# User talk:Deacon Vorbis

Jump to navigation Jump to search

## Disappointed

Hi Deacon Vorbis. I was looking at Ammarpad's RfA, and while I was disappointed with a number of opposes, yours stuck out like a sore thumb. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and one of our largest issues is that we are geographically biased. Almost all of our editors are from North America or UK. There is a Australasian element, a south Asian one and a European one, but we need to be encouraging growth outside these zones, not stifling it. WormTT(talk) 15:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't know where Ammarpad was from (I still don't, exactly); I was simply struck by the consistency of language errors in his answers. Also, I'm not sure if you're referring to bias in content, in editors, or in administration. Each is certainly present, but I'm not sure what's of most concern to you here. In any case, English Wikipedia is run in English, and administrators need to have a certain mastery of the language to do so properly – more even than required for content contribution. In fact, English Wikipedia already has a huge leg up on other languages due to the widespread use of English as a second language in many parts of the world. However, I don't think that anyone should get a pass at RfA simply because they're from an underrepresented part of the world. (Edit: I wanted to add that I do appreciate raising these sorts of concerns here, so certainly no hard feelings or anything) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad you've taken my comment in the spirit it was meant, I'm not one for badgering and have no issue with your opposition to the candidate - I just felt it was important to discuss the issue. I believe the bias it all tied up together, it stems from editors, who then write the content and become administrators. If we have the perception of blocking administrators from an area because they are from the area, then we will have the ongoing effect of discouraging editors and therefore content from those areas.
Effective communication is essential for administrators, I'm one of the strongest advocates for that - however grammatical accuracy and eloquent speech isn't necessary for effective communication, just the ability to get ones point across clearly. I agree that no one should get a "pass" at RfA (though I do believe standards are too high at present, per my reconfirmation of my support - we only have 17 admins who have started editing in the past 7 years) but I also think we need to be mindful of what we're actually looking for in an admin, and be careful not to be sidetracked on an easy tangent which can lead to geographical or even racial bias. WormTT(talk) 16:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

## Because you thanked me

 Deacon Vorbis, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt... YOU'RE WELCOME!It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)

15:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC) ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

## Don't attack others calling them "attackers" totally without reason !

Please do not call others "attackers" without any reason at all. You may be blocked. Boeing720 (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the diff in which you pretty clearly called me a name, which is a pretty clear violation of WP:NPA, irrespective of whether or not the owner of the talk page you made it on is a friend of yours. My issuing of a warning to you is hardly the same kind of violation. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I asked him for his honest recollections. We have spoken to each other. He lives in the Greater Stockholm region. You call that "attacking". But your lines at my talk-page was hostile. If you stop delete talk-pages etc, I will stop deleting your messages to me, if you will have any. Is this reasonable ? Boeing720 (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"... That other person is just a besserwisser ...". You hurled the name at me, not him. And I didn't delete your most recent message; I moved it, as I indicated in the edit summary. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
You have been deleting quite a lot talk-page stuff though. And I did't write that to you, did I ?. It wasn't intended for you. It's a German wor.. - no never mind. If you simply stop deleting discussions others have done at talk-pages (how ever trivial they may seem to you), and - before deleting my supposed "crude English" etc - you could just had given me message or corrected it yourself. Or, why not, use your rights; a contributor who has used foreign sources, can well be asked to translate and explain them for other contributors at request. Then I think we can forget all of this. Honestly.
Please have a look at this "classic" rabid petty matters discussion - Talk:Danish_pastry and at headline "Exotic names" there is a hidden part. It includes the following suggestion: "Also, were he new, I would propose baking Boeing720 into a bacon danish with a side of bacon as per WP:DELICIOUS for bringing this to AN/I in an instance of unintentional forum/admin shopping." (To this, I just wish to explain that I thought it was funny. And I had been played by someone else (not this joking guy), I had no knowledge of this furious discussion, but I was asked to press a link and write something. This happened to be AN/I, of which I had not a clue of by then. I didn't participate otherwise.) Boeing720 (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

