User talk:Nerd271/Archive 2

Recent human evolution
No problem with your recent reversion of my edit. I see the part about the reduction in jaw size being proportional is in the source. You might find this blog post about canine teeth of interest and you might wish to incorporate it in the Recent human evolution article. (I realize the blog is not talking about recent evolution, but you might find that there has been continuing reduction in canines -- I don't know.) Excerpt: "Most other anthropoids have large canine teeth, and these teeth are often strongly sexually dimorphic. They are apparently sexually dimorphic in these early hominids as well, with strong differences in canine size between the larger and smaller mandibles. The large canines of most primates are not principally a dietary adaptation, but reflect the social aspects of directly fighting or communicating threats. The reduction of the canine teeth in early hominids likely indicates that these social interactions had changed. One possibility is that social competition, particularly among males, may have reduced in intensity. " https://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/afarensis/early_hominid_dental_change.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetsuo (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you. Nerd271 (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

List of largest libraries in the United States
I screwed up. I thought that I was editing this in my sandbox, but it turns out that I wasn't. Could you please revert all of my edits for me back to the original version. 2603:6011:7501:7862:65B3:F839:AD85:CF64 (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅! I'm not sure if unregistered users have their own sandboxes. Please consider making an account so that you have a sandbox of your own to experiment in. Nerd271 (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅! I'm not sure if unregistered users have their own sandboxes. Please consider making an account so that you have a sandbox of your own to experiment in. Nerd271 (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Unregistered users do not have a sandbox. I meant the sandbox on my Wikipedia account that I have. 2603:6011:7501:7862:69C4:5919:3BDE:FDAE (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the citation advice! Much appreciated. ABF992 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edits on Jenna Coleman
"It says nothing about genres." My point exactly? I’ll revert your edit tomorrow if you don’t do it yourself. - Seokgjin (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope! Just because it is not mentioned does not mean it is forbidden. It is relevant information. Nerd271 (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What’s the point of having guidelines if editors like you are going to add and remove whatever they want? It’s because of you that Wikipedia pages can’t improve faster. If you’re so keen in adding genres, go to the talk page and create a poll; then we’ll see if the majority thinks it’s “relevant information”. If you just keep removing my edits because you think it’s relevant information, I’ll have to ask for a higher page protection. - Seokgjin (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you threatening me? That won't succeed. It is relevant information. No mentioning does not mean prohibition. It is common to talk about the genres of films and television series. And that information was around months before you arrived and decided to remove it. Nerd271 (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you don't tag me, I can't see your answer. "No mentioning does not mean prohibition"? That's exactly what it means, otherwise anyone could add as many columns as they want and it would be a mess. If you're so sure that it's relevant, why don't you ask other people's opinion on the talk page as I suggested? "That information was around months", that's not an argument, especially since anyone can edit pages. Is that article tagged as a "Good Article"? No, which means there's a lot of room for improvement. (Don't forget to tag me next time you answer.) Seokgjin (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You don't need to tag me on my own talk page. You can put my talk page on your watch list, you know. To answer your question, this information is directly relevant and should be included. Unless you have an extremely narrow screen, one additional column should not matter. It is a thin column, by the way. Nerd271 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Jenna Coleman) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see the above section if you have not already. The other user decided to use my talk page rather than the talk page of the article in question. Nerd271 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision of zoomers as children of boomers.
Would you not agree with me that definitionally, it is possible for a zoomer to have parents who are boomers. like, if a boomer includes someone born in 1964, and a zoomer includes someone born in 1997, then a boomer born in 1964 who gave birth to a zoomer in 1997 would be 33, a perfectly possible age to give birth at. therefore, would you not agree with me that it would make sense to include that some zoomers are the children of boomers. I know it was not mentioned with that source, but that's why I placed it after that source to show that that source was not evidence for that. Farleigheditor (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that you are wrong. I am saying you need a source to back it up in the introduction unless it is already discussed in the body (in which case you can just reuse the source). Nerd271 (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Your recent editing history at Baby boomers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.WP:BRD has only one "R" in it and it has a "D". Toddst1 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Stop hand nuvola.svg Check the history again. There was only one revert. Use the talk page if you want to discuss more. Nerd271 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I reverted your edit. You reverted it again. That's an edit war with 2 R's. Toddst1 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I reverted your edit only once. There have been two reverts but each of us made only once. Try using the talk page for a more productive discussion. Nerd271 (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Recent human evolution implied that Africans are less evolved. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Important message
