User talk:Incnis Mrsi/Archive 1

A full version of this talk page as of September 23, 2012, with DPL bot notifications and talkback, and without hidden, can be found at

License tagging for Image:Inkeri.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Inkeri.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 14:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

About interwiki link in NAT
I removed pl:Noc from all interwikis article by my bot.--Alex S.H. Lin 04:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the problem seems solved. I'll describe this type of interwiki errors in Interwiki conflicts‎. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Freenode Image
Thanks for the tips, I was going by the Freenode website and didn't notice the filename until i had finished uploading ;) Moniker42 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested
Hi. A proposal on the re-creation of WP:RUSSIA is currently underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal. One of the main points is that we should have workgroups covering different topics. We are trying to ascertain the interest of editors in various workgroups under WP:RUSSIA, such as history, politics, biographical, etc; as your userpage indicates you are Russian or live in Russia, perhaps you can take a read of the proposal, comment on it wherever you have thoughts, and perhaps provide details of any Russian topics you may be interested and are willing to collaborate with other editors on? Your input is valued. Cheers. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

IRCd Operator abuse
I noticed your note in the html of IRCd. The Operator abuse section is valid but could be written better and certainly needs references. There were quite a number of operators who were sanctioned on EFnet in the mid to late 1990s over that sort of behavior (I actually could name names of a number of those operators but that might not be a good idea on wiki). There should be archived emails of this stuff still around, possibly on the EFnet website somewhere. Google should turn up something. Another place to check for archived copies of this stuff would be Google Groups usenet archives. A good bit of IRC admin discussion still took place on usenet and other stuff discussed via email listserv was often reflected to the IRC-related usenet groups. Tothwolf (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Neptune's winds
I saw you made a change to the lead of the wind article. What is the source of your addition? It needs to be in the article below, using a cite nnnn reference, or someone could potentially send the article to FAR. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. The information was already in the article below.  When you work on an article for a few months, you can forget what you've thrown in there.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of references in Neptune about velocity of that winds. I am not sure that namely these two planets have “strongest winds”. Should we mention only Saturn, if winds on Neptune and, possibly, Jupiter are stronger? I have no objections to throwing the mention of planets away. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we can't throw them out per the wind FAC comments, which forced their inclusion. What you did was fine.  Thegreatdr (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol abuse
I see that you have moved 'USA College binge drinking' back to 'Alcohol abuse'.

I agree with you that 'Alcohol abuse' is a serious, international subject. The content of the article, however, does not describe the disease or its effects in the world. The content describes the problems of college students in the United States.

Could I suggest that you undo the move and start a new article 'Alcohol abuse' with content about the disease and its problems in the world? A stub would be valuable as a begining. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

MAKS 2009
Hello Incnis Mrsi!

I want to state one question to you: From August 19th until August 23rd the MAKS Airshow takes place again in Zhukovsky, near Moscow. Do you have the time to go there in order to take a lot of photos? Would be unique contribution for Wikimedia. I hope your response is positive. Greets, High Contrast (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Late reply about Gyrovector space
Late reply, I know, but I've replied to your questions at: Talk:Gyrovector space Charvest (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of USA College binge drinking
An article that you have been involved in editing, USA College binge drinking, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 11:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Said what? I will use rollback, of course, at least for some years. Thank you very much and don’t remove anything from my rights, please ☺ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

2 ru interwikis at 1 page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wikipedias&curid=6050087&diff=348177056&oldid=347013010 I don't think that's correct. --Obersachse (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I made it in a way which you don't like. You was welcomed to the discussion, but you recently declared something like “I want to eliminate links between different namespaces because such links usually lead to interwiki conflicts. But [my position] was fiercely attacked in en.wiki and now let him/them care about interwiki and incorrect links without me, as they are so smart”. OK, I am so smart and I fixing the problem in my openly planned way, which appears to face no objections. Please, try to present your arguments for interwiki purism again in that already established discussion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your way (linking to more than one page of a language) causes interwikiconflicts. --Obersachse (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Counter-vandalism
Hello and thanks for the reminder. I am well aware that I sometimes miss previous edits in a series of vandalism but most of the time I actually check the page history and then take the last good version to reset the article. Moreover, I think rollback is rather impractical because a) it needs to be applied for, b) any coded tool is only as practical as the code applied and c) not all edits by the same editor in a row are likely vandalism. So I prefer to use the "undo" button for single edits or just to restore an older version from scratch. De728631 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Inet-note-ref
Template:Inet-note-ref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Time in Russia info.
My rationale is this: on March 27 this year, Russia will advance their clocks forward but it will not actually be daylight saving time, as they will be keeping "summer time" for the whole year. As a result, I reworded all mentions of daylight saving time, but, following March 27, I will advance the time offsets for all Russian time zones by an hour to reflect actual time usage. If you think this is presumptuous of me, then the reverts you have done are OK with me (except that the table for the tz database will need to be changed so that it is a bit more consistent), but I think that some sort of edit similar to what I have done should be performed after March 27 to prevent confusion. ZanderSchubert (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Existence of free protons in ordinary liquids
Here I mean "ordinary" as on Earth at STP, not in the cores of neutron stars. No, free protons do not exist in liquids, since they always attach themselves to the electron cloud in the nearest molecule/anion, which is always available. There may exist free "solvated electrons" in liquids (like sodium dissolving in liquid ammonia to give a nice color), but electrons have sqrt(1836) = 43 times longer wavelengths than do protons, at any energy. A proton at room temp has a wavelength of 2 angstroms or so, which is far too small for them to sit in a cage between negatively charged anions and not be able to make a choice of which way to go and which to sit on, like the proverbial donkey starving between piles of hay. Protons have no reason to delocalize at room temperature. Yes, I know the article on superacids talks about free protons in liquids, but it gives no references, and frankly I don't believe it. Ab initio QM calculations show protons hopping from anion-to-anion in the strongest superacid known, just as they do in water, via the Grotthuss mechanism. See. So, some editor who claims to know what he's talking about, has reverted me on this point. There's my cite and there's my reasoning. Now, what have YOU got? And by the way, I'm going to go add a to the statement in superacids. S B Harris 00:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"... think about what you upload into Wikipedia!"
I used to leave comments like that until I learned that insult and arrogance interfere with editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Magnesium deficiency (agriculture)
Please, explain, what means this edit. It is highly implausible that a very experienced user is not familiar with well known things about page moves and maintaining edit histories. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may find it "highly implausable" that a highly experienced editor did not know there was a reason not to move a page by copy-and-paste, but this is the first I've heard of a need to preserve a sacrosanct edit history for copyright purposes. You'd think that with all the destruction of contested articles, that are eventually again started in another form or by another name (with no attribution to previous versions), and then kept, that somebody would have mentioned this potential alligator in the swamp. ;) Never have I seen a mention of it in the RfD wars. Nor did I know that non-admins can move a page using page-move. So, I learned two things. Next time, I'll do it correctly. Thanks for the lesson. S  B Harris 18:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of PNG Stereo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PNG Stereo 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/PNG Stereo 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. — Smjg (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect suggestion
For a relatively new editor, you certainly had a bright idea on the MOS (linking) page about redirects rather than # direct links. I never even thought of that. Brilliant! And well-explained to boot. Keep up the good work! Student7 (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a new editor. I contribute since 2005 and have over 12,000 Wikipedia edits in various languages. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. (I call everybody "young fellow" when they are younger than me! You have 1/4 of my edits!). Still a good idea though. Student7 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"name = equation"...
Cheers - I did try that when I created the account and started on wikipedia but it didn't work. I'm not sure if it really matters; the caret-wedge shape symbol ⋀ and the cross-times symbol × are both used for the vector product of two vectors, so its not completley unrecognizible. Thats whats in the formula - the vector product of velocity v and magnetic field B. The process of changing names seems lengthly and involved, somehow, and you need to see Bureaucrats and all that. I would rather just stick to the current name and continue to edit - but thanks again =) Happy New Year! -- F = q(E + v × B) 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Slash (punctuation)

