User talk:Transcendence/Archive 1

Conquer Online
Greetings!

Just wanted to drop a line and say thank you for your work on Conquer Online article. I had no idea all those links were now dead, they weren't when I put them in originally! Damn TQ for changing them...anyway, thanks a lot for changing them to the appropriate new links! --Marc Talk 01:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert on Ormoc City
It was not vandalism... I just reverted an anon's copyvio additions. Please read my edit summary. Thanks --seav (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Japan-Korea relations
Could you please lock this page from anonymous revert warring? There's an extensive explanation of the clear NPOV improvements to the article on the talk page, but the Japanese anons keep talking in circles. Thanks. Guidales (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Transcendence. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. βcommand 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Stargate characters
I replied to you on my talkpage yesterday, but I have a new idea that I really like. Please see WT:STARGATE. – sgeureka t•c 14:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't template the regulars
Hi there. I noticed you left these on the Talk page of a prolific, long-time contributor who was doing heavy, incremental copyediting of a page. Please read Don't template the regulars and consider taking those templates back and/or making a request to leave edit summaries in a less impersonal way. Save the templates for the vandals. Thanks. --Dynaflow  babble  02:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I have shamelessly appropriated your dai di userbox.  --Dynaflow   babble  03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Transcendence. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. βcommand 05:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits to Black Ice were thoughtful, careful and well informed!
I spent over an hour editing the Black Ice article. This statement from the Black Ice article was the one that triggered me ito action as it is just wrong. "The process of freezing is slowed down due to latent heat given off in sublimation,". Sublimation is the evaporation of a solid not the freezing of a liquid as is stated in the article. Also, sublimation would adsorb heat not liberate it. Another of my edits was to remove the mention of Rime Ice as a type of ice that is a hazard on a roadway. I will reinstate my edits. Please do not just blank out my efforts. Was there a specific of the text which I removed that you feel strongly about reinstating? Electricmic (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong accusation
Hello Transcendence, you wrongly accused me of vandalism here, could you revert your notification please? Thanks.-- Crzycheetah 17:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion as "patent nonsense"
Hi Transcendence,

I would disagree with your identification of Roketsan Cirit as patent nonsense. The author seems to be creating a bunch of pages for Turkish military equipment, and even though he doesn't write very coherently, there is a germ of validity here. Note that the template itself says "This does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc." Maybe we can give the pages a day or two and see what happens? --Slashme (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rice burner notability
Why have you put a notability tag, of all things, on Rice burner? I always thought its notability was pretty well assumed, if from nothing else than the prevalence of such cars. If you're concerned that the page has yet again degenerated into garbage, there are other tags (for copy editing, wikifying, and cleanup in general) that you might use. Largely this comes from my being confused as to what the problem is; next time you put a tag up for a reason that isn't completely obvious, please leave a message on the article's talk page. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Club at Berkeley
Hi Transcendence, I'm just writing to let you know that me and some Wikipedian friends are launching Wikipedia Club at Berkeley, a student club for promoting participation in Wikipedia and face-to-face collaborations. I know it's been a while since you've edited, but if you're still living in the Bay Area and that sounds fun to you, please consider joining our mailing list. I also have some background in math and it'd be interesting to have the benefit of your experience. Thanks! Dcoetzee 01:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

October 2012
Generally, I remove roster lists from ABA pages because the players will never be notable and the information gets stale pretty quickly (the rosters for teams change a lot even between games). Of course, it also appears you want a link kept to where to buy tickets and a link that goes nowhere, so if you want to keep it that way, I'll leave it alone. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Virtue/Islam
Hello transcendence,

I do believe you made a mistake by reverting my edits to Virtue. The content I removed was partially irrelevant, partially incorrect and full of language mistakes that made it almost impossible to understand.

Examples:

"According to the holy book of Qur'an, Islam is the word (which translated meaning is "submission"). The objective of this word is self submission to the will of Allah and obey his all instruction and restriction."

"Foremost among God's attributes are mercy and compassion or, in the canonical language of Arabic, I-rahmani and I-rahimi. Each of the 114 chapters of the Qur'an, with one exception, begins with the verse, "In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful""

These parts say nothing about the Islamic understanding of Virtue and the first one is barely comprehensible.

"The Arabic for compassion is I-rahmani. "

This is completely factually inaccurate. "l-raḥmāni" means "of the most merciful". The word for compassion is شفقة (šafaqa).

"As a cultural influence, its roots abound in the Qur'an."

What does this even mean? And what is it referring to?