— Paleo Neonate  – 06:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverted my edits on Generation Z, no reason given
Hello, I was wondering why you reverted my recent edits on Generation Z. The only reason you gave was "stable version" which doesn't a qualitative assessment, rather it implies that having the article stay the same is better than constructive changes. A big chunk of my work was just moving things around, adding hyperlinks, and making images smaller to ease reading. If I can improve any of the sections that I added, or if I removed sections that were important, I want to know because I have an interest in improving this article. Thank you! BappleBusiness (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Because reverting individual edits was not possible. Too many changes have been made. The phrase "stable version" originates in computer programming. While many updates are introduced, some versions are more stable than others. Please do not take it personally.
 * Suggestion: the section on education in Asia is admittedly too short. Would be nice if you could update it. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess because I'm new to editing, I haven't heard the term before. I checked WP:STABLE and there wasn't an edit war going on (at least that I'm aware of). Is the issue that you couldn't revert specific edits because they were too large - would it be easier to revert more numerous smaller edits? BappleBusiness (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I did try to individual edits. However, the software would not let me do it. The only alternatives were manual or wholesale. Nerd271 (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Changes at Template:Taylor Swift
Hello, I see that you have added subcategories to Template:Taylor Swift. I do not think doing such (by adding release years to albums/dates to tours/grouping them with more subcategories than necessary) is helpful (see WP:ACCESSIBILITY). Please start a discussion at the talk page before reverting my edits, which was to restore the original state that had been perfectly fine for a long time. Best, 117.4.246.27 (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I did. Please join a discussion at the talk page before reverting my edits, which was to pack in more information and to retain a piece that had been perfectly fine for a long time. That link on accessibility you gave does not say anything about templates. Nerd271 (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Taylor Swift
Hello, please see this for the file's license. Ippantekina (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The Wikimedia Commons page says something different. Anyway, I swapped the photo. Nerd271 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I also have some points:
 * Image captions (also references, infoboxes etc.) are treated as different entities from the prose. At WP:REFLINK: Wyomissing, Pennsylvania (and other instances to keep in mind) should be linked regardless of whether it has been linked in the image caption or not.
 * Per WP:IMAGESIZE we do not fix px (e.g. 274x274px). You can use |upright to regulate image size instead.
 * That's it. Happy editing. Ippantekina (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, do we really need to link something twice in a section that already has many links? That counts as overlinking to me. Having too many links is not helpful but distracting.
 * As for image sizes, I only change one parameter and leave the other one for the software to handle. I think it is acceptable to resize images so that they fit in well with the body of the text. As long as there is no obvious distortion (e.g. Taylor Swift looking like a pancake) there should be no problem. Nerd271 (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Need help in the Generation Z date range edit war at the main Generation Z article page
As you already know, BappleBusiness, WikiBoo2 and Argso (the latter two who are both the same person) have deliberately cited outdated sources and are making the article too long as well as continuing this date range war. I wanted to ask if you could check the talks page on the Gen Z main article and voice your opinion on the matter. I have created a talks page section discussing this, and I need all the help I can get to get the 1997-2012 date range at the top. If you know of others who have similar opinions as we do, please get them to voice their opinion as well. So far, I know that Zillennial and GhostlyOperative are both on our side, with Some1 leaning towards the 1997-2012 range. BappleBusiness and the other two (pretty much Argso who made two accounts) have had a monopoly on this for far too long, and we got to vote them out. They intentionally are citing outdated sources and removing other editor's voices. WaterIguana (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you update the Census part on the Gen Z article
In a 2022 article, the Census notes that Gen Z is "colloquially defined as" 1997-2012 and used this date range for their SIPP survey. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/08/wealth-inequality-by-household-type.html It has an end date, compared to their previous vague "after 1996" mention from 2020. 174.55.91.169 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. It has been done. Nerd271 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating it. Also, the Millennials article needs a similar update to the more recent source. On the "Date and age range definitions" section, please change
 * "The United States Census Bureau is inconsistent, mentioning 1996 as the end of the date range for millennials in a 2020 news release, but saying 2000 in the charts in a 2020 demographic analysis. However, they have previously stated that "there is no official start and end date for when millennials were born" and they do not officially define millennials. "


 * to


 * "Although the United States Census Bureau have said that "there is no official start and end date for when millennials were born" and they do not officially define millennials, a U.S. Census publication in 2022 noted that Millennials are "colloquially defined as" the cohort born from 1981 to 1996, using this definition in a breakdown of Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data. "