 * I was under the impression that you were going to change the discussion to merge? User's are allowed to merge articles themselves, an administrator's approval is not required. Gsingh (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Eidos RfC
Hello, there is an RfC concerning the Eidos page in which you have shown interest in the past. This is a small notification in case you may wish to take part in the discussion.  Salvidrim!   20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

slow tablet
Thank you for reverting my inadvertent change to the Talk page of Entailment. I was browsing on a slow tablet. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(Assertive?) reply from Dirac equation (section)
Please excuse this intrusion, but you've got it all wrong, Incnis Mrsi. I never become insulted, or look for credit becuase I'm so self-obsessed with my edits, or any of that crap. All I ask for is feedback on my edits, becuase I really would like to know if people think mine are really bad, and what other editors prefer instead (whenever I appear to be "insulted", although not). I really don't mind if others obliterate my edits in place of better content (also - the point of Wikipedia would defeated if this were not so).

Of course: anyone may assume what they assume, but thats the truth. It just becomes irritating when a statement like that is made without reason. -- F = q(E + v × B) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Slash (punctuation): "please, check correctness of terminology"
Could you check the terminology used here? -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I am not willing to proof-read slash (punctuation) after merger with occurred. I am not fluent in English typography/typesetting terminology. It is an improved symbols' presentation in articles that was interesting to me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please click the diff link. It is about the first words you added. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your Diagram requested requests
I have moved your diagram requests to their talk pages. (Also, a parameter could be provided to specify the type of diagram wanted, but I did not do that.) FYI the pages: Talk:Address space and Talk:Memory address. Mark Hurd (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Interview about categories
Hi, just wanted to follow up to see if you would be willing to participate in a one-hour long interview about your experience with categories. Thanks!

Talkback
Senator2029  (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

mvar
Hi I just noticed you used mvar within math.  $name$  is just a shorthand for  $name$  for use in running text because referring to variables in text is so common. It'll make the characters too big if used within the math template. Dmcq (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Algebraic semantics
I note you have re-instated the split tag that I removed about a month ago. May I suggest that you put a note on the talk page to start some discussion. Also, if you are sure the article should be split then there is nothing to stop you from doing so. Op47 (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Double sharp (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Datagram vs. Virtual circuit
Datagram
 * Connectionless
 * Every packet is processed independently
 * Each packet (from the same message) can be transferred through any reasonable path as long as they are going closer to the destination mentioned in each packet's info
 * Packets can arrive in a different order
 * Packets can get lost
 * It's the receiver's job to "order" the missed packets and organize them in a proper order

Virtual circuit
 * Connection-oriented
 * Before sending each message the path is decided for every packet
 * Connection is request- and accept control-packets (handshake)
 * Instead of destination info, each packet has a description of its own virtual circuit

As you can see, datagram and virtual circuit are indeed opposite of each other. I am returning my edit to both articles.

If still in doubt, please don't change the articles any more, but:
 * 1) read some books (like the Tanenbaum's Computer Networks).
 * 2) create the open discussion and tell me about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixer (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Center of mass
Regarding your recent revert with the comment to "please, walk through average and arithmetic mean links to verify that such definitions are inapplicable to most bodies. the only relevant case would be a body composed of several *identical* particles":

Please note that my wording was "average location of all the mass", not "average location of all the particles". If the mass is unevenly distributed at different points, the average location of the mass will reflect that. This is in agreement with the average of a function:
 * $$\overline{f} = \frac{1}{b-a}\int_a^bf(x)\,dx.$$

Make it a triple integral over the entire body or set of bodies, define f(x) as the mass density, and you have the average location of the mass, which is the mass center. MarcusMaximus (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have the mean density. And what do you have? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My mistake in defining the integrand. I should have defined f(x)=x*ρ(x), which is a generic position vector x multiplied by the density function ρ evaluated at the position x. The integral is taken over all the mass, and the leading factor is 1/mass. Now the result is the center of mass, right? MarcusMaximus (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Uniform motion listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Uniform motion. Since you had some involvement with the Uniform motion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Tideflat (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Absolute Value page
Incnis Mrsi, While I agree with your reasoning for reverting the absolute value page as you did, I think it was rather clumsy of you to undo a change several edits back without more careful examination of the content. There was at least one change that was completely valid that you effectively erased with your revert. Please be more careful in the future, otherwise, happy hunting.KlappCK (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not willing to discuss the conflict at my personal talk. Join Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics discussion or use the article's talk page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

comment
Very mature comment Template talk:Sister project links.--Wikien2009 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Frontier
Thanks for renaming the American Frontier. Can you please do the same for Timeline of the American Old West. Thanks Rjensen (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliability
As I said on the talk, a good essay on quality/reliability. Would you like to join WikiProject Wikipedia reliability? Membership is free. History2007 (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Describing Globbett's edits, both on article talk pages and in comments hidden in the Nutation (disambiguation) article as "contamination" is not acceptable behaviour, per WP:CIVIL. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Now resolved, I think. Globbet (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

