User talk:CiaPan/arch2

Thanks for your help. I thought I saw something weird after I saved since I seemed to remember a question below mine and planned to check the history but then got distracted and forgot about it, whoops. (I think I got some sort of weird hidden edit conflict as had accidentally browser away without saving and had to go back to when I got an error as one of the sites is blacklist.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Comment: that was about this edit [1] and the fix [2] --CiaPan

Thanks for explaining sandbox sharing. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I ♥ beer [🇺🇸 COACH Z | #USNavy ⚓] 23:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by COACH ZARLINO (talk • contribs)

Hi, just a quick note to let you know I undid your edit to User talk:Gopatholabs - {{Db-nouser}} does not apply to user pages where the user has been renamed recently. We normally leave these redirects in place for quite some time before tagging them. Thank you for your contributions -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you asked a question on my talk page and I thought I had gotten back to you but the answer is: I don't know. This would be a good question for the help desk (or what we really need is someone who can read that language and tell us what it says.) RJFJR (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

mysandbox

I am using voice recognition and apologize for any grammatical or syntax errors in advance.

This page was modified about 5 years ago on my handheld device I am seeing a comment from you but I cannot read it so I know it's probably on the desktop version not my mobile version that is in my hand.

What did you say to me?

Amish:Portal

Do you know any Amish people in Poland?

Moved here from User:CiaPan/Sandbox. --CiaPan (talk)

Good morning I am using voice recognition to respond to your edit I familiarize myself with the use of the website and understand it is not a Blog social media site a web page while blah blah so on and so forth however I have a Wikipedia project that needs attention of Wikipedia editor's that have subject matter expert information aansocial settlements for the Amish people in the United States of America like the community in Sarasota Florida.

I am a subject matter expert on the social settlement in the historic Middlefield Village Geauga County in the great state of Ohio.

I personally have moved my residence to that Community to study and report on how the Amish culture uses the internet without getting in trouble with the religion they believe in because they understand that they have to use the internet so they hire people like me to do it for them for a fee.

Unfortunately all of the rules on Wikipedia are very clear on not being able to promote your business unless other people write about it first.

You by virtue of editing my talk page are now by default a news agency media publication agency digital marketing agency because your edits are seen on the 10th largest website in the world launched by Jimmy Wales.

I am looking for Wikipedia editors that are interested in starting the Amish portal on Wikipedia because the Amish people don't use the internet.

There's a joke out there that many famous comedians use saying it's fun to make fun of the Amish because they don't use the internet and will never read my jokes.

If you have any information or time to help me with my project I would appreciate it. Thank you in advance coach zarlino. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Moved from user page -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi everybody,

I request a merge of Talk:Satyarup Siddhanta to User talk:Chic500 because that is exactly the initial part of that user's talk page. The user made a draft article as their own User: page, so when moved to the Draft: space, it took the user's talk to a Draft talk: space. Hence should be taken back and merged at the top of the later (i.e. current) User talk: page.

--CiaPan (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

User:CiaPan - Why did you make cosmetic edits to my talk page to the reply that had been written by Peterb1234 and had then already been signed by SineBot? I don't think that your edits made any important change to the page, but they made it necessary for me to read the page history to see what you were trying to say to me (which was nothing, because the job of signing Peterb1234's post had already been done by SineBot)? Did you want to discuss something, or were you just trying to improve the formatting of my page? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Same here on my last discussion... Not a really necessary edit because the problem I had was already solved, so... Oxygene7-13 (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not 'same' because that was not 'your discussion' (in contrast to Robert's user talk page). It was a discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk. Yes, you have started it, but it's not 'yours' – it is in a public space. And others may well benefit from having a link exposing the reason and a solution for such problem. So... EOT. --CiaPan (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I do not necessarily blaim you for it, it's just that I do not understand why, since there was already a link included. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcial Solana González-Camino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liaño. 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) 09:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

•   Fixed special:diff/779164262. --CiaPan (talk)

I have been told that we can customize link colors but I have never succeeded in doing this. You told someone that in the case of a redirect, they would see a green link saying "Redirected from ..." but of course if that person was a newcomer they would not know how to customize link colors. For most of us, that link would be blue. I'd like to have those customized colors myself.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Vchimpanzee: I have answered at your talk page. --CiaPan (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help with the pictures! Bokorember (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you have correctly identified the book. Sloppy of me to miss the title. Monstrelet (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

