User talk:SamuelRiv

If you feel I've unfairly maligned a source, an article subject, or an editor (yourself), please understand that typically my insults should by default be appended with the phrase, "not that I could do better." I take some opportunities outside of article space to try to loosen up the seriousness many people have here, which always fails (in my real life too). You see, growing up I always wanted to b[tmbox error in param. 8: character limit exceeded]

For posters: please feel free to post anything, but any deletes will be reverted (unless your are amending your own posts). Questions, comments, criticisms concerns about edits and articles, etc. are all welcome. SamuelRiv 23:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, SamuelRiv, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find that there already exist Temperature inversion which redirect to Inversion (meteorology). I think you should redirect Inversion temperature to Inversion (meteorology) and contribute to Inversion (meteorology). That way existing article will improve. Am I right?

Thanks. TRIRASH 07:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Inversion temperature is an intrinsic property of gases and has nothing to do with meteorological inversion. The two are completely different topics in very different fields (statistical mechanics vs. meteorology). Thanks for reading the new article, though. SamuelRiv 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK then. No problem. Just brought to your notice. Thanks. TRIRASH 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this in the talk page of the article. Dan Gluck 19:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for the Embedded pushdown automaton article. I've been wanting to get around to working on that article, so I appreciate your work on that. –jonsafari (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and it's great to meet a formal linguist. Please give suggestions, as much of the notation was copied from (Weir 1994), who copied his from (Vijay-Shanker 1988) and was an absolute brainfuck to get through. I modified it a little, but it could probably use more simplification, especially with the doubledagger-epsilon dual notation. Meanwhile, stay in the loop, as I have a few more linguistics and computation pages on my ToDo list and can always use more input. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel!

Regarding your recent inclusion of a notable individuals section on this article:

While I personally agree with the section, and the people whom you have included, I am worried about three potential problems:

1. I am concerned that many editors will look at these people as "non-notable". They are certainly notable in the quizbowl community, but that is a rather small group within the grand scheme of the world.

2. Some (emphasis, some) of the language can be interpreted as "flowery". For example: Matt Weiner, the sole representative of Virginia Commonwealth University, competed against and soundly defeated. Speaking as someone who down vandalism and weeds out inappropriate content, flowery language like this is usually a red flag that draws my attention immediately. I think it would be better to remove the word "soudly defeated, and put in the actual score.

3. Citations. The defense against deletion will be citations. Even for people who have notability limited to a small community, this can be a defense. For example, consider bringing up Weiner's Young Cooper Award as a way to enhance his notability to an ignorant editor.

I haven't touched the article, but I already saw that some editor tried to make a deletion. I have little doubt that this will continue. I am just throwing down my two cents to assist. Best of luck! LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, please don't add this stuff...we've already had numerous vandals create articles about Matt Weiner, and it's going to continue to be a huge vandal magnet. I'm sure you know how petty and insipid the world of quiz bowl can be, and once you create an article about one random player, someone other drama queen's fragile ego will need to be stroked, based on some accomplishment or other, and where will it stop? I'm sure there must be a quiz bowl wiki somewhere where this would be more appropriate. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was a bit quick in adding the section (and it was 2am!), so I didn't get much on sources or NPOV. For now, I'll keep the section, neutralify Weiner's statement (it was amazing to see it firsthand, though. Maybe I haven't been in the circuit long enough), and delete authorlinks so people don't think individual articles need to be written. Thanks for the kind responses. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oja's rule, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--WjBscribe 11:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Biological neuron models, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Spebi 08:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original comment posted on User talk:Coredesat

I believe closing debate on Encyclopedia Dramatica in Wikipedia:Deletion review after only 2 hours of existence was premature. Not all questions that I had raised had been answered, and only one other WPian was present. Your reasons cited did not make sense.

• "Not going to happen" is essentially saying that debate cannot occur, when the article topic in question does not violate any of WP:DEL.
• You cited the ArbCom rulings (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Proposed decision and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO). These rulings pertained specifically to users involved in the incidents and to external links to ED, but did not mention anything regarding whether or not ED was appropriate to be included as an article in WP. It did cite the VfD debates, but those can be overturned through the channels I was going through here.

Therefore, I am asking that discussion be reopened, and pertaining to the discussion, that the namespace Encyclopedia Dramatica be opened so that an appropriate article can be created, as there is no official ban on that namespace. SamuelRiv (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the idea of an ED article has been discussed to death, and no one has shown any indication that a valid article - one that satisfies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:WEB (unlikely given that many sources are passing mentions or ED trolling) - could be written on ED. Unless you can, there is little point in bringing up a new DRV. ED is an attack site; unprotecting its article space would simply invite floods of vandalism long before a valid article could be written. --Coredesat 09:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that is true, but the "attack site" angle is a red herring best ignored. We can't apply that as an encyclopedic standard, but we don't have to, because we've got WP:WEB, etc. Bringing up the idea that it may or may not be an "attack site" by some definition of that term is a distraction from the point, and makes it look as if we're applying some standards other than what we should. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original comment posted on User talk:Coredesat

I have gathered some information together at User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica, but before starting to write the article, I came across the archived version at [1] and its WP mirror at User:Mrmattkatt. Obviously cleanup is necessary, and some new information and links are now available on my page, but what is wrong content-wise with this article? SamuelRiv (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to copy the question, I guess I'll copy the answer.