However, friendly advice: if you think you understand English better than native speakers you will make yourself look daft. Globbet (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete key edits
Hello Incnis- I saw your edits to the Delete key article, partially reverting my previous ones, and wanted to let you know that the way I changed the lead sentence did in fact retain the article title as its subject. The construction "performs a function...which is to discard" is quite awkward English, which is why I changed it. In addition, I believe it is preferred practice on WP to use italics in lieu of double quotes for presenting terms the way del and delete were in the last sentence. I don't want you to think I made my edits without considering well what I was doing. I think your addition of the delete key "x" symbol is an improvement, though this imageis more representative, I believe. I hope if you consider what I've written, you will agree that my edits were improvements to the article intro. Regards, Eric talk 23:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul C. Doherty (author)
My research found MANY Paul Dohertys just in the UK. There is a scientist, a (I believe) footballer or some such sport, and there is a musician, and then there is another writer, and then the author in the article. There are several also in Ireland and the U.S. These are just the FAMOUS ones. Mugginsx (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I gave you a chance, you [ did not present] any other Paul C. Doherty, famous or not especially so, but anyone (but the author) who could meet WP:BIO. Just one concrete objection, and I would stop. Since your adding of "(author)" appeared to be redundant, I reverted it. You did not discuss you move (which was made against guidelines), so I did not announce my revert, which rectified the page title according to a guideline. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Incris Mrsi, Would you please tell me what or why you did this?


 * (Move log); 10:50 . . Incnis Mrsi (talk | contribs) moved page Paul C. Doherty to User:Mugginsx/Paul C. Doherty without leaving a redirect ‎(kicking off a meddled redirect created by two hasty and reckless page moves – unfortunalety I have not a sysop to suppress)


 * It looks like you tried to move the entire article to MY talk page? For the record, I did not interfer with your changing of the article name in ANY way, though I disagreed with it and moved the explanation for my disagreement where it should have been discussed in the first place, i.e., on the article talk page. This is perfectly acceptable Wiki practice. Mugginsx (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. It was a side effect of a WP:MOR. If you do not like that pages in your user space, use db-u1 on [][]. And move a page once next time. Unlike edits, a page move is a resource-consuming operation and should not be done hastily. First think, then move, not versa. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say, I am too busy to argue and it was awhile ago. I have been moving pages for many years and have never had a problem. Mugginsx (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, this guy is so busy that [ removes a thing he just do not like from his user talk page]. The censorship is a big busyness. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is some reason you cannot edit articles today I apologize in advance, but tell me, what is the point of arguing on Wikipedia instead of editing?  If you do not know what article to work on there is a section entitled:  Articles for creation.  At the present we are short on editors and long on troublemakers.  This will surely give you something creative to do. Mugginsx (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I ever edited 1938 pages in en.wiki's main namespace, not counting contributions on Wikimedia Commons and Russian Wikipedia. When I do not edit articles, I spend my time fixing mistakes of Wikipedia users which have dozen times more hits to "Save", "Move" or "Delete" than distinct articles edited. Or, sometimes, arguing with them. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you finally interjected some humor. While I have been editing articles, you have spent these hours looking at statistics to see what you could say about me. As I said, we are short on editors and long on troublemakers. Mugginsx (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Proton
I could use a little more elaboration on what you think was wrong with the edit. Correctly replacing three hyphen-minuses with two minus signs and one en dash was correct in these circumstances. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not welcome on my talk page since [ this]. It is a bigotry, a thing not forbidden in Wikipedia, but a kind of behaviour I hate. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well. I will stay off your talk page until September 19, as long as you stay off mine. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Article: "Boolean algebra (structure)": "Examples" diagrams
Regarding the three example Boolean logic diagrams (under "Examples"), the "and" and the "or" symbols need to be exchanged in their respective example diagrams. I update only rarely, and my updating skills are rudimentary. Would someone else please make that change? Clarepawling (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exchanged for which rate? ☺ I do not see anything wrong with "∧ as and, ∨ as or", and their respective truth tables are perfectly correct, seriously. [ Post your concerns] to article's talk page if you are dissatisfied with my reply. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. ''Your edit summaries come across as condescending and border-line personal attacks, and not least are pointy behaviour. Please refrain from hostile commentary within edit summaries. Please comment on content, not contributors, per Wikipedia guidelines. If you don't have anything good to say, don't leave a summary at all, that way you can't be accused of offending anyone. Such attacks may be reported as uncivil. Please respect other editors, and in return they will respect you. Thanks for your understanding.''  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 10:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet another personal remark without diffs (I mean the section above). One of things the most detrimental to the collaborative spirit is such ambiguous and imprecise accusations. If not on my personal talk page, I just ignore it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * what a crap?
 * why do you think that U.S.Americans were always the first? "Early" actually means - →‎1941: . also, three different(!) misspells of "Ploiești" detected (sorry, can't fix "Polesti" because it is in a file name) – is it a record?
 * MISERABLE_FAILURE
 * I hope, there are many people in Engilsh Wikipedia who know when World War II was started