"The Muslim scriptures urge compassion towards captives as well as to widows, orphans and the poor. Traditionally, Zakat, a toll tax to help the poor and needy, is obligatory upon all Muslims (9:60). One of the practical purposes of fasting or sawm during the month of Ramadan is to help one empathize with the hunger pangs of those less fortunate, to enhance sensitivity to the suffering of others and develop compassion for the poor and destitute. "

This is correct but it does not belong into the Virtue article. Compassion is listed below as an important Islamic virtue and this explanation is not necessary. You could add a link from the word compassion to the article Zakāt so the information can be accessed.

The Source page on the list of Muslim virtues did not exist anymore so I found a different one and slightly changed the list according to this source.

It seems to me that you might not have paid close attention while reviewing my edit as I do not see how the original version is more informative than mine.

I hope you recognize the improvement I have made to the article and revert it back to my version

Thank you

--Medizinball (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Maori people
Not deliberate I assure you. This happened by error -Im not sure how!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Harrow Borough
HI - you have just told me that i have removed text from the Harrow page - I have not - in fact I am trying to add more material to make the page more reflective of Harrow. I am still learning stuff on how to post on Wiki. I have not removed anything - I am adding information. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrow United (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but it Doesn't make sense - I have added text and the sports bit has just disappeared! I have not deleted anything! If you have access to the sports text that was there, could you please add it back after the arts / culture section. Thanks. Just trying to make the Harrow borough pages reflect the place more accurately though I am still a novice at Wiki!

Revert caption
Are you sure? (Reverted good faith edits by 74.60.29.141 (talk): Revert nonconstructive edit. (TW)) (undo) - Otherwise one could argue that the caption does not correspond and should be removed, since it neither relates directly to text from the article nor the image context. Perhaps you could come up with a better caption? ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"Leopards are good climbers, and can carry their kills up their trees to keep them out of reach from scavengers and other predators."


 * I hate to get nit-picky, but that caption is 'un-ecyclopedic' in that it does not communicate information contained in the image and does not relate directly corresponding text from the article. If you parse it and apply logical synthesis then the primary subject context : nsubj(climbers-4, Leopards-1) & nsubj(carry-8, Leopards-1); which, in other words, [leopards as climbers] and [leopards carrying] should express direct context with the [photo]. The photo does not show leopard(s) climbing or leopard(s) carrying.  It does show leopard relaxing.  The only caption text communication information from the image are nsubj(climbers-4, Leopards-1) and poss(trees-13, their-12) or essentially "Leopard(s) is(are) climber(s) that(which) possess(es) (a) tree(s)"; or,(applying rules of inference) a  common interpretation of how the caption relates to the photo: "This climbing leopard owns a tree".  In relation to the article title Arboreal locomotion: while the photo infers 'arboreal', it certainly does not express 'locomotion'. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for inferring from your Userboxes that you might be familiar with such things as applied Lambda calculus in semantic parsing or inductive logic programming, or whatever. - I had hoped you might get a kick out of this; well, at least I had some fun doing it; but I must admit I didn't appreciate spamming my page with the 'Welcome' template; words aren't the only means of communication. ~Cheers, ~Eric the Read 74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we're both getting a little cranky -- time for a nap; (separate rooms, of course). ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Categories
I removed Chinese literature and Chinese architecture from the category:Chinese culture because they are already in subcategories of that category, respectively Category:Chinese literature (a subcat of Category:Arts in China‎) and Category:Chinese architecture. Other similar articles are categorized the same way, for example, American literature and American architecture or French literature and French architecture. As for the Category:Political protests in Hong Kong, it is already a subcat of Category:Protests in Hong Kong, itself a subcat of Category:Protests in China.--Cattus talk 22:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Malkin as source for Presidential proclamation numbers imposing internment
I can understand why you don't like Malkin as a source. But is it really likely she got the numbers of the Presidential proclamations wrong? Wouldn't it have been better to find a different source for this information than to remove it wholesale? --Yaush (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sharing disconfort for a right-wing Wikipedian
Hi, was wathcing some spurious edits of User:Alexikoua, and just bumped into a case you were related:. I have the feeling that this seasoned WikiPedian is gaming WP rules into pushing his right-wing agenda. In my case he made a deletion of a very important testimony of a person who belonged to the X organization about the Dekemvriana. Please inform me if you ever fall on him again.

Your edit at Greek Police
Hi. I have removed the Abuse of Tourists section which you added because it contains WP:Copyvios and WP:Close paraphrasing from the BBC website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20958353. I have also opened a discussion at the article talkpage where you are invited to participate. Please do not restore the section until the copyvios and close-paraphrasing are removed and a consensus is reached at the talkpage. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  11:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Transcendence. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! INeverCry  20:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Edit-warring
Thanks for the tip-off, Transcendence.