That's easy. There is no "non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources." Nobody has written anything about ED; they've only been mentioned in a couple of pieces about other topics. Do they meet WP:WEB? That's the only question to ask. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original comment posted on User talk:Coredesat

I'm going to ask that all discussion be moved to my talk page, as it looks like I'm going to be the principal player here. I am copying all my comments to said page, but I think this would be much more appropriate on the deletion appeals page, and so again I am asking that discussion be re-opened there. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what's on that page, I'm not going to reopen the DRV. Nothing there satisfies any of the relevant policies or guidelines. --Coredesat 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on this. Relevant policies and guidelines seem to me to be satisfied. WP:NOTE is a joke here - the amount of emotion that fires up on the mention of ED in WP is notability enough (but then of course we have verifiable statistics in google search records, unique hits per month, and page rankings in internet poll sites). WP:V then only requires notability of the article and the sources, but the sources themselves do not have to make the article notable, hence the justification for only having side-reference sources (the Digg article refers to ED specifically in terms of Google censorship, etc). I believe these two are satisfied independently of WP:WEB, which is a subsection guideline of WP:NOTE, but the relationship to Google and Wikipedia seem to satisfy criteria 1 and 2 of WP:WEB. Finally, since this debate is between a lowly editor and a powerful admin, is my next step if we deadlock here a RfC, or what? SamuelRiv (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "the amount of emotion that first up on the mention of ED in WP is notability enough," is nonsense. We're not that masturbatory, to think that our personal reactions to ridicule is sufficient to confer notability on that ridicule. The fact is that there has been no non-trivial coverage of ED in independent sources. Until that standard can be met, there can be no article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A RFC over this issue would be equally useless, as well. No one has done anything that could be considered out of line, and this dispute is not in RFC's scope. DRV has repeatedly ended with a request to show how an article on ED could possibly meet existing policies and guidelines; that request has not been met, and until it is met (with consensus that it has been met), DRVs on ED will continue to be speedily closed. --Coredesat 03:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That MSNBC clip you linked on User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica is a good one, actually - a two minute piece on MSNBC about an ED prank. Nice work. But seriously, stop obsessing over whether or not the Deletion Review discussion was speedily closed. It was speedily closed because you brought nothing that the last 10 Deletion Reviews didn't. The situation is simply: it will be considered again if and only if "a workable, brilliantly sourced draft using only reliable sources that are independent is created and presented in userspace". If you really want the article, spend your time working on that, not trying to persuade people to unprotect the article in main space before you write something. That's your next step: writing the article, not opening an RfC. --Stormie (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hear, hear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The draft that I am endorsing is the state of the article before deletion (on User:Mrmattkatt) as it satisfies NPOV, etc, and reads well. The Digg and MSNBC links should be added to the references section. I am not copying it into my page as it is not my work, and I won't claim it as such. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More sources for you guys from CNN Headline News and The Observer Magazine (The Guardian's news mag) - see User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica SamuelRiv (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of the sources you're referencing on your User space page are reliable. 1- New York Times, one sentence mentioned in passing. 2-Youtube is not a reliable source. 3- Spanish Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 4-A count of hits tells us nothing relevant. How do you write an article on that? 5-A forum post is not a reliable source. 5-petitinonloine tells us nothing that can be used to write an article on. Corvus cornix_talk 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said evidence for WP:NOTE, not reliable sources on which to base an article. You do not mention anything about CNNHLN or MSNBC (linked via YouTube, in which case it is reliable). SamuelRiv (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no difference between the two. The only point of WP:NOTE is making sure that we have sufficient sources on which to base an article. It remains true that there are no non-trivial sources about ED. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:V makes sure you have sufficient sources on which to base an article. WP:NOTE is guidelines on whether or not an article should be included, and this can come from multiple non-direct sources (i.e. WP:Google_test). The main argument at this point that I would make for WP:NOTE is, combined with page ranks, increasing numbers of searches on google for ED, its use on other WPs, and references by reliable sources, is that it was itself used as a reference by a reliable source. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... don't tell me what WP:NOTE means. I was there when it was written, and I helped write it. We decided that, in order for a subject to be notable enough for an article, it has to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. ED isn't. The Google test is shit. Page ranks are shit. Other WPs are shit. Non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources is what we're looking for, and it's what we haven't got with ED. I like ED, but we don't make exceptions for things we like, anymore than we make exceptions for things we don't like. Wait for the sources, ok? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The search engine test is neither a policy nor a guideline, and it (or page ranks, for that matter) is not a substitute for reliable sources. Other Wikipedias have different inclusion criteria and those criteria do not apply here (also, who is to say the articles won't be deleted from there?). At any rate, your reply does not address the lack of non-trivial sources about ED itself. --Coredesat 08:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's up for review again at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_6.--91.121.88.13 (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Calton | Talk 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "stop the drama" is not an argument and does not cite WP policy. However, "ArbCom does NOT decide policy" IS policy.

