User talk:Bhny

Welcome!

Hello Bhny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

I notice that you nominated an article for deletion today. That article is well-cited and verifiable, and the vote will almost certainly result in a speedy keep (i.e., the deletion notice will be reviewed before the usual 5 days have passed). Please review Wikipedia's Deletion policy before nominating articles for deletion. Thanks, welcome again, and happy editing. Chick Bowen 17:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic does not give out percentages on their pages, just scores. Please don't try to make up your own percentage.-5- (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their scores are between 0 and 100, that's called a percentage. Bhny (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To further elaborate, Rotten Tomatoes does not give out scores. It is a review compilation website. The percentage that they give out is the number of good reviews out of total reviews. In this case Batman and Robin has a 11%. Metacritic averages the scores that reviewers assign to their reviews. In this case, Batman and Robin has an average score of 28, which is not a percentage. I don't really care about how many Rotten Tomatoes percentages are listed on the Batman and Robin page as much as I care about you removing the explanations for each percentage or score, which is there to help the reader who doesn't understand what they mean. That is why I undid your edit. I removed the second Rotten Tomatoes percentage and I hope that it is a good compromise. I'm going to ask that you not remove the explanations for each percentage/score again because I think that they are helpful to the uninitiated reader.-5- (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

28/100 is 28%, that's math.Bhny (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Waiting for you on my talk page. Sincerely. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhny: Thanks for visiting my family support page, and I agree, basics 101 is not the greatest kick off to the article. However, each point is exciting in its own right including tons of books on social support, family theories, and of course, "disabled children" still not even part of family studies; family support theory not recognized as distinct theory, and their life course development termed "abnormal" (e.g., even a jail track in emotional needs). I did add a new paragraph at the end of international family support which I see is a step back from the current ending (instead of multicultural groups, to individual and family life quality). [I'd like the new push to be Individual, family and community health!] JARacino (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)JARacinoJARacino (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we talk on the article talk page? Bhny (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we do need that advice, for those who don't understand how it works.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about youtube codecs? The advice wasn't useful. The simplest way to see if a video plays is to click the link. If we are talking about obscure web sites with strange video formats then possibly the user should be warned, but youtube is the biggest there is. Bhny (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People don't want to spend the time to test it like that.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The average person doesn't know what a codec is, but they know if their machine can play youtube videos, just like they know they can browse the web. The person who does know what a codec is (like ourselves) doesn't need the info at all.Bhny (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A link is all we need to explain what that is. The time wasted on making something that doesn't work work can be many hours, especially for those who haven't bothered to upgrade their browsers or have slow internet.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you talking about slow internet? The advice wasn't about slow internet and youtube isn't played on a browser on an iPhone. What advice are you proposing instead? How about- "This youtube link will play on all iPhone and Android phones, most other smart phones and any browser that has Flash installed. Also make sure that you have a broadband internet connection." Sorry this is my last reply.Bhny (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the average user does not want to be left in the dark when he/she has problems watching Youtube.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to what was considered the stable lead for about 2 years. It's informative and well researched, much better than the current one, whoever wrote that one. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to add your references before saving to article space, we can only assess what you save. You can recreate at any time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sandbox it for you, just give me ten, as I'm in the middle of something tricky Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's here. I've killed the tags so they don't attract attention while it's sandboxed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, I'm not supposed to edit the article about me. However, your changes may create a problem....

1. "(till date)" was an attempt to note that I was the youngest at the time, without determining whether I'm still the youngest. Perhaps you can suggest a rewrite.
2. The quote is probably excessive, but should be moved to the reference (using "quote=" in the citation template) rather than being deleted. Never mind.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. Calabe1992 17:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I keep adding sections to Zumba to describe the company, which is a prominent business in America written about a lot. However, you keep deleting them or editing them -- some I agree with, and some I do not agree with.

Should we split Zumba in to two articles? One for the business and one for the aerobic exercise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.s.hager (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this series of edits to verifiable computing. Whereas your assessment that the article may be a bit "jargonistic", I don't know that I agree with your solution to the problem. Although the problem arises mostly in the realm of computer sciences, the description of the process is generic enough that it could reasonably be applied to other realms of activity. The term "outsourcing" is not necessarily metaphorical. In the case of the SETI@Home project, which was one of the drivers of the verifiable computing research, the outsourcing is quite literal -- the SETI project outsources the analysis of vast quantities of data to millions of home computers. Many computer science concepts are couched in language that is not computer-specific, in an attempt to develop basic theories that will apply to sciences outside of computers.

If you disagree with my reversion, please take up the issue on Talk:Verifiable computing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for this one [1] --POVbrigand (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was off topic. It provides nothing constructive about the article and seems to be an outlet for Brian Josephson to complain whilst not providing any reasoning (which he has refused to do): "However, I have no intention of wasting any more of my own time editing the article or even making suggestions, as in the circumstances this would seem to be a pointless activity". IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a meandering topic about whether the article is skeptically biased. I don't see the harm in leaving it up. Closing it seems aggressive Bhny (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that if a non-notable individual had crated a section on the talk page and made similar statements it would have been closed a lot sooner. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhny, it turns out that wiki's policy for article names isn't just "the most common name, full stop". In fact, the policy seems to explicitly forbid any article name that is used with a different meaning in reliable sources. But that's certainly the situation with Tachyon. If you're interested, would you mind joining the discussion here? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhny, FYI there's been some further editing of Tachyon, both by me and by JohnBlackburne (mostly me). I hope you're OK with the changes, or at least are willing to discuss them and work towards a consensus compromise version. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhny, sorry to bother you again, but I'm trying to achieve consensus on the requested move of the tachyon article. In regards to which meaning of the term is primary, by adding up citations I've provided evidence for something like 9,000 reliable sources (peer-reviewed papers in high energy physics, particle physics, and string theory) that all use the term in the sense of Tachyonic field. None of the top 50 cited papers uses it in the sense of Tachyon.

JohnBlackburne asked for popular sources that use the term "tachyon" to refer to the material discussed at Tachyonic field. I've posted two now at the talk page (there are more if needed). Here's the most verbose, from Lisa Randall's (a professor at Harvard) book Warped Passages, p. 286:

"The first problem....was that it contained a tachyon. People initially thought of tachyons as particles travelling faster than the speed of light (the term comes from...)...But we now know that a tachyon represents an instability...."

Would you be willing to comment in view of this new evidence? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry my comment is already there Bhny (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSHEAD "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.)"

Hi there. You have been absent from our discussion on what might be a suitable intro for social group. If you have been busy then that is understandable and you can simply let me know when you anticipate returning to the topic. However, if you have decided that you no longer want to be involved in that discussion, and given that we instigated this thing over at the talk page, it might be good to let others know that the discussion has ended.