Despite being around here for a few years, I've never quite understodd exactly how 3RR works. The way I see this instance, someone has made edits to a page without allowing for a consensus to be properly established. I have reverted those edits to allow other users the opportunity to actually discuss the issue. He insists that his version is what the page should be and is refusing to allow discussion because he has already made up his mind about it. Am I still guilty of violating 3RR, even when I've tried to act in the interests of the page? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
Just a moment ago, you send a message to me and restored Television in Afghanistan. The reason why I removed the contents of Television in Afghanistan is repetition. Two Channels per city are completely same. --120.142.28.78 (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

re America
I don't recall there ever being a solid discussion for consensus on "colloquially American", my revert was of different substance pertaining to the territories. "Dutch" is an unfair comparison, as that term is not a version of any other name in the country, it's its own term. (And a quick mental inventory leaves me unable to find any other country like that... possibly Malagasy) I simply found the argument compelling that we don't need to single out that term, for any reason. The country is commonly called America, the U.S., the USA, etc. There's no reason to state that only one of these is colloquial. --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to know where consensus was gained for "colloquially" to be there. Perhaps this is a BRD situation, and if so that's fine, tell me to take it to the talk page, but do so without relying on a false consensus to do so. I may have missed the discussion and if so I apologize, but I don't not recall one happening. Also, according to your edit summary: "the Constitution itself refer to the US as "United States" or "United States of America" and not simply as "America"."" So you have no problem adding "colloquially" to "U.S." and "USA" as well? Or are the rules different because those are acronyms? --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you of false consensus, I'm asking you to present the consensus, as a failure to do so would be a false use of consensus. There's nothing inherent in a demonym that requires it to be derivative of the name, obviously, since Dutch, Khmer, and Malagasy are demonyms. However, they do not apply since "America" is in the name of the country here, hence my statement of unfair comparison. As for consensus, individual statements get consensus, or groups of them, but just because one statement was in part of an article that otherwise had a consensus to have (the legitimacy of that being a separate discussion) doesn't mean that has a consensus to exist. If that were the case then we could never edit the article. Even if it's in a neighboring or even same sentence. I don't remember a discussion on "colloquial" in specific, which is why I asked for a link to one.
 * I think you're relying too much on how the founding documents describe the country. Do any constitutions define a particular country as being named Japan? Or Germany? Or South Korea? Countries have short-form names which are used in less formal settings, but I cannot think of anywhere on Wikipedia where we go out of our way to describe a specific legitimate short form as "colloquial". Do you? We don't note "South Korea" or "North Korea" as being colloquial (though we do note North Korea as "common", which I think would be a bad choice here since "United States" and "America" are both common), and those are definitely more colloquial than their official names, because these are the common short form names for the countries. Likewise, both United States and America are valid short form names for the USA.
 * Long story short: No justification has been presented for singling out this particular name for a country as "colloquial". --Golbez (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And if your only argument (as you have put so far) is that consensus exists because I said it did, then I say it doesn't. There. No more consensus. --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alas, I cannot, for I have already reverted three times today. But with your blessing I'll be back at 21:10 central. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 T H F S W  (T · C · E) 22:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Hi. Why is the report pseudoscience? It may be wrong (I don't know) but that doesn't make it pseudoscience. UltimateBoss (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I quote from the citation you provided, "He published pseudo-scientific claims that it was impossible that Zyklon-B poison was used in the gas chambers at the Nazis' Auschwitz death camp." Transcendence (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Holocaust denial
I was just linking the information from Adolf Eichmann, so that the reader could take the context of his testimony into consideration for his or her conclusions. I think that showing this information up front in the article is more honest then leaving it out.