✅ I also updated the page Draft:Millennials in the United States. Thank you for your suggestion. Nerd271 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks man. Also, if possible, could you change "Internet explosion" to "Rise of the mainstream Internet" in the Date/age range section? "Internet explosion" sounds kinda silly, imo.
 * I think it is alright. Nerd271 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

New message from AP 499D25
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:General Relativity (book) § Removal of "Table of Contents" and "Versions" sections. — AP 499D25  (talk)  03:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI report for that disruptive IP editor on book articles
Hi Nerd271, I have reported that disruptive IP editor over at WP:AN/I for their continued disruptive editing, incivility, and WP:IDHT behavour. Please see this thread, and if you have anything to add to there, feel free to do so. Cheers! — AP 499D25  (talk)  12:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

..?
"So having an entire Wikipedia article about her while she is still alive does not seem appropriate." This sounds a bit odd to me, did you mean something like "So having an entire Wikipedia article about her didn't seem appropriate, at least not then." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, age is the issue here. Nerd271 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

GRB221009A
https://www.wis-tns.org/object/2022xiw 文爻林夕 (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Put it in the "Other designations" category in the infobox if you wish. Three independent sources cited in the article suggest there is no strong evidence this was due to a supernova. Nerd271 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But it is indeed the supernova number of GRB afterglow GRB221009A, not only the position, but also the redshift. The Webb Telescope even captured its host galaxy. 文爻林夕 (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2022xiw and 2022ixw are indeed easy to get wrong, but their redshifts will not lie. 文爻林夕 (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless the astronomy community changes its mind, we should not change this Wikipedia article. And please use English! This is English Wikipedia. Nerd271 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just forgot to switch the language. But I suggest you search for sn 2022xiw.  Of course I won't change it, and I'm sure you will.  if it is correct. 文爻林夕 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When googling SN 2022ixw there is only that Webb paper. When searching for sn 2022xiw, there will be several pages of results saying that someone has found the supernova corresponding to the strongest GRB, and its supernova number is exactly sn 2022xiw. I think ixw is a clerical error of the paper team and was misquoted by me. 文爻林夕 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12849It seems that high-energy astrophysicists are only concerned about this GRB-SN and the first discovered GRB-SN—SN 1998bw/GRB 980425. But after reading the paper, I probably know that this LGRB is caused by SNIc-BL. 文爻林夕 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This latest paper does not offer conclusive evidence either. But I will add it to the article. Nerd271 (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Question
Hi, just out of curiosity, why are you adding these? - w o lf  02:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Those are flexible white spaces to avoid images (and other objects) colliding. If your screen is much narrower than mine, you should not see much changes. If your screen is the same size as mine, or wider, you will see some white spaces. You can test this feature by either switching to a new device or by zooming in and out. Nerd271 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah, well I just don't recall seeing this used before. Is it in the MOS somewhere? Or sometning new from VP? Or just a personal preference? While I don't see much of a difference on a smartphone screen, on a larger laptop screen it appears to create large gaps that might also issues for screen readers. - w o lf  02:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The gaps are there to prevent objects from colliding. If your screen is wide (or if you zoom out enough), you will start to see pictures appearing in the wrong section and bunched up together. Depending on the article, that column might punch its way down to the References section, creating an empty column. That's bad formatting. Why not spread the empty space out across the article instead? Nerd271 (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe I understand the issue you are trying to describe, I just don't see it affecting this particular article. As for your solution, again... is it listed somewhere in the MOS or guidance pages? Or is this sometning you came up with on your own? Any clarification you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks -  w o lf  03:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, my screen might be wider than yours, so I saw pictures in the wrong sections. The solution I learned elsewhere on this site. It was from an article rather than a manual. Nerd271 (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks for the answer. So there is no WP guidance supporting this particular mark-up. That's a problem, because some people will try to manipulate the appearence of an article with various types of mark-up, and while it may look ok on their particular screen, there are many other sizes and types of screens where it doesn't look better, as is the case here (I believe I have the correct article this time ;-). As I noted above, on my smartphone, in desktop mode (another variance to account for), your mark-up does not appear to make any appreciable difference. But on a 17" pc screen, there are significant gaps that have been created as a result. Also, keep in mind this is just the cosmetic angle, we also need to take into account any impact your mark-up will have on screen readers. This is why I wanted to know if this mark-up was to be found in any wiki-guidance. Since it hasn't, it's best not to use it, as it already causes issues in at least one format. You could still take it to say, VPT, have it reviewed and get some feedback on it. Have a good day - w o lf  07:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned, this will not affect a narrow screen. But if your screen is wide enough, the images will bump into one another. I know that's the case because I have tested and used this before. That template adds a flexible amount of space, which will depend on your zoom settings and your screen dimensions. Remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. While there are guidelines, just because nothing is mentioned does not mean we cannot do it. The real purpose for us here is to write encyclopedic entries. As long as we can do a good job, there is not need to fear the guidelines. Nerd271 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't say there was an issue with with a "narrow screen", and as for a wide screen, well... how wide are we talking? How many have you tested this "space/

