User talk:Attic Salt

This user may have left Wikipedia. Attic Salt has not edited Wikipedia since 25 July 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hello, Attic Salt! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dr. K. 00:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Okay, thank you for the welcome. Just trying to tidy things. Attic Salt (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome Attic Salt. Keep up the good work. Best regards. Dr. K. 00:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your current behaviour and support to modify the Introduction with article on Plasma (physics) regarding and that of 141.131.2.3 is suspicious. Be aware that Sockpupperty is against acceptable behaviour among editors.

Q: Attic Salt are you also 141.131.2.3? (If so please disclose this in the Talk:Plasma (physics) 'Request for comment') 23:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: Not me. Did that IP do something wrong? Attic Salt (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Attic Salt: Just to inform you, an investigation has been started by me here [1]. Naturally, you have the right to defend yourself against these claims, which you can do there as required. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Did that IP do something wrong?" is a very odd question in itself. No one has said that at all, including me. Frankly when seeing the veil of canniness or innoccence among editors often does not auger well, especially when seeing newbees begin using or enacting advanced features like WP:Requests for comment to advance a POV. Whist I rely on WP:GF, it is sometimes amazing what is revealed in just a few words. Just saying... Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know that I haven't done anything wrong. Attic Salt (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for causing trouble, then dumping the case here. I am disappointed with your absolute contempt here, andplaying games. I pity you, really. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article desperately needs more editors. And apart from commenting on the new RfC, I'd recommend not editing at Plasma (physics) for at least the next week to let things cool down. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take down the reference to Anderson, Goeree, Holt from 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:9184:6E6F:3252:F8EA (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Please stop adding citations to what appear to be your own papers. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input in rolling back the recent changes. However, could you please elaborate a bit as to why the edit was tedious? It seems to me that the newer option removed contradictions, and was in fact shorter than the original in its introductory sentance. Perhaps we could think of an option that fits everyone? I am not too keen on keeping 'An ion is an atom or molecule that...' since it is factually misleading. A similar example would be 'A cation is an anion that has lost the necessary amount of electrons' (this is pushing it a bit far though). The point is that the current wording implies ions as being a subset of atoms and molecules (false) whereas they are all subsets of the concept 'molecular entity'.

What are your thoughts? Thanks. RasmusBE (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attic Salt, Spain had no "Fascist Party" per se but instead the "Falange Española," more Catholic and conservative than anything else. The word "fascist" is quite charged, the party merged into the Movement was the "Falange Española," not the "fascist party." I think the page should revert back to "Falange Española" as the party merged by Franco into the "Movimiento." And, simply linking for page view "Falange Española" will then allow the reader to learn the nature of this party rather than simply using the word "fascists." Please comment before I make this revision. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the? Only the most revisionist historian doesn't consider Franco's government fascist. 50.111.49.250 (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edit to Digital physics was undone by you. You gave no reason, though; I have therefore reverted. If you have a valid reason, please give it. 86.187.162.170 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would send over a kitten of encouragement. Thanks for your contributions!

VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your recent editing history at Astrophysical plasma shows that you are possibly engaged in an edit war. 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. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No violation, waste of time. Attic Salt (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How is the first continuously operating, superconducting IEC fusion device not relevant to the related articles?

I will do some research and work on a proper article to link to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron3000001 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Salt, please comment on this, if you wish, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 29#Category:Combustion scientists. Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Gothic miniature barnstar of carved wood
		Thanks for all the help on the Gothic boxwood miniature‎‎ page; much appreciated and keep on going. Ceoil (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a fascinating article. I will probably tinker away on it for a few days. Attic Salt (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I might take this to PR - do you think its ready or still has gaps. Ceoil (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the list is not long and very precisely summarizes what lagrange did — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.211.211.170 (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