## Circle vs line

Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

## What would have been the best way to handle the link to what I found?

If I hadn't found the link to the scene from the movie, I might never have gotten any kind of answer. Someone might have asked why I didn't try to find a video.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I knew there had to be a reason but I couldn't see it. There's nothing on the IP's talk page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem about the second part; it's just kind of habit whenever I see them pop up anymore. As for the link, I guess you could try to describe it, or advise people to look for it on their own, but WP:COPYVIOEL is pretty clear about that stuff. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It did come up on the first page of whatever I decided to search for. So I guess it would have been easy enough to describe the search. I was hoping there would be more of a fun explanation of the mathematics behind those circles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

## How do I find out a video's copyright status?

I was thinking about using a video as a source. Bill Carroll (musician) has only two sources. One has been fixed but is dead again, though I have contacted the people who might be able to give me more information. The other is a YouTube video which I realize I can't even link to for anyone.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the reference formatting in that article is already kind of screwy. And yeah, the YouTube link really shouldn't be in there. In any case, you can still cite the actual TV episode without linking to it ({{cite episode}} seems good for that). As far as the status, I think the general rule of thumb is that unless something is old enough for copyright to have expired, or there's text from the the author releasing it into the public domain (or at least some other sort of grant to redistribute without relinquishing the copyright), then you should assume it's under copyright. So for YouTube (or similar), if the video is actually up on some sort of official channel of the holder or their affiliate, (which you see a lot for music and TV, at least for clips), then linking is fine. But if it's just some random dude with an old TV episode, then that's pretty surely not kosher. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I finally realized I don't have to link to the video because it's in the article. But my goal was to find sources for all the information there and merge with a draft about his band.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

## Undo on Catalan numbers

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catalan_number#Second_recursive_formula — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranomostro (talkcontribs) 20:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

## Cleanup HTML

I'm sure you mean well, but this mass WP:DRIVEBY tagging with {{Cleanup HTML}} isn't helpful without some indication about exactly what and where the offending tags are. I looked at the first one that popped up in my watchlist (Gamma function), and I couldn't even find anything. So unless you've got a tool that can generate a report about what the problems are, can you go back and remove these? Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, and sorry for the surprise tagging! I do actually have some scripts that can generate reports of HTML problems by article (though in this case I was relying on live search engine results) and the detection of unwanted HTML tags in the by-tag report at Wikipedia:Typo_Team/moss#HTML_tags is actually the reason I'm filling up the de-HTML work queue. But any editor should be able to pretty easily find HTML markup by looking for "<" in the wikitext. In the case of Gamma function, I guess it's a bit harder because there are a bunch of legitimate [itex] tags, but if you keep searching you'll see it also has <tt> tags, which according to the documentation are obsolete. -- Beland (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

## Discouraged

I spent most of the day researching the most common notation for representing sets with limited cardinality & when I made the edit, you hastily reverted it without any constructive words. The section I edited was wrong & failed to address the various questions/concerns on the article's talk page. I felt that I addressed these in addition to correcting the existing mistakes. Could you tell me what I need to do change about (or add to) my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspawn9911 (talkcontribs) 08:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

## "Cartesian theater" @ Infinite regress

At your undid comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infinite_regress&oldid=prev&diff=886155153 You had said "I'll just leave it as a "See also" section hatnote". And have made no further changes. Why? When? Make it, please! --Nashev (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nashev: I made that change during the undo; look at the beginning of the section. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
— I see now. Sorry. --Nashev (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

## Snake lemma vs Zig-zag lemma

I'm asking about my reverted edits to Snake lemma and Zig-zag lemma. While I can't provide an exact source for the latter being commonly called "the snake lemma", it does say on the page for Zig-zag lemma that "In an unfortunate overlap in terminology, this theorem is also commonly known as the "snake lemma,".", and I've definitely heard my lecturer refer to the latter as the "snake lemma". Should we remove that statement from the article, then? Edderiofer (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