(error spotted special:diff/306376166 & editor notified special:diff/783883415, error fixed special:diff/783900394 5 June 2017)

 

Thanks for uploading File:Tun Abdul Razak Univ logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi CiaPan! I hope you're having a great day! I noticed that you reverted my edit to this page, which restored content that was removed without an explanation. Your reversion which removes this content again - was also made without an explanation. Why did you remove it? What is the issue that warrants the removal of this content? I didn't see any issues with it, but I may be wrong - did I miss something? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Oshwah: Hi. Please see the article history.

On June 19 User:Waldo is here has added a section about TAMA to the Thymus article. However, as an unexperienced editor, he (or maybe she?) put it in a wrong place and with wrong section level (three 'equals' instead of four), thus spoiling the structure of the article a bit (Special:Diff/786380262).

The next day he/she decided to move the section to a more appropriate place. However, instead of moving it in one edit (did I mention s/he is an unexperienced editor?), s/he first removed the misplaced part (Special:Diff/786523265) and the same minute added it back in a new place (Special:Diff/786523310).

You have reverted the 786523265 in the middle of Waldo's two-stage action, just before 786523310. As a result the article contained TWO copies of the same section, one of them in a wrong place (try searching for ‘TAMA’ in oldid=786523310).

Hence I have reverted your reversal to restore the article to a shape I suppose the author intended. If you think I misunterstand the article structure (medicine is not my area) and the article should contain the section twice, please revert once again.

In case of further ambiguity we can ask Waldo_is_here for explanation. :)

Best regards. --CiaPan (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The reply seems accepted: Special:Diff/788140437 :) CiaPan (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for sorting out the EUFORGEN page. I would like to make a link from the original version in English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Forest_Genetic_Resources_Programme to the Polish page on the side. However, when I try adding link, the error message says there is already a link to that page and there cannot be another one. THis is just a Polish version of the page, so it should appear on the left menu. Please explain how to do that as I'm planning to add translations in other 20+ languagues when the pages get created. Dzieki!!! Ewa hermanowicz (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your comment on reverting the undo that I did: "Worst case sum (n-1)+(n-1) which will overflow if n exceeds a half of a maximum value representable by integer type)". That should have been worst case sum (n) + (n-2) (due to the check for < 2 elements). For signed integers, this could be a potential issue as noted. I was thinking of unsigned integers when I undid the change.

Bottom up merge sort has the same potential overflow issue in it's for statement sequence of operations: width = 2 * width, then check for width < n. I'm wondering if the sequence should be check for width < (n+1)/2, then width = 2 * width, but this assumes n+1 can't overflow.

I seem to recall an old discussion about leaving the overflow checks out of the examples as their purpose is to describe an algorithm while avoiding getting into architectural specific issues, but that discussion isn't there anymore and I don't know how to search the archives for it. Rcgldr (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to add anything that will help this community. Please and thank you. [🇺🇸 COACH Z | #USNavy ⚓] 14:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by COACH ZARLINO (talk • contribs)

(The above is a reply to my proposal at Coach Zarlino's talk page, 10 October 2017. --CiaPan (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC))Reply

https://www.fb.com/hashtag/yum_yum_yum 🎂 [🇺🇸 COACH Z | #USNavy ⚓] 03:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the reason for my edit in Darboux's Theorem Special:Diff/810026267. I am not claiming that ${\displaystyle f}$  is not a Darboux function. I am claiming that ${\displaystyle f}$  does not fit the given description of "a Darboux function that is discontinuous at one point", because ${\displaystyle f}$  is continuous for all ${\displaystyle x\in \mathbb {R} }$ . Instead, its derivative ${\displaystyle f'}$  fits that description. Bill Shillito (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