Let me know what you think, perhaps a better edit could be done. best Ristorilsm (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you link to a diff of what you're talking about? I don't know what you're referring to. According to your contributions history, you haven't edited that article, nor have I edited or reverted anything on that article related to Adolf Eichmann. Transcendence (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see what you're talking about. I reverted your edit because "During his questionable capture and interrogation, he was asked" is not neutral. Characterizing the capture as questionable without a reason is introducing bias. Transcendence (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"The late..."
"The late" is effectively an honorific, because it's usually added to the names of those an editor may have positive feelings for -- I doubt anyone would say "the late Saddam Hussein" or "the late Kim Jong-Il." Also, in most cases, the person being alive or not isn't relevant to the article at hand. for example, in an article about Some Random Movie, saying "The film starred the late John Smith," pointing out that Smith is dead is not relevant to the film. And, finally, if every deceased person's name should be prepended with "the late," then there are a lot of articles that need fixing. :) Trivialist (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Stereotypes of East Asians in the United States
Thanks for your criticisms. If I can find the time, I'll add the citations. I have to say that I find the entire article extremely politically biased in favor of the leftist view that 1) all or most stereotypes are false; 2) stereotypes of minority groups are mostly harmful; 3) there can be no such thing as model minorities; 4) stereotypes of groups in America are the result of beliefs unique to the America, as opposed to originating the countries/regions of origin of those groups (e.g., there are plenty to stereotypes about the overseas Chinese in Malaysia and so on); 5) stereotyping is a largely Western phenomenon (cf. the leftist theory of "Orientalism"). All five of these are easy to refute--though it takes time to amass the citations--e.g., re Asian IQ, criminality, morphology, cognitive differences (cf., for instance, Richard Nisbett's "The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why"), etc. In short, the article is not just politically biased, it is not scientific.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.38.98 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're going to be an active editor, I suggest getting an account. Transcendence (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Energetically Modified Cement
Thank you for you support. I have posted the follwing message in response:

"Thank you. And where was the article "promotional"??? OH! My oh my:


 * (i) I used the word "notably" to start a sentence.


 * (ii) I didn't set out "deficiencies". WHY? Simply because EMC has NO "deficiencies". Remember more concrete has been poured made from EMC, in the U.S., than the entire amount of concrete poured in the Hoover dam. But still I get users such as Eppstein above (who is, by all accounts, a credible academic in computer sciences) ASSUMING there MUST be deficiencies. NO there are NOT.


 * Which is WHY the Portland Cement industry spent millions of dollars (i) Fighting the EMC patent in Europe (they lost) and having lost that case, why they then (via CEMBUREAU) infiltrated the European Commission to re-write the Cement Standard. And all of this is on record. EMC Cement even took the European Commission to the European Court of Justice over it.


 * The are NO deficiencies. This is probably the most significant advancement in cementitious technology since the advent of Portland Cement itself 200-odd years ago. And the Portland cement industry jolly well knows it. The prescriptive nature of the European Cement standard is all the PROOF one needs to confirm how desperate they were/are to keep EMC out of Europe. Because the prescriptive aspects of that standard only came about because of the failed attempts to block the EMC patent.

There is no SPAM in the article. EMC is a technological marvel. There is nothing close to it in cementitious technology in terms of energy and CO2 savings, or the field results. Nothing. Punkt schulss. And the Portland cement industry knows it. Spent millions fighting the EMC patent. A 5 year battle.

And that this article was nominated twice for AfD without discussing first, within the space of little more than a week, the second time just a few days after the first nomination was withdrawn, speaks for itself.

Kind regards"

Thank you again. Jono2013 (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a message for you
The user cannot ask this directly because he is blocked. He requests that you email him. I suggest via his user page. The user is Swedish Gold. Fiddle  Faddle  23:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent Revert
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made on List of LGBT characters in film and radio fiction I noticed that you did not warn the user. In the interests of WP:DTTR I opted for a personalized message instead of. I took the liberty of sending the user a warning message, though I doubt he'll ever see it since it looks like an account created for the express purpose of making that edit. :-) Have a great day. —     Bill W.     (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 20:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Sorry for the harsh words.

Bearian (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC) 

International
You should probably alter List of top international rankings by country too because thats where i got the reference. Cheers Pass a Method   talk  20:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Transcendence (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Re removal January 2014
Thanks very much for your notice. I've been made aware of the edits made by User:Stylists (contribs) involving possible WP:COI violations. Judging from his/her contribs record, it seems to me that the sole goal of this account is to publicize the POV and original research of Li Jihong. Self-promotion and WP:COI matters aside, the contents contributed by this user to entries, e.g. Journey to the West, are also problematic: why does this book review published under pseudonym (presumably by Li Jihong, citation needed) in a newspaper merit the mention in an encyclopedia article along with the opinion from established scholars? I'm sorry if my unexplained and hasty removals created any difficulty for future editors. Should you be aware of any policies/guidelines or previous discussions on such issues, please do not hesitate to let me know. Again, many thanks! --Mondain (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Unblock
unblock | reason=your reason here 66.87.72.193 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC) I have been blocked and have no clue as to why. I have Never edited anything on Wikipedia nor contributed anything. I just read. I am unable to sign into my account Which I like to have so it keeps my settings. Also I use a phone which makes typing long pages difficult. Please unblock me. I'm sorry for what someone else might have done. billiejeanbrown78@gmail.com

Request for comment
As someone who has edited the article Asian American this year, I am seeking your input on a proposed change to remove a reference to epicanthic eyefolds. This topic has prompted discussion in 2009, 2010 and most recently in 2013.

