User talk:P,TO 19104/Archive 4

Deleted Comment by Scorpions13256
It appears that I screwed up twice in a few minutes. I accidentally edited your page in the wrong place, so I undid my edit. Keep up the good work. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Rainbow trout transparent.png You need to be trouted! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Small note about a pending change
Hi PTO, you just accepted this pending review, which was to change the death date of a recent death bio that has seen significant vandalism in the last month. This kind of edit, I hope, is very noticeable as disruptive and shouldn't be accepted. Really, any change to death date on a heavily protected page without an edit reason should not be accepted, but especially when it occurred in the last month. Kingsif (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you weren't responsible for WP:OR and WP:V when reviewing pending changes? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing/adding that on the Gene Wikder article for me, unfortunatly there's only one more part that I actually requested for to be fixed that still hasn't been made yet. 2600:1000:B058:EC73:E09A:BA95:3DED:1A08 (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion actually was explained
Hey, just a tip when using automated tools to patrol recent changes. Your explanation for the reversion of this edit was actually not accurate, as the IP did include a lengthy edit summary explaining why they were deleting that material (most of which was unsourced and tagged as such). Rather than revert you in turn, I've encouraged the IP to start a discussion on the article talk page—thus following the WP:BRD model. Using a template for unexplained deletion should really only be used in clear-cut cases where a user does not attempt to explain an edit. You are free to revert those edits as well, but it's better to leave a personal note for them explaining why you disagree with the edit. --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I can see this particular IP likes to litigate through edit summaries. I'll have a look at their other edits. --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you are correct in that it was technically explained, but to a certain extent "unexplained removal of content" also extends to disruptive editing and content removal where the given explanation was inadequate. I templated this IP with uw-disruptive2. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see this IP is intent on making some changes independent of community input. I've advised them to stop. Next unheeded warning will land them at a noticeboard. --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit to negative temperature
My edit to the "Negative Temperature" page was recently deleted. The reason: "Please provide a reliable source as to why Gibbs is wrong". Dunkel and Hilbert's definition of "Gibbs entropy" (which I deleted) is as follows: You take the energy of your system. Then SG, as they have defined it, is the logarithm of the volume of state space of systems whose energy is less than that of your system. This isn't the entropy of the actual system in the sense of "how many bits of information don't we know about the system", because for a system composed of N two-state systems each of which has energy levels at 0 and 1 that has total energy about N with constant error, the entropy as usually defined is O(log N), because we merely need to specify the O(1) subsystems which have energy 0. However, the SDH of this system is easily seen to be O(N), because that's the logarithm of the entire phase space volume. Also, defining the temperature as D&H do clearly breaks the second law of thermodynamics; such a system can be simulated and it can be proved that in simulation a system with a smaller D&H temperature can give energy to one with a larger D&H temperature, while if one uses their definition of "Boltzmann entropy", which they don't like, this cannot happen (treating any negative temperature as hotter than any positive temperature). See the second reference I deleted for some more arguments on what can go wrong.

Also, the usual definition of Boltzmann entropy is just "the logarithm of the phase-space volume", while that of Gibbs entropy is a generalization thereof that allows for the probabilities to vary over said volume; it is essentially the differential entropy in the continuous case or the Shannon entropy in the discrete case.

SDH is not the logarithm of the phase-space volume in question, and depends upon things a good entropy measure shouldn't. Suppose we take our system above, but change the distribution of states so that all states with energy below N-Θ(√N) are gone. This changes the number of possible states of our system not at all (we knew it had much more energy), but changes SDH from being O(N) to being O(√N log N), which is vastly smaller. I think we can all (well, except for "Davidwuelfert", Jörn Dunkel, Peter Hänggi, and Stephan Hilbert) agree that in fact, D&H are wrong. 24.61.57.240 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Another link:. (I'm not convinced David Wülfert isn't actually Dunkel, Hänggi, or Hilbert, actually. Probably isn't, in fact, but… )24.61.57.240 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Regardless of why you think Gibbs is wrong, you need to provide a reliable source to prove why Gibbs was wrong per WP:RS and WP:NOR. See also WP:EXPERT. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm not saying Gibbs was wrong. I'm saying D&H were wrong. (My comment on Gibbs in the initial changelog was meant as a compliment to him, saying that he didn't deserve to have his name attached to such nonsense.) And I'm giving an argument for why they were, which does not differ materially from that in arxiv:1403.4229. I took a look at WP:EXPERT, and I'd like to point out point 6 under "General":


 * # …experts (or other editors) do not need to appeal to Wikipedia administrators or arbitrators to remove patent nonsense from the encyclopedia.