Your Wikilawyering is duly noted. Note also that someone else actually pulled the trigger.

In short, leave this alone, or at least read the page you are tagging before you tag it.

I did read it, which is why I, you know, tagged it for speedy deletion. Reality check: ED? It's not getting an article on Wikipedia, period/full stop, no matter what legalisms you try to bring to bear. It be dead, and you can't breathe any life into its corpse. --Calton | Talk 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is [my comment] to your answer. I was wondering why people weren't responding! Again, thank you.Sam Science (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the graph shows that the time to next events are getting smaller. I did try to plot a graph with a different event distribution and the result was not the same. If the graph is increasing it shows that the times to next events are getting bigger, and if the graph is decreasing it shows that the times to next events are getting smaller. So in my opinion the times of the events do matter on this graph. I disagree with your conclusion on the image talk pages. Cunya (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to send you a note of encouragement on the "graph" debate. I am no physicist, but I've spent 9 years in university studying math, physiology, toxicology, computers and languages, and upon seeing that graph I nearly cried with laughter. I was reading that page in order to better understand the point of view of a futurist in my atheist group, with whom I am constantly disagreeing on the very nature of humans on this planet, and upon seeing that graph, I immediately confirmed I was simply dealing with a nutcase desguised as a thinking person. I have fought a few battles over "wrong" on wikipedia and found them exhausting, even though I succeeded in bringing logic and rules to the forefront, and presented strong enough cases to sway mediators and readers at large against self appointed "expert" page guardians. All I can suggest to you is it's pointless to wage edit wars beyond the first three edits. Call for a mediator quickly, call in other users which can support the correct facts, and make sure you present your case well, objectively, with facts and statistics, moderators like statistics as Wikipedia uses the principal of "least surprise" when it comes to initially presentated information, "fluffy info" can always follow later in the article. Remember, Wikipedia is more about "least surprise" than "truth" and that makes the burden of proof much easier, for all scientists will side with you. Best wishes--Tallard (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to this and the post above, I got sick shortly after this whole debacle and did not continue the debate. However, the mathematical argument I made was in fact incorrect, based on an improper interpretation of the graph axes descriptions. That said, the other arguments people have made in support are quite interesting and valid, and while I will not be apologetic about my earlier argument, I do still hold room that there is a bias inherent in the choice of axes.

An interesting lesson learned from this: before posting originally, I showed my analysis to some friends asking if my interpretation was correct, and before anybody looked at it carefully, the debate immediately turned to whether Wikipedia was a proper forum for this and whether an argument that somebody is factually wrong even matters in a project based on "notability". Obviously such debate still goes on, and now that I'm aware of how quickly the argument drifts both IRL and on WP from the original claim, I'll hopefully be more effectual in the future.

That said, Kurzweil is still an idiot and seems to completely hijack an approach to futurism in social science that may be the most objectively-verifiable in history, and that makes me sad. SamuelRiv (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SamuelRiv. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not improve the resolution on the image, but rather resaved it with a higher compression ratio. This is not really important to the issue at hand, however, for which I have no opinion. I do not believe that I have uploaded that image anywhere other than here. Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 17:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Possible_Problem_with_answer Posted the problem on the talk page, and removed some responses that should be on the talk page as well. 77.86.47.199 (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just to inform you - I got sort of bitey (see WP:BITE) in a thread on the reference desk talk page. ok. So when you read it please don't take too much offence...83.100.183.63 (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looking back maybe I did nip him a little. But he does have editing history - albeit pretty small. I take your point with good grace. Best to you. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Bo_Jacoby#2.2B2.3D5_becomes_a_really_neat_bit_of_mathematics

When a man has 91 publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, 33 as first author (and several in Science and Nature), it should be clear he is a real and notable scientist. This is not self-promotion, nor pseudoscience. If he had cared about self-promotion, he would have thrown out biographical data, which would have appeared as solid facts for googlers. Many silly ideas refer to Einstein, so will you try to demolish him, too? (The after-1920 Einstein is certainly not above Becker, but perhaps you would help Einstein demolish quantum theory?)