...was funny. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

In archives: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 March 11#Correct info on page --08:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Didn’t know if you were aware of User talk:CiaPan/Sandbox being created, seemingly by accident. Thank you for your patience in dealing with this user, it seems you have done everything possible to try and get through to them and help them. Unfortunately I don’t think they are really able to contribute effectively here no matter how much guidance they receive, but it was well done nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Beeblebrox. Yes, you're right, I tried to help COACH ZARLINO as much as possible, although I was having the feeling his mission does not exactly fit Wikipedia rules. Even though I actually admired his determination and his efforts in struggling his disabilities, I was afraid it would end that way. Wikipedia claims it is 'an encyclopedia anyone can edit", but editing Wikipedia is actually a complicated task. I can't even imagine myself navigating Wikipedia without my sight, let alone editing it and discussing with other editors! When you add a slightly personal and promotional approach of the user (his commitment to popularizng Amish community) and an immanent inability to provide proper references (resulting from inability to read published paper sources), that was a mission impossible. I am really sorry it ended that way, but I think his plan was doomed. --CiaPan (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

BTW. I don't think the Sandbox subpage you mentioned is worth keeping, so I've put {{Db-u1}} at it and I hope it will get deleted soon. Thanks for the note. CiaPan.

 

Category:Meteorological phenomena, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.--Srleffler (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Miscellaneous desk question "Hotel stay legal question", which is timestamped "23:31, 30 November 2017" is filed under December 1. It is consequently impossible, when viewing the December archive, to navigate back to November. Can you fix this? 156.61.250.250 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done – the date linking issue replied to at User_talk:156.61.250.250#Reference desk archives on 18 June 2018 and a thread moved from WP:RD/Archives/Misc/2017-12-01 to 2017-11-30 on 21 June 2018. --CiaPan (talk)

Thanks for undoing my recent change to the article. By vacuous falseness of statements involving "there exists ξ ∈ A or B" if A or B are empty, the proof goes through perfectly well if A is empty, as occurrence of the contradiction would be automatic! (Ironically, I had written the text of the boxed proof, but looking at it last night, I thought that there was a problem with the way it stood. A moment's reflection made it clear that there was none.) Obviously, I don't often thank people for reverts.... Alsosaid1987 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Alsosaid1987: Thank you for your comment! --CiaPan (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey CiaPan, September misses you!

Thanks for those regular monthly updates. -- ToE 00:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thank you for the reminder! --CiaPan (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stott's Theorem of The Pictorial Condition, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pontificalibus 13:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Pontificalibus: Which edit exactly do you mean? --CiaPan (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It was this one. I assumed initially that User:Dan_Van_Carloads added the tags themself, which implied to me that they had a better knowldge of Wikipedia than would initally appear from their postings, suggesting they were perhaps a sockpuppet, and also that they were trying to make some sort of point.--Pontificalibus 17:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your edit on User talk:Oshwah did not revert vandalism, instead it re-added a large number of spamlinks (check the edit...) that were originally added by a now blocked user Mmnassim, and removed by JJMC89, so please make sure you know what you're doing... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reviewing the VPP draft

You edited the draft [[Draft:Vector_Packet_Processing|VPP Draft] with the following issue.

"removing https://fd.io as a linkspam – the project's homepage by itself does not confirm any of the information given; specific sources needed"

A summary of VPP is described when you click on the technology section of the FD.io main site. Doesn't this confirm the information given?

Jdenisco (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)jdeniscoReply

Thank you so much for your help re: my question. I hadn't even thought of moving the page.

CdbgLaurie (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, thanks heaps for your response on The Teahouse.

I am fine when editing the actual Wikipedia pages, but for some reason all these methods of communication make no sense. I embarrassingly couldn't even find a way to respond to your message at the Teahouse.

Also, why was the draft page deleted? Is there a way to get it back? I was working on finding additional sources and information while it was a draft and did some reading on drafts, saying that they tend to be untouched as drafts. I was thinking that the article could have gone live as a stub.

Finally, I have no clue what you mean by WP:Sign. If you could explain that it would be great.

I have had to be extremely careful with what I touch around here because I don't want to mess anything up, and am learning by the minute.