If the latter is true, and despite the fact that we were not able to reach overall consensus, would you be happy for me to make two changes that you seemed happy with? Those would be to a) change “conjecture” to ‘debate’, and b) insert relevant references for the debate point. It seems that we could agree that, while this might not be ideal, it does help temporarily address some of the issues. Beyond this I would make no other edits until you or others weigh in on the topic. Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I hope you have been well. I am still looking for a way that progress on the Social group article can continue. At the moment it has just sort of stalled. As stated above, I would suggest that we either continue our discussion or make some non-controversial intermediary edits. In the case of the latter I think that we could agree to change “conjecture” to something else and insert some appropriate references. We could then leave the intro for a while to see what other editors do and what form the article takes. Does this sound ok to you? Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Andrew, I replied in your sandbox Bhny (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at social group shows that you have restarted an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Do not simply wait two years and then once again try to push through your edit. If the relevant discussion has not progressed then there is no reason to think that you have new-found consensus behind your views.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Regards Andrew (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why write this essay over one edit? Leave me alone. Obviously you own the page so I leave you to that mess. Bhny (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the Millsian shareware is made by someone else, or that it doesn't exist? Several online commenters have criticised the underlying theory as the bunkum it is, but I haven't seen anything to say the code is nonexistent. Several shareware sites offer it for download. I doubt how well it works, but it seems to exist and to produce things that look at least superficially like molecular models. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any products on their web site and I wasn't aware of this shareware. I'm not sure shareware counts as a product either. Do they make money that way? Millsian is a subsidiary too, not the actual company. If anything I guess Blacklight is a research company (researching methods of obtaining venture capital). It's definitely not clear what industry they're in, so is there any reason not to leave it blank? Bhny (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your courtesy, and apologies for having tried to pack too much into a single sentence. Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been thanked for reverting someone before! I guess you agree that our combined edits were worse than the original Bhny (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop marking edits as 'minor' when they are clearly not 'minor', thus avoiding notification of your edits to interested watchers. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about a single reversion aren't we? Is there some reason you used the plural? Anyway that reversion was to replace a hatnote and category that had wrongly been removed. It didn't change a word of the article. I understand why it was not minor to you Bhny (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I filled out the report a bit more. BTW: you saved your report slightly before I did. [2] Also, if interested, a forum on the subject Randi.org Jim1138 (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks for combining them. I like this forum quote-

"It's a scam, and apparently a fairly old (1992) and well run scam. Don't bother looking it up on wiki, the article is completely bland" Bhny (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the quote seems quite likely. I would like to do an IP check for coincidences... Jim1138 (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Smile for you
	Re:Ada Lovelace. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't report outing on the most-viewed page on the encyclopedia, please. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking the editor and removing the info. Where should I report it? I wanted to report it quickly Bhny (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhny et. al. Thank you for helping me, if I can return the favor I will, just ask. Can I also just suggest that we consider this closed, if you are inclined. The edits have been permanently removed and that is the result I was looking for. But I'll leave it up to smarter people than I on how to proceed, this is just my request. Eric mit 1992 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, use this form. I've used it in the past, generally the material gets removed really quickly without calling any attention to it. Nobody Ent 20:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Nobody Ent said. Sorry for not supplying that link myself, I was distracted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even looked at the page for over a month. But since you deliberately brought it to my attention, look at your own AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social (disambiguation). If you're going to convert it into a disambiguation page, do it properly. Redirect the existing article, and put a disambiguation tag at the bottom of Social. Then I wouldn't have even noticed in the first place. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and fix every inbound link. I'm not going to change hundreds of articles, and for you not to do it yourself is lazy. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! and you are somewhat arrogant Bhny (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East Asian cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cinema (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there is any justification for your addition of "until recently" to the HDD lede, implying that HDDs are no longer maintaining there dominant position in the gp computing systems. We might have a semantics problem in distinguishing between hand held devices and gp computing systems. There is simply no significant penetration of the gp market by SSDs whether you measure by units or dollars and most observers predict no change in the foreseeable future.

It is pretty clear that both semiconductor and HDD technology progress is slowing down from the high rates of the 1990s to a more leisurely rate of 20-40% per year, but that applies equally to HDD and SDD and as long as the rates move more or less at the same speed there is unlikely to be any change relative price and performance between the two products and therefore no substantive change in the gp computing system market position. Yes some people will go for speed but the market is dominated by price/TB and with a 10:1 advantage for the foreseeable future the dominant position is not likely to change.

I don't want to start an edit war, so I'd like to hear why u think there has been a "recent" change Tom94022 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on talk page. Best to keep it there Bhny (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my accidental reversion of a reversion of vandalism :) Mdann52 (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bhny. Regarding this edit that I reverted, see this discussion and the one after it for why "refers to" and "commonly defined as" are appropriate in some cases. As seen in that discussion, the first line of the Sexual intercourse article has been extensively discussed and, besides being more neutral (even though the sources are quite clear that "sexual intercourse" usually refers to penile-vaginal penetration, and that "coitus" and "copulation" just about always do), "commonly defined as" is a compromise for not using "commonly refers to," "is usually" or "is typically defined as." Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you reply to this, I'd prefer that you reply here on your talk page instead of on mine or on the article talk page (both to keep the discussion in one place and because it's a topic that has already been previously resolved). Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no matter what topic, "commonly defined as" is just a wp:weasel word for "is". Every article has the common definition in the lead. It is redundant to call it that. When there is a variation on the definition then the structure is usually- "topic is definition, or also sometimes definition2. Bhny (talk)

I had a reply all typed up, then my computer cut off and I had to do something else, so forgive the delay, Bhny. I see that you are suggesting that we go with a dictionary-style definition approach -- how they start with one definition and then go into any others. That makes sense. But the article in question is doing that, except that it uses "commonly defined as." The wordings "commonly refers to" and "commonly defined as" have been used for the article due to some reasoning in extensive discussions about the first line. I'm familiar with the WP:Weasel word guideline, but I don't feel that "commonly defined as" or some variation of it is necessarily weasel wording. Indeed, I feel that it is appropriate or needed in some cases. Take the Serial killer article, for example, which I mentioned in the discussion noted above; we use "is traditionally defined as" for that article because it may be that the term doesn't commonly refer to "three or more" murders anymore. Of course...wording it as "A serial killer is traditionally" or "Traditionally, a serial killer is" would take care of your objection to using "defined as." So feel free to go ahead and alter the Serial killer article to one of those. But using "traditionally" at the beginning of that article doesn't seem as good as the aforementioned options, and using "traditionally" for the first definition of the Sexual intercourse article doesn't work at all since it's still a very common (the most common) definition of sexual intercourse. Using the words "is commonly" works for neither article; especially for the article in question, since, with the exception of dildo use, the other acts are common; it's just that they, with the exception of anal sex, aren't commonly defined as sexual intercourse. But it could be argued that "is commonly" or "is usually" are fine to use since they don't imply that the other acts aren't common, but are instead trying to convey that they are aren't as commonly referred to as sexual intercourse. Or that they are fine to use because most sexual activity in the world is penile-vaginal sexual activity. I also considered "commonly describes," but I've seen editors removing "describes." All that stated, however, I may simply just use "is"...like you did and like the Anal sex article does. The lead does go right into the other definitions immediately afterward and the lead is more neutral than it used to be. Most people will understand that we're simply putting the most common definition first, like the Anal sex article does, especially since the section about definitions goes over how "sexual intercourse"/"copulation"/"coitus" are usually defined. I need more time to think about this. But I likely won't revert the next time someone removes "defined as" in the meantime.