## "violate" ????

First of all i didn't "violate" anything, as claimed in your recent message to me. It's a TALK PAGE. Afaik, talk pages exist on wikipedia among others for the purpose of expressing subjective opinion about a topic. Secondly, do you actually support this "variable gender" bullshit??? Now we're starting to see men in their 40's or 50's "identifying" as 5 year old girls, then the "adoptive parents" file complaints to their government when kindergarden schools don't accept them in their classrooms? WTF?? What's next, "identifying" as an animal? or a plant? or several of these at once? This is a ridiculous travesty against human dignity and common sense. Delt01 15:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delt01 (talkcontribs) 15:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Delt01: No, talk pages aren't there to air your opinions – see Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also see WP:NOTFORUM, which summarizes the relevant talk page guideline that "In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article ..." Policies on living persons are pretty clear; and you pretty clearly violated them by your post to the talk page. As for the rest of your comment, I don't think I can help you, because either you're trolling, in which case, WP:DNFT, or you're serious, in which case, please feel free to start an article about this phenomenon (or add it to an existing article), but remember that it must all be verifiable information in reliable sources. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clarifying. In which case sorry about the few posts i made to talk pages in which i added my personal opinion, including the one on the "glenn close" page - my mistake.

## My recent edit to Triangle wave

You recently undid this edit of mine saying "some of this broke the delimiter sizing", I'm unsure what you mean by "broke", and if somethings were broken I'm confused as why reversion was used instead of fixing the delimiter sizing. —T.E.A. (TalkEdits) 01:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

## Your removal of an Arbcom DS notice

Please revert diff. I presume this was in error. If not, please review the policies about this template and who has authority to remove them from a talk page, where this is an active discussion about the respectful treatment of transwomen identities. Thanks -- (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@: "Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The template guidelines do not say that non-administrators should not use the article talk page notice, only that enforcing administrators must use the template. Nor is this even common practice as many of these notices have been added to articles, including by me on several related articles. Please revert your change. It is unnecessary interference in the placement of a valid discretionary sanctions notice. If you wish to ask for advice, do so, after reverting your change.
Note that I applied Template:Ds/talk notice, not the version you have linked to. -- (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@: (I see that now, although it shouldn't have been substed). I believe you're trying to shoehorn in the ArbCom case to an area where it doesn't apply. Looking over the GG case, this seems to fall outside the scope of that, in both letter and spirit. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The template tells you it must be substituted. WRT gender related issues, it explicitly does fall within scope. Simply reading the GG case is not the way to interpret the topics. Further discussion should be on the article talk page, so taking it there. -- (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, but on a side note, there's nothing on the template doc about substing either way; in fact, the examples are all written without a subst: – talk page banners generally shouldn't be substed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The subst is confusing, as Template:Ds/alert explicitly asks you to subst it. It was my presumption that that applied to this family of templates, perhaps not. -- (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

## Merge sort

Hi, you have removed File:Merge sort animation2.gif here: Special:Diff/887750333.
Why do you think it's not a mergesort depiction? --CiaPan (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

## new in blocked page

Hello https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Aqsa_TV#new --Bohdan Bondar (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

