User talk:The Nth User

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to edit it, unless you're vandalizing it, spamming on it, making personal attacks on it, etc…. In order to make my talk page easier for me to read (both in reader view and source code form), I have some rules that I would like you to follow: You are also obviously expected to abide by Wikipedia policy. Thank you. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When commenting on or replying to someone else's post/comment/reply, please post your comment/reply directly under the comment/reply that you are commenting on or replying to. I don't want to get confused or others to get confused by struggling to make sense of two or more intertwined conversations.
 * Please do not make a new section for the exact same thing—unless it is for two or more different occurrences of the same thing that are sufficiently far apart chronologically to merit separate sections.
 * Do not leave unnecessary spaces. This includes but is not limited to:
 * Spaces in between a section title and the surrounding equals signs.
 * Multiple line breaks (There should only be one.) between a section title and the first line in the section besides the title.
 * More than two line breaks between a section title and the last line before it.
 * Multiple line breaks between a post/comment/reply and the first response to it.
 * Always indent your comment/reply exactly one more time than the post/comment/reply that you are commenting on/replying to.
 * Please do not make it confusing how many times your message was indented by starting and/or ending your post/comment/reply with a list
 * If your post/comment/reply is multiple paragraphs, please indent each the same number of times.
 * I alone hold the power and the privilege to create, alter, remove enforce, break, and/or condone offenses of any and all of the above rules.

=December 2017=

Help me with my question about moving drafts!
If I created articles in the draftspace (Winter Storms Aiden, Benji, Chloe, Dylan, and Ethan) then submitted them for AFC (all except Ethan) before I was autoconfirmed, then when I become autoconfirmed and am able to move pages, am I allowed to move them to the mainspace and delete the AFC submission template? I'm not going to submit Draft:Winter Storm Ethan until I get an answer. It could be important that I created and submitted the drafts for Winter Storms Benji, Aiden, and Chloe (but not Dylan or Ethan) before I got an account, so it wouldn't be immediately obvious that I'd be undoing my own draft submission on my own draft for someone looking in the edit summary. Would this create a problem? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 01:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Some comments. Firstly, the use of un-substituted templates in signatures violates WP:SIG. Please fix that. Secondly, Jasper Deng is not an administrator, and they didn't use any powers except the "power" to choose to ignore you until you created an account. That part of your signature is thus factually incorrect and could be considered a personal attack. See also WP:SIG.
 * I didn't know that, and I misread Wikidata and thought that it said Wikipedia. The barcode seemed off, but I figured that it was just an older temple.
 * That said, while turning your own drafts into live articles is not strictly prohibited, it's not a good idea, particularly since you haven't created articles before. While waiting for a formal review may take some time, the reviewer may point out issues you haven't been aware of. To provide just one example, the current naming scheme of your drafts doesn't seem to agree with our usual naming of winter storm articles; compare Winter Storm Freyr, Winter Storm Dion or Winter storm Athena. Huon (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I changed my signature and requested the user pages for deletion. If the reviewer objects to the current name, I'll probably change the name when I move the article to the mainspace. Anything else? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I'm going to find every instance of my signature so far and replace it. I'll tell you when I'm done.
 * The filters got in my way. Would you please help me? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright; I think that I've replaced all of them except the on the pages were I was blocked by filters. Would you please check that I didn't miss any archive pages or anything? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright; I was able to circumvent the edit filters by not removing everything in one edit. I thnik that that's everything, but I'd feel better if you told me. I'm pretty sure that there's a way to find all instances of a specified string in the code across all Wikipedia pages, but I'm not sure how to do it, which is where you come in. Anyway, I'm going to check again. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that that's everything, but I'd still feel better if you told me so. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Those indeed were all instances making use of the template. Your search alone wouldn't help because now that the template has been deleted, the text you're searching for might no longer be on the pages you signed. Huon (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your time, effort, understanding, and everything else.
 * By the way, I accidentally double-clicked the submit button and noticed a glitch: I got an edit-conflict message where in the already-published version, I had already posted my message, and my signature had already became the long version. This is what appeared:
 * {| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; width: 100%;clear: both;text-align: center; padding: 1px;margin: 0.2em auto 0;font-size:100%;

! style="padding: 0.25em 1em;line-height: 1.5em;text-align: center;background-color:#f2dfce;" | This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
 * style="font-style:italic;" | The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: #fcf4ef; text-align: left;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: #fcf4ef; text-align: left;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: #fcf4ef; text-align: left;" |

Edit conflict: User talk:The Nth User This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 04:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)). Warning: Another user just edited and saved this page. There is a conflict between your version and the current version. You will have to merge your changes into the current text version. Only the text in the editor field will be saved when you click on "Publish changes".

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. Conflicting changes Differences between

the currently published version The Nth User‎ (→‎Help me!: Thank you.) your text.

unchanged text show hide Huon (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your time, effort, understanding, and everything else. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 04:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your time, effort, understanding, and everything else. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 04:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Editor with version to be published

1) Choose the base version in the popup below.   2) Adjust the text to combine both versions. 3) Click on "Publish changes". Only what is in the editor will be published.
 * }
 * I hope that that's helpful for you and the Wikipedia bug-fixers.
 * Also, the Google search was to see if I had missed the pre-template version. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 04:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The answer is quite simple: you just edit conflicted with yourself. That happens sometimes, and it's nothing to worry about. When it does happen, usually the text is saved as if you only hit the publish button once, as it would show by the preview below. If you do end up duplicating text, however, just remove the duplicated text.
 * Furthermore, don't use blockquote when copy-pasting large amounts of text; use Template:Hidden archive top and bottom instead. With that said, and I hope you don't mind, but most of what you did copy-paste wasn't needed, and since it was just creating duplicate sections I removed most of it per WP:REFACTOR point 1. You may revert if you want. Sky  Warrior  05:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

=January 2018=

The panda
You do realize that that article was deleted years ago, right? It's a bit late to be arguing the close, especially with an inactive editor. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:2017–18 North American winter, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I try to remember, but I often forget. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 04:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

A helpful thing to bookmark
Template_messages/User_talk_namespace

This way you can just copypaste until you remember enough to type them manually. Each one of these has two custom fields, accessible by placing a |. The first is the name of the article, the second replaces the "Thank you." with a message. Example: Article Title Here ~

Keep up what you're doing, no matter how many people we have patrolling Recent Changes, there's never enough! :3 Gatemansgc (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, I used a level-two template on User talk:Tribalwolfe. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I might use them, but I'm used to typing my own messages. By the way, do you know whether or not there's a way to filter articles in certain categories so I can spot deliberate additions of false content more easily? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's filters on the Recent Changes page, they're hidden under the little triple line thing. There are "Contribution quality predictions" and "User intent predictions". I still use the old version, where you just get the "hide probably good edits". What you'll want to do is set both to their "likely" or "very likely" settings. If you set to "likely" it also includes "very likely" in it. There's also the option to only show the most recent revision, which is helpful for those without rollback (those with rollback see the [rollback] tag next to anything that's most recent) Gatemansgc (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know about the filters. I have my preferred filter setup when patrolling recent changes that I wish I knew how to save so I wouldn't have to set it manually each time. Do you know how to do that? It includes only showing the latest revision so vandalism that has already been reverted doesn't show up. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 02:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, the new filters don't stay? As I said, I use the old stuff. However, the URL changes when you set filters, so just bookmark the page after you've set them, or keep the page open at all times as I do. Also, scroll down farther for the "Latest revisions" filter. Hell, knowing all of this I might finally consider upgrading to the new version. Gatemansgc (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's another problem that I forgot to mention the first time: I don't know how to bookmark pages on Wikipedia.
 * Ctrl+D, unless you use a Mac. Gatemansgc (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought that you meant bookmark on Wikipedia. I thought that you meant that logged-in users should access a list of bookmarked pages, kind of like their watchlist. By the way, it's command+D on a Mac. For Macs, you can usually just replace control with command. For example, cut on a Mac is command+X, copy is command+C, and paste is command+V.
 * You can put a link in your userpage once you create it, see how I have mine with User:Gatemansgc. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I might do that. Also, how did you get this image to appear below the Wikipedia logo? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 03:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just took it from someone else's userpage, I have no idea how to code things. Here is how to do it: [[Image:AAAAAA.png|225px]]
 * Also, see WP:Userbox for other things to put. :3 Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 2017 Atlantic hurricane season by region


