User talk:Criticality

FYI, a lot of what you're doing in the nuclear weapons design page is duplicated in edits I made a month ago in the Teller-Ulam design page, which is specific for multistage fusion weapons. Georgewilliamherbert 01:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I had overlooked that. In any case, everything I write gets reverted by Fastfission  anyway, so you needn't worry.  My intent is to avoid articles that lie inside the boundaries of his wiki-fiefdom—not worth the aggravation.  But, of course, everyone thinks he is god after 1L.

November 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Western New York. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. There is absolutely no need for that many cite tags in any case, especially on a regional article where all information is found at the next link over.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Dear Nathan,

The article was simply replete with unsourced information. Wikipedia's policies, as you know, require citations for facts asserted in an article. Flagging for citations in such context is not disruptive editing. I flagged as citation needed only those passages that had no cited sources for facts asserted therein. Your suggestion that "all information is found at the next link over" is patently untrue. Viewed objectively, the article is a tapestry of mere opinion mixed with interesting factual nuggets which look like they might be true, but are, of course, completely unsourced. If the flags were proper--and, on close examination, most or all of the were--then reverting them is itself disruptive editing inexplicably calculated to give a pass to the article's many defects. Which leads to your suggestion that "regional article[s]" need not be verifiable. This is also untrue and only serves to enshrine original research in articles simply because the represent notions that are popular with a local community.

It is strange how someone can apparently pull a claim out of thin air, deposit it on Wikipedia for the world to consume and there is no trouble about it. Do it over and over in the same article and there is still no trouble. Flag those instances for citation and you get this kind of silliness. Best wishes, Criticality (talk)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=567363906 your edit] to Presumption of Death may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Endure (Assemblage 23 album)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Endure (Assemblage 23 album), Criticality!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Are you able to help establish that it meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG?"

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Select Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_8e5TcRICuR1z9DT&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2018 (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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)