There's a fine line between being WP:BOLD and subverting WP:CONSENSUS. Given the history of this topic, I'm hoping that a robust discussion, for the record, would improve the article whether this reference stays or goes. Ishu (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Truck art in Pakistan
An article that you have been involved in editing, Truck art in Pakistan, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. wia (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Alert
-  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

content from Chinese literature
Hi transcendence,

thanks for the message. I thought the edit was self explanatory. I am currently working on the subject of Chinese literature and I noticed on several pages that this person "Kenneth Lu" added himself as a notable writer (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wuxia&diff=577394666&oldid=577394109). He or his books do not have Wikipedia pages so he linked via ref links to his amazon page. His work and his person are obscure. I cannot see his relevancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.141.63 (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, I've undone my revert. It's helpful to include an edit summary so that people know why you made your change. That way these mixups are less likely to happen. Transcendence (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Eiffel and Java programming languages
Hi transcendence,

Regarding this edit: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Java_(programming_language)&diff=675507553&oldid=675466168) The article (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/langenv-140151.html) does not mention any specific feature of the Eiffel programming language that has been inherited by Java.

See: ( https://www.google.com/search?as_q=eiffel&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oracle.com%2Ftechnetwork%2Fjava%2F&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl )

It mentions the Eiffel language but is not specific. It seems a matter of marketing rather than scientific.

Fpelliccioni (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/intro-142807.html where it specifically says it drew from Eiffel. Specific features are not required to be included in that section Transcendence (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
 * Furthermore, your claim that it is a matter of marketing is your own personal opinion. We do not interpret primary sources. Transcendence (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, let us take as truth anything we read.
 * I read the article, please do not insult my intelligence.
 * Even if it is a primary source does not mean that the contents be true.
 * They are making a statement that they are not proving. This is not a scientific attitude.
 * You are believing what they say.
 * If they say "Java programmers earn triple than any other programmer" but do not prove that statement, you would not mind to include it in Wikipedia, right?
 * I disagree, but ..., you decide, Boss.
 * Fpelliccioni (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what we do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia backed by reliable external sources. We do not interpret our sources. We do not inject our own personal views into them. We simply use the information from them. If you cannot follow that policy, then you are going to have many problems as an editor. Transcendence (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if you think the primary source is lying, then I suggest you bring it up on the talk page and question the reliability of the source. If it is lying, then it is unreliable, and we should not be using it. Transcendence (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How do I prove if it is lying or not? With people's opinions?
 * I am looking for evidence, not opinions. Fpelliccioni (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that this source is a reliable source. It is incumbent on you to present evidence that it is unreliable. In other words, it is your job to gather evidence to discredit what everyone else thinks is a reliable source since you appear to be the only one that has a problem with it. Transcendence (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You reverted a good edit and sent me a bad reason for doing so.
You reverted my edit to Death of Joseph Smith saying that I "recently removed content from Death of Joseph Smith without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary." I almost maxed out the edit summary with detailed reasons for my edit! Would you please either give me a good explanation or change it back to the way I edited it? I am a new user and this makes me not want to contribute any more. Dcp718 (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the last sentence of the message on your talk page. In particular, the parts you removed are sourced and add value to the article. Your reason for removing it, "Removed in-depth analysis of Joseph Smith's polygamy because it is not relevant to the article. It is sufficient to state what the paper published and what impact it made. No analysis of it's truthfulness is necessary here." is as I said, not sufficient to warrant the removal of the content. Specifically, you claim the details are not relevant, when in fact the details shed light on exactly why the events of his death played out the way they did. Your other claim "It is sufficient to state what the paper published and what impact it made." has no bearing in the policies of Wikipedia, that is subjective. Your final claim, "No analysis of it's truthfulness is necessary here.", is again subjective. The information removed is relevant to the subject matter, which is, as stated in the title of the section, "Incidents leading to the event". Please see WP:REMOVAL for more information. If you would like to open a section in the talk page for that article to make arguments as to whether or not that material should be removed, you are welcome to do so. Should a consensus be reached that it should be, you are welcome remove that content. Transcendence (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You are right, I probably should have started a discussion first. I did not think any one would disagree with the edit, so I went for it. I also was not aware of the some of the protocols involved. You could have been more clear about your concerns. Telling me to write a better summary was completely unhelpful and very frustrating. It should also be noted that some of the things you just stated above are just as subjective as you accuse me of being, and some of them are arguably false. But thank you for taking the time to explain yourself. Dcp718 (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)