 * Seems "collaborative spirit" is something which eludes you, given that these are just a few of your uncivil remarks in edit summaries. Your retort, however, carries no weight. Evidence does. Further attacks on editors such as this will be brought to admin attention. In short, stop being a WP:DICK by making obnoxious summaries to get your own way. WP:AGF is a core principal of Wiki. You seem to forget thet with remarks such as "what a crap?" as a summary. All the evidence lies here, Special:Contributions/Incnis Mrsi. You need not acknowledge that they are uncivil or not, as Wiki is not a place where you can judge yourself. Ignorance is what leads to people getting blocked, FYI, whether they be vandals, socks or hostile towards others edits.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 11:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All evidences? Do you speak about, possibly, a hundred or two hundreds of mistakes among more than four thousands edits? I do not see anything wrong with "what a crap?" and "there are many people who know" altogether, and consider "MISERABLE_FAILURE" an adequate description of the entire (although not good as an edit summary for that single edit). Sorry for "U.S.Americans were always the first", it really was an unjustified remark directed towards a certain part of users. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an edit summary is.. oh, surprise.. to summarise the edit you just made. Since when does "miserable failure" ever describe any form of edit? Or "what the crap" for that matter? It was clearly an attack on the previous editors redirection which you strongly disapprove of. Furthermore, your opening of Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 9 without notifying editors in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history was nothing short of rude behaviour. When a discussion reaches no consensus, it is unwise to WP:FORUMSHOP until a result that suits you. In this case, you should have left a comment advising MilHist editors of the RfD, as a common courtesy, not dismissed their remarks to pursue your own avenues. And I agree that you should not be using remarks such as "hostile" and "clumsy" in an opening post to sway opinion, it results in an unbalanced discussion from the outset. As I said, it's a matter of being civil when a dispute arises. You need to tone down your attitude and be more objective, in order to achieve your goals. Call it advise.. bearing in mind that I'm not involved in the discussion, so I can't be accused of talking sides. ;)  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 11:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A forum shopping? Please, try to understand better what is means, rather than to bog into such a dispute with (sorry) an experienced user. What we see with the redirects?
 * I discovered that redirects and started a discussion.
 * reverted my edit with an unclear edit summary.
 * The discussion on the wikiproject actually led to a stalemate with Andrew Gray on one side (who was willing to push his position in the article's space) and two users on another side (which were not willing to engage into edit wars).
 * Henceforth, I passed the question to evaluation by a broader community.
 * It is a normal and useful dispute resolution process. If you could refer to this as a forum shopping, then you probably never saw a real forum shopping. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you really feel the need to refer to immature comments such as "try to understand better what is means, rather than to bog into such a dispute with (sorry) an experienced user", to determine who is right, then so be it.
 * You have 4,273 edits on en-wiki
 * I have 9,640 edits on en-wiki

I guess actions do speak louder than words, and by your own flawed comment, I am more experienced. Kudos to your "logic", but your remark was as poorly thought out as your edit summaries, and an attack on my understanding of something I know fine well about shows that – you seem to enjoy provoking editors with that superiority complex attitude. Do try to learn from your mistakes, rather than compound them further. The only reason there is a dispute here, is because you're too egotistic to accept that you were in the wrong. Next time, I'll refer it to AN/I to resolve it.. seeing how you enjoy the drama. Conversation over. До скорой встречи.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 12:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mysterious blue line identified
Hi, re - I've identified the mysterious blue line - it's the Euler line. Careful examination at high enlargement (800%) shows that the blue of this line is brighter and greener than the blue which is used for both the circumcircle and the perpendicular bisectors to AB and to AC (that perp. to BC being missing, as you correctly noted). -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attack
I don't know or care what you're beef with that guy is, but you're personal attack on Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 20 was uncalled for. It's not relevant to the RFD discussion. I've removed it. To quote the personal attacks policy "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's more of this on my talk page as well. Jarble (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More of what? I [ claimed initially that Jarble makes some waste], and claim exactly this now. The rules of Wikipedia do not discourage to call a harmful product "waste". So, what should I say about a person who makes it in a such ratio? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Making that complaint about Jarble on an RFD like that was inappropriate, RFD is not Requests for comment. Our concern at that RFD is the redirect, not Jarble, i.e. the content, not the contributor. Beyond that, I can't offer much help. I'm really not the person to ask about formal dispute resolution stuff. If you're following Jarble around, don't do it in a way that would constitute Wikihounding, but again I'm not the person to ask about that kind of thing. Maybe the Dispute resolution page would help. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not requested any help, and did not invite Emmette Hernandez Coleman to talk here (here is my talk page, not Emmette Hernandez Coleman's, can he feel the difference?). I only commented a baseless "there's more of this" accusation by Jarble. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I offend you Incnis Mrsi, that wasn't my intention. Good thing you don't want help from me, because like I said, I'm really not the person to ask about Dispute resolution. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed another personal attack against the same person (Jarble) on the same RFD. RFD is the last place you should be making personal attacks because our concern there is the redirect itself, not the creator. You especially shouldn't be making personal attacks against Jarble. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is your concern the redirect itself. To me, I do not bother much about this one redirect while several redirects are created daily with such a high error rate. You and your correspondents ;) apparently think that you enforce The Great Justice. But it is not so. If there exists some thing you help to enforce, then its name is "irresponsibility". Think about your activity, such as refactoring my comments: how does it help Wikipedia to become better? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. Which correspondents are you referring to, and how would the removal of personal attacks enforce irresponsibility? Jarble (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The removal of so named "personal attacks" disrupts the communication. There are dozens of users which are more able in talk page flames rather than in content work. They eventually become discussion-centered, rather than content-centered. Then, they make various motions to "make talk pages better" without understanding that the discussion pages serve the content, not versa. The communication serves to improve the content, do you understand? It should not serve to users' ambitions or vanity (there is a lot of examples here, especially under hidden). But unfortunately, many content-creating users are prone to vanity, which opens many possibilities for discussion-centered users to push their understanding of "etiquette" and "civility". Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced &amp;ndash;
Please, don't do [ this], never, because that superscripts should be minus signs. If you are not familiar with WP:− yet, then now it is not too late to read it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no info abt &amp;ndash; in your link. Quite contrary to what you might have intended, the WP:− discourages using minus sign, so maybe you should read it yourself? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What namely "discourages using minus sign"? WP:− redirects to Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, otherwise your browser is malfunctioning. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:− discourages using minus sign. Whether WP:− redirects to Manual of Style/Dates and numbers  has little to do with the functionality of my browser. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3  !) 05:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI/I notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 22:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a comment there, and it seemed the guidance on the page called for me to signal that here. Eric talk 02:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You only responded to part of the third part, and while I do sympathise with you about the nuisance that can be caused when an editor uses an automated process to make a lot of mistakes, I think you missed the first - and most important - section.