For another example, take note that I use "defined as" for the G-Spot article because stating "is" is most definitely stating that it exists...despite the fact that its existence is highly debated. In the second "refers to" discussion I noted above, Bishonen stated something similar in reference to using "refers to" for the Telepathy article. Using "is" for that article is stating that telepathy exists. Whether or not it exists is debated. That article now uses "supposed," but the term "supposed" isn't at all neutral. And using "supposed" for the first line of the G-Spot article or at all if it's not a direct quote regarding the debate about this "spot" would not be a good course to take, no matter that there are reliable sources (high-quality ones included) that use "supposedly" in reference to its existence. It would be removed by someone sooner rather than later. I have used "reportedly" at places in the article, and this could be considered appropriate for the first line of the lead. But I'm sure that someone would feel that it has a news-ish sound or isn't neutral enough. My point is that there are cases where "defined as" doesn't mean "is." Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hm, the serial killer lead is a mess. I don't think I'll touch that one. I understand some subjects want to be inclusive and so weasel around a definition for fear of offending somebody or leaving someone out. Anyway it's still wrong. If you have an article you have to define the topic. Every topic is supposed to be about the common definition. So every article could have this redundant thing in it Bhny (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, the Serial killer article as a whole needs fixing up. But we'll have to agree to disagree on "refers to," "commonly defined as" and "defined as" (even some reliable sources use such wording). In cases like the Serial killer, G-Spot and Telepathy articles, using such wording isn't about possibly offending anyone at all, but rather about accuracy. And then there are cases where a term has more than one definition and there are concerns about how to get that across without having the first sentence sound like it's giving a definitive definition, even when the first definition is the most common one and the other definitions are listed right after it (as has been the case with the Sexual intercourse article, although, like I stated, the lead of that article is more neutral than it used to be). After all, per WP:LEADSENTENCE, we aren't supposed to start the definition off ambiguously unless it can't be avoided -- as in it doesn't have a most common and/or authoritative definition, but rather just a few, several or many. Therefore, starting the lead sentence out as "[So and so] has a range of definitions" is usually a no-no. The Gender article has plagued me and others when it comes to the "doesn't have a most common and/or authoritative definition, but rather just a few, several or many" aspect. And for more of what I mean about a term having more than one definition and there being concerns about how to get that across without having the first sentence sound like it's giving a definitive definition, even when the first definition is the most common one, I point to another edit you made: Before you removed "commonly defined as" from the lead of the Universe article, I'm convinced that "commonly defined as" was there because there has been some edit warring over the initial sentence, even recently. See The Universe is NOT everything that exists and The difficulty of defining universe discussions currently on the talk page. No one has reverted you on that article yet, however. The Anarchism article, which is of WP:GA status and currently uses "generally defined as," is another example. I understand your point and agree that "refers to," "commonly defined as" and "defined as" or some variation of them usually aren't needed. I'm just stating that in some cases, they are and that some articles that use such wording do so because of past discussion(s) having made it clear that use of such wording is necessary. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to state that you were reverted at the Universe article, but I see that you already know about it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they have a problem there. That is an awful lead. On the other hand Anarchism at least says in one sentence "<topic> is generally <definition> or sometimes <definition2>. In the Universe article they never commit to anything.Bhny (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work with the definition of Memory disorder! Lova Falk talk 13:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bhny. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move archived discussion back to the talk page at Talk:Concept. The page has a banner which specifically says not to edit the contents of an archive page. Just start a new discussion, even if it is the same question. Greg Bard (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your post on my talk page, I am not a script. There are automated scripts that will look at the date of posts and archive only the posts older than X. The concepts page doesn't get enough traffic to warrant a script. There was discussion on there that was many years old. I archived the content in compliance with the policy you cite, so there isn't anything non-careful about it. This isn't supposed to be a big deal. Please just start a new discussion, and do not edit archived discussion (in compliance with the posted tag). Please also sign your posts Greg Bard (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that the reason you gave for the revert you made on String theory was HILARIOUS. --Kierkkadon talk/contribs 00:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...for your cleanup on the Theory Z article. It seemed seriously problematic but I didn't have time to do more to fix it. Glad that you've stepped in. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's still a mess but maybe a little better now Bhny (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all content in the article that was sourced to various websites that do not pass WP:RS. This removal might actually be beneficial to the retention of the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can we leave the discussion on the AFD page, thanks Bhny (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No because you don't understand WP:NOT, namely Wikipedia is not a guide to the Internet.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And my edit was not done in bad faith. All that I see is that you have some emotional attachment to the page likely because you or a friend was subject to the website's practices and you need the page up as a warning for anyone else who may be as unlucky as you were in the past. Again, I must remind you about WP:What Wikipedia is not so you understand what should and should not be on the Zorpia page if it is even retained after this AFD debacle. It was deleted 7 years ago and it looks like the same will be happening now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about placing definitions in the lead[3][4] are not completely true. The lead should summarize the topic. When there is more than one definition for a topic and those definitions need to be discussed instead of simply introduced, the lead should summarize those definitions and leave a lower part of the article to discuss those definitions (go over them in more detail). You are creating big leads that contrast the four-paragraph WP:LEAD limit and sometimes makes the topic more difficult to understand. Wikipedia:Lead#Introductory text says: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning"). It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

In general, introduce useful abbreviations, but avoid difficult to understand terminology and symbols. Mathematical equations and formulas should be avoided when they conflict with the goal of making the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. For example, it is better to describe the location of a town with reference to an area or larger place than with coordinates. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it."

The first link showing one of your edits shows that even you didn't understand the lead you helped create. How do you think others are going to feel reading it? 72.216.3.226 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous lead on World-system wasn't good. My attempt was at something understandable. Please feel free to correct any errors in my edits. As I understand it, the lead is to define the topic. If there is more than one topic it should be another article. World-system is 4 paragraphs. I agree the lead to Metamodernism is too long and could do with edits but is barely 5 paragraphs. I've fixed it so it's 4 now. Bhny (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a serious problem with articles that don't get the definition over in the lead. The article tends to become a dictionary article wp:notdic instead of an encyclopedia article. Bhny (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we have articles about terms, such as Okay and Bullshit, and etymology, definitions, and terminology sections (which are all about defining a term). We have those sections because it's important that the terms are properly discussed but all of that information shouldn't go in the lead. And imagine any of our articles about terms not having sections and instead being one big lead. You said, "If there is more than one topic it should be another article." But most terms have more than one definition. That doesn't mean that it's a different topic. And if discussing subtopics, it doesn't mean each aspect of the term should have its own article. Sometimes, a topic is about the term and concept. And in order to fully understand the concept, the definitions need to be discussed in the article. When a topic is about the term and concept, it's not good to have the lead be mostly about defining the term. That's turning the lead into a dictionary/making the topic seem like it's more about the term than the concept. The article doesn't have to become a dictionary by just having a section that defines the term. When the article is about the term and concept, the section about what the term means should generally be the only aspect of the article that is about defining the term (unless there is also an etymology section and it's separate from that one). The rest of the article should be about the concept apart from the term. WP:DICTIONARY even says, "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition, but they should provide other types of information about that topic as well." And "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history."

Thank your for shortening the leads of the World-system and Metamodernism articles. 72.203.171.145 (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Myoglobin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypoxia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here since 2005, so I am sure you know that, per WP:BRD, when your Bold edit is Reverted by another editor, the the next step is not to revert again, which is the beginning of edit warring, but to Discuss it on the talk page. This is especialy the case when you have reverted sourced information. Your edit apparently represents your personal views, which may or may not reflect those of other editors - they certainly don't reflect mine - and because of this, you must get a consensus on the article talk page for the changes you propose. I have returned the article to the status quo ante, and look forward to seeing your arguments on the article's talk page. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see talk Bhny (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was a pretty minor edit from my view - removal of a couple of redundancies and no significant change in meaning. I guess you have more invested in each word of the lead. Bhny (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding poorly referenced biographical content that is intentionally misleading, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. LFaraone 21:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please leave your comments on the article talk page thanks Bhny (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

btw your comment above is really excessive and imho wrong Bhny (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have made the same observation in this regard that I did.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[editor commented here then deleted his comment. my comment below was a reply that no longer has context ]Bhny (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC) ][reply]