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2017 Atlantic hurricane season by region. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, now that I've had time to look through the page, I can see that Cindy's article talked about flooding in places like the Yucatán Peninsula and western Cuba, but Cindy's section doesn't mention anything about flooding in Mexico, while this would have certainly been covered under my comprehensive table of what regions were affected by what storms. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 16:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Thanks for contributing to the article 2017–18 North American cold wave. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). Thanks! P.S. If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was on TV, on The Weather Channel. I can cite the web, but I'm not sure how to cite TV. The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 00:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Help me with transcluding non-templates!
Over the years, the sections at WP:LAME that have subpages as main articles, and each one's main article, have considerably forked from each other, with many edit wars being added to one but not the other. I recently completed a days-long task to add all of the edit wars that were in WP:LAME but not the child pages to the child pages. Now that that is completed, I must now add the edit wars that are only in the child pages to WP:LAME. However, I don't want to do this just by copying and pasting for two main reasons: I was thinking that I could transclude the child pages into WP:LAME as templates, so there would only be one copy, preventing forking. However, because the child pages aren't in the Template: space, I don't know how to do that. How does one transclude pages that aren't templates? The Nth User I have no ideas for what to put here. Care to differ or discuss? 01:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be somewhat tedious.
 * The pages would just start gradually forking again.
 * You do it just the same, but you include the namespace. For example, User:UBX/4th July would be transcluded by placing {{User:UBX/4th July}} on the page. If you look at the code of WP:RESTRICT you'll see that the various types of enforcement are actually transcluded (for example, using {{Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community}}). Hope this helps! If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just finished replacing the content with templates in WP:LAME and using the tag on the child pages to prevent the level two headings from showing twice, but they show twice anyway. How do I fix this? The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 02:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nesting those tags doesn't work. I'll go through the sub-pages and fix them. Huon (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll give you a barnstar. Do I put it on your user page or your user talk page?The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 03:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not on my user page, please. Messages by other users, including WikiLove, should go on user talk pages. On an unrelated note, this was not a good idea. There's a very good reason that page has a NOINDEX tag, and if it's transcluded elsewhere, so should be the tag. Huon (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I don't know much about Wikicode, so I was just trying to only transclude the actual edit wars, so I put tags around everything before them. The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 05:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Interleaving comments, forging signatures, and your signature
Per WP:TPG please do not split other users' comments, interleave your replies with them, or forge/copy their signature as you did here.

Also, would you consider removing the "I have no ideas for what to put here" from your signature, it is confusing because it is plain text in the middle of a signature, and I don't see how it does anything to help identify you. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Help me with figuring out which number user I am!
I was wondering what the precise number that the N in my username is equal so, which would be one more than the number of registered Wikipedia accounts that were created before mine. But how can I find that number? Can I use my user ID, 32720263, or does that not work? The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 06:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that is the number of accounts that have been registered. Google might be faster to ask than your talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, would pay for me to ask google first. :) That is slightly higher than the number of users according to Special:Statistics. Not sure why that is. I'm sure someone helpful will know. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe the difference is accounts that were deleted? The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 16:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted. Its a copyright thing, we gotta attribute each edit to the person who made it, and we cannot do that if we delete accounts. The question about why the amount of accounts is not the same as the number of ids can best be asked over at Village_pump_(technical) I think. We have users according to the magic word  . &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk)  18:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Help me with timezone-determining parser functions!
I was wondering how I could use a parser function to determine the side of the Atlantic Ocean the user is on. I know that it's possible because the Wikipedia donation messages are able to determine which country the user is in. For the top of the Georgia disambiguation page, would work? What about ? Once I do that, I'll use it to prevent other lame edit wars, like whether "is" or "are" should be used for collective nouns. The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 16:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot AFAIK. The fundraiser banners use ext.centralNotice.geoIP but you cannot access that information via a template. #time is a formatting thing. Help:Magic_words. We try to keep the wikicode as simple as possible, and we generally dislike nationalist idiots. Automatically ordering WP:DISAMBIG pages by pageviews could in theory work, but we do not, and disambig pages are often split into sections which would make automatic reordering impossible. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be nationalistic. I just figured that people who live in the Americas would be more likely to want to know about the state, and people who live in Afroeurasia would be more likely to want to know about the country. The Nth User Care to differ or discuss? 18:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that, I wasn't talking about you, but I've seen nationalistic idiots who editwarred to keep their country at the top of some list. Read Lamest_edit_wars; it is amazing. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know. The parser function is actually mentioned in a child page. I made a bunch of edits to WP:LAME and its child pages because I was adding edit wars from the parent page to the child pages. I then transcluded the child pages into the parent page (Huon helped me with this part.) to prevent content forks, where some new edit wars would be added to parent page or the child page but not both, in the future, but our edits were undone. There's now a discussion about it in the talk page. The Nth User Care to differ or discuss? 18:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the amount of pageviews is a better way to order disambig pages than the geolocation of the reader. If you live in Ontario, Canada and you look up Paris then we should send you to Paris, not Paris, Ontario which has a population of 12.000 people. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Signature (again)
Can you please delete the "I like to use parser functions."-part? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. The Nth User Care to differ or discuss? 17:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have answered one of your questions over at User talk:Jimbo Wales. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By the way, if you want, you may answer the question for yourself. The Nth User Care to differ or discuss? 17:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave it a try. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So did I. I'm beginning to wonder whether this question will "take off", get answered by thousands of users, and lead to new policy, but I think that I'm getting overly optimistic. I also wonder whether or not anyone's ever asked Jimbo that question before. The Nth User Care to differ or discuss? 18:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You can check the archives on his talkpage. It is not unlikely that I am the only one who responds. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Help me with speedy deletion!
I want to request User talk talk:The Nth User for speedy deletion under G2 and G7. I added the appropriate categories and templates to the page, but are those enough, or is there a meta page that I have to post a speedy deletion request on? The Nth User Care to differ or discuss? 17:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The people who answer these helpme requests are often not admins. The page will be deleted eventually, but it may take a while. Simply posting the template like you did is perfect, the template puts the page in a category of pages that admins regularly empty. Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. If you enable WP:TWINKLE then it becomes very easy to nominate pages for deletion. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's been deleted now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs)
 * Thats pretty quick. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edits at Shabbat
What you wrote, and User:Malik Shabazz reverted twice, seems like nonsense to me, too. If you can find a source to support your theory, great. But I'll mention the following: StevenJ81 (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The root שבת (for Sabbath, ceasing from work, etc.) is different from the root for seven, שבע.
 * The most you can say is that according to the two-letter-root theory, שבת and שבע are somewhat related to each other, and perhaps (not certainly) have an early common origin. But that`s far from proof that the source of the word Sabbath is the root שבע (with an ayin). See Semitic root.
 * As for the "h", that's just ridiculous. ת without dagesh is frequently transliterated as "th". That was likely its original phoneme, and it still carries that in some oriental pronunciations of Hebrew. It's got nothing to do with the "sh">"s" change, which is decently frequent itself. (Consider, for example, "Shlomo" > "Solomon".)