/space" set-up on? (And, how many articles have you added it to?) Again, there doesn't appear to be an issue with it (for me) on a smartphone screen, but the article looked fine to begin with... there was no issue with "images bumping into each other", nor were the images "punching into the Reference section". When you insisted on having having your mark-up in place by reverting it back in, I then checked on a 17" laptop, and while the article looked fine before, it now has gaps between each block subsection that not only look odd, but could cause issues with screen readers (see MOS:ACCESS). This is why I asked if your mark-up/set-up was noted in any guidance. WP may not be a bureaucracy, but it does have policies & guidelines, a MOS (and alotta essays) to help with project stability. It's one thing to "write encyclopaedic entries" (boldly even), but this isn't about content, it's about page mark-up. This mark-up you've added has both secondary problems and potential serious problems, (that I've now mentioned repeatedly), that you have not only not accounted for, but refused to even acknowledge. You may not "fear the guidelines" (and I never said you needed to), but should respect them. If you cannot account for the issues with your mark-up, it will need to be removed. - w o lf  21:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If you use a smartphone screen, it is narrow compared to a laptop or a desktop screen. Mine is about 16 inches. I have explained on multiple occasions why I have re-formatted certain pages or removed some images. I have tested things with different zoom settings, too. If it does not make a difference on your screen, there is no need to worry. (If viewers use exceptionally wide screens, there is not much one can do, other than asking them to zoom in. It's better for their eyes anyway.)
 * As for the specific guidelines you mentioned, MOS:ACCESS. It helpfully links to some specific sections. MOS:ACCIM, MOS:IM, and WP:IMGDD. None of them advise against what I tried to do. Actually, IMGDD recommends placing images in the sections in which they are relevant, which I did. I avoided having one image appearing in the subsequent section with a template for flexible white spaces. ACCIM discourages having an excessive number of images, ergo my removing certain images. As I mentioned, one can add them back as the articles expand. Nerd271 (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If you go the beginning, you'll see I'm addressing this edit, where you re-added the "clear" template, sandwiched between two addition lines of space. I have specifically mentioned that, a) prior to your edit, there didn't appear to be any of the issues on that page that you described, and b) there is now, at least on a 17" pc screen, additional spacing visible between the subsections that can be problematic and per the MOS should be avoided. I not trying to dispute any written content, nor the number of images, or any other issues you mentioned. Can you justify a need for this spacing, along with the basically superfluous "clear" templates, below each "block" subsection? That's all I'm looking for here. Thank you - w o lf  02:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about the code, I like to add individual empty lines between paragraphs for readability (like what I did here on my talk page). This has no effect on the outcome. Not everyone uses the Visual Editor. Concerning the article itself, as before, I have tested with multiple zoom settings. (In Reader mode, at least on my browser, Firefox, each image is its own paragraph and is placed on the left. So there is no issue here.) Can you state the specific MOS you are thinking of? The ones I listed do not seem to say anything against flexible spaces. Also see the template for clear. Nerd271 (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "...there is now, at least on a 17" pc screen, additional spacing visible between the subsections that can be problematic...". This. - w o lf  02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That's not a guideline. I was looking for something like any of the links you or I gave above. Nerd271 (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * And I was looking for a reason, hopefully supported by a guideline, to justify this spacing, or else it will need to be removed. - w o lf  06:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I have already explained my reasons and cited MOS:ACCESS, MOS:ACCIM, MOS:IM, and WP:IMGDD. None of them discourage my layout changes. I am willing to answer any other specific questions you have. Nerd271 (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC):
 * No, this has become endlessly circular. I don't believe anything further will be accomplished here. - w o lf  03:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, your opinions do not constitute guidelines. Bye! Nerd271 (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Logical quotation
In this edit you silently reverted my correction of the comma placement. Please see WP:LQ: Wikipedia uses logical quotation, and since "Grand Integrator" is not a complete sentence, the comma should come outside of the closing quotation mark. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested - New consensus on Millennials Talk page
Hi Nerd271,

Thank you for your recent contribution at Millennials. I have taken on board your point of view. I have proposed to improve the Date and age range definitions section of the article to address your concerns, to ensure the section is not unbalanced towards certain viewpoints and to add more information on neglected viewpoints. There is an encouraging sign that a new consensus is forming to support the change as one of the main objectors has noted that concerns have been taken on board and now supports improvement. I would really appreciate if you could add your new opinion to this section of the Talk page to avoid the article being stuck at Status quo stonewalling.