You should read Becker's book The Body Electric, and you would see the importance of the issues he discusses, both regeneration and electropollution. You would also see the elegance in how his healing procedures start at exactly the point where the body's self-healing fails. (Rather than following the common practice: Manipulate the body with a causality-based procedure which completely disregards the body's own self-healing capabilities.) The work is based on conventional physics, and the only fringe element in his works is that such simple physical procedures are unsuitable for patenting by the pharma industry.

Another matter: I see above that you have written about Inversion temperature. Although this differs from Inversion (meteorology), you might have thoughts on the issue I have tried to raise in Talk:Inversion_(meteorology). Nobody answered this, but from the instructions I received from a geophysics professor (to use the potential temperature) when I did some programming for temperature grid analysis in the seventies, I am quite certain the inversion temperature definition in Wikipedia (as in Encyclopaedia Britannica!) is wrong. OlavN (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The inversion temperature article I wrote is about a property in statistical mechanics that makes liquefaction of gases, such as nitrogen, extremely easy and cheap. The inversion temperature in meteorology to which you link refers to something else with the same name. There's no right or wrong when they refer to two entirely different things.

Becker has patents. He has no clinical trials of his electromedicine that prove what he claims, and to claim medical efficacy without clinical trials is disingenuous and unethical. 91 publications is a fairly small amount for a lifetime researcher (though in fairness he was a surgeon at the time). His peer-reviewed stuff had nothing to do with his crazy medical claims, but had to do with, for example, piezoelectric and other properties in biological materials (which are objectively measureable in vitro).

The "pharma industry" has failed to prevent any number of life-saving medicines and surgical techniques from common practice - they haven't even tried. What does prevent such things from entering practice, however, is a lack of conclusive clinical trials and/or AMA or FDA approval. I will read some relevant papers by Becker - a book on a scientific subject often becomes a rant. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamuelRiv. You are right, my response was unnecessarily rude/arrogant. I have apologized to the OP and responded on my own talk page. Thanks for keeping me in check, I will try to stay on-topic and more polite/encouraging in the future. Nimur (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on discussion at ref desk talk, I am removing that question from the science page. Just letting you know, as you were a responder. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamuelRiv, I reverted your addition of small-tags around my response (and few other responses) on the reference desk. I believe our responses were in direct response to the original question. I especially don't believe my response was "off-topic" in any way: I specifically addressed and answered the question. If you disagree, please feel free to respond on the desk, but I don't think my comments need "small" tags. Nimur (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! On 16 January 2011 you changed

Note that sometimes the elliptic integral of the third kind is defined with an inverse sign in the "characteristic"  n, i.e.

to

Note that sometimes the elliptic integral of the third kind is defined with an inverse sign in the characteristic {8 \sqrt \pi}n}},

.

in the Elliptic integral article. The alteration seems to be wrong or incomplete. Could you verify and correct it, please? Ufim (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, couldn't we just nick the picture they have in the German and Dutch WPs? de:Federwaage resp. pic link. This would do the trick methinks. Regards. -andy 77.190.8.126 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! Thanks! Done! SamuelRiv (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not add trivia to episodes, as you did with this edit. It does not matter if it's part of the plot, or quoted by it. The only plot information that belongs in an article is that which is essential for summarizing that plot for the reader, or that which is part of critical or evaluative claims about the episode that are found in secondary sources, as in the Reception sections. Everything else--continuity notes, individual jokes and gags, minutiae, and that formula, do not fall into either one of these things, and therefore, doe not belong in the article. Please see WP:TRIVIA for more. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to the article talk page. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you. Please tell me where and how can I mention the new NN learning algorithm (BPM), which is much better than backpropagation that you are not going to delete it. --Radovednik (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put the SI units (added later: merely the units in the explanation of the variables) in for the GEM equations at Gravitoelectromagnetism. I can not imagine how I overlooked the square on the seconds in the gravitoelectric field. Thanks for fixing it. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your question at User talk:JRSpriggs#Re: Thanks for fixing the units at GEM:

My involvement with this article is relatively recent. I did make some changes which I felt were necessary to keep the article from being clearly wrong and to elaborate where there is clearly only one possible choice (as with the units), but I cannot affirm the correctness of what is there. I have serious doubts about whether GEM is a reasonable approximation to GTR.