On the English Wikipedia, calling another editor anything uncomplimentary can be a breach of the policy on personal attacks and is best avoided. Sentences that start "you are a...." are not appropriate when uncomplimentary. If you feel a user is making bad edits - and it seems that you often have a point here - the way to express that is "these edits are not good because....(no source/misinterprets source/doesn't make sense/ect)." Discuss only what the content should be - make no comment about the competence, intelligence, motivation or attractiveness of the other editor, unless you want to say something nice about them.

So I suggest you stop saying that other editors are 'waste makers' or other such comments. You may consider it to be only factual, but it's coming across as downright rude. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WP: Manual_of_Style
Moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style Apteva (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia :Requests for comment/EEng
Just a note to let you know this has indeed been deleted as not certified - the time limit was exceeded and the third party declined to certify. I note that your recent comments to new users have all been polite and helpful (I didn't look back further than a couple of days, so maybe this has always been your habit). Please do continue such communications, there is no reason to stop. I don't believe there is a reason for you to stop communicating with other editors generally if you can modify your style. You know what constitutes a rude statement or a flame war - just avoid it by using different words. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Em dash and two-em dash
Regarding your 19 September reversion of my edits to the page '[Dash]':


 * 1) The character ⸺, the two-em dash, it is typographically and semantically distinct from two em dashes in succession (——). Two em dashes together were sometimes incorrectly used prior to Unicode 6.1, due to the lack of a dedicated two-em dash character. You also seem to have overlooked that U+2E3A is described in the article at the end of the 'Common dashes' section, claiming that it is "cryptic".


 * 1) The phrase regarding approximations is redundant; later in the same paragraph that information is presented more clearly with specific examples.

I'm going to restore my edits that I made, in light of these arguments. If you still feel that they are incorrect, we should discuss your objections in more depth. Thank you. Goldenshimmer (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:copied
Incnis, you recently editing copied under the assumption that a missing oldid means it's a new page. This is entirely, 100% wrong, and what a missing oldid means has been discussed in detail on the talk page - what it means is that many Wikipedians, including many with years of experience, are not familiar with oldids and diffs to put them in this template, and if oldid is missing then the text of the template should be changed so that the "with this edit" text and link doesn't appear at all. In short, oldid and diff should never be a mandatory part of any template, ever. So far, no one who knows enough about templates has been involved or able to fix this, Ego White Tray (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

commons:File:Obliquity berger -5000000 to 0.png
Sorry, I haven't been in here for some time. The referenced file is just a graph of some numerical data in Berger's paper. There's no research involved, I merely presented it visually instead of as a table of numbers. I have it in a spreadsheet (somewhere). Tfr000 (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit - regarding
Hello Mrsi,

I did a mistake in understanding absolute value concept and so I removed the negative symbol. But I was preparing to correct it when you already made the correction. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2487 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

̂ listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ̂. Since you had some involvement with the ̂ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is in no way a retaliation of any sorts. I did not know it was you who had created the page before hitting the button on twinkle. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notifications for November 2012
{{hidden|headerstyle=padding-right:3em;|hidden by default|2=

Disambiguation link notification for November 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Co-option, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vacancy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Chain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Freedom


 * Hortobágy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Herdsmen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC) }}

ANI
I noticed you removed the tag, so I know you are aware of the discussion. I would just say to be a bit more careful in phrasing so you don't give the wrong impression in your edit summary. This is one reason why edit summaries are terrible for communication and the talk page is much better. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot remember to work together with Dennis Brown ever. Also, I do not remember any conflicts in the past. Which discussion? What phrasing? If you have some concerns about certain my actions, then say specifically, what was wrong and why. Otherwise, I will not guess how general communication philosophies should apply to me and how is it based on Wikipedia guidelines. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You deleted a link to an ANI discussion. The ANI discussion is here.. The edit summary I am referring to is here. . Once you delete an ANI notification, such as you did in the first link I provided, you demonstrate that you have read it, otherwise you wouldn't have known to delete it. Hopefully that will clear up any misunderstandings. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything wrong with the edit summary →‎Alphabet: probably, that Jews do not know *all* of Russian language?, since the main point was the degree of competence of a Jewish-specific site in Russian phonology. If you have thoughts about the ongoing conflict in Russian alphabet and my contribution to it, then you can post those to talk: Russian alphabet such that other parties could evaluate it, not only me. I ever edited more than 2,000 pages in the main space (several hundreds were redirs and dabs, but the majority were articles, indeed). Taking part in various conflicts is not uncommon for me. Were each of these conflicts be discussed here, at user_talk:Incnis_Mrsi, this page would become very hard to browse. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is not about Russian phonology, but about the form of your comment. With great frequency, anti-Semites will blame "the Jews" for anything and everything wrong with the world, and the kind of broad generalization that your comment appears to be making, that "the Jews do not know all of Russion language" can be interpreted as being anti-Semitic.  It would have been better had you said "The website cited is not a reliable source for this information" rather than focusing on the ethnic identity of the source.  It is a certainty that there are Jews who know "all" of the Russian language, perhaps even more than you do, and for those Jews who do not, their Jewishness has nothing whatsoever to do with their lack of knowledge. Please be more careful with your use of the  English language here on the English Wikipedia in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What Ken said. At ANI, essentially the admin assumed good faith, and just ask to be careful so there isn't a misunderstanding in the future, because the summary came across much stronger than you realize.  This isn't a "scolding", it is a request to be a bit more careful.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thirded. I too would have looked askance at such a summary, and would very likely have felt compelled to address it at ANI, or at the least would have started on a witch hunt to determine if there was more similar activity going on. Easy enough to make mistakes, and this is indeed one of the problems with the short edit summaries, but definitely worth being mindful of, given the number of people who will see such a comment show up in a Recent Changes patrol,such as via VandalFighter, etc., who will then question anything that seems to be at all racially motivated.
 * Given that the first native Russian speakers I ever met were Russian Jews who spoke Russian just as fluently as Hebrew, and since there are many such families living in Israel and elsewhere around the world, I would say there's no reason "Jews" cannot know the Russian language as well as anyone else, unless there is some form of racial motivation implying they are inferior to the point of being incapable of learning or comprehending a language other than Hebrew. One might as well say, "No 'H' in Russian because they can't speak English."
 * As above, I'm not trying to scold, and I hope this doesn't come across as such, only trying to explain why some editors were taken aback by such a statement, and why such language should be avoided in the future in edit summaries that are easy to misread, but should instead be made on the relevant talk page.  b e s i e g e d       talk 23:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Geography article naming
By accident I found Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography. What you mentioned could be avoided by more consistency. But how can WP be made more consistent? I have a similar issue at Talk:Bengkulu - where I want to make Wikipedia more consistent, but the opposing parties are not really giving reasons what is bad with more consistency. Do you know a place where to address this? AsianGeographer (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Page moves
Hi. Please immediately stop moving pages into my user space. If you need assistance from an administrator, request it at Requested moves. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Harassment
Please keep this kind of junk off of my user page. Your edit here made a clear mistake by including my handle in the section heading for this edit. It is sad that you don't assume good faith, but hardly my fault. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Retitled this section harassment, since your Talk page header gives me permission to consider your post on my page as harassment. - JHunterJ (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After [] it is, actually, not important. Any user which engages into flamewars must be prepared to read something unpleasant about himself. If he is unprepared, then he does the wrong thing in a wrong place. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then stop doing the wrong things in the wrong places, and stop initiating flamewars. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Spinor
(From talk page) Yes, you are probably right. Whenever you are (or think you are) correct you become 100% rude. This time, your comment was only 78% rude. Thus it has a 78% chance of being correct. Actually, the chances that you are correct is slightly higher (99.9...%?) in this case. I have been working on an article about [|the Lorentz invariance in QFT]. I'd be happy if you could comment on that thing. It has become pretty huge in size, but I think that there are parts of it that can go into WP articles. The more rude your comments are, the more I appreciate them. YohanN7 (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