Thanks very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WBPchur (talk • contribs) 08:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The single-word edit I made, adding the word "simultaneously", simply makes the description of the simplest infinite-hotel-guest accomodation match that of the single-guest accommodation. Are you arguing that the word "simultaneously" is not necessary in that first description either? If that is your point, and you feel so certain you are correct, why did you not remove that word too? Dratman (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for fixing the language parameter at User:Oliviareutersward/sandbox. Can you fathom why when I decline a draft because of it not being in English the number 1 appears in the box if I don't choose a language? Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Theroadislong: No, I have no idea – I do not use those tools, I don't even have needed rights. But I suppose you can ask this question at the template's talk page. This must be some minor error in a template itself or in some script that inserts it, so it will need someone faimiliar with technical details to fix it. The talk page contains many requests of edits as well as replies from those who did (or declined) the edits, so you will certainly find someone able to explain the problem there.
Good luck! :) CiaPan (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Theroadislong: Now I've also found the template itself suggests the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --CiaPan (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

You may have seen this announcement that all the 'Featured Hosts' - whose names and pictures randomly cycle round in the Teahouse Header - have just been updated.

As you are currently one of the 29 most active editors at WP:TH, your name and an image has now replaced that of an inactive host. But because you haven't yet added yourself to the full list of active hosts, I have chosen what I hope might be an acceptable image to you (over the default picture of a cup of green tea). It would be great if you would now do two things:

• Check or change the 'featured host' image I've added for you. Edit it at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/21, or undo my changes if you don't wish to be 'featured'.
• Create a 'host profile' for yourself, and choose a relevant picture - click the 'Experienced editor?' button in the TH Header to formally sign up to create a separate entry on the full list of all 89 current hosts which new editors can view.

Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

When undoing my edit, you wrote:

• We assume ANY list and show there is a real number not in the list; as a result for EACH list there is a number NOT in the list; and that contradicts a supposition there exists a list enumerating all reals;"

Note that neither Cantor's proof, nor the one we are discussing, mentions reals in this context. But the ironic thing is that what you said here is essentially what I said in the edit you undid:

• The proof starts by assuming that T is countable. By definition, this means that every member of T can be put into a list. By the above theorem, there is a member of T that is not in that list. This contradiction implies that the original assumption is false. Therefore, T is uncountable.

Mine is closer to what Cantor said (with changes only to match the terminology in the article]:

• From this [theorem] it follows immediately that the totality of all elements of [T] cannot be put into [a bijection with N] otherwise we would have the contradiction, that [an object] would be both an element of [T], but also not an element of [T].

And none are anything like what you put back in the article:

• The proof starts by assuming that T is countable. Then all its elements can be written as an enumeration s1, s2, ... , sn, ... . Applying the previous theorem to this enumeration produces a sequence s not belonging to the enumeration. However, this contradicts s being an element of T and therefore belonging to the enumeration. This contradiction implies that the original assumption is false. Therefore, T is uncountable.

The point is that the second half of the proof - the one that can be interpreted as a proof by contradiction - does not write out the enumeration it may or may not assume, and does not find a missing element. So saying it does in this passage is wrong. It "applies the previous theorem" only to say there is a missing element, not to find it.

But I claim that the proof isn't really a proof by contradiction. At least not a good one. The words Cantor used are saying that "there is a missing element" and "the list is complete" are logical negations of each other. By contraposition, the opposite of the negation of the original assumption is proven.

And the reason I think this is important, is because too many people treat the proof as a single-step proof-by-contradiction. And the passage you put back in treats it as such. It implies you should insert the steps from the first step into it, making the first step unnecessary.

What people object to about that single-step proof, even if they don't see it, is that it follows this invalid outline:

• Assume statement A="There is a function f(n) mapping N to T."
• Assume statement B="f(n) is a bijection."
• Prove that the statement C="f(n) is not a surjection" follows from the assumption*s*.
• By contradiction, this disproves the assumption*s*.

The problem is, that C follows only from A, not B. The correct proof is that C disproves B directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffJor (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't propose to start using that. It's nothing to do with wanting to show that I don't care if other users see my replies or not. I expect other users to check back on active threads in which they're involved. --Viennese Waltz 14:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, can you please give me your opinion about the page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eurailtest ? I made some modification after you suggested me to do some changes.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommErt (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear CiaPan, here a minimal correction of your English:
(my alterations are in {})
In: Talk:Minkowski's question-mark function#A box you wrote:
"I could not find a single LaTeX command for a box to surround a given expression, however {} discovered a quite simple way {d}o make a box with an array:"
I would write:
"I could not find a single LaTeX command for a box to surround a given expression, however {I} discovered a quite simple way {t}o make a box with an array:"
I hope this is wellcome. Steue (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Steue: There is a common agreement at Wikipedia that we should not fix even obvious mistakes in other users' entries at talk pages. I don't like that agreement and several times I experienced reverts of my fixes to someone else's typos. So:

1. Big THANK YOU for your correction! I'll implement it right now.
2. I explicitly encourage you to fix my language errors, typos and everything, eveywhere.  
3. Please inform me about such changes, e.g. with a notice with {{ping}} under the fixed text, so that I (possibly) learn from them.  
4. ...but be aware someone may revert you changes just 'because we don't do that!'