Not reasonable
The "new section" functionality automatically adds spaces and linebreaks and it is the primary method by which users will leave messages on your talk pages, so it will be pointless to try to enforce that rule.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the extra spaces made the page look less organized and sometimes harder to follow. By "enforce", I just mean deleting the extra spaces, not punishing the offenders. The Nth User Care to differ or discuss? 19:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just think it's not a great use of your time, considering how tedious it is. Also, generally, folks usually don't like rules.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just don't like the discontinuity of the sections of white separating areas of darker color for the titles. For the line breaks, I believe that I'm not the only Wikipedian who would benefit from these changes. By the way, thanks for the quick reply. The Nth User Care to differ or discuss? 19:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Re:TC banner
I have no clue to be honest; I haven't seen anyone use barnstars in years. Just look through someone's talk page archives and c/p the the code if you wanna give someone a barnstar. YE Pacific Hurricane  19:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No; I wanted to suggest putting it on the list of barnstars to make it easier for others, but I couldn't find the image or template. (I had an edit conflict, so even though I'm posting this after you posted your reply, I wrote this before I saw you post yours.) Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 19:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually just c/p the code here. YE Pacific Hurricane  19:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I suggested it here. By the way, is there a specific template already in place for this? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 19:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * AFAIK no but you could always make one. YE Pacific Hurricane  19:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay; I will. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 20:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's done. Template:Tropical Cyclone Barnstar Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 20:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Help me with child categories!
I was wondering whether or not adding a page to a child category automatically adds the page to all of the parent categories, grandparent categories, etc…, or do I have to individually add the page to each parent, grandparent, etc… category in order to get in to show on those category pages? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No and no. Help:Category. If you categorize a page, you should not add it to a (grand)parent category. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations for your work on Categorizing articles

 * Thanks. I'll mention this in my user page. Then I'll create child categories to help depopulate stub categories with lots of members. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of January 2018 American Southwest floods


The article January 2018 American Southwest floods has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned page duplicating content at 2018 Southern California mudflows. No significant media coverage of the events affecting the entire U.S. Southwest region, so making umbrella assumptions like this are WP:OR."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Sounder Bruce  04:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just removed it. I searched for more information, and now the article isn't centered on effects in California but rather mentions things like flooding in Nevada and avalanche warnings in Washington. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Are there any tutorials or lessons on Wikipedia or another Wikimedia site for how to create and run an automated script?
For example, if I knew how to code automated scripts, I'd create and run on my account a script that, for the name of each country and U.S. state:
 * If Elections in doesn't exist but  elections does, make [[Elections in  redirect to [[ elections.
 * If elections doesn't exist but [[Elections in  does, make  elections redirect to [[Elections in
 * If neither Elections in nor [[ elections exist, leave me a message on my talk page with a level three header.
 * If doesn't exist but a category redirect to [[ elections.
 * If a category redirect to
 * If neither nor [[Category: elections exist, leave me a message on my talk page with a level three header.

Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds like something that should be discussed at WP:VPT. I'd also suggest you read through WP:SCRIPT. Primefac (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Re:Section links
In that particular case, I didn't link to the particular section because there's a character limit on edit summaries, and I didn't want to exceed that midway through and thus have the link cut off. But yes please nominate the category for speedy deletion on the grounds of WP:G7. YE Pacific Hurricane  06:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did it. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Election stubs
Hi there, and thanks for your efforts in sorting the US election stub articles! There's such a backlog of sorting - not as many of us as there used to be - which is why the category is overloaded. So far it looks like the template and category you created conform with WPSS guidelines, and if you plan to create more, please propose them first at WikiProject Stub sorting. This will not only create discussion on the topic but also alert stub sorters to the task of splitting and sorting the categories. Thanks for being proactive, and come join us at the project. ~Her Pegship~ 20:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that it's going to be monotonous without scripts or bots, which is why I hope to use them. While it will require a lot of human effort even with automation, it won't be nearly as much as without. However, I am aware of decreased community involvement on Wikipedia (Signs include the AFC backlog and decreasing editor involvement), which is why I knew that for a project as large as this to be feasible, multiple WikiProjects would likely have to be involved. Of course, scripts and bots could greatly shorten the work, and I would be interested in learning how to code them to help the US-election-stub-sorting-challenge, or whatever it will be called. Do you know of any pages explaining how to make them on Wikipedia or another Wikimedia site? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings! I don't know how scripts and bots work on WP/WM, but if you post something at the stub sorting project (talk page?) I bet someone else there might have a suggestion. Cheers, ~Her Pegship~ 17:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did post something on the talk page. Was that not enough? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 21:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw that - it brought me here - but I meant if you were to post something specifically about automating the creation of templates and categories, it might elicit additional interest. ~Her Pegship~ 00:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did it. By the way, you don't need to keep pinging me; I'd get a notification anyway because this is my user talk page. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Help me with removing redirects from my watchlist!
Is there any way to remove all of the redirect pages and nothing else from my watchlist? I don't want to do it manually in case I make a mistake and because there are likely over a hundred redirects in my watchlist. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , when you look at your Watchlist page, you can see a button up near the top saying "Edit your list of watched pages". If you click that button, you can remove all the redirects simply by checking the appropriate checkboxes and clicking "Remove titles" button. Hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I knew that. I wanted to know whether or not there's a way where I don't have to do it individually. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , Probably not.  Adotchar &#124; reply here 01:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't rule out that there's some fancy way to use the API for that purpose, but short of that there is no "un-watchlist all redirects" option. Huon (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At the risk of exposing your Watchlist, you could take the raw watchlist, edit it so that every entry is surrounded by double square brackets and make that a userspace workpage. You could then run the linkclassifier script (User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js) to identify redirects. But it's still too much work...
 * I've been working with a modified version of the linkclassifier script to output a list onto the displayed page, so getting what you want would just be a matter of changing a few more lines of the script. If that sounds like something you'd like to pursue, I'd be willing to discuss what I know.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  03:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Winter Storm Ethan (January 21)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Winter Storm Ethan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Winter Storm Ethan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and save.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Winter_Storm_Ethan Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Winter_Storm_Ethan reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * Charles Burnett ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Charles_Burnett check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Charles_Burnett?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Charlie Barnett
 * Charlie Barnett ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Charlie_Barnett check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Charlie_Barnett?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Charles Burnett