slash
Hi Incnis,

I noticed you undid a change I added to this (slash). Are you sure about this - if you read the paragraph carefully, I think my change is valid?

Anyway, I won't pursue this any further, so hope you get the time to give it a second glance :)

Regards, Richard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riph72 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower punctuation mark
I've fixed your bizarre logging of this AfD, and also notified the creator... GiantSnowman 12:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The creator user:Yurik is not interested in AfD deliberations, and he knew that I go to start the AfD. Of course, I can make an error and I am willing to learn what namely I made wrong. But I will not search your contributions to find a diff where you "fixed my bizarre logging". Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffs on the AfD page - and you should notify the creator regardless of whether or not you believe they will contribute or not. GiantSnowman 12:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

re:Teahouse
Regarding your comment on the q&a page about being careful with correspondents names, her original question, copy and pasted: "Hello, I am Marina and I hope I will be able to contribute to our community. Could anyone tell me whether all pictures found o Google images have free license?--Martina Moreau (talk|TB|) 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)"(Emphisis added).

Comments like you left would probably be better left on the individual host's talk page. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. Feel free to delete or move my message wherever do you prefer – I do not set any value on this particular item, especially because it demonstrates that I can be quite inattentive. But could you, Gtwfan52, demonstrate #-links or WP:DIFFs next time, please, instead of verbal eloquences such as your comment on the q&a page about being careful with correspondents names, her original question. First, you are not God and you unlikely read all my correspondence in WP, on all numerous "q&a pages", about "being careful" (BTW it's one of my most recurring tropes) and in relation to all possible females. So, I have to guess to which exactly episode do you refer. Do you understand? Second, I just am not obliged to remember all my posts. This habit to say "you are so-and-such bad", but without a single diff is one of the most irritating (to me) features of English Wikipedia's culture. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I thought the quote would be enough to jog your memory, but I will be happy to provide you with a diff if I ever have to correspond with you in the future.  After all, your time is so much more valuable than mine.  How unclear is it when the heading is RE: Teahouse that the q&a forum I was talking about is the one at Teahouse?  And it is advisable to keep all mention of God or other deities out of correspondence with anyone, anywhere.  It is a great way to really piss someone off.  BYE! Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

European regions
Hello, I was wondering why you thought of me challenging you, by editing an article on European regions. I read you are against bigotry so I thought you may be interested in my article: http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Marina_Moreau/Contemporary_European_geography --Martina Moreau (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I can realize how "against bigotry" and "LGBT rights" correlates, I am astonished that you relate "against bigotry" with "European geography". Could you explain this? BTW: if you want to earn a piece of my respect, then never make diagrams ans schemes in the JPEG format. Of course in Wikia, you can upload technical drawings in JPEG, portraits in ASCII art, and populate Kaliningrad Oblast with Germans, but Wikipedians do not like any of these. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Bigotry has multiple meanings. To the ladder points, please elaborate. --Martina Moreau (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Piandcompany (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Liver (color)
I don't know how to get an article re-assessed (it looks like it's done by a bot given the log, but bots can't have that good judgement, can they?), but i've done a lot of work on that article and think it should at least be upgraded to start-class, given it is longer than a stub. The WikiProject Color talk page looked fairly inactive, so I posted here thinking you may know. Basically, all I need to know is who (or what) to ask. Thank you, good day, Free   Wales Now!   what did I screw up?   21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Gregorik’s talk page
Do not template me please, I've been here for 8 years, a veteran by all measures. Instead, do act against blatant bias when you see it, stop condoning it. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You said "stop condoning it", which implies that I am condoning it. Do you mean something specific? Incnis Mrsi (talk)
 * I've stopped participating in WP disputes years ago. Yet I do remember some clearly disrupting users, and you happen to protect one of them. No more input from me, sorry. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  09:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not disturb you further, if you just delete your defamatory posting on a third-party user_talk page. It is a breach of WP:NPA. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As a courtesy, I have trimmed it. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  09:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notifications for January and February 2013
{{hidden|headerstyle=padding-right:3em;|hidden by default|2=

Disambiguation link notification for January 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited El (Cyrillic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ligature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apostrophe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 00:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC) }}

About my recent edits to Vapor-liquid equilibrium and your comments about those edits
Hello, Incnis Mrsi:

I had no intent to denigrate anyone and I apologise if you are offended. But the fact remains that the HTML equations had numerous formatting errors (not content errors). All one needs to do is print a copy of that section (as I did) before and after my revisions (as I also did) to see the extent of what was corrected. I am sure that, if you did that, you would see that I did not simply "baldly claim" anything. It took me about two hours to get the equations fixed and if I had to list and explain all of my fixes, it would have taken another two hours ... so I simply said they were "badly rendered with a number of errors". In hindsight,I should have made clear that the problem was in formatting ... not content.