 * What they are saying, to anyone who understands thermo, is indeed patent nonsense. 24.61.57.240 (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but it says "experts (or other editors)", thus implying this right is not reserved to experts. Also, it seems you do not know what patent nonsense is; patent nonsense is not the same as unsourced text, rather it should be compared to gibberish. Furthermore, WP:EXPERT states:


 * No editor is exempt from fundamental Wikipedia policies; in particular, the policies of no original research and verifiability along with guidelines such as reliable sources apply to expert editors just as well. Although other encyclopedias might have articles based on personal "expert opinion" or unpublished conjecture, Wikipedia requires all text to be verifiable to published sources.


 * While I appreciate your expert opinion, your opinion is not the same as peer-reviewed reliable source. If you find reliable source that contradicts D&H, please consider taking your dispute to the article talk page or perhaps Wikiproject Physics. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC).

What's the point of not letting people contribute to wiki?
Why do you have to delete my edit,I'm just trying to contribute to wikipedia.It's just stupid,and why isn't wikipedia a reliable source,if a fact wasn't correct or checked,it'd be deleted immediately.Just stop doing it,it's pointless and it's pushing away people to contribute to wikipedia Damir Okanović Dule (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, -- it may feel disappointing to have your edit reverted, but because Wikipedia is the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit", we require reliable secondary sources. We also cannot accept original research. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see here, thus we cannot cite ourselves. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Revert you have made on EMC page
Hi there:

I think you may have made a mistake. I did not remove any links as far as I am aware.

I was simplyfying the points already made years ago, adding the thermodynamic jusitfication and bulleting to make more readable. Can you tell me on the talk page of the article which reference you think I may have inadvertently removed to cause your anger so as to cause a wholesale revert of hours of work?

If you made an error then let's just clear it up.

THANKS.

And also: I just looked up what "RW" means. I think you need to set out what it is you think I have done to warrant that. I have not to my knowledge removed any referece: I was only re-ordering them.

TWO TIMES THANKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c8:3d03:d300:c846:ad5e:4807:844b (talk • contribs)

And now I look at what you have done you have removed the entire section about the BACHE METHOD and a bunch of references regarding choride attack and wotnot. So on the basis that I think you have made a mistake, in thinking I had deleted one reference, your action has deleted scores of them and a very relelvant section on the Bache method. Nuts.

THREE TIMES THANKS.
 * Hi IP, Welcome to Wikipedia. It seems I reverted this IP's edits because they removed a reference in the lead section. When I revert these edits, I revert all of the edits made by the user. It should be noted that when making mass changes (constructive or otherwise), it is best to seek consensus; although, making Bold edits are apart of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. I have reverted the page back to the edit prior to edit that removed the reference; see here. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC).


 * Thanks for doing the right thing. But I only have an amount of time to add. The article was screaming for an update for reasons I have not held back on the talk page. I initially only wanted to add some sense of a thermodynamic justification (as this has been a criticism in the past by all accounts that the science is "bogus"). Having dealt with that, I went on to improve the draft. Apart from adding the NON EMC references, which are purely about MECHANOCHEMISTRY, I have not added any new sources. BUT I have looked at items removed by a one trick sockpuppet from 5 years ago, and reverted them because there is a lot of good science that was removed (e.g. the BACHE cycle testing)


 * One user has asked I modify the intro and I will do that. I have asked the inventor Dr. Ronin to contribute a photo and he has emailed me to say that he will look at the request. And also I asked him to write more about the fundamental sconce because mechanochemistry is really a subject starting to "hot up" and EMC is and exemplar from what I am seeing.


 * THANKS AGAIN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c8:3d03:d300:c846:ad5e:4807:844b (talk • contribs)

Géza Gyóni
You messaged me some time ago about a NPOV revert to certain changes you made to my work on the Hungarian WWI poet Géza Gyóni. I assume you are referring to the summary I added of Gyóni's poem eulogizing the Irish Republican leader Roger Casement and excoriating the British Empire and its policies in Ireland, Africa, and India. Unlike some of Gyóni's more famous poems, I don't think that his eulogy of Casement has ever been translated into English. I based my summary of it in the article on a verbal translation which was provided to me by a native Hungarian speaker who had the poem in front of her at the time. I tried to the best of my ability to express Gyóni's opinions and leave my own thoughts out of the summary. If I could provide a reference to the original Hungarian poem in print or online, would that make the summary more acceptable? K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for stopping by. This edit had a number of problematic parts to it, but I suppose you're correct in that this was the most problematic of all parts of the edit:
 * He went on to write perhaps his finest poetry in the quiet and boredom he found there.
 * Because your edit was not very neutral, I don't think there is any source that could substaniate it. Here's what you need to do: you need to find a reliable secondary source, and you need to write from a neutral point of view. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC).