toe, not tow. Cheers. -- Elphion (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC) er talk:Legobot|talk]]) 04:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion at Outlier#Exclusion. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your seemingly disruptive edits to the New York City article. If you revert again, I will report you for edit warring. IWI (chat) 17:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are any of those edits disruptive? Attic Salt (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title of a section for example, in a way that is against standard is disruptive. Reverting a revert of Castncoot is edit warring, discuss with him before adding that back. IWI (chat) 17:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The section is about both weather and climate. Attic Salt (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it does. IWI (chat) 17:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it does? Attic Salt (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added it back. Many of those edits were subtle, Castncoot said you were being investigated also. IWI (chat) 17:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not being investigated. Castncoot accused me of being a sock, but that was spurious. Attic Salt (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Changing the context of sentences like you have is (possibly) akin to POV pushing, and is not directly constructive generally anyway. IWI (chat) 17:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are making things up. I explained every singkevedi. Attic Salt (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did he make a SPI report though? IWI (chat) 17:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPI was negative. A waste of time. Attic Salt (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)work? Attic Salt (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that’s fine then. IWI (chat) 18:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really fine. After all, you reverted my edits without understanding the content and without understanding that Castncoot’s accusation was found to be spurious. Perhaps I should ask him to stop making such accusations so that people like you won’t revert hard work? Attic Salt (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert the edits due to those accusations, I reverted them due to the way you tend to change the context of sentences, which is borderline subtle POV pushing IMO. They’re also not directly constructive anyway; they don’t add anything to the article. IWI (chat) 21:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ImprovedWikiImprovment: It’s copyeditting. I was removing odd over the top issues, such as excessive use of "world's" and "global" (sometimes used more than once in a sentence!). Each edit was explained in the edit summaries. Also fixing misguided emphasis on various geological issues, as well as fixing errors in discussion of wind. Have you actually reviewed these things, or is are your concerns only vague? Attic Salt (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Gothic boxwood miniature article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 21 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 21, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Fewer words, same meaning."

Thank you for large-scale copy-editing of complex articles such as Physics, Photon, Alpha Centauri and Gothic boxwood miniature, with exquisite nuanced edit summaries such as "'perhaps' not needed for a 'speculation'", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Attic Salt (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you! Feel free to copy-edit "my" articles anytime if you have spare time. One is up for peer review, and others for GA, - look for "quality" on my user page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2189 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for your share to Rigel! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Game theory: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. If you help document editor misbehavior via warnings, we can better make a case to admins to block the editor involved and end the vandalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider this, yes. I'm not very good at the template thing. Indeed, it is actually very hard for me to find the templates I might occasionally need. To me, at least, this part of Wikipedia is not very well organised. Attic Salt (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case you did not know: WP:NOBAN's traditional interpretation is that if you ask someone not to post to your user talk page, they should comply, except for mandatory notices (such as ANI threads etc.). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I've considered it. I'm curious as to how deep the hole will be dug. Attic Salt (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two templates on Rigel#Nomemclature were added as there are two issues of POV problems within the Rigel article. The reason is to final resolve the POV issues, and we should await investigation by others not associated with these edits in question. It appears listed here[50] and template usage/removal discussion under [2]. Discussion should be made on the Rigel talkpage. Hope this helps. 08:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I think I just unintentionally stamped all over one of your edits. Or possibly intentionally. I think the end result is OK, though. Take a look and see what you think. I'm slightly unhappy about the periodic table we have since it is a little out of date (see Johnson, which gives some supernova yields beyond Rb as well as Siegel which theorises that supernova r-process is dominant) but I can't find a newer public source version. Lithopsian (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lithopsian, I'm okay with what we have. We'll see how long it lasts. I remain a bit concerned about terminology, however. I've been assuming that supernova nucleosynthesis refers specifically to nucleosynthesis occurring during the supernova phase of stellar evolution. While stellar nucleosynthesis refers to nucleosynthesis in stars, even those that might eventually go supernova, but before the supernova phase. The article seems to wrap up "supernova nucleosynthesis" into any nucleosynthesis occurring in a star before and during the supernova phase. Admittedly, possibly a technical issue. Attic Salt (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really looked at supernova nucleosynthesis much. I know an "involved" editor did a lot of work a year or two back, then much of it was removed as being too technical and focused on particular aspects. A quick look suggests that the lead is fuzzy on the definition, and parts of the body are poorly-referenced. I see sections with no references at all, always a sign that someone has gone off on a stream of consciousness which may or may not be accurate. It is also (almost) entirely focused on core collapse supernovae. Nucleosynthesis also occurs inside type Ia supernovae, there are fundamental differences, and they deserve more visibility in the article. Although there is inevitable dependence on the composition of a star before the supernova occurs, I think the definition should make more clear that we are primarily talking about the synthesis of elements during the supernova event itself, so roughly from the onset of explosive fusion in a core collapse or the (re-)ignition of fusion in a white dwarf. Dependant on references agreeing with me. In supernova itself, maybe some tweaks to the terminology would help to clarify the difference between strict supernova nucleosynthesis, which is hardly discussed, and elemental yields which is heavily discussed and isn't quite the same thing. For example, much of the lighter elements (eg. helium, carbon, oxygen) is the result of earlier fusion reactions, and it is perhaps worth emphasizing that the bulk of the ejecta from type II supernovae is unchanged primordial hydrogen (and helium). Lithopsian (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lithopsian, Okay, thank you for the response. If you (or another expert) can help clarify the issue of supernova nucleosynthesis, vs the elements formed from normal stellar nucleosynthesis and then, afterwards, dispersed with the supernova, that would be great. Probably easier in the supernova article, where the explanation can be shorter. Attic Salt (talk) 18:05, 19 June 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 Proposed one-way IBAN for Arianewiki1. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and Lithopsian have reverted my edits to the constellations entry without giving reasons. What do you find wrong with them? Would you like to consult an expert such as AstroLynx for his opinion? FYI, I was trying to get it back closer to where it was in June 2017 before it was messed about with by ArianeWiki, among others https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constellation&oldid=787775346 Skeptic2 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your reverting of two sourcing on the page. Just as the sources that claim Thomas Jefferson did have illegitimate children are not cherry picking, do to are sources that claim Thomas Jefferson did not have illegitimate children are not cherry picking. The sources are reliable and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.111.151 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mobile Launcher Platform. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Unicode. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Concealed carry in the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the short description carefully for New York City. I put that the city is in Southeastern New York, not Southeastern US. They are two different things. Interstellarity (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity You are correct. I did not read that very carefully. I apologise. Attic Salt (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