I can't follow your argument. Redundancies don't improve anything. Maybe you could try to explain your edits on the talk page of the article here- [5] Bhny (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really should read the Manual of Style more closely. There is not one style for doing references, there are multiple ones, and they are all acceptable. Your claim that "every" Wikipedia page uses one style is just plain wrong. Please also bear in mind that the MOS is a guideline and not a policy. We are not required to follow it slavishly, but are allowed to improve things if we can, [er WP:IAR (which is policy) and the Fifth Pillar. Your insistence that there is one and only one right way to do this is totally antithetical to the way Wikipedia is set up, and goes against the spirit behind IAR and the Fifth Pillar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are references and notes but not your style of References>Notes and then a reference. Try adding this to a popular page and see the reaction Bhny (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bhny. In addition, the MOS is a guideline, and is a style guide for all Wikipedia articles that documents Wikipedia's house style. Consistency promotes clarity and cohesion. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also I never said there was one style. It is just that your style is not used anywhere else, and it is not logical or any kind of improvement that I can see. Btw I'm happy to see the manhattan streets getting pages, so this "notes" thing is just nitpicking. Bhny (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that you have prevented me from editing on the talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_Catalyzer&action=submit I don't want to debate the subject (AndyTheGrump declined to debate it on the dispute notice I opened) but there are still facts wrong on the page as it stands. If one can't point that out, you are ignoring your own rule about the need for the entries to be neutral. Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prevent you from editing the talk. I don't have any special (admin?) powers. I think maybe you got a standard edit conflict warning when we were editing at the same time. This happens to all people (including me now) and just means you have to try again. Bhny (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. It still does not answer the fundamental problem though. You and others accuse me of "debating." The whole piece is riddled with errors, starting with the fact Rossi backed off saying the nickel and hydrogen combined to form copper eons ago. So how am I supposed to point this out? AndyTheGrump won't address the message and thinks his word is proof. Parallel (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make much sense of what Rossi says, and he contradicts himself often. We can only repeat what sources say anyway and he did say that at one stage. Rossi isn't a source btw, some reliable publication has to quote him. Bhny (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for preparing and updating the 2011 GDP graphic used in the Globalization article! I moved it to the discussion of GDP in the article. I also placed it in the #1 Selected picture spot on the new Portal:Globalization. Cheers! Meclee (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I give this Gamma to you for fixing my γραμματική. For the record, I am Russian. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move Hentai to Hentai (word)? Please move it back; it is far more than "just" a word, its a genre as a whole. The etymology of the word is key for this aspect, but it is not a "word" in its usage either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the article was about the word. Why not write an article about the genre. The genre would be the common English definition Bhny (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not about the word, only a section was about the word. I moved most of the history to its own article. Either that or I move the genre materials back and create a new hentai page and leave the word one as is. Your choice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can we talk about this on the talk page, thanks Bhny (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wit hChris can you please undo your edit and move hentai back? This was a big move and should require consensus first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the noticeboard is relevant. Anyway I've fixed the talk page redirect for hentai which was a bit confusing, sorry for that. Feel free to move content between the two pages. Bhny (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok that seemed to work for you, they moved it back. Anyway, that page is a big mess. I give up on improving it. Bhny (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up improving thing is always helpful just get feedback first on big things like move requests sometimes is best. See WP:BOLD Be bold in editing but not reckless. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a friendly warning; but do not place the dictionary definition tag on a page which is not a dictionary definition. You should know better. I do not want this page to become unstable at this critical time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary hatnote is for pages like this that are mainly definitions. The hatnote is to urge people to write about a topic rather than define a word. Also as I said above, I've given up on that article. It is beyond help. Bhny (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't agree with your revert "Undid revision 563925442 by GAllegre (talk) sorry, trademark info not needed". That "Zumba" is also registered as a trademark is not a spam nor an advert. It's an information (with regard to intellectual property), and it's sourced, so why have you removed it ? GAllegre (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can be assumed that most companies register their trademarks. It's not really interesting information. For example, Apple Macintosh is a registered trademark, and the article doesn't think that is worth mentioning. Bhny (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhny, Since I've seen you on the Information technology talk page a number of times, I figured I'd reach out to you to see if you'd be interested in possibly reviewing a draft article I've been working on, the topic being "User:FGuerino/Information technology industry." If so, I'd definitely appreciate any feedback you can offer. My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you put a lot of work into this. I don't have time to go into detail but, I think the article could be edited down and focused on the "industry". The "History and important events" section is too general and not about IT industry. Unfortunately I think this whole section should go. There are other parts too that seem to be about IT and not an industry. Bhny (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhny, yes, I've been working to constantly improve it, based on your and others' feedback, as well a my own knowledge of the subject. I'm grateful you took the time to look, so thanks.

If you ever get a chance, I'd definitely be interested in knowing which parts you think may be more specific to technology (and then we can discuss whether they should be moved into the IT article, specifically, or further developed in the existing draft). Regarding the history, I've found from feedback of the courses I and my staff teach that the history goes a long way toward introducing the reader to the different concepts that evolved and ultimately converged, all being critical to the topic area. However, I'm definitely open to somehow reducing or even eliminating the history if there's a broad consensus on doing so.

Again, thanks for your help. It's greatly appreciated. I look forward to sharing more ideas with you on the IT topic/page. --FGuerino (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and thank you for your contributions to WP. I have proposed a format for references on Alternative medicine. I wanted to let you know and give you an opportunity to comment here. Good day! - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to revert the last edit to VY Canis Majoris. I can't, I'm at 3RR. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I was waiting for someone else to do it ha. Bhny (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit, thanks for the edit. While I agree with your edit, please do not use bare links. PubMed (and PMIDs) are not likely to die; but, bare links, at least generally, are susceptible to dying, without imparting any other identifying information.

In the future, please take a little more time to type out a full reference. Thanks. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced a working web link with plain text. That is not helpful at all. Also don't lecture me like that. Bhny (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was NOT spam. (The same would hold for "best company to work for, best places to w. f., etc.") Try to lean back for a second and ponder the fact that I put it into the buzzwords list. -- Kku 14:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know how that is a buzzword. It's just a normal English literal phrase. Secondly the ref was to a commercial web site with a similar name. That is a spam ref, not a reliable source- WP:RELY Bhny (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I'm not really very knowledgeable when it comes to editing wikipedia, but I understand that you edited the "Zoophobia" page to remove an uncited reference to another meaning of the word? I would have cited, but I'm not quite sure how. If you wouldn't mind, could you please edit the page again to include the content that you removed, and instead of deleting it, cite it properly? I believe it would be errant to leave out the other usage of the word.

Thanks!

24.210.248.56 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Please read this link- wp:notdic. There is no reason to put alternate meanings. An article is about a topic such as "fear of animals". It isn't about a word. If the other usage is significant (and I don't think it was in this case) then you could write another article about it and have a disambiguation page to direct to the two articles. Bhny (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes since about the need for a disambiguation page for two different meanings of the word. I'm not sure how the other usage of the word's other usage could be found to be insignificant, though when other, similar pages exist (e.g. for homophobia).

69.133.98.192 (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, with respect to this edit, please note that WP:LEAD says, "The lead serves as ... a summary of [an article's] most important aspects." Hence, the fact that it duplicates the content of another section of the same article is not a reason for shortening it. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move discussion to article talk page. Bhny (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bhny reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: ). Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only did 2 reverts as you have noted. I don't understand your logic and two reverts is my personal limit. Are you preemptively reporting me in case I do 2 more reverts?Bhny (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.'"