## March 2019

Your recent editing history at Merge sort 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 BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. 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. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to template you, but this is how I make sure that the actions I take on all users involved are fair and the same as everyone else's. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, I noticed your warning on Jrheller1's user talk page regarding harassment. I also don't understand your edit summary here where you state that Jrheller1 is engaging in hounding - where is this harassment and hounding happening exactly? Who is this occurring against other than yourself? Can you provide me with diffs to all of the edits where this user engages in harassment and hounding so I can take a look? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Oshwah: (No apology needed for templating me; I totally deserve it). The warning I left was just about hounding directed against me, and not any other behavior against me or against anyone else. It was just two instances, which is why I haven't pursued it further, and don't think it needs to be yet really. The first time was at Triangle wave, and the second was this business at Merge sort. These were both articles for which other users had left me messages further up my talk page, and which Jrheller1 had never shown any interest in until a rather unpleasant exchange at another article, which has thankfully been sorted out. Like I said at his talk page, I just kind of ignored the first instance at Triangle wave, but after a second occurrence, I started to get the sense that his actions were done out of spite, especially because on the latter, he showed no interest in following up on the already existent talk page discussion, and he made no indication that he made any effort to understand the issue that I had raised with the image in the first place. That's when I decided to leave the warning. Please ask if there's more I can clarify. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your kind response, your understanding, and your explanation regarding the hounding I asked about. Since you don't feel that it's to the level of needing escalation, I'll just leave it be until you decide that it does. Just understand that when you revert someone's edits and with edit summaries telling them to stop hounding and harassing you, it's going to draw negative attention to yourself and any content dispute you're involved in - definitely not what you want. ;-) The best thing to do when in a situation where you're feeling hounded and harassed isn't to yell "stop it" at them... that'll just encourage users who are doing this to intentionally cause you stress to do it even more. Instead, try messaging them directly and peacefully, asking them why they're doing what they're doing, and try and work with them to resolve the matter at-hand. Be the "nice guy" and go that route 100% and without allowing any break of civility. If the peaceful route doesn't work, then file a report at ANI with diffs, details, and information regarding the harassment and hounding so that someone can respond, investigate, and help handle the matter. Thanks again for the response. If you have questions or need anything, please let me know and I'll be happy to help you. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

## Thue-Morse audio

i started a discussion about my Thue-Morse audio. feel free to elaborate why you feel it is irrelevant. also, i hope my explanation made sense. --sofias. (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, just in case you missed it: i wrote a reply, including a slowed-down example. --sofias. (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

## Oops, forgot where I got the information.

If you are reading this, you must be the one who erased what I put on list of school shootings. First of all, it did happen. Second of all, I just forgot to put where I got the information. Look up "Georgia School Shooting," and put it back, because it did happen and it belongs on the list. 1jire (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

## Riemann series theorem Intro

Hello Deacon. I recently added a [citation needed] to the intro of the Riemann series theorem page which you reverted. I see why you reverted it, and I think I agree, however my problem is that the generalization that the example suggests is not the generalization that is explained in the article. I was asking for a citation for the method that was implied. I've explained this more precisely on the talk page: Talk:Riemann_series_theorem#A_simpler_example. Since you're interested in the article I thought I'd explicitly invite you to discuss it with me there. Shawsa7 (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

## "Vandalism for Markiplier post"

Hi, Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and I thought that maybe noting a very famous meme/picture would add more content, and had no intentions of vandalism. If it did feel like that, I am truly sorry. Minkyumthemaster (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

## Proof of an example in l'Hopital's rule.

About the example that was edited yesterday, doesn't f need to be continuous at x to pass from lim(f(x+h) + f(x-h)), h->0,to this being equal to f(x)? Let me know your thoughts. KungFuLykos (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

## Narrow interests account duplicate

Hi there,

I made the first account, today, but it looks like I mistyped the password. The accounts have very similar names, so I hope you can see that there is no malicious intent.

Thanks, Narrow interests2 (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Narrow interests2

## A philosophical question.

Please, look at my edit. I've cited you. Will you contradict yourself and revert this edit? Vikom talk 05:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Vikom: I don't know what your problem is with me, or in general, that you have to stoop to making some weird passive-aggressive request about one of your edits. You may have quoted me, but you did so out of context and changed the point I was originally making. I've never seen someone take a revert so personally. Everybody gets reverted sometimes; it's just part of editing here. Please see Wikipedia is not a battleground. To be honest, I might have engaged more meaningfully had you not made such a big fuss about this. But wahtever; it is what it is. I have no desire to turn this into some sort of conflict. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• I don't know what your problem is with me,
You know very well what my problem is, but I will remind you. You reverted my 7 consecutive edits, then restored only one. Some of your reverts had no sense at all, and over time, I will restore them.
• or in general, that you have to stoop to making some weird passive-aggressive request about one of your edits.
Hmm, you carelessly destroyed my work and now you are accusing me of passive aggression?
• You may have quoted me, but you did so out of context and changed the point I was originally making.
What a blatant lie. The quote was in context because it referred to the "Simulation of two black holes colliding", which I precisely described in the edit summary: Quote: "I can't imagine anyone reasonably thinking this is anything but some sort of simulation." See my reverted edit
As for the point you was originally making - your original statement is available for everyone.
• I've never seen someone take a revert so personally. Everybody gets reverted sometimes;
"sometimes", but not seven reverts in a row, plus simultaneous another one in another article. I see that destroying someone else's work is your hobby, like in this example, where you destroyed constructive edits made by Drbogdan.
To sum up. You act like a boss, but keep in mind that everyone can revert also your edits.
Vikom talk 00:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Vikom: Okay, I tried to be civil, but I was serious about not wanting to turn this into a conflict. Therefore, I'm requesting that you please refrain from posting to my talk page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