Gilbert Casellas Wiki entry "Legacy" paragraph
Content was removed from Gilbert F Casellas wiki because no citations were provided. The assertions appeared to be opinions. If there in fact "legal scholars" to support the assertion, they should be cited. In addition, the entry contained several typographical errors.71.191.135.46 (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi IP -- thanks for stopping by. I reverted your edit because you did not explain why you removed content in that article. Removing content without an explanation is disruptive and is often treated as vandalism. Nevertheless, I appreciate your edits, as you were attempting to get rid of unsourced claims. Please be sure to include in your edit summary next time why you remove content. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Pele
The information I added are the best documented. Some of them are numbers which can be easily confirmed. Check out : The Guinness World Records, RSSSF archives and so on. There are no more reliable sources than the original ones I included. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, please see this diff (specfically Line 105), which contains some unsourced content. Feel free to add back in any content that was sourced. If you have any questions/need help, you can come back here. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I know RSSSF and the late 1990s. I have better statistics than them (though they are reliable I have send them corrections and they responded) and I' not joking! Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Make sure you read WP:NOR on how we require reliable sources. Thanks. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Be sure that I'll re-check whatever I wrote today or any other day. An example of the my statistic knowledge is that I have all 1176 goals of Ferenc Puskás but RSSSF haven't published something like this till today (don't they know them?) Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have just added an answer in Pelé's discussion page about the league goals of Pelé as I have added the figures 541 goals in 560 games (appearances can be used as well). There's a lot I can write about the story of the recognition as top tier goals. If needed, I can easily handle it. But I'm not an expert in Pelé's career, as I hadn't lived it. I simply know the statistical confusion... Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

And the confusion started in 1994! Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

And all official documents are "in my hands", so everybody can have the answers... Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

THANK YOU. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sound's good!

Don't allow anybody to change these numbers. They are official and not so many people know what is official and what is not. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for restoring the mistakenly deleted content at Parvathy_Parinayam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulsoman (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit
Regarding this edit, the material you restored has been disputed by myself and someone else. It is not simple vandalism.VR talk 22:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for reverting that edit, but the justification for the removal of content was not the best; simply "Talkpage". Also, I wasn't sure what was being removed; the Wikitext looked to be Wikitext of an infobox. Not to mention, this user was a new user who did not even contribute to the discussion -- it wasn't a good look. Maybe a better edit summary would have helped. Thank you for accepting my justification for my erroneous edit, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC).
 * I totally agree and I've asked the user to join the discussion. Thanks for the self-revert.VR talk 23:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Hi , you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page. Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly! María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC) If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Professional wrestling
please explain how the edits are not constructive? Megan Barris  (Lets talk📧)  21:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that edit was a mistake. With a a touch of a button I reverted your edit; I meant to undo my mistake, but another editor beat me to it. Good work. Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , It happens sometimes. Cheers Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  21:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Message By IP
Hello, I'm writing to you regarding the changes to the Untermenchen article. I think that the Austro-Hungarian WW1 propaganda poster should be removed from the article because it predates any mention of the "subhuman" and it is the same type of propaganda posters made by all sides in the war. At the same time it is confusing the average reader as the Nazis were the ones who officiated the word "untermenchen", made it a part of their ideology and used it to commit the biggest genocide in history. Therefore, making this poster the focal point of the article is irrespponsible as it is shifting the focus from the Nazis and underplaying the meaning of the word and suffering it caused in WW2. Also,the description of the poster is inaccurate as there is no valid reason or link which would justify the use of the word "Chimpanzee faced Serb" nor is there such a thing as "Ottoman slippers", as seen by the fact that their link leads to the article about Albanian footwear, all of which points to the conclusion that the description was deliberately put together in a way which would insult and denigrate the Serbian people. Considering the reasons mentioned above, I kindly ask of you to remove the poster from this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.10.142.75 (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I see your concerns, the poster is merely showing how the word (or similar words of its kind) were used to describe "lesser than" people. I see nothing wrong with it as Wikipedia is not censored. And to be honest, (I think I speak for all of Wikipedia) no one here hates the Serbian people -- Wikipedia is supposed to allow editors to be safe. What do you think of using this poster instead:
 * Since you haven't responded, I think I'm going to remove that poster from my talk page, you can still view it here though. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)