by the way this has nothing to do with importance or articles. i was just bored. delete this if you want Billy rocky fernansa (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I notice you have made an unexplained reversion at temperature. Flow/transfer of mass/substance is the standard expression, not flow of matter. Energy also belongs to matter.--185.53.199.97 (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accept that. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the copyvio you mention, but see my post at Talk:Da Vinci Globe and WP:FTN#Da Vinci Globe. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your removal of the image in Cat as there was no explanation for why you picked that one out. The article has many images, possibly too many, but if they are to be reduced it should be discussed first. You should start a discussion on the talk page if you want to pursue this. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This diff really made me laugh. I don't think it needs a citation, I think it's actually a WP:CURRENTLY violation -- that sentence will be be out of date by the year 2500 :-) - Astrophobe (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I reverted your change in the opening paragraph of Lagrange. The issue of Lagrange's nationality/ethnicity has been discussed at length some years ago. First of all, the word "Italian" has nothing to do with the existence of an Italian state, but with the ethnicity. An "Italian nation" has existed at least since the 13th century, and there is general consensus about it. Dante was Italian, Leonardo da Vinci (another famous person who spent the last years of his life in France) Italian, and so on, as much as Luther was German before the birth of a German national state. Back to Lagrange, he was Italian, born in Italy, moved to Germany and finally to France. But the main point is not this, but that the mention of an ethnicity in a biography is regulated by WP:ETHNICITY, a part of the manual of style. In the lead of a biography should be mentioned the ethnicity of a person when he/she became notable, and not the others. In the case of Lagrange this is the Italian one, because when he left Turin for Berlin he was already known without any doubt as one of the most important mathematicians in Europe. Adopting the same criterium, Riccardo Giacconi, Nobel prize for physics born in Genoa, for Wikipedia is not Italian, but American, since he moved to the U.S. before he discovered anything. One can agree or not about this way of defining the ethnicity, and can try to change it (I did some years ago, but without success), but the important thing it is that this is part of a guideline, and as such can be enforced (the last discussion about Lagrange ended with a block of the other person) and spares a lot of discussions and edit warring. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tripartite Pact on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your recent contribution to the New York City article. Therefore my question is this: just what is a sandwich? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some better way to phrase the facts, please edit content rather than delete it, as per WP:EW. Thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you added wasn't more informative than what is already in the article. Attic Salt (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a high-quality reliable source that directly contradicted the second sentence in the lead.Sbelknap (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a historian and I've studied this issue extensively. I've read "The Scholar's Commission Report" and the Monticello report as well as some of Annette Gordon-Reed's books. I came at it from an objective view and concluded that this is an unprovable case, and as such, we should presume innocence on the part of Thomas Jefferson. Moreover, in light of the sensitive questions of family, national and racial identity that this question raises, we must realize that we don't have to prove the unprovable or besmirch the dead to understand how instrumental the Hemings family was in the formation of our country. I actually wrote a dissertation on the controversy, which you quite rudely referred to as "vanity press." This aside, I would be happy to send you a copy of my research, which includes a rather lengthy historiographical review. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you modified or added to edits rather than just deleting them. All the Best, DiscoveringTrueHistory (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jared Kushner on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Assyrian genocide on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:International Bureau of Weights and Measures on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 28, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 28, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Superstition on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Xi Jinping on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Involuntary commitment on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a useful edit? People sharing an incredibly common name is not noteworthy. Long articles should not be festooned with heading templates for the hell of it. Without a better reason I'll be removing this again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It gives people a way to find other articles about people named John Brown. I use disambiguation pages all the time in searching Wiki. Attic Salt (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is specifically discouraged by WP:NAMB. Disambguation pages are for people who are lost, not simply curious about the existence of random unrelated articles. If you disagree with that, feel free to take it up on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I read WP:NAMB it says we don't need disambiguation for article titles that are not ambiguous. This one is. Just have a look at the disambiuation page: [52]. Lots of people with the same or similar names. That makes it useful. Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the others famous abolitionists? No. You're justifying a bad decision after the fact. I don't want to waste precious minutes of my life on an official discussion here, but I will, and will continue it to the point where you're prevented from wasting other people's lives on the same. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming that someone will search, specifically, for "John Brown" and "abolishionist", when they might, instead, simply search for "John Brown" without knowing how else to describe him. Yes, I remember a time when I was young and didn't really understand the abolishionist movement. Right now, entering "John Brown" takes you to the disambiguation page, and from there it is easy to navigate and explore. You might also consider what a person would do if they end up on the John Brown (abolitionist) page, but want to find a different John Brown. I'm sorry to see that your tone has now become aggressive. Attic Salt (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Thumperward, this edit of yours is not something to be proud of: [53]. Attic Salt (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attic Salt, it is correct that no hat note is necessary on parenthetically disambiguated articles such as John Brown (abolitionist), as discussed at WP:NAMB, as long as there are no other, less famous abolitionists named John Brown. If John Brown was the article about the abolitionist and the disambiguation page was at John Brown (disambiguation), then a hat note would make sense. VQuakr (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, VQuakr, for explaining this. I was not appreciating that it was related to the parenthical description per se. This was not clear, to me, in the link provided by Thumperward: [54], which I did read. Instead, all I got was an assertion that we didn't need disambiguation because John Brown is "an incredibly common name" (quoting Thumperward). Attic Salt (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was apparently mistaken in thinking that by putting a disambiguation link at the top of the John Brown (abolitionist) page that a corresponding link would be, possibly by a bot, put on John Brown (disambiguation). It appears to me, now, that this does not happen. Therefore, it seems that if someone searches on "John Brown" they will be sent to the disambiguation page, where one could find John Brown (abolitionist), even if the disambiguation link was not put at the top of John Brown (abolitionist). That's the way it should be, but I did not fully understand that it worked that way. Again, thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Alumni' of Harvard University page only has images. If we were to go with the 'texts and reliable sources' version, we can include many names and details. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Harvard_University#Replacing_excessive_images_with_texts. Ber31 (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:World War II on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting relevant references on "Physics of financial markets" page. We are adding them because they are relevant. We have also added all the other references if you pay attention. One that we erased had no relevance to the subject.