## MOS discretionary sanctions alert

 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 the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. 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.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

## June 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --37.152.231.90 (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

## There are known knowns

I apologize for reverting your edit on There are known knowns. Later I figured out why it was needed and changed it back. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

no worries! It still might be improvable, but I just wanted to get the self-ref out of there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

## Signpost case

Hello Deacon Vorbis, as we have commented on similar topics in the ArbCom case, I invite you to read paragraph 4 of my statement, where I provided some evidence. This is because I expect to leave Wikipedia shortly, and I may not be involved in the ArbCom case further. starship.paint (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

## July 2019

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Carmaker1 can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. I don't think you understand what "highly inapporpriate" means, to even be making such statement and bombarding my talk page with your own drivel.

If you were actually paying attention to what was going on, you would see this exact edit I made CORRECTLY, to reflect the rest of the text and numerous sources pointing to 1983, which U1whatever removed with some peculiar fixation.

When text in relation to 1983 production/introduction date/start is supported via sources within the article already, but the erroneous text ELSEWHERE within the Corvette C4 article contradicts it, then it must be corrected to flow with the rest of the Corvette C4 article as SUPPORTED. A user that goes about blindly reverting such efforts, is committing the act of disruptive editing.

For your education, the Twinkle template I used was for DISRUPTIVE EDITING (NOT Vandalism), was a sole warning on that topic of "removing content", as there is no reason for a user to revert such an diff, when a source is already provided NUMEROUS times. But you were not paying attention and made your assumptions instead on what I was addressing on their page for a recent revert of a diff, that was perfectly accurate and intended to erase inconsistencies. NOT for a different edit altogether on a DIFFERENT ARTICLE, in which I needed a new source for and thus provided with rapidity.

Don't comment on nor send inane templates to my page, if you are not paying mind to a situation at hand. It is an unwelcome waste of my time, I don't really care for, if you cannot (try to) understand a situation fully and exercise due diligence.

It is very annoying to hear from someone, who stumbles into something and seems half-aware, finger wagging sanctimoniously to likely address OTHER topics I NEVER took further issue with U1whatever on. The Corvette C6 article (which was a content dispute) has bloody nothing to do with, the diffs of edits I made on the C4 article. NOT C5, NOT C6.

Simply C4, which related to me changing 1984 to 1983 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevrolet_Corvette_(C4)&diff=next&oldid=906920467).

Any other C4 reverts, I did not address them YET. IF someone deems it necessary, to be simply deleting corrections with sources already cited elsewhere in the prose (ie 1983), I will leave a warning template, as that is being disruptive and blocking another's ability to effectively contribute. Please annoy someone else, if you are not going to look at things openly.. Carmaker1 (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

## Please restore

Dear Deacon Vorbis. I just noticed that you recently removed the section on the alternative quadratic formula. Please notice that the new version of my article on ArXiv (https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05789) contains extended sections on the numerical stability, and a facsimile of the excerpt from Descartes' "Discours de la méthode" where the quadratic formula was published for the first time in history. Descartes' example is indeed a quadratic equation in homogeneous form. I would therefore politely ask you to restore the section on the alternative solution formula or, if you find it helpful, to even extend it. Sincerely yours, Norbert Hungerbühler (Professor of Mathematics at ETH Zürich). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:10EC:56C4:8000:0:0:11 (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A few side comments first: please place new comments at the end and sign your posts with 4 tildes (see WP:TP for help on using talk pages). Also, comments like this should really go on the talk page of the article in question, not here. But this should be easy, so I'll just answer here. There are a lot of problems with what I removed. It was unencyclopedically written, but that's fixable. More seriously, an arXiv preprint isn't a reliable source, because (within limits) anyone can post anything there (see WP:SELFPUB). Also see WP:SELFCITE for issues related to problems of trying to use Wikipedia to promote your own work. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