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_
The URL above will always lead to a "Bad title" message, as others have pointed out at WP:VPR. Since it is technologically infeasible to change the behavior, I have closed that discussion you started per WP:SNOW. Lots of other users have opposed your proposal, implying a SNOW close. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Arizona cities by area for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Arizona cities by area 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/List of Arizona cities by area 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Carnon River
Hi, can you have another look at the refs you added for this article, you may want to use Template:Google maps instead as a better way of referencing. The reason for marking up the article for speedy, was so that it would be deleted and could have been created by someone who cared a bit more. As you have 'rescued' it, the creator now has an article to their name even though it was a total copyvio. (I will watch here for any reply)...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay; I'll request it for speedy deletion again. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 18:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been running into trouble trying to get the page deleted. Would you please help? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Archimedean solid
Your edit to Archimedean solid states "Some authors, like Branko Grünbaum (2009), only require that the faces that meet at one vertex be related by a local isometry to the faces that meet at any other vertex, and incorrectly claim that because the elongated square gyrobicupola (pseudo-rhombicuboctahedron) satisfies this definition, it is a 14th solid". There is NOTHING INCORRECT in what Grünbaum is saying. When you write that Grünbaum is incorrect, you are yourself inserting something incorrect into Wikipedia. He is proposing an alternative definition, one that is still a minority choice but a valid choice. We should not say that one is wrong and the other right; that violates WP:NPOV, which asks us to cover alternatives proportionately. It is also important to note (the main point of Grünbaum's paper) that some other authors do make actual mistakes. For instance, a recent book, Robin Wilson's "a very short course in combinatorics" defines an Archimedean solid to be one that has "the same arrangement of polygons at each vertex" (the same as Grünbaum's definition, mentioning nothing about global symmetries of the whole polygon) but then says there are only 13 of them by this definition (false). We should write our article in a way that points out this mistake and helps others avoid falling into it. Your wording, instead, makes it more likely that readers will make this error. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually agree that you are violating WP:NPOV by repeatedly reinserting a version that implies that the elongated square gyrobicupola is an Archimedean solid, when not only a majority of authors, but Archimedes himself, do not consider it to be one. Your version clearly says that there are actually 14 Archimedean solids ("…a widespread error in the literature on Archimedean solids…{they} incorrectly claim that there are 13 solids satisfying this definition. There are 14, because the elongated square gyrobicupola (pseudo-rhombicuboctahedron)…does not have a global symmetry taking any vertex to any other vertex…") which is considered to be correct by Archimedes and most authors. I genuinely believe that taking the side of Archimedes, the person who defined Archimedean solids, is inherently the neutral point of view. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You agree with a fictional position that I never expressed? Interesting but not helpful. We should not be in the business of making a decision what the right definition is, nor even of asserting that one definition is right and one wrong (a bizarre thing to do in any context). We should state both definitions neutrally in a way that makes clear their differences from each other. The existing text does so; yours does not. Also, mathematics has advanced a little bit since the time of Archimedes...or do you think we should only write in ancient Greek? The concept of a symmetry group did not exist in ancient Greek mathematics, so insisting that Archimedes used a definition based on that concept seems a little unlikely and anachronistic. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By repeatedly replacing the version that says that there are 13 Archimedean solids with the one that says that there are 14 and that saying that there are 13 is wrong, you seem to be a steadfast believe that the version that you are putting in is right. Also, since Archimedes is the one who created the concept of Archimedean solids, including defining which solids are and which solids aren't Archimedean, he's probably the dead, non-editting version of a geometric expert and therefore should be trusted above any one individual modern author. Also, while your preferred version explicitly says that thinking that there are only 13 Archimedean solids is wrong multiple times, and follows by stating that most authors and Archimedes do not treat the ESG (The full name is kind of long, so I hope that using an acronym is okay.) as an Archimedean solid in a way that implies that they are wrong, my version says that counting the ESG as an Archimedean solid is wrong only once, does not say it as nearly as harshly, does not emphasize it, and I would be happy to remove that occurrence. While mathematics has evolved since Archimedes, our concept of Archimedean solids is still based on his, like how geometric surfaces where the fifth postulate of Book One of Euclid's Elements is true are considered to also follow all of the other postulates, notions, and axioms, in that book, even though geometries that don't follow the fifth postulate, like elliptic geometry, exist, and even though the parallel form of the postulate has been proven to be mathematically equivalent to hundreds of other statements, like the Pythagorean theorem is true for right angles and the sum of any triangle's three interior angles is always half of one full turn. Also, in that time, symbolic math was relatively rare (Until about 500 years or so ago, all math problems had to be written in word problem format. Even the plus sign hadn't yet been invented during the time of the ancient Greeks.), so if Archimedes had thought of the concept of a symmetry group (which is possible but unlikely), his options of how to express his hypothetical idea would have been severely limited, and it would have been quite possible that Archimedean solids would have been his best bet. Therefore, the mathematicians who have been lucky enough to be able to use symbolic math are allowed to build on Archimedes' work as long as they don't contradict him. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 04:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Most versions have improvements that can be made to them. That doesn't mean I have to accept your disimprovements. Also, you are completely misreading the existing version. It correctly does not take sides between the two definitions. What it actually says is that there are two different definitions, that the 13-solid definition is more widely accepted, and that many authors confuse the two by simultaneously stating the definition that describes the 14 solids and then saying there are only 13 of them. Your version does take sides, and is wrong to do so. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In an earlier reply, I explained why I think that your version is not neutral, so if you try to make a point of why yours is, please show how my explanation somehow does not apply. I can't really see how your version says that many authors confuse the definitions. Also, is it really fair to judge a version that has been checked and/or refined by dozens of users against my first draft? If my version wins, do you really that think that will be the exact text in the lead of the article a decade from now? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 06:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your explanation made it clear that you either failed to read the existing text carefully or just do not understand for whatever other reason. Demonstrate some improved understanding and I might take your edits more seriously. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhh! I get it! The authors, as in the majority of them, were the ones saying that only a local isometry was needed. That wasn't at all obvious. I had to go through that at least four or so more times. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 07:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the "most authors" part was that most authors still count only 13; the people making the mistake were only described as "some authors". But if you were confused by the writing in this article you're not likely to be the only one. I tried another rewrite in hope of making it less confusing; what do you think? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks much better. I made what I feel are further improvements, but I'd like it if you checked. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Carnon RIver
One of the problems is that you have repeatedly restored the copyvio version, so there are a lot of diffs that will need revdel. I have removed the copyvio text, please do not restore it again! DuncanHill (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem is that if the article stays (but not if it's deleted then created again), then Nigel Winfield gets the credit. Please talk with about this. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 04:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article history now, you will see that the content you added on the 30th is the earliest version that anyone can see. DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you look at the user's article creation log, Carnon River still shows under the user's name. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So what? DuncanHill (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So that user gets credit for creating an article even though that (s)he only put in a single copyvio sentence. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter. Anyone who looks at the article history will see that the first effective edit was by you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , yeah, but most Wikipedians probably wouldn't bother to do so. Also, it's not like it would significantly harm the encyclopedia, as the article could be recreated within a minute of deletion. By the way, since all of the previous edits on the page have been deleted, do I count as the author of the page now? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone who contributes to a page is an author of it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to know whether or not I can have it deleted under G7. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, all that would achieve would be the deletion of a valid stub, and that would not benefit the encyclopaedia. Anyway, I've just added some content so I don't see how G7 could apply. I also think that "delete it so my name can come first when I recreate it exactly as it stands now" isn't going to fly. By the way, you don't need to "ping" me every time you respond here, I do see on my watchlist that you have answered. DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be my name. It can be you, Jokulhlaup, an admin, or almost anyone else besides Nigel Winfield. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you need to just let it go. A mistake was made, it was spotted, it was rectified. That is how Wikipedia works. DuncanHill (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Nth User, seems my initial comment on this set something in motion that I hadn't envisaged. Apologies for that to all involved, we live and learn ...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