Thank you for your time! Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Hi Nerd271! Thank you for your edits to Depictions of nudity. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Imagery of nude celebrities into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Math 55
Hi there, just a quick note to let you know I started a conversation on the talk page here. Best wishes, Wracking  talk! 05:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Amplify
Hi Nerd271, I have some suggested updates for Amplify, a company in the math and education sphere. As you show interest in editing pages relating to those subjects and are a participant in WikiProject Mathematics, I thought you may like to review my edit request on the Talk page. Happy for your input and assistance, thank you. Mollyatamplify (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topics alerts
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to abortion. This is a standard message to inform you that abortion is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics.

Hyperbolic substitution
Your reversion message of "this version works just fine" to my edit to the hyerbolic substitution section was rather... unhelpful. My initial interpretation was "don't you dare touch this sacrosanct text". After some time licking my wounds from that initial burn (I'm new to editing Wikipedia), I've stepped back and decided that I was reading too much into the rejection, so let's open up a small discussion to hash out which of my changes are deemed acceptable.

My initial "be bold!" attempt at a rewrite combined several different tweaks. Since the content of my version was just as good as the original, I must conclude that the objection was to its style. The most glaring difference in style was my use of a horizontal layout for equation chains, and I suspect that it was this that triggered a "no!" reaction to your sense of aesthetics, and you didn't look any further for any redeeming features of my rewrite.

So, dropping that reformatting change (which I feel is a minor issue that I'm fine with letting go of), here are the changes I was making:
 * 1) Add links to pages documenting the identities being invoked. While the linked pages do not themselves give any better direct insight as to where these identities come from, presumably they reference proper sources.  (I have not followed the sources on those pages yet, though I plan to do so as time permits.)
 * 2) Add a small bit of text emphasizing that this is but one example of the use of hyperbolic substitution; this is left implicit in the original, and I feel it could be misleading to someone reading this this section in isolation (e.g., after following a link).
 * 3) Make small adjustments to the equation chains used: break things up so that in each step is only one of: substitution of identity, algebra, and calculus.
 * 4) Rather than stating the identities used an introduction followed by a wall of equations, introduce the identities as prose in the place they are about to be used.  It was while trying to make this flow well that I shifted to using the horizontal equation chain format. I'd have to experiment a bit more to see if I can make this work right with vertically stacked equations (my initial attempts came off as too clunky, before I went horizontal), or if I need to abandon the idea altogether.
 * 5) As far as demonstrating hyperbolic substitution goes, the sinh^{-1} result is a good stopping point.  I'm not clear on why continuing on to the ln-form derivation is desirable (if I were writing the section from scratch I wouldn't bother mentioning it), but I presume that someone finds it helpful. However, I want to break it out as an addendum to the main derivation, not show it as "the" conclusion.

