User talk:Nuretok

Size of Retraction Watch
Hi, how did you find the total size of the retractionwatch database? I've been looking of a current number but can't find it anywhere! T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 05:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy to hear that you an interested in the Retraction Watch Database. Last year a post on the Retraction Watch Blog celebrated their 20 000th entry to the database. To get the up to date number click the "search" button on the database search without entering any search criteria. It takes some time, but then displays: "600 Items Displayed Out of 24064 Item(s) Found". I hope that was helpful to you. Nuretok (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, champion - thank you! I'm looking to audit wikidata's coverage of retracted papers (discussion), so this is a useful benchmark. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 23:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Energy Charter Treaty
Hello there. Curious to know if you examined the edit you just reverted? –. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  16:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think it would be a good idea (ever?) to revert something without looking at it. In this case your comment "citation link does not work" runs counter to "In general, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer." as explained in Link rot. Additionally, after reverting it I replaced the dead link with a working one and tried to summarize the text as well as I could (but there probably is some room for improvement). Nuretok (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. – . — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  19:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:32, 17 March 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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
KoA (talk) 22:41, 26 February 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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of "one can show"
Im mathematics, the phrase "one can show that" is commonly used for "There is a theorem that asserts that" or "There is a proof that"; it is generally used for emphasizing that the theorem is not a direct consequence of what precedes. This is useful for non-expert readers, as indicating that, probably, they will not be able to find the proof by themselve.

So, please, stop removing this phrase when you do not have a strong reason for that. If you have such a reason, make it explicit in the edit summary. D.Lazard (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @D.Lazard: I do understand that it might be useful to indicate that a statement is not a trivial consequence from another statement (especially in a mathematical publication). However, many statements in (mathematical) articles on Wikipedia are not trivial consequences of the preceding statements. A reader that is looking for the reason a statement is true, can look into the (hopefully) following reference.
 * By the way, I am not removing the phrase where I consider it necessary/helpful. Nuretok (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @D.Lazard, Side note: I noticed that the statements on Representation theory of the Poincaré group and Platonic solid  are not referenced inline so the location of the proof is not clear to the reader. Do you know where the proofs can be found? Nuretok (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)