Proposed deletion of Fast knowledgeEdit

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fast knowledge, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

VandalismEdit

Regarding your recent edit to Talk:Greenhouse effect: I would strongly suggest that you restate your concerns without the blatantly false accusations of vandalism. Please read WP:Vandalism carefully. Your comments are incivil and your attitude there will not advance your concerns. Vsmith (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The guy didn't even tried to deny vandalism (he still doesn't talk !), why are you doing it ?
Anyway, that's not really the point: I am (or try not to be) the fool that look at the finger when the wise points the moon, and strongly suggest you do the same. I can easily argue that it is indeed vandalism, and you yourself did, even if you finally ruled it out (while i don't). Vandalism or not, it is still uncivil, impropriate behavior, isn't it?
So don't just tell that's not the correct way to do things, tell me what would be, according to you, the way we deal with a user that assume no good faith (as his comment "don't play silly game" shows) and shows no good faith (as show his lack of message on talk pages, and the fact that you pop out of nowhere to sermon me while he still doesn't show itself).
And as for WP:Civility, well, i applied (as usual) the guidelines, while the other user did not.
I DO happen to be involved in conflict (who doesn't ?), but i usually can cope (late example about rotary engine, where we -- a "testy old gentleman easily stirred to grumpiness" by his own term, and me -- finally found a common ground. Both of us talked, had good faith and assumed the same of the other. But here ... ?

Gem fr (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)



There, of course, exist more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism.

Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block (although administrators usually only block when multiple warnings have been issued).

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

DS Alert Climate changeEdit

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

The above notice is FYI. The other people who have commented in the dispute all know about it already, I think. Before you decide how to respond to my giving this alert to you, please be advised I also gave one (several actually) to myself. At the time we were arguing about the DS procedures I was advocating that everyone in the respective subject areas get such a notice as a matter of course. All that said, at the article talk page try not to talk about other editors. Just talk about article content. If you have a problem with others' behavior use their talk page or one of the dramaboards. See Focus on content. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

thank you for the alert and your cautious approach to prevent that i see harm, threat or any sort of bad intention in it.
I knew it, and, anyway whatever the subject, i try not to engage in fight. I have rather leave the article in a quite stupid state for a few days more (just like i did), than force some necessary change, even without special scrutiny.
"If you have a problem with others' behavior use their talk page". That was the first thing i did. To no avail. Hence the step further. So, what would you suggest? Gem fr (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Follow these principles and make effective use of WP:Dispute resolution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
yes, so what how does this materially concretize, according to you? Gem fr (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

August 2017Edit

  Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Not acceptable behaviour and it won't be accepted. It was a legit question, nor has it been clearly answered as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Humanities ref deskEdit

Disputes at the ref. desks happen sometimes, but if you show semi-indiscriminate hostility in multiple directions, you probably won't last too long there... AnonMoos (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion on humanities ref deskEdit

Hello. Re this edit, maybe (as someone who's been away from the ref desks for almost two years) you're not aware that the post I deleted was made by a banned user. It's policy to delete his posts on sight. --Viennese Waltz 06:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antoine Augustin Cournot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Quick alternate history question for youEdit

Hi,

I've got a quick alternate history question for you: Had the World Wars (both of them) never occurred, what do you think would have happened with Algeria? Would it have still eventually become independent in its entirety, would it have gotten partitioned, or would it have remained a part of France in its entirety up to the present-day? Futurist110 (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Metropolitan French never gave a F* about colonies. They still don't, and would dump what's left if it. Even including Corsica.
Colonies needed France, and the local people were (and still are) the only one who cared to be part of France.
Demographics rule, and "French" (as opposed to "indigene") were a small and shrinking minority in Algeria. So the simple path was Independence anyway.
Now, France was basically build on "cultural genocide" of pretty much every local culture, including language and religion. If France had cared, the very same could have been done in Algeria. This would had required some time (a century or so), and patient and systematic destruction of religion, language, etc. and replacement of these by mainland's to turn "indigene" into French (China is currently engaged in this path against Uyghurs and Tibetans, for instance). Quite a lot of people with Algerian ancestors are now just as French as any other, so it would had worked.
But then again, French didn't really cared to follow this path. Gem fr (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of FontenoyEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Fontenoy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Robinvp11 -- Robinvp11 (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Chock full"Edit

Bonne soir, Gem fr! (I'm not confident enough of my French to try to correspond in it, but I am a native English-speaker as well as a linguist (Ph.D.).)

Bonne soir just doesn't exist. "good evening" would be bonne soirée, used only for parting; or Bonsoir ( similar to more frequent bonjour, except bonsoir is still both for greeting and parting, but only at the end of the day, while nowadays bonjour is used only for greeting, at any time)
Now, if you wait to be confident in French to try, you may just as well quit forever, because, you know...
So I advise you not being shy, people don't care if you make mistakes

In WP:Reference desk/Science § Life vest vs Parachute you wrote

I concur. Transportation is choke full of example where ...