=February 2018=

Help me with an indent template!
Please help me with a template that I just created, Template:ColonIndent. The parser function isn't accpeting the template parameters, and the program incorrectly thinks that the template loop is infinite. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue with the parameters, it's an issue with how you coded it. You've basically said "§ if x>0, goto §". Templates don't like that. There are ways of doing it "better", but to be honest we already have indent and in5, so I'm not entirely sure we need yet another indenting template (especially when typing colons is a lot easier). Personally I suggest you db-g7 the template, but either way I suspect it's not long for this world. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, a minor point - when you start a new section, could you please not title it "Help me!"? You've got something like 8 sections titled like that, and it makes it very hard to navigate. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I renamed the Help me! sections. Also, my signature only looks like that when it's on a new line. It only does that because that's what the code makes it do whenever I do to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Nth_User&action=edit&preload=Help%3AContents%2Fhelpmepreload&preloadtitle=Help+me%21&section=new to ask for help. I fixed that for all of the Help me!s on my user talk page. I will request the template for speedy deletion under G7 and T3, but I wanted to rename the sections first so I could link to this section Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And I see that you're already deleted it. Did you get my previous ping? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed. Also, please do not edit my comments. As for the extra space - it's in your signature preferences, just remove the space that's in front of the "[" and it should solve the issue. Primefac (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I managed to catch a glimpse of your attempted template before it was deleted. Kinda interesting, it looks like the template processor chokes as soon as it sees a recursion, without you being able to short-circuit the evaluation with a protecting #if. I'm not sure if the "better" way to do it, that Primeface mentions, is via a Lua module or if there actually is a way to achieve finite recursion. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to learn more about templates.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  03:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe the software could be changed so that a loop is only detected when the same template is transcluded at least twice with the exact same parameters (and of course a significantly larger limit on the total amount of times that any one template could be transcluded to prevent abuse like a template named Template:ExampleBadTemplate with the code ). Should it be brought up on Village pump (technical)?
 * I'm fairly sure, but have not experimented with it, that recursion could be done with a Lua module. As long as that's true, I would not expect to get much of a hearing for adding generalized recursion to the template interpreter. It's very rare that recursion is needed, as evidenced by the existing situation where it's forbidden and nobody much notices that it's not allowed.
 * There was a Google code-a-thon or something similar last month where students could learn Lua in the context of Wikimedia modules (I ran across some of their efforts in patrolling pages). Before I started looking into Lua, I mistakenly thought that the template language was related to Lua, but that seems not to be the case. Instead, I discovered yet another case where attempting to extend a (simple) markup language with programming constructs has resulted in something that's usually hard to decipher and to debug. (Akin to Excel macros, in my mind.) But enough editorializing from me.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  03:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the wiki markup language isn't Lua, should I post my idea on WP:VP? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 04:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * (the ping worked this time) Sorry, my response above was a long-winded way to say "no".  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  04:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Plural link
Template:Plural link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Help me with barnstar categories!
I was wondering for the purposes of whether or not I should make Category:Barnstar award templates a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia substituted templates: Are all barnstar templates always supposed to be substituted? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a question to ask at WP:CATP. The help me is not your personal beck and call for someone to come running answering your random questions that pop into your head. If you have a question, ask at the TEAHOUSE, the REFDESK, or a related WikiProject. Primefac (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just looked, and Template:Barnstar documentation has Template:Substituted inside it inside tags, so now I'm pretty sure that the answer is yes. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

=March 2018=

For the Longest Time (song) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect For the Longest Time (song). Since you had some involvement with the For the Longest Time (song) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pam D  14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

List of listcrufty lists listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of listcrufty lists. Since you had some involvement with the List of listcrufty lists redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

=April and May 2018= nothing

=June 2018=

You might want to
see the discussion at the bottom of my talk page. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

About the edit warring on Hurricane Ophelia (2017)
Guess I’ll pay more attention to the rules next time, sorry. Btw, 109.155.167.10 had added IR images back to many hurricane infoboxes depite that VIS image > IR images, I don’t know if this is considered vandalism. Xyklone (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt that it could be considered vandalism because it wasn't meant to degrade the quality of the article, but it's still edit-warring. I pinged the administrator who had to step in last year, and if it gets to the point where it could be considered edit-warring without the comment in the infobox, the previous edit-warring, and the warning to anyone who changes the image without previously gaining talk page consensus, I'll go to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I offered a compromise on the talk page, but it doesn't seem to have much activity, so I'm not sure how the dispute will end. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your compromise is pretty good IMO, but had already made a proposal regarding the images, here’s the link: _and_  _images proposal Xyklone (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

=July 2018= nothing

=August 2018=

Plastic number
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Plastic number, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Supergolden ratio


The article Supergolden ratio has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Not notable. All references are to a single author with no reliable secondary sources mentioned."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I took care of that and removed the notice. I added additional sources, so now not all references are to a single author, and not all sources are primary. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

=September 2018=

Hypohalous acid moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Hypohalous acid, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. New articles generally need at least two (but preferably more) references from reliable sources that are independent of the subject that discuss the subject with significant coverage (trivial mentions do not contribute to notability).(See Rule 42) Information that can't be referenced to reliable sources should be removed from the draft because verifiability is necessary for information added to Wikipedia. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of  before the article title) where you can work on the article with minimal disruption from other users while you improve it. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready to be published, you can move it back to the article space yourself. However, I recommend that instead of moving it yourself that you follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template that I have added to the page. This submits the article to be reviewed by experienced editors that specialize in helping new editors write their first articles. Edaham (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Trithionic acid
Could you please take a look at the references section of your new article Trithionic acid? It needs some attention. shoy (reactions) 18:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the reference errors were just because the value for the quote parameter contained one or more tab characters; I fixed them by replacing each tab character in the article with a quadruple space. There are still a couple references that don't work because I put a table in the quote parameter, but I don't know how to make tables work as quotes, and I want to keep the quotes in the same format as they were in the original source. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 19:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Trithionic acid
have reviewed article, ref 28 and 30 cite errors please fix, thank you(I tried but was unsuccessful, [as apparentaly you've had this discussion before, per above post, there might be alternative reference that can be used])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

=October 2018=

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hypohalous acid has been accepted
 Hypohalous acid, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! —  Newslinger  talk   07:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Hypohalous_acid help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Diethynylbenzene dianion moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Diethynylbenzene dianion, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Diethynylbenzene dianion has been accepted
 Diethynylbenzene dianion, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Legacypac (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Diethynylbenzene_dianion help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

=November 2018=

A page you started (Arsonic acids) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Arsonic acids.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

How is this different from Arsenous acid?