Once again, if I have offended you, I apologise and it was not my intent to offend anyone. mbeychok (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence
Hello. This may be of interest, although it refers to something at least a year and a half old... CsDix (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notifications for February 2013
{{hidden|headerstyle=padding-right:3em;|hidden by default|2=

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Source code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Machine-readable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Letter Zyu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loser (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 14:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC) }}

User Page Vandalism Revert
Hi just to let you know I reverted someone blanking your user page as I believe it was vandalism. If I was wrong come tell on my talk page GingerGeek (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. An obvious case of harassment because of a content disagreement. It is so bad for him/her and [ his/her point]. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-spacing
Template:Letter-spacing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Incnis Mrsi; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing capital letter in file-format article.
Hello Incnis Mrsi, I'm Clark42, I just didn't bother logging in to edit the file-format article. Yeah, sorry, I missed a capitalisation whilst editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.119.130 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"drive-by replacement" of Perl
In regards to your request to stop "drive-by replacement" of Perl: I would be happy to use Perl instead, but the search indexes seem to fail to pick up on that when searching for "perl programming". Unless i am mistaken in this observation, the current actions are my only recourse. I will hold off for now until we reach an agreement and would ask you to extend the same courtesy to me. (On a sidenote, it would be appreciated if you'd asked why, before swinging your big bat and reverting.) Mithaldu (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also like to note that in some of the pages you reverted, the reverted form has worse grammar than my changed form. Mithaldu (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how Mithaldu is involved in the incident. If needed, I can explain every my [rollback] push, which summarily were substantiated there, but if this a complaint about my action, then I can do it in details. But if you intend to drag me in a discussion about how to refer to Perl language in Wikipedia, then start a topic at WT:WikiProject Perl, please. I will not sustain it at user_talk. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am the IP whose edits you reverted. I was not aware of my being logged out until the edit to the IP user page reminded me of it. This is not exactly a complaint and more of a request for information, so i can understand your position better and try to reach an understanding. As for explanations: Yes, i would appreciate them. If you wish i could also list the exact pages where i consider your revert to be directly decreasing the page quality from the level my edits put them at, as opposed to just contrary to my original intent. About WT:WikiProject Perl, are you sure? It has not been touched in almost a year now. Can you link to pages explaining the protocol of wikiproject pages? Mithaldu (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The protocol? There is no special protocol for using WP:WikiProject WT:-pages, but you can start a topic whatever you want.


 * : reverted a breach of WP:LINKSTYLE.
 * : the text «The system uses the Perl programming language» which stresses the latter concept with a wikilink could suggest that programming on Perl is a part of the system’s use (i.e. that Perl is used as an internal scripting language, which is quite plausible).
 * : reverted cluttering the table with an off-topical wikilink.
 * : the link «programming language» is already present in Algorithmic efficiency and has not a specific relevance to a Perl as one of examples; extra wording is also redundant.
 * 1)  the same as #2.
 * : mistakenly removed both links to Perl ([ fix]), but, like in #4, the «programming language» was quite redundant amid links to more specific concepts such as Interpreter (computing).
 * : reverted a breach of uniformity in references to Python and Perl.
 * 1)  – I do not insist, although it is not good that the link «programming language» appeared so low in the article, in a section without particular relevance. You can redo it if you want.
 * : the «programming language» link was already very first in the article.
 * 1)  the same as #9.
 * : reverted an obvious degradation of the link usability.
 * : imposed an uniform style: C language and Perl language.
 * Are you satisfied with explanations of my actions now? If you’ll start a discussion, the drop me a link please. Just do not discuss stylistic preferences immediately in my user_talk. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI this is continued here as I started reviewing the edits and Mithaldu moved to my talk page. --Gryllida?? 05:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Proof of this IP being User:Mithaldu 2A00:5A80:FFFF:1:8C9C:13E4:7A05:762C (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You lost the version number here. "Perl 5" and "Perl Best Practices" are standard idioms. While it's a good idea to work on Perl topics (thank you!), I would like to discourage editing content for it to be better marketing-wise but otherwise clumsy or less informative. Take a look at Outline of Perl instead, please, find missing or incomplete information and add to it. --Gryllida?? 22:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Complex number fact tag
In the Complex number article, the fact tag reason you gave would have benefited from increased clarity. The reason ("the lowercase i, ORLY?") is not a proper sentence and uses slang. Proper sentences avoid ambiguity. By itself, there is not enough content to the tag to know what you meant and it can be interpreted in multiple ways. Further, slang like "ORLY" should be avoided: when used correctly (with a "reason=" parameter) fact tag reasons are reader-facing (as a tool-tip) and should be of appropriate quality.

I know now that you were specifically questioning the use of "i" for current. I would argue that this falls under "Subject-specific common knowledge". We can discuss it on the article's talk page if you wish. Just about all university-level introductory physics books (at least in the US) use "i" for current (e.g., the very popular Halladay and Resnick). Jason Quinn (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion‎. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. From WP:VANDAL: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." (emphasis added) Jeh (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetised categories
(Response to this)

Thank you for your diligence in your attempts to improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I must correct your specific comments.

You seem to be somewhat aware of the workings of Wikipedia, but allow me to explain where you have gone wrong. While it may seem like everything on Wikipedia is the result of discussion (and to some extent this is true), allot of the day to day proceedings are on the basis of precedent(or consensus). A precedent is a rule which tells an editor what the result of a discussion would probably be in a particular case. Sometimes a precedent will be written down, and become a semi-official policy. Other times a precedent will not be written down, and one has to ask the editors who work in a particular area how they do things. A precedent will sometimes arise as the result of discussion, other times it will be implied by commonalities in the behaviour of a group of editors; people will come to an agreement, not by discussing things out loud, but by working together and discovering a common method.

To use an analogy, a discussion is a group of lawmakers deciding on a set of laws, a precedent is the way judges enact that law.

If you are unsure of what the precedent is in a particular case, it is a good idea to start by checking the policies. (For example here this FAQ.) The precedent here is that for categories (other than categories for people, which don't have a strong precedent) is that: The most common example of 2 is the key article of a category, usually an eponymous category.
 * 1) categories should go in alphabetical order unless
 * 2) one or more categories is very important to the page, in which case these go first.