I try to stick to SI units, partly because I think that the multiplicity of systems of units is one of the things which makes it hard to understand electromagnetism. If you want to add the GEM and Maxwell's equations in Gaussian units in another section, I will not oppose you. But please do not remove the SI version of the equations. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nathan Bedford Forrest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Copeland (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) 11:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This edit of yours is problematic [2]. First, removing sourced content should generally be discussed on the talk page of the article. Second, deleting a section with the argument that you do it because the authors are Jewish (or any other religion or nationality) is extremely inapppropriate.Jeppiz (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article talk page, and I assure you that you misinterpret my objections. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thank you for the good post you wrote on the talk page of the article. I apologize if I misinterpreted your edit, but I hope you can see how someone could do it. That being the case, your later comment explain your reasoning very well and show that I was mistaken, for which I am truly sorry.Jeppiz (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamuelRiv,

I consider this addition Wikipedia:REFSPAM for a number of reasons. Every single edit by the user who added it (Cjlim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is to add material sourced to a book by the same publisher, and they have ignored repeated warnings and declined to discuss their edits on talk pages. The phrasing of the material appears promotional -- "In Daniel Graupe's book on The Principles of Artificial Neural Network (3rd Edition - 978-981-4522-73-1)" It's confusingly phrased "thus being an answer to the shortcoming of single-layer neural networks, such as the Perceptron (when considering it as a single-layer neural network)." and doesn't seem to integrate well into the main text. If you think the material can be salvaged please do so, but my inclination is always to revert promotional edits, even if they're borderline acceptable. Cheers, a13ean (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for not checking the respective User pages first. Thanks for the courteous reply. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I should have explained my reversion better to start. The user ended up getting blocked a day or two ago. Cheers, a13ean (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alkarama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The National (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) 09:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know why you accepted Republicanism in Spain from AfC? I had reservations about it and left concerns on the author's talk page. Could you explain your rationale? Chris Troutman (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your objections were minor enough not to block its movement to the namespace. The article is still at an early development stage. Because the article covers a lot of well-established history, much of it will not be directly cited. Political bias is minor, deals largely with old (less heated) history, and gets better handled in the namespace than on AfC. The lack of academic citations is important, but the article for the most part sticks to facts and such things are looked over better in namespace. Finally, and most importantly, there are a significant number of editors of Spanish history who will be all over the article over the next few weeks. And keep in mind, it's articles for creation -- the bar is pretty low. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for the reply. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am addressing to you as an editor to the article MtDna haplogroups by populations. The meaning of the numbers that are contained in the table is not clear from the information in the article. It says it is a percentage, but this is not possible, since the sum in each row is clearly not 100. Have you any idea about it. Thank you.--Auró (talk) 20:45, 8 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) 13:06, 23 November 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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hammdidullah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A.k.a.. 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) 09:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trolls from Olgino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bots. 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) 09:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skinner v. Oklahoma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People First. 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) 09:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's answer to your ass-holish editsum: It's not my job go around cleaning up your edits, nor to figure out how to. (And FYI, your "uncontroversial" claim is wrong; anyone who has followed this issue on WP knows "their" doesn't have consensus.) IHTS (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not your job???!!! Maybe you should remove any claim to the title of "editor" from your User Page then. Anyway the goal of avoiding implicit gender bias is uncontroversial in the MOS, if the precise method of dealing with pronouns is still left up to per-page consistency. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe *you* should learn to think straighter. (I'll rephrase for you: It's not my job, as WP editor, to go around cleaning up your edits.) IHTS (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is by definition the precise job of an editor. If WP had an editorial hierarchy then I suppose you could just order others to do the cleaning after pointing out the mistake to them. Oh wait, you could have done that here too instead of taking a 5-second patrol to blindly trade out one style problem for another (one of which is a serious and persistent problem in chess publication, fwiw). SamuelRiv (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. (Well I did cleanup your edit, via revert. You seem to be presuming it was my job as editor to "work with" the text reformulation you introduced, or replace it entirely with my own reformulation. But you would be wrong, because I thought touching that text in any way would constitute "disimprovement" [and it isn't my job as editor to do that, no matter what you think].) p.s. I don't edit "blindly", another false assumption/accusation from you. Perhaps you s/ go soak your head? IHTS (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice President ballot map is incorrect. The vote totals come from 'Proceedings of the Republican national convention, held at Cincinnati, Ohio ... June 14, 15, and 16, 1876 .. Page 112. It is online at: https://archive.org/details/proceedingsrepu00nelsgoog

Jewell only got three votes from Alabama and the 12 votes from South Carolina were cast for Wheeler, not Woodford.