## Your message

we respect but tell me why did he remove my post "Is it a possible glitch in the solar system if true?" as well as the post of light. I posted (asked) with civility despite knowing the truth. did I show any rudeness in my post?

Here is your message on my talk page.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:VQuakr. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll also add that VQuakr was acting within Wikipedia's guidelines on using talk pages. And if you are unhappy with something an editor does like that, or you don't understand why they did something, then you should address the editor WP:CIVILly. You'll generally find you get a much more constructive response. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclectic Eccentric Kamikaze (talkcontribs) 01:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You should really ask VQuakr, since he was the one who removed them. But in this case, we don't have to ask, because he already told you; because article talk pages are there to discuss article improvements, not to use as a general forum, as has been noted on your talk page more than once. Again, please read WP:TP for help on using talk pages, which you seem not to have done, since you're still not signing your posts. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

## Generalized mean - L´Hopital

Hello, you have reverted my statement about L´Hopital rule. We can talk about whether or not we should add this information but you said that it was incorrect too. Can you please explain why you think it´s wrong that both the numerator and the denominator tend to infinity as p goes to infinity? Kind regards, TranslationTalent (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I guess my objection could have been more precise. What you typed above isn't wrong, but it was also wholly irrelevant for applying l'Hospital there, since it was for a limit other than the one under consideration. On a side note, if you do want to discuss inclusion generally, that should be done on the article talk page rather than a particular editor's talk page, so that others have the chance to weigh in. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I see. I have asked a question on the article´s talk page about this proof, maybe you can check it out. Kind regards, TranslationTalent (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, redundancy can sometimes help in understanding. There is no requirement of proofs to be as short as possible. Another topic: I don´t like this proof in it´s current form because it doesn´t tell you why l´hopital can not be applied here. See the talk page of the article for a more detailed explanation of why I think l´hopital is wrong here. Kind regards TranslationTalent (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, this issue is now officially Resolved

## Mercy College and College of New Rochelle

Why did you reject the information about the College of New Rochelle's absorption into Mercy College? It seems important and is confirmed information. In fact, this information is contained within the College of New Rochelle entry. The latter institution is ceasing to exist and many of its assets are being transferred to Mercy College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwkirk (talkcontribs) 17:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wwkirk: I didn't; I simply moved your comment into a new section at the end of the talk page and WP:SIGNed it for you (which you again didn't do here). The request is still open, but I believe you should be able to make the edit yourself at this point. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the WP:SIGN procedure.Wwkirk (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

## RfC

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Edit warring over {{rfc}} in help_talk:Displaying_a_formula". Thank you. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

## Vandalism on Talk: Oath Keepers

You were warned once already about this. Your continual reverting of posts on the Oath Keepers talk page is not ok, and I will report you for vandalism if you do it again. Barwick (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up if you want to take part, discussing this via dispute resolution, link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Oath_Keepers Barwick (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

## Redacted Links

You had redacted source links in an edit request I made to the Uno (Card Game) Wikipedia page and I'm wondering why. I had asked in a new talk entry on that page, but you seem to have promptly ignored it. Any chance you could help with how the links provided had to be thrown out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacMinty (talkcontribs) 00:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

## Talk-page warring

Yet another instance of odd-numbered-space warring, such as [1], and your disruptions are reported. And don’t assume that warring only against me will be reported. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is odd-numbered-space? And anyway, it's not warring; I just did it to set up auto archiving properly as I explained in my edit summary. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
If you pointed to a policy stating that selective archiving is discouraged, then I’d admit you merely corrected my error. Otherwise it’s warring. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't need a policy to codify that manual archiving like that is bad practice. It leads to even more inconsistent setups than we already have, and people don't follow up with future archiving that needs to be done. We have the bots for a reason. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