Now you may think that this it is unfair that this precedent exists, you may have some other idea for category orders. The good news is that nothing on Wikipedia is set in stone. If you think that this, or any other precedent, in Wikipedia could be improved I encourage you to start a discussion. The best place to start in this case is Wikipedia talk:Categorization, there you will find editors who are interested in categorisation policy and will have something to contribute either way. One thing to be wary of before starting a discussion is that you may find that what seems to you an "obvious improvement" is opposed by other editors, so be prepared to make your case.

I have a couple of personal notes before I close. I encourage you to keep going with your script, this sort of thing can greatly improve an individual persons Wikipedia experience. But when providing evidence for your case a link to a discussion that you started on another editors talk page is not a good example of precedent, it is better if you can find points made by other editors (ideally a large group) and examples from article talk, category talk, wikiproject, and policy pages.

Hope to hear from you. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fringe theory?
Please see my post at the Fringe Noticeboard, as I believe it relates to an issue you raised several months ago.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 03:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Domain (mathematics)
Hi! I noticed you recently redirected Domain (mathematics) to point to the disambiguation page Domain. Please fix the incoming disambiguation links created by this change. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I changed the target because it was incorrect. From your (formal) perspective, it is my change which [ “created incoming disambiguation links”]. From my perspective, it is a consequence of two factors: mistakes of 2006–2009 and reluctance of editors in last 4 years to fix links through an unsafe redirect; see also my comments at WP:Village pump (proposals) . In any case I think that there should not be any rush and the problem does not belong to my talk page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled
Hey Incnis Mrsi :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notifications for April and May 2013
{{hidden|headerstyle=padding-right:3em;|hidden by default|2=

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Euclidean space (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Connected component, Structure (mathematics) and Barycentric coordinates


 * Circle of a sphere (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Hemisphere

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glagolitic alphabet, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC) }}

message from Jean-François Monteil
(86.75.111.166 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC))

Dear Incnis Mrsi, go to the entry implication stricte, then go to afficher l'historique and click on (actu | diff) 15 février 2012 à 13:42‎ 84.101.36.154 (discuter)‎. . (9 321 octets) (+8 461)‎ (défaire). Thus, you'll get what I write about the three ingredients of implication stricte:(1) ~M (p & ~q) (2) Mp (3) ~p. M → M~q. The second ingredient Mp eliminates ~Mp; the third ingredient ~p. M → M~q eliminates Lq. Both ~Mp and Lq contains the first ingredient ~M (p & ~q)and the point is to eliminate ~Mp and Lq to obtain p ≡ Lq. ~M (p & ~q) alone cannot represent the strict implication of q by p, since clearly ~M (p & ~q) is compatible not only with p ≡ Lq but also with ~Mp and Lq. (86.75.111.166 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)) Jean-François Monteil

Discussion of inclusion of Kyoto Prize in criterion 2
Please participate in the discussion. Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)‎. Solomon7968 (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Question
What was wrong with this suggestion? 94.116.38.81 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this user was identified as a sockpuppet of a community-banned user. I do not know whether s/he was really a sock, and I do not know anything about the community-banned user to whom this (allegedly) sock belongs. This is some older conflict in which I fortunately was not involved. Certainly, if I spot censorship attempts against a user who contributed to at least hundred articles (without causing disruption), I’ll interfere. But brand-new and suspiciously experienced accounts probably belong to banned users. I am not willing to involve myself in such matter except for possible mediation in order to lift a ban. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Events
7 May

06:08 Icnis Mrsi refers to "barely readable sequences like a*b*c* "

10 May

03:22 Mathsci asks "how can there possibly have been a sequence like a*b*c* in the article"

06:23 Clanclub quotes a line from the article with a sequence of that form

06:43 Mathsci removes Clanclub's post with the comment "this does not occur in the article"

06:52 Mathsci edits the article to modify precisely the sequence quoted by Clanclub

07:21 Incnis Mrsi replies to Mathsci posting of 03:22

07:46 Mathsci silently removes his posting of 03:22, making Incnis Mrsi's posting of 07:21 appear to be a reply to a different post

08:33 Mathsci tries to get Clanclub banned for making "a trolling remark about me"

An observer might suggest that the behaviour one of of these users has been disingenuous. Clanclub (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My advice: concentrate on re-integrating yourself into Wikipedia community, not on bashing Mathsci. Unless you settled your troubles, your influence will be insignificant. Guerilla attacks against certain “foes” amidst a free and democratic community is your way to nowhere, stop doing this. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks but other users in the same position don't seem to be having much success. Clanclub (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Once an obvious sock of Echigo mole has been tagged, probably the best idea is not to respond and to remove the post. They have now been blocked indefinitely following the SPI report. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI, with respect to Mathsci's statement here, this discussion might be of interest to you: --125.71.207.194 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Signed_number_representations#Sign-and-magnitude_method
Hello. I'm not a registered wikipedia editor. I just noticed the following mistake and corrected:

-43 corresponds to 11010101 in binary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_number_representations#Sign-and-magnitude_method

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.8.2 (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

AGF
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Before posting a harsh warning as you did with this edit, please ask the edtior what their intention was. You should have first asked, "Did you mean to post that notice on the editor's user page?" Sometimes, even a very experienced editor can make a completely unintentional error, as in this situation. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You [ said] that never crossed paths with me before, but why does user: Arthur Rubin deserves so much of your attention that you watch his talk page? ☺
 * You accused me in continually going out of way to initiate problems with other editors. Fortunately, so pure hypocrisy is rare in this wiki. I am really happy that English Wikipedia has so few people here like you, 76.189.109.155. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First, you have a proven history of having problems with other editors relating to AGF, incivility, and personal attacks. Second, my posting one comment on Arthur's talk page certainly does not constitute "deserving so much of my attention". I happened to see the thread about him at AN/I, which was directly below the one I was involved in. I don't understand why you continually post hostile comments, like this one, to so many editors. But I would again suggest that you treat other editors with respect and avoid all of the taunting language that apparently is a pattern for you. For the record, I accused you "of" continually going out of your way, not "in". You see, that is an example of the type of petty issues which often prompt you to launch attacks against other editors. To be clear, my actual quote was, "I'd encourage you to focus on improving your own shortcomings instead of continually going out of your way to initiate problems with other editors." Please, stop your inappropriate behavior. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)