Tnmbrown (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a thoughtful, detailed response to that RfC. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SamuelRiv,

Thanks for creating Margaret Armour! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for 3 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamuelRiv! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over six months.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in six months.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{Frs user|SamuelRiv|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name subscribed to the FRS, you may be receiving this message on your new username's talk page still. If so, make sure your new account name is subscribed to the FRS, using the same procedure mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 07:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The point of the poll is that when I removed the template, in accord with clear and obvious consensus, it was immediately reinserted. So once we have the poll explicit on the record, if removal is again reverted we can seek a formal remedy for that behavior and move on. Close requests drag on for weeks or months, and we'd be asking somebody to wade through this long and rather convoluted and nonsensical thread. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind your comment on my user talk page, but the thing is, I didn't offer any opinion as to whether Americans should or should not own guns, but mentioned Scalia's 2008 "Heller" opinion as one of the times when he most glaringly betrayed his self-proclaimed originalist textualist principles to arrive at a result which was conveniently in agreement with his personal and party ideology. I'm far from alone in this conclusion... AnonMoos (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of editorial commentary (and invalid date formatting) does not belong in template documentation pages, or in edit summaries. If you have comments, the template's talk page is the right place for them. If you think a template should no longer exist, WP:TFD is the place for that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fixing what I can and organizing them still before I figure out what to do with them. The documentation for a lot of them was completely empty, so I figured out what I could if another editor comes by and sees all this activity and wants to know what's going on and what not to use. There are also "under construction" templates that I could be using, but the larger goal is not to fix each individual template but combine them and unify the code base as needed – this isn't going to take just half a day. And template documentation is not at all client-forward, so how is commentary forbidden? SamuelRiv (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are documenting undocumented templates, but please keep it professional and neutral. This is an encyclopedia, with all pages viewable by the entire world. Parameter values like "hell no" and one person's editorial commentary about the usefulness of specific templates that have transclusions do not belong on template documentation pages. The former may be acceptable on a testcases page, and the latter is fine on a template's talk page or at a TFD discussion. There are proper venues for certain types of content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you misunderstand WP:NOTCENSORED pretty much entirely. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to make a federal case about some dumb IP edit, but it's definitely not a forum post -- it points out something specific in the article that they believe is inaccurate. And that's all they say -- no tirade about the general state of this site or how such and such gets treated unfairly. And I wasn't trying to cite a policy in a lawyery sense -- I understand the policy is about articlespace -- I was more just getting at the principle of not censoring, which is widely applied at this site (I agree I shouldn't have used the specific "not censored" phrase).

As far as it being a pretty useless Talk post from an IP, that I agree with. But Talk pages are probably a rather far third behind article viewing and editing in terms of WP's public engagement. (Maybe even fourth after secondary media coverage.) That's still significant in my opinion. Even rather baseless anonymous article criticism left on Talk pages, the same board where serious discussion happens, sends something of a message that at the very least we're reading the comments that people send. For those who care about this in terms of some sort of political strategy, that kind of openness really helps in reaching a broader audience in my experience.

Like I said, I'm not going to raise a fuss over this one IP post, but if this particular issue has been discussed before that you know of, let me know. Otherwise, is there a better forum for this kind of discussion (one in which the people who are involved directly with things like engagement would perhaps be able to comment)? SamuelRiv (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"That you could quote a news article summary of a UN press release" etc. is not clear (who is "you"? when/where was it quoted? please provide a diff.) but what's clear enough is that it doesn't belong to the thread on Le Monde. Could you please move it to the thread where it belongs (or open a new thread)? Otherwise the discussion on Le Monde will become messy. Please mind WP:TALK. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was clearly reply to User:My very best wishes, who in indirectly citing the UN document through a news outlet managed to completely misrepresent its meaning. I thought that was obvious. You should strike your latest comment, as my post should not be moved. I'm not trying to hijack the thread with a discussion about RSLAW, but correcting a misrepresented source is always worth the interruption. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've self-reverted but please try to keep the discussions in-topic otherwise building a consensus becomes impossible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The Teotl article came to my attention while I was trying to clean up pages in Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language. Since Wikipedia doesn't recognize |language=ppl, I went to the source, copied the first sentence into Google Translate, and the results indicate the language is "Krio". Sorry if this was incorrect. GoingBatty (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:npa and wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When editors repeatedly revert attempts to remove unsourced content when they should know better, I think talking down to them a bit and telling them to review WP:NONSENSE, WP:COMMONSENSE, and to write better is quite appropriate, especially given the state of that article and the issues of quality control it's had before. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might do, keep it up and we will see what ANI thinks. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamuelRiv, I submit that your talk page disclaimer, "typically my insults should by default be appended with the phrase, "not that I could do better.", doesn't appear to apply here since you do seem to be saying that you can do better, and we're all doing it wrong. Please accept my trout. Andre🚐 14:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look you all the time delete info about barrels to be correct: Grot military - soldiers are issued 16 inch , some were proposed 10 inch Grot civilian which i can buy - 16 inch in .223, 10.5 (not 10) !!! .223 with other muzzle device than 10 inch for army, 14.5 inch sport barrel and fourth barrel 16 inch in AK caliber in army they would be issued heavy barrel uknown lenght 16 or 20 but to be correct information about barrels should contain 10.5, 14.5, 16

fact that it was tested with 10, 16, 20 and soldiers get 16 is not meant that other variants are not existing 14.5 variant is in shops, 10.5 variant is in shops, 16 inch variant is in shops (civilian doesnt have bayonet mount and is semi-auto)

So please add info about different variants , because it is silly that wikipedia hides what exist in real life and what i can buy any day having permit and license. According to wikipedia only 16 and 10 inch barrels exit, but i can go to shop and buy 10.5 and 14.5 - why you do not want to add this information. 194.146.251.82 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://bron-sklep.pl/2239-grot-s-14-fb-m1-a2.html

14.5 inch exist

https://coltkrotoszyn.pl/karabinki/966-karabin-samopowtarzalny-grot-s10-fb-m1.html

10 and half inch, not 10 , exists , we can buy them any day and you deleting those barrels info from Grot page 194.146.251.82 (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

barrels such as 20 are not in use or sale , it was only tested during trials and it existed in few photos on factory website,

existing barrels are:

- military (bayonet mount) 16 inch

- sport (no bayonet mount) 16 inch with classic AR muzzle device which civlians prefere

- sport (in future military most probably in 2023/2024) 14.5

- sport 10.5 (classic AR muzzle device)

- military 10 (small number issued, planned for crew in future to replace SMG 9mm and Mini Beryls)

- AK caliber 16 inch (for African contract and civilian market)

- heavy thick barrel under test to be issued in 2023 probably but lenght is unknown so far

- 7.62x39 version exist as well it was sold to one African country and it is on civilian market as well

so those are variants that exist for today (apart from 7.62x51 version with 20 inch) 194.146.251.82 (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing them from the infobox because the infobox only lists a handful of default (military) configurations of a modular system. The list of barrel lengths is based on the naming scheme, so "10" would be the 10.5 inch, and I agree that's not clear, so a parenthetical note to clarify that would be appropriate if you were to add it. I also encourage you to make a new section in the article focusing on the civilian market. But the infobox seems to follow a reasonable standard, which if you want to change, I encourage you to propose it in the artice's Talk page and not here. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i will add civilian section to it , edit soon 89.69.116.44 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Consistent life ethic. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer on the Languages' Reference Desk about Tsonga languages. I am a bit busy right now, but it will come in handy when I sort some time to explore the sources and improve the article(s). Appreciate it, Sto0pinismo^0_o 12:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wanted to pass by and comment that I moved your comment at WP:RSN regarding La Patilla for it to be in chronological order and to distinguish comments before the reopening from those afterwards, hoping it is alright. You're free to revert if you feel this is inappropriate. That being said, I also thank you kindly for your input. Best wishes, NoonIcarus (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samuel,

I have seen several conversations dismissing sources because they're expressing "opinions" or saying something "subjective" recently (especially if it involves "labels" – and apparently "He's a thief" is "a label" in this context; instead, All True Editors™ should write something like "He was convicted of robbing banks four times and believed to have perpetrated at least 20 more", because the Real Truth™ about him as a human being could be that he was a dutiful son, or that he never littered, or that he loved cats, and reducing him to a sensational label like "thief" is unfair to him), and I've been thinking that we might need an essay that explains the difference between facts and opinions. I started a related page at User:WhatamIdoing/Subjectivity in Wikipedia articles, but I'm dissatisfied with it. I've been thinking that you might be better able to write something explaining the difference between true facts, genuine opinions, false facts, disputed facts, etc. Are you interested? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only put aside so much time on here (and I still have projects on hold from last summer when I had free time), but I can help you out with notes I keep aside on this: you'll see almost complete consensus at the Village Pump 2022-06 to not use "convicted felon" in ledes, but a much longer inconclusive debate in 2020-10 about moralizing in ledes in general. The latter will be a bit of a read-through if you want to try to hammer out an essay that can summarize both the points people were generally able to agree on, and those still in dispute. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been plenty of discussions, including Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 46#Applying controversial labels to people (2020), Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 10#"Conspiracy theory" is a value-laden contentious label (2021), and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 53#Labels again - request for clarification/clearer guidance (2023). However, instead of summarizing the current community consensus, I'd be more interested in a summary of what you think is correct – where you would encourage us to end up, rather than where we are in the journey now.