The expression is "chock full" or "chock-full", not "choke full", though there may be a connection. From Etymonline, the online etymological dictionary:

chock-full (adj.)
c. 1400, chokkeful "crammed full," first element possibly from choke "cheek" (see cheek (n.)). Or it may be from Old French choquier "collide, crash, hit" (13c., Modern French choquer), which is probably from Germanic (compare Middle Dutch schokken; see shock (n.1)).

(Also, "example" should be plural, "examples".)

Regards, Thnidu (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I learned something. However, it seems that, probably because some popular connection with [choke], choke-full has stuck (I should had written a - though), and made its way into my English readings (needless to say I didn't learn choke-full in classroom).
Thanks anyway Gem fr (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heteromorphosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trauma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Drought, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malediction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hatting answersEdit

Please take care when hatting and only do it when an answer is truly problematic. Answers which are strongly off topic or give medical or legal advice fall into that category. Answers you simply don't like do not. In particular, the these 2 hats. This one [1] was unnecessary. First the OP talked about turning coal into diamond not graphite. Second the answer of how you can extract energy from diamond and therefore the implication of how much energy you extract was on topic. So the first answer at least was on topic. The follow ups perhaps less so. Still they weren't that offtopic nor that distracting from the question. As for this hat [2], well if you feel your own answer is obsolete and want to hat it, that's up to you I guess. But don't hat other people's answers because they are 'obsolete'. It's generally a bad idea to hat someone else's answer even when it's wrong. If an answer is wrong, point out why. Anyone reading the thread should see from your explanation and will put aside the answer. It will maybe help both the person who answered, the person who asked the question and anyone else reading understand the question and answers better. Finally if you really do need to hat something, please make sure you sign your hat. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

And this is even worse. [3] While there's a tradition of people voluntarily putting their own jokes into small tags, it's generally a bad idea for someone else to do so. It's especially a bad idea when the small tag is added to an answer which does in part address the question. The small tags unlike hats are likely to be perceived as added by the respondent especially since they can't be signed. (Although an unsigned hat which says 'obsolete answer' is likely to mislead people since only the person who gave the answer, or maybe at a stretch the person who asked the question should be judging an answer obsolete.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nil_Einne
let me lecture you the way you lecture me: if other people find something they didn't write should be hatted, smalled, or even deleted, it is up to them; if you disagree, just fine, you can undo it, but first you should ask yourself "why did he do that, I wouldn't, but does that make it inappropriate?". Your writting here show you didn't, while your editing comment shows you didn't get the OP question: it wasn't about getting energy from diamond, it was about tap on the energy of converting back and forth diamond into coal (ie, graphite, as you should know) as a kind of battery
How on earth "you can burn them" can be a relevant answer to this question? Burning diamond produce CO2, not coal.
If this was serious answer, it should had been utterly deleted. If it was a joke, it should had been small.
I hatted it out of respect.
let other people un-hat or un-small their stuff they feel belong in plain, when someone else hat / smalled them.
Gem fr (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Not sure WTF you're talking about. The OP didn't ask about turning diamond into graphite. [ + ks of rant] Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes he did (actually used the word coal, but since diamonds only comes from the graphite of coal, which is the most part of it, I translated into graphite...Seems you didn't understand that). So you just didn't understand jack shit about the OP question, either. The word battery is theirs. Read the question again, carefully this time: why the word battery? Gem fr (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
{some 18 k -- seriously? 18 k ??? -- of yet again something I didn't care to read from @User:Nil Einne}
Gosh, you think anyone would even care to read 18k characters (6 pages!) I don't. Be happy I don't ask for WP equivalent of restricting order, bring your self together, and try to get to the point in 300 car, this is enough. Gem fr (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of FontenoyEdit

The article Battle of Fontenoy you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Battle of Fontenoy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Robinvp11 -- Robinvp11 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: why the delete of seemingly legit stuff?Edit

Hello. You may remember that we discussed this issue previously, see [4]. This is a banned user and our policy is to delete his posts on sight. Best wishes, --Viennese Waltz 14:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments on RefDeskEdit

Edits like this make it much harder for the rest of us to follow a thread. Please don't do it again. I'm damn close to undoing it myself, but suggest you undo yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Please don't do it again. See WP:INTERSPERSE. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 August 14Edit

Thank you for your suggestion to contact Google and request human review. I've just gotten an email saying "the book is now fully visible", https://books.google.com/books?id=saEzAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. Nyttend (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moscow gold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Junta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Short-termismEdit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Short-termism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/short-termism. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 12:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019Edit

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gem fr reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: ). Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


Per the above noticeboard report, I can see you did violate the three revert rule on the reference desk there. I appreciate that you were attempting to calm down an overly-heated argument that other users should have de-escalated themselves, but anything that requires four reverts to stick is not de-escalating. I don't think anyone comes out of that discussion looking particularly great. I'm not blocking you for the 3-revert rule violation as you've stopped editing it for now and the block would not be preventative, but there's no real excuse for that many reverts. Any further contentious hatting of discussions against resistance like that is going to result in a block. I hope you understand. Thanks. ~ mazca talk 17:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

NoticesEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)