So, rather than getting into an edit war, I wanted to run this all by you to see if there is anything in this list that is an automatic "no" for you. Engeer (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Starting a sentence that is not a quote with an ellipsis is a red flag. Adding more explanations is helpful, unless you are belaboring the point. Here, we are already showing pretty much all the steps. But also remember that filling in the details is, or should be, left as an exercise to the reader. So I am fine with cutting some steps out. Also see this section of my talk page for a sample of how to add in-line notes.
 * As for the inverse hyperbolic sine function, I honestly prefer the explicit expression involving the natural logarithm, which, in my personal experience, is more commonly used.
 * Remember that as a Wikipedia editor, you have your own sandbox. Play with it if you are unsure how the code is going to turn out. Good luck! Nerd271 (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Baby boomers) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If you could take a moment to look at the history of the page, you can see what I was one of those people protecting it. In fact, reverted this person before for adding unsourced information. Nerd271 (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the page history. Removal of unsourced information is not an exception to 3RR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if letting unsourced information stand is conducive to the mission of Wikipedia. Please reconsider. Also, this IP has been dishonest about restoring something somebody else put in when it was the same IP all along. I was only trying to protect the page. That's all. Nerd271 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Our mission is strongly aligned against unsourced information, but we've decided (in non-BLP settings) that removing it is not so urgent that it justifies the disruption of edit warring. I've pblocked the IP for edit warring; if you think a more severe sanction is needed, I'd have to see more diff evidence. FYI, I'm keeping an eye on this discussion and you don't need to ping me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, no! I am not requesting more severe sanctions against the IP. I am merely requesting that you reconsider your block on me, someone trying to keep everything on-mission and accurate with respect to reliable sources. I was only protecting the status quo because it is better than the alternative. Looking further into the history of this page, and the other ones like it (Millennials, Generation Z, and Generation Alpha, say) you might find similar types of vandalism or addition of unsourced information. I am a frequent contributor to all the aforementioned pages. We keep seeing the same thing again and again. Nerd271 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to be clear that I'm not judging your motivations, and I believe your intention was to protect the project. If you see blatant vandalism, by all means revert away. For good-faith edits, even ones that are not accompanied by sources, you should not breach 3RR. I considered the pblock before implementing it, and I've reconsidered it since. It's unlikely that I'll change my mind. Please follow the instructions in the block notice if you'd like review by an uninvolved admin. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Our mission is strongly aligned against unsourced information, but we've decided (in non-BLP settings) that removing it is not so urgent that it justifies the disruption of edit warring. I've pblocked the IP for edit warring; if you think a more severe sanction is needed, I'd have to see more diff evidence. FYI, I'm keeping an eye on this discussion and you don't need to ping me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, no! I am not requesting more severe sanctions against the IP. I am merely requesting that you reconsider your block on me, someone trying to keep everything on-mission and accurate with respect to reliable sources. I was only protecting the status quo because it is better than the alternative. Looking further into the history of this page, and the other ones like it (Millennials, Generation Z, and Generation Alpha, say) you might find similar types of vandalism or addition of unsourced information. I am a frequent contributor to all the aforementioned pages. We keep seeing the same thing again and again. Nerd271 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to be clear that I'm not judging your motivations, and I believe your intention was to protect the project. If you see blatant vandalism, by all means revert away. For good-faith edits, even ones that are not accompanied by sources, you should not breach 3RR. I considered the pblock before implementing it, and I've reconsidered it since. It's unlikely that I'll change my mind. Please follow the instructions in the block notice if you'd like review by an uninvolved admin. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to be clear that I'm not judging your motivations, and I believe your intention was to protect the project. If you see blatant vandalism, by all means revert away. For good-faith edits, even ones that are not accompanied by sources, you should not breach 3RR. I considered the pblock before implementing it, and I've reconsidered it since. It's unlikely that I'll change my mind. Please follow the instructions in the block notice if you'd like review by an uninvolved admin. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to be clear that I'm not judging your motivations, and I believe your intention was to protect the project. If you see blatant vandalism, by all means revert away. For good-faith edits, even ones that are not accompanied by sources, you should not breach 3RR. I considered the pblock before implementing it, and I've reconsidered it since. It's unlikely that I'll change my mind. Please follow the instructions in the block notice if you'd like review by an uninvolved admin. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I completely forgot to mention that Baby boomers are a living cohort. Nerd271 (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Baby boomers" as a group are not a living person. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But they are living people, are they not? Please help me understand this. Do we apply this standard to, say, a music group that is still alive and still performing? Nerd271 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLPGROUP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But they are living people, are they not? Please help me understand this. Do we apply this standard to, say, a music group that is still alive and still performing? Nerd271 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLPGROUP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLPGROUP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

There's something strangely satisfying
seeing someone else restore an article to your version, isn't there? Maybe it's just me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I was dismayed, disappointed, and confused when I saw the article deleted. But I was too tired to do much and I planned to try to convince that moderator to reconsider. The problem, I thought, was to avoid raising suspicions of me being a sock puppet. But since enough people have persuaded him of the value of the page, however unready for main space, there was nothing for me to do. For the record, it was a group effort, like pretty much everything else on Wikipedia. Each new version does not necessarily erase the old. Nerd271 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute! Was that supposed to be a criticism? I don't get it. I was just trying to be nice. Nerd271 (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it was just my thought when I saw your "thanks" for . If I notice someone reverting to "my version" somewhere, I take it to mean they thought my version wasn't crap. Or at least less crappy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)