CiaPan (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am very glad that my correction is wellcome. You gave me a double big smile: first for your answer here and then for even mentioning (honoring) me on Talk:Minkowski.... When I see an obvious English mistake, I immediately have in mind all those who are less familiar with English, and thus are very likely to have trouble understanding, at least on first reading. I also think that we should write as propper English as we can, so that above mentioned others have the chance to learn English better. Unfortunately not all are able to see: this far and their responsability and the negative consequences of bad writing.

Yes, I also read of this "Thou shalt not fix ...", but it does not forbid readers to call the attention of an author to his mistakes, especially if this mistake makes it difficult to understand.

Did you ever got your corrections concerning English reverted (to an obvious falsety) by a third party? I would be thankfull if anyone would take the time to correct my English or typo. I always use the preview; I consider it a matter of respect for those whom I would like to read my contributions.

So, if it happens that I get to read a contribution form you, I shall do my best.

Finally at last I have the link to "ping", I came across ping, but did not know how to use/cause one. So thanks for this.

Steue (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, my friend! You don't need to use {{Reply to}} template (or {{re}} or {{ping}}, which are two of several redirects) to notify another party. It's enough to include a link to the user's page, as I did at the beginning of this paragraph. :) You just need to do that in the same edit in which you post your automated signature (i.e., the four-tilde thing, ~~~~). The template just makes the same in a bit sophisticated way and with a bit fancier look. There are some limitations (you can't ping an anonymous contributor, who uses an IP address only) and exceptions (you needn't ping the owner of the talk page - when you write here I am notified anyway) – see WP:PING for more details.

What concerns reverts, it was not specifically about language errors, but even less sensitive matter of technical linking to pages: Special:Diff/903596449. I don't blame the reverting user – it was done according to a wide agreement. I don't like it, but I'm not going to waste my time for fighting with it. :) CiaPan (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

My friend, I just finished studying 'Template:Reply to', which redirects from WP:Ping. I had observed pings to me, in the past, and understood that they are caused by 'usernames as links', but I did not know that they are called pings. I find simple usernames easier and more flexible than the template.
As for reverts: neither do I start getting into a "war". I try to convince the reverter, and hope that he reverts his revert and postpone all such cases of different viewpoints until a time when I know enough to be able to argue and use the rules and tools of WP.
Steue (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just for clarity: I didn't mean fighting with reverters, but rather fighting with the 'Thou shall not...' rule. --CiaPan (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ah Steue (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cia Pan, You were very helpful in supporting the article ‘warehouses Medan, Bindjeij and Laboean’. I noticed one strange (minor) outstanding bug. When you use an iPad and follow ‘view on map’ under ‘about this article’ you are directed to geographic location. So far so good. One of the popup screens will allow you store, share and read the (English) article. However, if you push 'read' you will get the message ‘the page you specified doesn’t exist’. Please can you advise regarding this reference. Is it a specific or general bug/error in wikipedia? Thanks again --Paul bohte (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC).Reply

Dear Cia Pan,

Ok, you right, it is a citation, however, it is necessarily to change d for n below the citation, because the "question" was formulated for n, but

"The question got a positive answer in the following cases:", and the answers are formulated for d. It looks quite crazy. In addition, it is rather difficult to connect this d with the above phrases, because "At the same time he proved that d subsets are not enough in general" is not "The question" (that got a positive answer ...).

My idea was to minimize the correction; however, you write that the citation was disturbed. Ok, anyway, it is necessarily to correct the rest of the text.

All the best, Alexeytuzhilin (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi CiaPan!

Could you help me with improving that page? I do not ask you to correct perfectly whole this page but to get it already for copyeditors. Currently this page has too many mistakes to be corrected by copyeditors and later put in mainspace. This is translation from Polish Wikipedia. You can correct my grammal mistakes or something other if you find. I would be really grateful if you could find time in next few days. Cheers. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello !

I have made all the changes you suggested on my page and I also added a description to my user page. Can you please tell me if the page can be published ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eurailtest

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommErt (talk • contribs) 13:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

O, widzę, że jesteś tu. Po mnie wiele się nie spodziewaj, bo jestem od bardzo dawna archeologiczny, zdrowie też nie to oraz moje zdolności pisania internetowego podupadły, zwłaszcza w relacji do postępu internetowej technologii.

Artykuł o cohomology, który wspomniałeś, w ogóle o homologii nie wspomina. Prościej tego art. o cohomol. nie wspominać w artykule o t.kształtu (lub tak, by brak bezpośredniości była dla czytelnika jasny, by nie tracił czasu).

Za to warto monografię E-S, "Fnd. of Alg. Topology" umieścić w artykule o t.kształtu fachowo, bo teraz jest byle jak. Nawet warto w nawiasie dodać powiedzmy monografię Spaniera, "Alg.Topology"). Ważnym jest by Cech homology wystąpiła w tych referencjach, jak E-S oraz Spanier, explicite, zwłaszcza, że Cech homology pasuje do t.kształtu ekstra dokładnie i zgrabnie (co widać po zastosowaniach w Borsuk-Holsztyński w Fund.Math; też potem u James Keesling, chyba dobrze nazwisko napisałem(?)).

Pozdrawiam serdecznie, [[Włodek (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)]]Reply

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello C. Please don't change the date headers on the ref desks. That task is performed by a bot and is based on UTC time. I'm guessing you are currently changing it based on where you live - if my guess is wrong my apologies. Either way you are changing it early and that can mess up the archiving of various sections later on. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MarnetteD: Do you mean Scsbot...? --CiaPan (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

You have named the right one as demonstrated here C. MarnetteD|Talk 01:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MarnetteD: OK. But that example was December 9, and I'm afraid you won't be able to demonstrate, how the bot added December 10 headers. Or December 11, either, even thought it's well after the UTC midnight now. (Ref. Special:Contributions/Scsbot)
So please kindly see the Scs' message at WT:RD#New archiving solution likely needed (now in archive Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 132#New archiving solution likely needed), and then restore lacking Dec.11 headers. --CiaPan (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ah - I see the bot went haywire while I was on vacation - bummer. Thanks for the link to the conversation about that. Please proceed with your helpful changes. MarnetteD|Talk 09:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MarnetteD:  
P.S. I was going to sleep at that moment, so I hurried to make changes. Of course I knew that was a bit too early, but I considered it a little harm and quite easy to fix if someone would post one or two messages under the wrong date. OTOH I was expecting to have no time to make the changes in the morning, so if I did not do that at 23 UTC I would probably be doing it right now. --CiaPan (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

No worries C. Enjoy the rest of your week :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RTG and RDMA. --Jasper Deng (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Now in archive: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026#RTG and RDMA. --CiaPan (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the last improvements you have brought to Brazilian numbers draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brazilian_number

Please, now, I have to wait for another mathematician administrator accepts this submission? Merci.

OSS117 (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, OSS117, thank you for your message. I'm afraid you're right – we can't do more than just wait for some reviewer to take care and review your draft and promote it to the article space. However, that may take lots of time – the Category:Pending AfC submissions contains about 3,800 pages waiting for a review!   I am not a reviewer, so I can only wish you lots of patience now, and a final success of your article!   CiaPan (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

P.S. By the way, it's not necessarily an administrator needed to review an article. An 'administrator' is a user who has rights (and tools) to protect and unprotect pages (i.e., manage some limitations in edit access to specifis pages in Wikipedia), block and unblock users (e.g., to prevent them from disrupting the project), delete and restore pages. For more info please see Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrators' abilities.

For reviewing a draft a user with the 'reviewer' rights is needed. That right is granted to editors who meet specific technical criteria and demonstrate understanding important Wikipedia policies. If curious, you may find more information at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers#New Page Reviewer and in the leading frame at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants.

All the above, and much more user access levels, are described at Wikipedia:User access levels. --CiaPan (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello CiaPan, Big thanks for your clear answer. OSS117 (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply