_of_Operations Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Air Chathams
Sorry - the reversion did have a reason - but the unexplainedness of it was a mistake steming from not editing on a proper computer at the time. My issue is that the link you added to Te One is a redirect to Waiangi which is a reasonably different place and for which the page does not mention Te One at all. I also suspect Te One would never warrent a page by itself. Andrewgprout (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. So that would imply that the Te One redirect to Waitangi, Chatham Islands is incorrect, no? Brycehughes (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

rcs reverted:
may I ask you why you revert my rcs desciption. The imfomation I give is correct... Check on the autodesksite....
 * Because a disambiguation page is to disambiguate articles, not to list random things that share a name. There is no article on the file extension rcs, nor is the file extension rcs discussed anywhere on Wikipedia. You can check out MOS:DABENTRY, WP:DABRELATED and MOS:DABACRONYM for relevant information if you'd like. Brycehughes (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Albrecht Roscher.jpeg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Brycehughes. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A 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, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving 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:Articles to be moved, 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! — xaosflux  Talk 17:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a correction
HIO means Hole in One because the "H" stands for hole, the "I" stands for In, and the "O" stands for One. Add that together and you get a Hole In One, your version is slightly incorrect as i see. HOI means Hole One In. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaleGuy22 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My edit summary "HOI not HIO" was in reference to Hypoiodous acid, not Hole in one. Re my removal of the "Hole in one" entry, see MOS:DABACRONYM. Brycehughes (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)