You've been off and on about this situation for a time, and you only just started doing it again. Is there any policy/guideline that justifies your actions? ViperSnake151  Talk  23:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is now resolved and my edit stuck. Bhny (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bhny I see that you have been recently been interested in the page on Bracha Ettinger. For people interested in feminist studies today and in contemporary female artists this page Artethical (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC) is important, as it gives us information on a one of the most important artists of female sex living today; and some of us have put many years of research in the field of psychoanalysis and visual arts in order to be able to write together this page over a long period of time. There are still problems, I can see them, but to take out and cut full sections is not caring enough and not respecting enough. Please give us the time to make the changes properly, to add references where necessary, and most important: please trust that in a short while the problems will be attended to and do not continue to cut any more. Cheers and thanks in advance Artethical (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for you to continue editing. I was just trying to get the article to have a more encyclopedic tone and I'm done. Some of the things I removed are repeated a few times, such as strangely long lists of gallery shows. If there are notable things I removed (and I was trying to be careful) please add them back, thanks. Bhny (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will look at it again as soon as I can, and will add references where they are missing. Repetitions in different sections are not a problem if the section has a good logic. Doing my best and thanks again for being attentive to my post. Artethical (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Khagan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨ}}, ''Qaγan''; {{zh|c=可汗|p=Kè hán}} or {{zh|c=大汗|p=Dà hán}}; {{lang-fa|خاقان}}, ''Khāqān''), alternatively spelled '''Kağan''', '''Kagan''', '''Khaghan''', '''Kha-khan''', '''Xagahn''', '''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhny. Let's talk about the improvements for Pisco Sour (see Talk:Pisco Sour). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have contributed, or sought to contribute, to the page on types of motorcycles. We are currently considering reducing that page to a list. The list would link to separate pages exploring each type in depth. An example of how it would look is in my sandbox. See the talk page for Types of Motorcyclesfor further discussion. Do you have an opinion, pro or con?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four additions, including 3 reverts, over three different editors - you might wish to tread a bit more lightly. JohnInDC (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the billion page is a disaster. I have no idea why people want it to hide information. Bhny (talk)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Energy Catalyzer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dick Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the tag {{dictionary}} is not really justified. The article is much more than just a definition (WP:NDEF). It's about a concept. See for example: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_iv.htm . --Edcolins (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maybe the article could be edited to be about the legal concept. At the moment it is just a bunch of definitions. Bhny (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I have just cut and pasted the content of State of the art (disambiguation) in State of the art, and have indicated on the talk page where the history can be found (for attribution purpose). Seems better than erasing the history of the article. --Edcolins (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I saw your recent edit in Microsoft Security Essentials article and frankly, at first I thought it was vandalism. You must not delete contents in the article with pretext of their existence in the lead because, according to WP:LEAD, lead section must have no novel info. Everything in the lead must be a repetition, summary or reiteration of the contents of the article. That's why lead sections need no direct footnotes.

A lot of articles do not pay attention to this rule; as such, a lot article are not made a Featured Article. If you have done this in the past with other articles, it is time you go back self-revert.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't repeat the lead word for word. That is redundant. Sorry, I've never done this with other articles because, of the thousands of articles I've edited, I've never seen a blatant repetition like this. OK, so the no novel info rule means that the text in the lead (rather than the body) should be summarized or deleted. WP:LEAD actually says Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Bhny (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You do not yet have a thousand edits to unique articles in article namespace; but assuming that "thousands" metaphorically means "a lot", how many of them have become Featured Articles? But as for the rest, I see you have started an article page topic. I'll see you there. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm not going to touch your page again. Please leave me alone. By "thousands" I mean 3,247 [6]. best wishes to you too Bhny (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for initially identifying the problems in the state of the art article! Cheers, Edcolins (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original 1st line of my edit of the Probability topic read:

Probability is ordinarily defined as a measure of or an estimation of the likeliness [informally likelihood] that an [random] event will occur.

You changed that to read:

Probability is a measure or estimation of the likeliness or likelihood that an event will occur.

You made the following comments:

(how is likeliness more formal than likelihood?? they are interchangeable synonyms)

Your assertion is not correct. In Statistics, they are not interchangeable. Formally, likelihood is a function of the parameter(s) and is NOT a probability (unless we engage in fiducial inference and normalize). It is only informally that likelihood is synonymous with likeliness. Formally, we should use words like likeliness or chance and not use likelihood as that which we are measuring and certainly not use likelihood as that which we are estimating. I have experienced that not making that distinction up front may later confuse my students when we discuss Maximum Likelihood Estimators and more so when we discuss the Cramer-Rao Inequality with its log likelihood and information numbers. Yes, it is unfortunate that Statistics uses common words to name very technical and precise concepts, but that should be clearly conveyed to the reader. As conscientious contributors to Wiki, we should not be propagating incorrect notions about this or any other stuff.

(obviously it is any event, not just random events)

Not correct. So obviously it's not obvious to you. Nonrandom events are probabilistically degenerate (with constant value of 1). Events such as the total eclipse of the sun make no probabilistic sense. Indeed, the concerns of probability theory are always random events. So authors usually start out by stating something like "all events in this text are to be interpreted as random events".

(also fixed non-standard square brackets and grammar "an random". Not sure how this intro is any better than before last few edits)

square brackets are standard when text is added to a cited statement. Note that the definition as you "corrected" it:

1. is from a dictionary and not from an authoritative source in the field
2. does not emphasize the subtlety of measure, likelihood or randomness

All that is obvious is that my original languaging, although technically and formally accurate was not expressed with the necessary clarity which would have permitted your understanding of those technical or formal subtleties. I'm sorry you did not comprehend the concepts the first time around.

With that said, I welcome you make the appropriate changes to the Probability topic with no misleading insinuations or omissions.

Personally, since it's what I present in my classes, I like:

Probability is ordinarily defined as a measure of or an estimation of the likeliness that a random event will occur.

Yuri716 (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yuri716. Thanks for your comments. We are using standard english. We can't use specialized definitions in the lead without defining them. Websters just gives likelihood/likeliness as synonyms- [7]

Square brackets are used inside a quote with quote marks. The square brackets weren't inside a quote therefore made no sense. Even allowing for that it was really difficult to parse.

The probability the sun will rise tomorrow is 1. How is this a random event? (unless again you are using some specialized meaning for random)

I'm in favor of deleting likelihood since it is redundant if we say likeliness. So I'd be ok with this-

• Probability is a measure or estimation of the likeliness that an event will occur.

Bhny (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I completely agree that my original 1st line was awkward to parse. (And I really was not totally pleased that the verbiage just didn't roll off the tongue.) It's very difficult to be precise in 1 sentence especially when dealing with the ambiguities and differing interpretations of words in common usage. That is why I insist on using jargon of the profession to emphasize subtleties in the interpretation of common usage and to avoid a wrong interpretation. Probability, likelihood and random are well-defined in the profession and it may not be a good idea to move away from the "specialized" definitions by admitting casual interpretations that may mislead in context. Thus my original 1st line qualified "event" as really a "[random] event" with square brackets.

This qualification is important in that if, for example, we refer to an event such as the Allies winning World War II, it does not make sense to ask "What is the probability of the Allies winning World War II?" Or the example I gave before, a total eclipse of the sun is a determined event, not a random event - thus with no probabilistic sense. Or how about the question "What is the probability that the next person born on this planet will be mortal?" These are not questions of interest in probability theory. So, it is necessary to get it that probability is meaningful whenever the events under consideration are random events. Probability may or may not be gibberish whenever the events under consideration are not random.

Just as in mathematics, the extended real line is the reals with the "points" ${\displaystyle +\infty }$ and ${\displaystyle -\infty }$ added, and we can continue conducting most operations - we can place the sure event and the impossible event into the category of random events and be mathematically consistent - they are simply objects with probability measure of 1 and 0 respectively. I don't think it takes too much mental flexibility to accept this (as in computer programming or real life, call it an exception if you have to), especially since the properties are consistent and all the axioms hold. Just because in the limit or in the union of events which have a degree of uncertainty (thus random) are no longer uncertain, without any loss of generality we can still label them random.

Now, just because you believe that something is the case - that does NOT necessarily make it so. I always check my assertions for accuracy and consistency. You asserted "The square brackets weren't inside a quote therefore made no sense." Per the Wiki topic Square Brackets:

Square brackets – ... - are mainly used to insert explanatory material or to mark where a passage was omitted from an original material by someone other than the original author, or to mark modifications in quotations.