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 15:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Arsenous acid is an isomer of an example of arsonic acids. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

C=O=O=O=O=O=C listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect C&. Since you had some involvement with the C=O=O=O=O=O=C redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 16:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

O=C=C=C=C=C=O listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect O&. Since you had some involvement with the O=C=C=C=C=C=O redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Largoplazo (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, ignore that. I discovered just a few seconds too late that you'd already discussed it under the miswritten version and that the SMILES notation exists, is generally known, and is generally adaptable. I've withdrawn my request to discuss. Largoplazo (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message
=December 2018=

Sulfate
Your edit of sulfate SMILES is incorrect. Sulfur in sulfones, sulfonamides and similar compounds including sulfuric acid (BTW your edit there is also incorrect) has standard valence 6 with 2 double bonds and 2 single bonds and no formal charge (consult any standard chemistry textbook to check this). Please revert your edits. SMILESmaster (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've changed the SMILES back. I originally changed them after interpreting a note on the page (which ends with, "In fact, sulfur donates two electrons to the oxygen atoms.") to mean that they have dative bonds in order to prevent hypervalency. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad Ehsan khandowa
Hi, just wanted to let you know that you made a mistake here. (Don't worry, you're not in trouble at all.) You tagged this article for speedy deletion under criterion U5, but U5, like the other U criteria, applies only to userpages, not mainspace pages. (If you don't understand this, see WP:Namespace; userspace pages begin with "User:", while mainspace pages don't have anything of the sort.) But policy says that I can delete a page under an applicable criterion, regardless of whether someone's already tagged it for the criterion, and this article definitely qualified for criterion A7, which "applies to any article about a real person...that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I just use it for anything that appears to be someone creating an article about him/herself. Sometimes it's in the userspace, but Muhammad Ehsan khandowa was actually the second non-userspace page today that I marked for speedy deletion for U5 under this reason, the first being Wikipedia talk:Creation of example red links as pages. Considering that Wikipedia talk doesn't have any categories for speedy deletion specific to that namespace, a similar incident could easily happen again in Wikipedia talk or some other random namespace, and there doesn't seem to a fitting general criterion (The closest thing is G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, which I don't think applies unless the article is actively biased towards the person and not just sharing information about him/her.), it might be a good idea to supersede U5 with a general criterion, but that's just my opinion. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 04:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, let me be firm: do not tag pages under U5 unless they're in userspace. Period.  If it doesn't qualify for speedy, you have to send it through the appropriate XFD forum.  Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay; I'll remember that. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 04:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
=January 2019=

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Aluminium bromide ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Aluminium_bromide check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Aluminium_bromide?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Dimer
 * Aluminium iodide ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Aluminium_iodide check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Aluminium_iodide?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Dimer

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

=February 2019=

User talk page warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hyperius1255 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, what happened is that I transcluded a section from the parent page (which I expressed in my edit summary) after merging it with the child page to prevent a content fork (which is explained in the talk page archives). My version of the page still had content when viewed. I know that it would definitely look suspicious to see an edit that decreased a page's size by 99.4%, but in the future, please review the edit to make sure that there is a visual disruption. If there is something that I am unaware of, like perhaps a broken section anchor that caused the section transclusion to stop working, that prompted you to revert my edit, I apologize for assuming that your revert was in error. In case that is the same, I am going to wait for you to reply before restoring my version. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

weird categories
Hi, I see you have created Category:Platinum(Ⅳ) compounds and Category:Platinum(Ⅱ) compounds and added them to compounds. These have Wikipedia-non-standard unicode characters in them, and I urge you to change the oxidation state character to IV and II in each of these categories. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved the categories as requested and am done changing the character as requested in all of the pages. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. Now we can type the characters and more easily copy and use the names! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

=March 2019=

Tetraxenonogold(II)
I don't see how your comments relate to your edit. You put formal charges into SMILES, which is only tangentially related to electronegativity or oxidation state. Transition metal complexes are very rarely depicted with them and it's rather misleading without proper context. Mithoron (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oxidation state is formal charge minus number of bonds with a more electropositive element plus number of bonds with a more electronegative element, so formal charge is oxidation state plus number of bonds with a more electropositive element minus number of bonds with a more electronegative element. In SMILES, charges are specified as formal charge, not oxidation state, so the formal charge of gold needs to be calculated from the oxidation state. The oxidation state of gold is +2, and it forms 0 bonds with a more electropositive element and 4 bonds with a more electronegative element, so the formal charge of the gold atom is 2+0-4=-2. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is just about using formal charges for transition metal complexes with neutral ligands. I see you're adding them, but do you have a source clearly stating that's the proper way to write them? I consider it misleading, so I think you shouldn't do it without a very good reason. Mithoron (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want, I'll undo the edit. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

=April 2019= nothing

=May 2019=

Broken redirect
Hi, The Nth User. I'm not sure what you were intending as the target of this redirect, but it ended up broken. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for alerting me. I have fixed it. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 20:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Weird categories again
Hi, I see you have made some more of those categories with weird Unicode characters in them again, such as category:Lead(Ⅱ) compounds, can you please rename these to the plain ASCII names like you did before? (eg Lead(II) compounds). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've actually done this for more than just the lead categories, so instead of manually changing the category names in hundreds of categories, I'm going to make a speedy request at Categories for renaming. (A bot is used for renaming categories.) Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It (as in my nomination for speedy renaming, not the actual renaming) is done. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Bioxide listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bioxide. Since you had some involvement with the Bioxide redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 21:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Vice-Chancellors by university
Very happy to talk about sorting out the mess in university categorisation. As far as I can see the only contents of Category:Vice-Chancellors by university is subcategories by country, so I dont understand the point you are making. Rathfelder (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I realize my mistake now: I didn't check that there are even vice-chancellor categories for those countries. I'll undo my opposition. However, why are you splitting the discussion? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Having spent more time on it I am trying a different approach. We need to get round the problem of the same words being used to mean different things, so I'm trying categories along the lines of Leaders of universities in Foo. Then we can have sub-categories for Chancellors, Vice-Chancellors, Presidents, Rectors etc. of universities in Foo as necessary, and the fact that Rectors in one place are the chief executive and in another place are merely ceremonial doesnt matter, which is just as well because the articles often dont make it clear what the title signifies. Rathfelder (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to say that you want me to help, I respectfully decline. I'm still in the process of categorizing compounds by oxidation state, which will probably take a while, and I expect to become busy in real life soon. Good luck with your university leader categorization effort though. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hypertetrahedron listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hypertetrahedron. Since you had some involvement with the Hypertetrahedron redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 19:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

=June 2019=

Category:Salicylate ethers ?
I think you had generated a typo. If you replache "ethers" with "esters" then it is correct. Regards JWBE (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That was intentional because salicylic acid can form ethers either at its carboxyl group (in which case they are always esters) or at its phenol group (in which case it is not necessarily an ester). There are plenty of ethers of salicylic acid that are not esters, the simplest being O-Anisic acid. I have created a new category for these compounds and added a description for each in order to avoid future confusion. The first category was named ethers because esters form a subclass of ethers. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I also dispute this categorization. An ester is not a subcategory/specialized-variant/superset of an ether: aspirin contains an ester and does not contain an ether. Perhaps you could use differential nomenclature to distinguish the "acyl" from "side-chain R" portions for categorization? For example, aspirin is a "salicyl ester" and an "acetate ester" whereas methyl salicylate is a "methyl ester" and a "salicylate ester"—"yl" vs "ate" are the standard nomenclature patterns for the two portions of an ester and what commons uses for its cats. Ping User:Edgar181, whose recent edits suggest he disputes this set of your cats and also supports my analysis. o-Anisic acid is indeed an ether. DMacks (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added requests for speedy renaming. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 01:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think Category:Salicylate phenol-group ethers is overly wordy (there's no other possible ether of salicyl except via the phenyl-group). I think Category:Salicylate ethers is just fine, but the esters need their own alt cats. And Category:Salicylate esters is fine (as I mentioned) for how it is defined (there is no other kind of "salicylate ester", so Category:Salicylate carboxyl-group esters is overly wordy) and exactly matches commons:Category:Salicylate esters. All we need is a new cat for esters on the the phenol oxygen. Commons just has them loose in commons:Category:Salicylic acids I think. DMacks (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Category:Salicylate phenol-group esters doesn't fit with the other two new category names if we follow your comment. What we need is a word for ester with the keto group on the other side, but that probably doesn't exist, so we'll have to think of something else. Do you have any ideas? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, yesterday I moved Category:Salicylate ethers to Category:Salicylate esters based essentially on the chemical nomenclature reasoning that DMacks describes above. I had just assumed it was a typo or other simple mistake.  But there are indeed chemicals that can be classified as salicylate ethers, so I'm fine with the recreation of the category.  The ethers category should include those chemicals that contain the Ph-O-C group (such as o-Anisic acid), but not the Ph-O-C(O)-R (such as aspirin, which is currently in the category and should be removed from it).  -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that at this point, we're waiting to move it until we decide what to name the new category to move it to. Maybe Category:Salicylate phenol esters? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 18:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI re History sections
Hi - I've noticed that you've done some work on reverting annoying edits where an IP user has been using different addresses to do the same thing... Just in case you haven't already seen the good work done by IamNotU, see here User:IamNotU/History cleanup or their talk page. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about. I've been focusing on categorization lately. Could you please provide a link to the page? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 20:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