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. Thank you. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

## Your trout is ready for you...

 Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout.For edit warring over this. – 18:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

## Faà di Bruno's formula

Hey man, seems like you rolled back edits in the Faà di Bruno's formula entry simply for the sake of undoing changes. Or maybe to conform to some imagined old textbook notation. Why, though? Want less people to start editing Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.112.18.90 (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

## Iterated function

Hey, I saw you didn't reply but you looked at my edits and reverted another one... Just want to emphasize that I wrote you the entry to get into conversation about it and I'm a little taken aback by that interaction, to be honest. But I'll cope.

I don't think there's a good standard to the "set x to y" expression as in ${\displaystyle \left(x^{5}-5x^{2}\right)_{x=7}}$ or ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {\partial f(x)}{\partial x}}|_{x=5}}$, akin to how some people write ${\displaystyle \forall (x)P(x)}$ and (quantitatively most?) others opt for ${\displaystyle P(x){\text{ for all }}x}$. I found the comment "doesn't make sense" a bit harsh, as I think there's a good and fairly evident way in which ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {\partial }{\partial x}}|_{x=5}}$ is taken as an operation taking the derivative of a function, followed by an evaluation at five. But don't take this to be a combative argument, especially here I see how that might be a convention and a possibly more confusing (if better readable) one at that.

I think pushing the factors in the Faa di Bruno formula inside was a strict improvement, but also here, if we take the encyclopedia in Wikipedia more strictly, we might opt for reporting of history and I can well imagine that the lengthy expression is how you'd find it in the original paper.

My wishes

91.112.18.90 (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

## Gamma and gamma

About this (which followed this, which was in response to this): aha, I hadn't seen that there really is some treatment of other extensions in the article. (I will pretend that this is because it's buried slightly, in the middle of a section about the usual gamma, rather than because I did an inadequate job of checking before reverting.) Probably that added to your confusion; sorry! I still think that the usual gamma is so much more important than any other extension of the factorial that any mention of multiple extensions in the lead would need to be very, very clear about that. On another note: I've been quite enjoying three solid days of not seeing anyone angrily berated over trivialities at WT:WPM or elsewhere .... --JBL (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I've been mostly inactive here the past several days. Anyway, thanks for the note, and certainly no worries; the Hadamard function certainly seems a lot less well-known (but kind of interesting!). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
a lot less well-known (but kind of interesting!) agreed! All the best, JBL (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

## factorial

why you delete

"The earliest publication that discusses Factorial appears to be the Sefer Yetzirah [Book of Creation], circa AD 300."

?? ינון גלעדי (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

## Foucault pendulum

"...this isn't a good video clip"

1. Is there a better video on Wiki?

2. This video is in HD (See Wikimedia Commons).

3. The video shows the start and the first 20 minutes of turning.

Please consider undoing my edit!

Fizped (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

## MOS

With respect, there was no discussion of the medical consensus in the previous discussion. For all that it was being ignored, I still think the discussion was worth having. Vashti (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vashti: Unless I missed one buried among all the others (which is certainly possible), there were no studies, or evidence of any kind, demonstrating any harm from the use of the term. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
We don't have to demonstrate harm. We only have to demonstrate that WP:MEDRS state that there is harm. Vashti (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vashti: My main rationale for closing was that it was just degenerating into arguments without any productive discussion, especially after such a recent discussion on the very same topic, with nothing really new being offered. If you think it was a bad close, you're free to revert me; I definitely won't be offended or make any further attempt to re-close. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
You're probably right, and I'm inclined to let another user make the revert call. But it's crushing, after spending two days researching - how many even was it, 50, 60, 70 sources? - to be stonewalled because people can't even be bothered to look at them, when there's as close as damn it to being a medical consensus. Vashti (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)