RE: "The probability the sun will rise tomorrow is 1. How is this a random event?"

Several comments:

• The sun rising is not a random event in the sense of predictability (although something can be said about the very, very, very remote possibility of the sun collapsing).
• Saying an elementary event has probability 1 (or probability 0) is simply a colloquialism for "Yeah, it's certain (or impossible)." I don't entertain ascribing any probability measures to such events and neither would it be of any interest for a reader of this Wiki topic.
• Your logic is a little off. Just because you ascribed a probability of 1 to an event does not necessarily mean that event should be a random event - random in the sense that we don't know the outcome. What about random in the sense of level of certainty in an outcome? In this case, you're certain. Does being certain conflict with the notion of being random? Yes, if you lose sight of the "exception" argument.
• The correct logic is the converse of your thinking. I am trying to emphasize that if you have a random event, no matter what legitimate definition of random you may have used, you can use probability theory to ascribe a probability measure.
• To summarize: Ascribe probability to event E ⇒ E must be random - that's false.
  Start with E random event ⇒ can ascribe probability - that's true

You seem to be a very conscientious and in many respects a qualified editor. Being hard-headed (anal?) about stuff you have come to believe - but is not really so - interferes in any attempt to reconcile differences. I always try to make sure I understand the various interpretations. If you did also, since your expository skills are excellent and you do a great job in keeping things simple, your contributions would be fantastic.

Do you have any problems with:

Probability is ordinarily defined as a measure of the likeliness that a random event will occur.

PS Sorry about the length of what really was supposed to be like 3 sentences. You are much better at being succinct than I am.

Yuri716 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"ordinarily defined as" is redundant as per WP:REFERS. I'm pretty sure you aren't using a general dictionary definition of "random". And I still stand by my argument than any event can be given a probability, and events that we know the outcome (not random by your definition) can be given 0 or 1 probability. Bhny (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, "ordinarily defined as" is weak.

Agreed, any event can be given a probability. But as mentioned before, some assignments can be meaningless. I (and all the experts in the field - Feller, Chung, Kolmogorov, etc.) contend that the underlying random events are the events of interest.

Note that general dictionary definitions try to cover all the usages of the word. Sometimes the usage is contrary to the central or original meaning. The dictionary includes haphazard in the meaning for random. This is in direct conflict with the combinatorial directive for being random: each item has the same chance of being selected - clearly not haphazard. Dictionary definitions when applied in inappropriate situations can lead to erroneous interpretations. Thus a certain amount of care should be used when propagating dictionary definitions.

Although the the "random" qualifier is logically not necessary, and using "random event" would be more restrictive than the general dictionary definition, it could keep the reader out of trouble with misusing probability.

At any rate, my approach was as follows:

• For the topic of probability - to concentrate on the meaning of statistical/mathematical probability as is discussed in the rest of the topic.
• In general - to write in a manner that does not foster erroneous interpretations of the fundamental concepts.

If you believe some modification to that approach is warranted, let me know.

So, if you still think no harm will come from

Probability is a measure of the likeliness that an event will occur.

let's go with that. After all, with high probability, it's the calculus of probability with which most readers are concerned.

Thank you for you consideration.

Yuri716 (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is good Bhny (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to comment upon this RfC about moral responsibility. Brews ohare (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third paragraphs at the top of the page conflict directly with information further down in the article.

Specifically about chelation and vaccinations - ARI's stated positions - with working links - are verified farther down in the article (citations 14 & 15).

There is not a link cited that goes to a page/ref/etc where ARI states it "subscribes to the belief autism is caused by vaccines." LINK 5 goes to homepage at autism.com.

There is no link that shows that "ARI holds chelation as a treatment." This is a statement not backed up by any links to ARI shown here.

The conference was known by more than one name - DAN! and later and Autism Research Institute Conference.

"Pseudoscientific" is in reference to the above and should be reevaluated

Difulton (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Difulton[reply]

Please don't edit the article as you have a conflict of interest. Just bring up your points on the talk page and if they are valid we will edit accordingly. Talk:Autism_Research_Institute Bhny (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to link over to the Family support page in which "autism" was an early categorical disability, though "not well identified". JARacino (talk)JARacinoJARacino (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But "areal density" is the more common term in this field. Not just in .uk. Jeh (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You pose a number of challenges! Firstly plain english, yes- extra words are needed- the difficulty is that what is plain? I will have another try at this the lede is now sparse and needs to set valence in context, and say something about its applicability. I made the changes simply because the previous version irritated me as it was so wrong! Come to think of it a lot of the article irritates me.

You "prefer" the old lede, I guess because it was more chatty, but it described valence in terms of chemical bonding theories, which is weird as chemical bonding theories purport to explan valence. I suspect this is because valence is not taught any more at high school level, the focus being on chemical bonding theories. Now as these are only models, they have limitations. The teaching of them at high school is as one U.S. chemist/educationalist calls a "faith approach", as the maths required to engage with the theories is often above high school teacher level, yet alone their students.

I too am not happy with the lede- it needs more work. Sketched ideas that I have which need expanding and polishing are "Valence is a simple count of the connectivity of an atom of an element in terms of the number of hydrogen atoms(or chlorine or fluorine)." "Valence was a key concept in the development of chemistry." "The valence of an element is simple to verify." "Modern chemical bonding theories aim to explain the underlying reasons for valence." Would those help? Regards Axiosaurus (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valence is a simple count.. seems a good start. Why not put that in now. We should have any further discussion on the talk page. Bhny (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a guideline and only applies to places in which it is very obvious that one may as well write "is". Please do not delete "refers to" if a term is controversial or the reader needs to know about its ambiguity. Xanthoxyl ^< 08:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem not about controversy, but that the article is a mix of writing about the topic and about the word. My edit assumed that it was about a topic. Anyway I've started a discussion on the talk page. Maybe we can discuss there. Bhny (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhny, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "slanderous statements". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 05:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re: your edit to metamodernism, and I don't mean this at all meanly or sarcastically, but what you've done is remove one of the two founding documents of metamodernism--the very subject of the article--from the page. Basically, there's the Manifesto (apparently written by LaBeouf) and there's the original essay by van den Akker and Vermeulen, but beyond that there are no "canonical" metamodern documents. So my concern in removing it is that people searching for info on metamodernism would expect to find it there. Would you consider adding it to a "Related Documents" section at the bottom of the article? Festal82 (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a WP:RS. What evidence is there that this single page web site is anything? As far as I can tell, LaBeouf is a known plagiarist so his name on a document means nothing even if the web site was a reliable source. Bhny (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments in the discussion of Error Threshold. Omer.

I did a double-take at that edit, too. My mind saw "weevil genius" (like "evil genius"). It does seem to be a genus of weevil for which Hylobiini is the closest extant article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! It first reads like complete nonsense. I read it as weevil genius too. Thanks for clarifying the hatnote. Bhny (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it but didn't get around to actually adding clarification. Thanks goes to BD2412. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I can see how it would have been unclear in the first instance. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bhny. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Stein Braten, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Stein Braten to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your contribution to the IEX article. Both contributions make sense. I agree that sex change is not distasteful. Unfortunately, the original choice of words "realized... distasteful" accurately represent the founders' sentiment and opinion towards the name, so it seems that "realized... ambiguous" does not correctly reflect this. I've edited it to "felt... distasteful", which correctly reflect the founders' perspective. Let me know what you think! Thanks.

Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They realized it had another meaning. We don't have to use their words. I think "ambiguous" is fine. Bhny (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Your interpretation makes sense too. I'll leave it to you to edit if you feel strongly about that phrasing. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your copy editing, but I noticed that you removed important content regarding cellular network routing issues [8] which shows that frequencies are re-used by space division multiple access(it is one of multiple access method used in cellular network). If you need any help about terminology I used in the article, let me know. I have also answered your question on articles talk page. Please feel free to ask any question. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply sending you one abstract of paper and analyze the terminology of mobile phone or mobile terminal or simply terminal, about their location/position in cellular network. Worth a look if you have a time [9] A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 18:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have time for that. Basically, as I've said, jargon such as "terminals" should be avoided or at least explained, and sentences should be readable. The article is also duplicating a lot of what is already in cellular networks, so is there any reason to have this article at all? Bhny (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a reason to be an alone article for this topic. Since there are alot of new notable things that I will soon include as well such as signals corruptions(one of the major signal reflection and signal losses issues in Cellular network), path losses, uplink and downlink frequencies, relation between BTS, MCS, PSTN etc. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 16:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The links added by the 2602:... anon (4 edits total) on BLP - a very telling rant. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From wp:Begin
"Similarly, if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs..."." Editor2020 20:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Bhny (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at BlackLight Power. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[moved to relevant talk page]

Dear Bhny, in fact there are together a short definition and a long definition. I thought it would be more relevant to put ahead the short one (for a better reading) and to put the long one in a section ad hoc. Is it alright for you? Best. --MARdF (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss on the talk page[[10]] Bhny (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hard_disk_drive#An_End_To_The_RAMAC_Price_Duologue. Please help end the duologue on capacity and price of the IBM RAMAC Model 350 disk file. Thanks. Tom94022 (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidity = disease. You're making a redundant sentence. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also, 'persons' refers to individuals, 'people' refers to groups. It is individuals that are being looked at, not groups. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is kindergarten English, so I'm not sure how to explain. People is the plural of person. It is an irregular plural like mouse/mice. Mouses by your logic are individuals. Bhny (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic was stable and the meaning very clear. The word morbidity is linked, so if the reader wants an explanation they can click on the link. Making the sentence redundant by adding in 'disease' is kindergarten dumbing down. This is a scientific topic. The use of 'persons' in the formula is sourced and correct. People is not the plural of person. The plural of person is persons. People is derived from populum. check here. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bhny, I reverted your change, as the article is still a stub, with about 300 words including the section headings. The lead is meant to summarize or highlight what follows in the full article, not be the article. WP:LEAD has lots to say on this, the lead compared to the article. In a stub, and the article is still marked as a stub, the lead may be unnecessary, per that Wikipedia guide.

I was looking for a link to the term launch as used in Patrick O'Brian's books, set in the Napoleonic Wars, and there is nothing in this article to help a person understand what a launch was then. I used a different article on Ship's boats, instead. The jolly boat article was another contender. If you have the knowledge and perhaps a drawing of a launch from the age of sail, then the article might grow out of its stub status. Not meaning to hurt your feelings, but very much wanting to see a drawing of a launch! For a landlubber learning these new words, the notion that the sailing ships were full of smaller ships takes a moment to absorb, especially how many such ships, for so many purposes. The most basic purpose is to get from shore pr pier to the larger vessel, but there are more purposes, as one learns reading that series of historical novels. I marked your page, so I will see any reply you might make here on your talk page. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The lead has to be more than a sentence or two. What may be unnecessary is to have other sections at all. I don't know much about the topic. I was trying to format the article. Bhny (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when the article is substantial and no longer a stub, then its lead will be longer. Articles, at least this one, start small and grow. When there is more to it, the lead will have more to it. I see from above discussions that you have looked at WP:LEAD before, so you may have seen the section on Stub articles, and you have that key bit of guidance to us all, that no novel information is to be introduced in the lead. I guess we both have to hope for someone who knows about Launches, modern and in the age of sail, to fill out the substance of the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That WP:LEAD section on stubs is a bit confusing. Where it says no lead is necessary in a stub they mean that the article doesn't have section headings (or basically the article is only a lead section). It's not a big deal, but I thought it seemed better to have the etymology in the lead. Most articles have some etymology in the lead without necessarily having anything in the body. I just expanded the lead so it summarizes the sections. I think this is an improvement. Bhny (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty clear. An article with little substance does not need a lead, it needs more substance. And this article needs more substance. Your expansions were mainly taken from other articles, so those are shorter now. The substance for this article would be a lot more on a launch in the age of sail, what they looked like, their dimensions, did they get larger over the centuries of sailing, and what did that vessel in Malaysia look like, that everyone in Europe picked up its name for use in their language (Portuguese, then to Spanish and to English)? More information on modern dimensions of launch boats would also be of interest. The military section ought to go, as there is already an article on it, so that can be a See also, with just one sentence about use of the term in WWII. If you have no references on the launch on a man of war sailing vessel, maybe it is time to wait for someone who does, and let this lead stay. Further, a second dictionary calls a launch a small motorboat not a large one, so I settled on open. Small and large are relative terms and the two dictionaries do not provide dimensions nor comparisons to know what they mean. Open is easy to understand, meaning it has no decks, where a man of war has several decks. I hope this can rest until the article is more substantial. The more times I read it and cross over to other Wikipedia articles, the more I am inclined to nominate it for deletion, as having no new information, and no reason to fool people into thinking that clicking on launch in another article will tell them what a launch was in a large sailing vessel of any century, or what it is now if one wants to purchase or build one. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article has section headings, so it has to have a lead and the lead has to summarise the article. If you want to take the section headings away then fine. Also one of your edits says "nothing in article about military craft" when there is whole section about military launches.Bhny (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the word count (low) and the lack of substance that make it a stub. I said the military section has to go, meaning be removed, because there is another article covering that topic, with a link to it as Main Article. Headings are intended to guide editors as to what needs filling in from good sources. I hope this is enough discussion on the lead to a stub article. Okay? The real work is getting the substance in the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhny, I noticed that you have been changing "may be defined as" to "is" in some of your latest edits regarding the leads of Wikipedia articles; for example, here on a topic where there is debate about how to define a concept. While changing "may be defined as" to "is"...is okay in some instances (or perhaps the majority of instances), it is not always okay; this obviously because "may be defined as" is not automatically the same thing as "is" (as in "it is this.") I know that in these cases, you are applying the WP:Refers essay that I pointed you to, but that essay does not prohibit all definitional wording in the leads of Wikipedia articles; nor should it. And if if did, I would remove that from its page, and debate the matter at its talk page if need be. Again, it's just an essay. Yes, it's an essay that has advice that should generally be followed, but it's still an essay and does not have the same weight as a Wikipedia guideline or policy. Like I've told you before, there are going to be cases where terminological aspects are and should be addressed in the lead. I think that, for some of these "may be defined cases," since you seem to be concerned about the word defined, you should consider whether or not it would be best to use the words may be instead (meaning without the word defined).