=July 2019=

Category:Atlantic tropical cyclones that slowed or stalled over land has been nominated for discussion
Category:Atlantic tropical cyclones that slowed or stalled over land, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jason Rees (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Vinylogous carboxylic acids concerns
I haven't seen aromatic rings considered as the vinyl linker in the context of "vinylogous" before. Is that standard in the literature? And is is context before. You also have a lot of HO-C=C-C(=O)OH structures, which suggest to readers that the "carboxylic acid" of the name is the C(=O)OH portion (usual definition of that term), not the HO-C=C-C(=O) portion. Maybe it needs a Category:Vinylogous carbonic acids subcat? Finally, I see a lot of esters (≠ "acids") in the category. So maybe there needs to be a Category:Vinylogous esters (but for example the parabens are actually vinylogous carbonate monoesters)? DMacks (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the compound is an ester does not affect whether or not it can be a vinylogous carboyxlic acid. For example, methyl salicylate can be deprotonated to give O=C(OC)c1ccccc1 [O- ], but this has another resonance form, [O- C(OC)=C1C=CC=CC1=O]. The two resonance structures increase the stability of the conjugate base, which is what makes vinylogous carboxylic acids more acidic than otherwise. A second resonance structure can still form if the two are connected through an aromatic ring—provided that the hydroxyl group is at an appropriate position relative to the ketone, so I see no reason why aromatic rings should be off-limits for vinylogous transmission. Also, the reason that the category is named Category:Vinylogous carboxylic acids, and not…say…Category:Vinylogous carbonic acids, is because the page Vinylogy uses the former term in the lead, specifically, "…between a carbonyl group and a hydroxyl group is referred to as a vinylogous carboxylic acid, analogous electronically to a carboxylic acid, RCOOH." Is this an adequate explanation? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Unrelatedly, I moved all the Category:Vinylogous carboyxlic acids files into Category:Vinylogous carboxylic acids. Should I just delete that typo'ed category, or is there reason to keep it? DMacks (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You may delete it yourself. I just figured that I'd let the bot take care of it then add a G7 template. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

=August 2019=

Category:Furfurals
Hey, I've cleaned up your recently created Category:Furfurals as most of the contents were mis-assigned, although I did add some new ones for you. Wikipedia doesn't currently have any 2-formylbenzofurans so I think that sub-cat will need to be deleted. I think I see what you've tried to do with Category:Formals but none of those compounds are actually derivatives of dimethoxymethane in the normal sense. I appreciate the hard work you're putting in but can I ask you to be more careful please. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I thank you for adding the new pages, but I believe that the pages that you removed belonged in that category. The way that Wikipedia subcategorization works, pages that are in a category for compounds with a common substructure do not need to belong in all of the categories that that substructure belongs in. For example, Category:Phenol ethers is a subcategory of Category:Phenyl compounds, and Acitretin is a subcategory of Category:Phenol ethers, but Acitretin is not a phenyl compound in the strictest sense. The same logic applies to Category:2-formylbenzofurans. For formals, the page Acetal appears to indicate that a formal applies to a carbon atom single-bonded to two hydrogen atoms and two ether groups. This means that they can be structually derived from dimethoxymethane by replacing one or both of the methyl groups with any alkyl or aryl groups. By the way, I don't understand why you removed Cilostamide from Category:2-Quinolone ethers at the benzene ring, as it seems to have 2-Quinolone as a substructure, and while Carteolol is technically a dihydro-2-quinolinone, categorization like this seems to be common in Wikipedia, like how Carbofuran, Carbosulfan and Efaroxan are in Category:Benzofurans, so I assume that it's accepted. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Categorisation by common substructure shouldn't collapse the concept of functional group. Furfural is an aldehyde by both name and structure so Category:Furfurals should be limited to derivatives with that motif, 2-Furoic acid is not an aldehyde, its a carboxylic acid, ditto 2,5-Furandicarboxylic acid - hence they are not furfurals. Formal is a historic term, I actually had to look it up and IUPAC no longer supports it, so it's not exactly wrong - just odd. Good catch with Cilostamide that was indeed a mistake on my part. As for dihydro- analogues of rings more generally - there doesn't seem to be a definitive rule here about whether they go in the same cats or not. Personally I'm not a fan, reduction often makes a big difference so to my mind the compounds are not 'alike' but other minds may differ. We might have to go to WP:Chem to get an answer there.--Project Osprey (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, categorization by functional group substructure is already done on Wikipedia. For example, Category:Guanidines is a subcategory of Category:Amidines, Category:Imides is a subcategory of Category:Amides, and Category:Phenol ethers is a subcategory of Category:Phenyl compounds even though many members, like Estragole, are not actually phenyl compounds. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am aware of how the chemical cats work, having made a few myself over the years. My point is if you're going to categorise things as being furfurals then they need to actually be furfurals. Furoic acid does not have a furfural substructure. As to your sub-cat examples; there are errors there too. How did Category:Phenol esters end up as a sub-cat of Category:Phenol ethers? There is no hierarchy between them, they're separate things. Category:3-hydroxypropenals is particularly bizarre, you're just highlighting fragments of polycyclic compounds, flavonoids mostly. None of these things are 3-hydroxypropenals. Please stop. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that're holding off from categorising more chemicals - thanks for that. I'm a bit stuck as to how to proceed so I've taken this to WP:Chem >>here<<. Do please join the discussion. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2-formylbenzofurans


A tag has been placed on Category:2-formylbenzofurans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 07:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Diethynylbenzene dianions has been nominated for discussion
Category:Diethynylbenzene dianions, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

=September and October 2019= nothing

=November 2019=

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

=December 2019–February 2020= nothing

=March 2020=

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

=April 2020= nothing

=May 2020=

Overcategorization effort: Too detailed and too complex categories
Hello, I just stumbled upon several categories with very detailed molecule classes or with much too long chemical names that you have created a few months ago, such as e.g. the following ones taken here as example:

I am surprised by the degree of unnecessary details and too high complexity of these names, sometimes totally impossible to remember and to read, especially the longest names, even for the specialists in the field. I wonder what is the advantage of creating such detailed categories most often populated by only two or three chemical compounds. May I suggest you to reconsider the need of creating such categories, certainly when they replace other already existing and much simpler categories. Editing efforts are appreciated, but why not to adhere to the KISS principle to make them even more effective: "Keep it Simple and Straightforward". "The KISS principle states that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complicated; therefore, simplicity should be a key goal in design, and unnecessary complexity should be avoided." "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler – Albert Einstein." "In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away, when a body has been stripped down to its nakedness – Antoine de Saint Exupéry." The main disadvantage of trying to overcategorize all chemical compounds by unnecessary complicated categories is that it requires considerable efforts and is time consuming while the same work and energy could be advantageously dedicated to improve the contents of the corresponding pages. Several millions of molecules have already been inventoried, or synthesized, and it is a superhuman and vain task to try to manually classify all of them in an excessively detailed and overstructured scheme in Wikipedia. Specialized programs used in the academic world and in industry have been developed for that and it is also not the main objective of an encyclopedia. The aim of categories (WP:CAT) is to help the reader to easily discover new topics, to make useful links and to connect the dots to get a bigger picture. Overcategorizing chemical compounds puzzles the reader and does not fulfill this objective (WP:OVERCAT). Indeed, if the level of granularity and complexity in the classification tree increases too much, the reader can easily lose his way and must go too far away to find again a more general categories. The frequency in categorization errors will also increase, because going too deep into the details requires not only a very good knowledge and a regular practice of the chemical nomenclature but also a considerable editing effort. Moreover, it is particularly tedious and it represents a non-negligible source of distraction from more useful edition tasks. Keeping the system simple, easy and accessible is therefore essential. Sharing our knowledge with others and making it easily accessible must remain our central goal in our contribution effort to Wikipedia. So, my advice is: Keep it simple! Being simple is not easy and can be very challenging, especially when it deals with the human interface between man and machines, or here between our readers and Wikipedia. A nice categorization tree must be well balanced, resemble a fir tree (or an old oak tree if you prefer) with sufficient branches, not too short, not too long, and its structure must be clear and easy to navigate for ... making interesting discoveries and unexpected links. That's simply the point I wished to make and to share with you. Hoping you can consider it and think about this suggestion, it can only benefit to your contribution efforts. Some useful guidelines can also be found in: Overcategorization. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 160 Category:Uranium(III) minerals: there is only one mineral Samarskite-(Y) and to the best of my knowledge, no U(III) solid phase is presently known (only uranium mineral with U(IV) and U(VI) valence are thermodynamically stable), so this category can certainly be safely deleted. It is probably U(IV) substituting for yttrium(III) in Samarskite such as Th(IV) substituting for lanthanum(III) in monazite. The easiest way to start is also probably to begin with categories that are poorly populated. Voilà for my first look to your list. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the categories, I realize that of all of the chemical categories that I created, while some were to subcategorize pages in overly large categories, some were to avoid having to list twelve or so similar compounds in the See also section, and some were for topics that already had their own article, most fall somewhere between narrow intersection and small with no potential for growth, only have three to five articles, and should be deleted (or rather upmerged). Feel free to propose such categories for deletion. Just give me a chance to put links to the members of each category in the See also sections of the other articles in that category. I had actually gotten another talk page notice about this a while back, and I stopped creating categories with such long names then, which is why all of the examples that you found are from several months ago. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 18:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I am happy that you already realized the impact of these categories with too long name and too narrow intersection with small or no potential for growth. The systematic classification of chemical compounds is a very challenging task from the viewpoint of taxonomy or ontology. It is not an easy task and as I suggested, the most effective and prudent approach is to remain simple. When restoring more appropriate categories, to avoid to lose information, especially to also properly restore the links that were present in the "See also" sections, I propose to proceed progressively step by step, with manual restore while avoiding to mechanically use the "revert" function (WP:RV). Reverting is not appropriate for good faith editions. Reverting old editions could also have unexpected consequences, so better to be prudent and to carefully control what we do. If there is too many pages and categories concerned, the best is probably to prioritize the work, starting by the categories with excessively long and too detailed names and to proceed with patience and taking the necessary time. Thank you for your understanding and your cooperation. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A list of all of the still-extant categories that I have created can be found here. I'll probably: start going through the categories within a week; post a recommendation here based on length of name, size of category, size of parent categories, and existence of a main article; and restore the See also links for categories that I think should be deleted. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 15:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer and this list of categories. I just had a first look on this list. Based on the length of the category name and its intricate character, I suggest to start with the following category numbers in the list: 9, 10, 23, 30 → 37, 45, 51, 56, 63, and 78. About the category 199 Iron(II,III) compounds, in principle, I would expect that it would be nearly the same than Iron compounds and is the parent of the categories 200 Iron(II) compounds and 201 Iron(III) compounds. Indeed, most iron compounds only contains Fe(II) and Fe(III) if one excepts the ferrates which are rarely encountered. The problem with categories applied to many pages, is that it required a lot of effort to apply them and then a lot of effort to undo. So, better to think twice before to make changes when the category is highly populated: the structuration scheme must be very clear.
 * Thank you for already looking through some of the categories. About the categories by metal oxidation state, if I remember correctly, I originally categorized the compounds of only a few metals, such as copper and iron, by oxidation state using criteria described here. I then engaged in a relative hiatus from categorizing chemistry-related articles. (Looking at my edit history, it seems that during this period, I was more interested in categorizing barnstars, adding SMILES to chemboxes, and creating a better way to calculate molar mass.) When I returned to look at Category:Chemical compounds by metal oxidation state, I saw that other compounds had been categorized by oxidation state and that some of the categories had fewer members than the categories that I created. (I think that one category had only two members and another category had four members.) I concluded that Wikipedia's requirements for how many members were necessary to justify a category were lower than I had initially thought, so I proceeded to split other categories that I hadn't split before, such as Category:Manganese compounds, by oxidation state. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Rename discussion for barnstar categories
I've started a rename discussion for barnstar categories which you've created at. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Floods in Houston has been nominated for merging
Category:Floods in Houston has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jason Rees (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Walled garden
Template:Walled garden has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Slapping aids has been nominated for renaming
Category:Slapping aids has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Inquiry from American journalist
Hi, I'm a writer for The Ringer, the American tech, culture, and sports site. We're running a package of Wikipedia-related articles this Friday for the 20th anniversary of Wikipedia, and I'm working on an article about the wonderfully entertaining "Lamest edit wars" page. I'm trying to include some thoughts from people who've contributed to the page, and I noticed that you made some edits to it in 2018 and 2019. Could you tell me a little bit about your involvement with the page, why it appeals to you, or what you think its existence says about the positive or negative aspects of Wikipedia? Curious about how you found it, how you improved it, and what your favorite edit war is. My deadline is late Thursday, Eastern Time. Hope to hear back!

Thank you,

Ben Lindbergh Staff Writer, The Ringer @BenLindbergh BenLindbergh (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Chemical infobox" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Chemical infobox. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 18 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. DePiep (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"Isobutanium" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Isobutanium and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1-Ethenylcyclopentanols


A tag has been placed on Category:1-Ethenylcyclopentanols indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Indole-3-carboxaldehydes


A tag has been placed on Category:Indole-3-carboxaldehydes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Lucas number spiral.gif


The file File:Lucas number spiral.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused, superseded by File:Lucas number spiral.svg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C;">Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 05:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:7-(4-(4-Phenylpiperazin-1-yl)butoxy)-1H-quinolin-2-ones


A tag has been placed on Category:7-(4-(4-Phenylpiperazin-1-yl)butoxy)-1H-quinolin-2-ones indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗ plicit  14:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Naphthylpiperazines


A tag has been placed on Category:Naphthylpiperazines indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗ plicit  14:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Revolts has been nominated for merging
Category:Revolts has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 18:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)