User talk:Parcly Taxel/Archive 3

F-FA
Congrats with this F-FA step. I understand that right now you are still jumping happily on you chair ;-) -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Fluorine to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,302 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 14:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thorium GAN
I did everything you asked for. Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL!
 * (It's funny how some distance / makes everything seem weak / And the nucleons that controlled me / Can't get to me at all [I need to fix this rhyme] / It's time to see what I can do / To test it out and tunnel through... OK I should stop now) Double sharp (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

F and Metalloid TFAs
Parcly, please read my response at Today's featured article/requests/Metalloid. Double sharp (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All is forgiven (but please don't do it again, all right?) Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobelium and lawrencium GANs
I fixed everything you asked for on both articles. (How's the content, though?) Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

TFA notification
This is to inform you that  Fluorine, which you nominated at WP:FAC,  will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page  as  Today's Featured Article on 23 September 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious
  Experiment, Explore, Excel

Thank you, Jeremy, for quality articles for project elements such as Flourine and Copper, written on scientific background, for, "to make the page less intimidating to readers", for improving the Liar paradox and for keeping ridiculous elements "not intended ... for any remotely serious purpose", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 981st recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize,
 * Huh? Parcly   Taxel  11:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Missed signature, but who else ;) - sorry, now wrong date --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 981 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Parcly  Taxel  07:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Rollbacker
I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AParcly_Taxel granted] rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback 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, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 09:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)

This edit
What's with the link to "Can't extend" here? Eman 235 / talk  20:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit, the link was a little joke to play on the large CANNOT . I thought the vermillion red lettering and small caps could be too intimidating to some, so I toned down the message regarding non-free content in userboxes somewhat. Feel free to remove the link though. Parcly   Taxel  23:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. It did look rather intimidating! Eman 235 / talk  00:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Convention panel participation
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/San Diego. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:The first rule of Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, revert as you please, but cabalism is a pervasive and harmful delusion among Wikipedia editors. Now back to astatine. Parcly   Taxel  08:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit other editors' comments like you just did here, and if you're going to make large-scale changes to humor articles because of your opinion then please try to seek a consensus first. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Parcly Taxel. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 09:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer user right granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

multiscript collaboration
Dear ! Please take a look at https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-perfect_magic_square/invited#invited.

Thanks in advance for any help! Best regards and greetings from Munich Germany lɛʁi ʁɑjnhɑʁt (Leri Reinhart)

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏[//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/user_talk:%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%99_%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%98?action=history Th]‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 11:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Varieties of English
In a recent edit to the page Cross-site scripting, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. -- intgr [talk] 11:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, then at the least you should have merely reverted the spelling change. The "IP" over there was supposed to be capitalised. I remember when I copy-edited the article on fluorine I had someone roped in to "Americanise" the words (I had done the typing all in British English, seeing as I'm Singaporean). Please don't hurt me – I'm going for potassium! Parcly   Taxel  12:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't revert the "IP" change, have a look at the edit diff. :) -- intgr [talk] 12:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Broken link in your Kezuasoka language userbox
The link inside the following user box is broken, just thought I'd let you know.

0x09F (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy birthday!
Warm regards, Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image uploads
Thanks for taking an interest in the "prime knots" page. Image File:DE-def-art-declensions-en.svg presents in a very rational manner what some would consider to be irrational facts about language... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Helmholtz–Kohlrausch effect
How is this even accurate? Even if we say that different pure colours translate into different luminosity or maybe luminance, one of the colours is RGB 0-149-0 and another is 0-159-245, strictly greater. These cannot translate into the same intensity in grayscale no matter what method you use. I wonder if these example images are even taking into account gamma of display devices and/or the colorspace used by the images. Ok, if made by adjusting the 'hue' value in an image editor, I think these colours could have resulted, but I do see that software apparently thinks that the 'value' of a colour is constant even if only a single RGB component is changing. This 'value' doesn't maintain constant grayscale though, it seems like a colour thing. If you decompose an image into hue-saturation-value, it's actually quite different from hue-saturation-lightness. Though in this case I see that even in 'value', these colours are very different. (Note: I won't see any replies to this.) 23.121.191.18 (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Rugby Sevens
I saw your comment "Isn't it supposed to be like this from this season on?" re names of cups and I went hunting... Can you look at Talk:2016–17 World Rugby Sevens Series and maybe comment with your thoughts. Thanks Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarawak
You are edit warring against the WP:BLOCKEVASION policy. (I am not, under WP:NOT3RR). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.92 (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alas… there is an exception to the policy: in closed discussions it is not generally advised to revert blocked editors' comments, and I do think FAC pages are "closed" in a sense (not in article space). Besides, had already noted the valid points raised in the deleted text.  Parcly   Taxel  11:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wong. The discussion is still obviously open (not capped, not archived). Sarastro1 is welcome to their opinion, but no single user trumps a policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.232 (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi IP, the editor in question was blocked for personal attacks, not any issue with their editing. They were a very good editor and an excellent reviewer with a better eye for detail than me. I suspect you're revert-warring on this not because you have a desire to uphold Wikipedia's policies but to create the usual mayhem when a blocked/banned editor makes constructive edits and there is (the predictable) division along these lines. Having reviewed the comments, I find them clearly helpful and beneficial to producing a better 'pedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Just because he is a friend of yours with whom you gossip about the mental state of Dr. Blofeld does not mean he is exempt from having his comments struck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.232 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)