On a side note: I still apply the WP:Refers essay when I see an article in need of change in this regard, but I usually limit that matter to the first sentence. See this very recent edit regarding the Myocardial infarction (Heart attack) article. In my opinion, and I've told you this before, WP:Refers is generally about the first sentence (which it also indicates), especially since some part of the lead may need to address definitional issues. In the first-sentence cases that have a WP:Refers issue, the articles are not applying appropriate use–mention distinction. But if an article, after applying appropriate use–mention distinction, goes on to address a terminological issue, such as a "Some sources define the term this way" or a "Some sources define the concept this way" matter, that is usually fine. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"May be", "Some sources.." are weasel words. Unless it is expanded by who says this and why others object it is WP:WEASEL. "Defined as" is usually redundant and a "use-mention" error. Mostly, I'm just trying to keep articles on topic and not drift into dictionary land. If you object to any particular edits it is probably better to battle it out on the article talk page. Bhny (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on "who says this and why others object" is often not WP:Lead material. The lead, as you know, is for summarizing. A Definitions or Terminology section, which, as I've noted to you before, is a very valid section to have in the cases of various Wikipedia articles, is the place for expanding on that material. To state that something "may be defined" one way is not a WP:WEASEL violation; you can ask at the talk page of that guideline (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch) about it. I commonly comment at that talk page, and help mold that guideline. Like WP:WEASEL also notes, the words it lists are not automatically weasel words/banned and may be validly used. Again, I agree that "may be defined as" often or usually is not needed; I simply wanted to point out to you that it may be valid in some cases. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do a huge amount of these type of edits, and you seem to be saying most are fine. Can we move to the appropriate article if you have a problem. Weasel words are annoying anywhere in an article, including the intro. Bhny (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhny, to me, it's often that you don't see the gray area in these cases. That's why I occasionally note them to you. Again, I'm simply stating that there are gray areas. WP:WEASEL also notes this. But, yes, we are done with this for now. I don't have any specific objection to your edits in this case, except that this (the Flash juggling article), given the apparent debate that the lead notes, should perhaps state "may be" instead of "is." The phrasing "may be" is not WP:Weasel wording. But I'm not going to push the Flash juggling article matter. So good day to you. Hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point on Flash, and I think I've fixed it. My Thanksgiving was very good and I hope yours was as well. Bhny (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks fine. And thank you. My Thanksgiving was decent. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhny, regarding this and this matter at the Slut-shaming article, I know that you thanked me via WP:Echo for the edit in that second diff-link, but I want to ask you if you think that neologism mentions should generally be out of the lead? If something is a neologism and the article is not about the word, do you think that it should be mentioned as a neologism in the lead, lower in the article, both, or not at all? Like I stated before, including in my "23:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)" post above, "WP:Refers is generally about the first sentence (which it also indicates), especially since some part of the lead may need to address definitional issues. In the first-sentence cases that have a WP:Refers issue, the articles are not applying appropriate use–mention distinction. But if an article, after applying appropriate use–mention distinction, goes on to address a terminological issue, such as a 'Some sources define the term this way' or a 'Some sources define the concept this way' matter, that is usually fine." I think that it's important for some neologism cases to be noted as neologisms in the lead, mainly recent neologisms. Yes, the article may not be about the term, but, if the definitional aspect is one of the most significant parts of the article, and since the lead is for summarizing the most significant parts of the article, the definitional aspect should ideally be summarized in the lead. If the term is a newly coined and/or hardly recognized term, maybe noting it as such in the lead is a case-by-case basis. The lead generally should not have detail that is not covered lower in the article, but generally is the keyword there; there are exceptions (such as the WP:Alternative title matter we recently discussed). I'm not sure that we should mention slut-shaming as a neologism in the lead; I think it's better left out of the lead. But do you think we should mention it as a neologism lower in the article?

On a side note: Regarding the WP:Alternative title matter we recently discussed, I'll take care of that by either noting it in the lead without bolding it or noting it lower in the article. Also, any idea how to improve the initial sentence for this lead matter so that it satisfies both sides? The discussion is here: Talk:Pregnancy#Human bias for articles about humans. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the first sentence read much better without "neologism". It should be mentioned somewhere that it is a newish term ("first coined by x in 19xx" etc.), even later in the first paragraph is ok with me. I boldly edited Pregnancy. I think it is much better now. I don't understand the controversy on the talk page. Obviously the article is about human women. (I recently argued about a completely unrelated thing with an editor of that section and found the editor inflexible and pedantic, so I'm not going to even comment in that section). Bhny (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. And, yes, the initial sentence of the Pregnancy article reads much better now. I wonder if "a woman" should be "a female," though, since teenage pregnancy, and even child pregnancy via precocious puberty (see List of youngest birth mothers if you haven't before) is possible. The teenagers are biological adults, and sometimes legal adults, but, when people think of what it means to be a woman, they usually (depending on the culture) think of women as being older than their teenage years. Whether to use "female" or "woman" in certain instances on Wikipedia has been debated in a bigger discussion; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 8#People, women, and females. I was going to note at the Pregnancy talk page that you tweaked the Pregnancy article's lead in response to my query on your talk page, but, given, what you stated above, I won't. In your talk page edit history, I see which editor you are referring to (what you originally typed), and I have somewhat clashed with that editor as well. In the future, maybe you two will get along better. After all, you and I have clashed before, but have been making our recent interactions more pleasant or otherwise simply civil. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have enjoyed our recent chats. Arguing with some editors though I find a complete waste of time. They have a fixed idea of how things work when obviously they are making the article worse. Some will keep shifting their argument until it devolves into ad hominem. Now I just move on to other articles. (I think "woman" is a broad enough term for anyone that is pregnant. ) Bhny (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have reverted your change to the Yuppie Wikipedia article as I think it is important to define the Merriam -Webster as ONE view, not the definitive view. In the 1980s, the "yuppie" culture was not couched around being "college educated". Indeed, part of the appeal for some was that becoming a yuppie was dependent on personal zeal, not background/education. I'm not entirely happy with the Merriam-Webster statement, but if we must have it in the opening text of the article, then I think it is crucial to underline the fact that it is one, modern day view.

(86.142.224.221 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

We use references and credit them inside ref tags. If there are other shades of definition then list them and put those references in further ref tags. It is also ok to create a definition from a few different references. This intro only has one definition so what you are saying isn't reflected in the article at all. Putting the ref outside of the ref tag isn't accomplishing your goal. Bhny (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that various Wikipedia articles I have read work exactly in the way I have favoured. But, as you introduced the link in the first place, I leave it entirely up to you.

(86.142.224.221 (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Whether I introduced the link or not is beside the point (I don't remember anyway). Your argument seems valid, but putting the ref outside of the ref tag isn't achieving anything other than making it hard to read. You need to re-write the definition with more sources. Bhny (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on that. In the meantime, I think that the article reads better as it names the individual source, and backs it with the link, thus becoming non-definitive - although I think quite highly of the source usually. This encourages readers to search out other definitions and not to quote the statement as absolute fact in essays, etc.

(86.142.224.221 (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

That's where I disagree. Putting the source in plain text does nothing except make it ugly to read. Some readers will find this clumsiness even more authoritative. Hm, this must be the official definition since it is Websters! I think what you are trying to do is a bit like WP:WEASEL words. Bhny (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I think there may be certain differences in the way we view things, but must you resort to rudeness? I was surprised when you provided that particular link and ONLY that link to be quite frank.

(86.142.224.221 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about. The original Webster's link? The weasel words link? I was not trying to be rude. Bhny (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Really? Oh, well, you changed a link on the Yuppie page on 4 November - linking to Merriam-Webster and stating: "Replaced bad definition with a better one". "Weasel Words" has very negative connotations in my locale and I was actually trying to make the article clearer.

(86.142.224.221 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I'm still not sure what your point is. I try to make articles clearer too. "Weasel words" isn't an insult it is just a style guide. Maybe "expressions of doubt" was more appropriate. It is better to clearly state something than try to imply it. I have nothing further to say. Bhny (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given your activity on the WP: Revert_only_when_necessary essay page, I'd invite your input on a recent edit of that essay that was, very ironically, instantly reverted. See the talk page [11] if you wish to participate.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bhny. When you changed Francophone into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Francophone" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a page to a disambig is a bold edit that is often reverted (as this edit was). Doing it in a "correct" way isn't obvious. Bhny (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey added more info and changed the lead again of Good Faith. The reason I didn't care for the format of listing law and philosophy before good faith is because it's more of an idea/concept. While it is important and pertains to philosophy and law it isn't exclusive or defined to/by those topics.
Open to discussing it though if you feel differently . Added some more info to expand it as well.
—Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]