This recent comment of mine about the difference between "he said it" (a fact) and "it" (an opinion) appears to have been useful to at least one editor, so I suspect that some basic explanations would be useful. It probably doesn't help that our articles on Opinion, etc. have never been in great shape. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for answering my dicerolling probability question on the Mathematics Reference Desk! --Aabicus (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Also, since you've reverted three different revisions of the page by two different editors, you're now edit-warring. Please stop. pbp 04:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your edit summary would suggest you reverted BEFORE looking at the new sources...isn't that bassackwards? You're not assuming good faith and your use of the revert button is frankly childish and petty. pbp 04:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. pbp 05:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you really need to stop. (Doug Weller, I'm pinging you because you left a DS notification here; bear with me.) You're edit warring against consensus; there's plenty on the talk page. I believe that your reverts are unwarranted--I'm looking up now, where PBP says "childish and petty", and I wouldn't want to use those words but I can see where PBP is coming from. Yes, I disagree with one of PBP's sources/whatever, and I will remove that statement--after I revert you. AFAIK, the talk page shows you have NO consensus for your ongoing reverts which are just grand reverts that do not pay sufficient attention to the actual particulars. I don't know if you're active in the USA post-92 area in other articles, but if you are, and if you play the editing game there the same way, then I think you might be looking at sanctions. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One editor advocating for the text -- that's consensus? I reviewed every source and asked that the editor meet WP:V -- that was my reason for reverting. Thus the WP:Burden is on the editor to first show that the text they want to add is verifiable in their sources. I reviewed all sources and text in a manner in which I am transparent about on the Talk page. I responded to every new source. The text has not been altered in their restoration.

I am not sure what you expect of me -- WP:V seems clear you shouldn't just restore the text until this minimal bar is addressed. There's also not enough people here to declare a consensus one way or another. Why is my deletion disruptive if you agree you have to remove sources? SamuelRiv (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you keep saying transparent when you haven't explicitly said what terms you searched for. And I continue to question that this is REALLY about verifiability pbp 02:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep as much discussion as possible on the RWP article Talk page. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop Forum-shopping too, while we're at it. And you might want to actually LISTEN to me, DonIago and DrMies, all of whom have significantly more experience editing articles than you do. pbp 13:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalrelative (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Revolution of Dignity. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Generalrelative (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OJEU has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ELI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not act like an expert on my religion even if the info or the way it is passed is viewed as "problematic". We get into problems when people like you decide to exclude info with actual trustworthy sources and include sources meant to malign. There's a lot more good you can do than disputing that Latter-day Saints believe in a form of monolatry (Even if it's not mentioned by name! There are a lot of ways to read between the lines. Otherwise every Bible quote on the Trinity should be removed and only include speculations.)

Basically, deleting a "poorly written" section is at BEST bad faith, and at worst antagonistic and hateful

Nathantibbitts13579 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get the idea that I am somehow responsible for what Google Translate comes up with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've never heard of you until the last few days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a grand total of 1 interaction between us, 13 years ago, prior to the recent discussion. So I conclude that you're just trolling. >:( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've spoken to you at the reference desks. Others have spoken to you at ANI. Dismissing this longstanding issue as trolling may be symptomatic of the problem. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to this. No, it's never, ever appropriate unless "outside" (or "inside") is a noun: the outside of the orange is dimpled. Tony (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read." ― Groucho Marx, The Essential Groucho: Writings For By And About Groucho Marx – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my suggested edit I was referring to your comment that the particle "of" "is a useless verbal twitch and should always be avoided, even in speaking". We do not always follow "logical" language conventions in speaking -- in fact, we pretty much never do. Furthermore, prosody is a very important concern in speaking that is not usually a concern in prose.

Regardless of what you think of consideration of prosody, to give advice about speaking in an exercise book on writing is just 19th-century-level bizarre. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuel. I gather that you've graduated from Syracuse University by now? Yes, I read your user page and was curious about your archived user box page! I was curious because you said you were embarrassed about parts of it, and self-acknowledgement of that sort (kind of like being on alert for signs of hubris) is very rare online especially Wikipedia! It is extremely sweet, especially since you are so impressively educated and degreed in physics and computing-related things. I gather you've graduated from Syracuse because the link to your home page there is broken.

Okay, now that I have finished with introductions (and haven't been TOO creepy, I hope), I wanted to check with you about the Israel article. I made a lot of edits to it tonight, and then perused the talk page. I saw that someone made a request with source to update the religious demography of the country, which was rejected by a non-administrator person. You made a comment beneath that: "Update religion demographics to 2023 data using the provided source, which is State Dept IRFR, which cites Israel's Bureau of Statistics." Should I assume that was an attempt to clarify to the rejecting editor? I am going to make the requested changes to the article now, as the source is good, and the article needs updating in many places, religious percentages being one of them. I didn't want to ask you on the talk page because I don't want to get into a belabored argument over it with anyone, or sound unintentionally aggressive, e.g. "That source looks okay to me, why didn't you update it?" as a response. I will reply to the rejecting editor on the talk page, to advise in general that updates about that have been completed.

As I'm finishing writing this, I realize that there was truly no need to! I'm sorry. Often, I have trouble figuring things out until I write them out. You can delete this if you want. Please know though that I still DO want to write the first paragraph above, and haven't changed my mind about it! FeralOink (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]