COI policies state that:

WP:COI.: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive."

The material is relevant and therefore permitted. If you continue deleting the references and modifying the subject we will have to initiate an investigation regarding your COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algostox (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to picking up on my suggestion that we populate separate galleries in the separate pages for College, law school, business school, etc., and then finish up with the gallery for the university as a whole. I think Dershowitz is a great case: it makes a lot of sense for him to be highlighted in the law school article, hardly at all that he'd be highlighted for HU overall. EEng 00:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might have a look at the other H articles, and, of course, maybe you will contribute to the galleries in those articles as well. Regarding Dershowitz, he is something of a Fox News celebrity these days. When I was in school, he seemed to be more widely respected. At least relative to other faculty, he is widely known and therefore notable in some sense. Still, I appreciate you opinion. I am not particularly attached to him having his photo in the HU gallery. Attic Salt (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harvard University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Conant. 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) 07:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Orgone on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hungary in World War II on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's articles related to the Solar System. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Solar System? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Attic Salt - you undid two of my edits on the Degree_distribution page.

Re revision: "Undid revision 997059102 by Fractalfalcon (talk) Removing material related to a blog." The previous text was incorrect and referenced the wrong paper and poorly written. I corrected the reference from "Petter Holme" to "Broido & Clauset". The "Holme" paper is a comment on whether the discussion of SF networks is important or not. In the Holme paper, the blog you have removed is a key source since Barabasi is one of the key figures in the debate and it is his blog. If blogs cannot be referenced, ok, but I would suggest only the blog reference is removed and not the whole edit.

Re revision: "Undid revision 997060609 by Fractalfalcon (talk) Removing citation to source that has only been cited once in the literature." Is there a specific policy against this? It may only be cited once but it is a published and reviewed paper.

Thanks! --Fractalfalcon (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone my excessive reverts, but I took out the blog, normally not considered a reliable source. Attic Salt (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added an alternative reference from a published paper to replace the blog. Fractalfalcon (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ivermectin and Talk:Variant of Concern 202012/01 on "Maths, science, and technology" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ivermectin on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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-1992 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.

Politrukki (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shusha on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In explanation, Category:SS officers was removed as he is already in the sub-category Category:SS-Sturmbannführer. Kingbird1 (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I removed the category on the Von Braun page. Attic Salt (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Michael the Brave on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Goths on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added a source that you removed from John Brown when you removed a non-sequitur. That said, the work is much improved after your detailed trimming. Nice work on a tricky subject. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mongol invasions of Vietnam on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you participate in this discussion. You may want to comment at Talk:Southern Methodist University#Image gallery of former students. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:George Washington on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Inertial frame of reference on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Number theory on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Blackbird (land yacht) on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, I find this "notification" to be offensive as long you don't similarly notify other parties involved, namely AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika. Your behaviour as an administrator is clearly biased. Attic Salt (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be much point in alerting editors to the BLP requirements when those editors have been expounding the need to follow BLP requirements. However, if you see it differently, anyone can add a notification: it's not an admin action. See {{ds/alert}}. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to reflect on your service. Attic Salt (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big believer in bureaucracy and I think I explained the situation above—I don't see a need to notify anyone else at the moment, but you can if you see it differently. I thought your 22 July 2021 edit at Zina Bash warranted my comment here. I have no idea who Bash is but should 44% of her article be devoted to commentary on a photo of her hand? Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea who she is? Surely you've read the article and learned who she is. After all, you are the administrator on an ANI dispute about the article. You froze the article, concluding, somehow, that there is a "reasonable claim of BLP problem" [55]. I hope you have done your administrator homework. Attic Salt (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've read it now (although that's not needed to see that protection is warranted). Sorry I used the wrong words but what I mean is that I have no knowledge of whether the claims are plausible or whether she is a good person. What I do know is that 44% of an article devoted to how she sat during a hearing is very likely to be undue. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The “okay” incident is the only reason there is an article about her. I’m open to deleting the article, but until then, the article needs to be objectively worded. Attic Salt (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Holocaust on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from Zina Bash and its related talkpage per this discussion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 08:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

This is a scarlet letter. I can hardly tell you how disappointed I am in this whole Wiki experience. I'm gone. Attic Salt (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen I am very disappointed that you ignored the bullying and abusive behavior from AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika while applying sanctions on me and Attic Salt. Moreover, I am beyond dismayed and heartbroken that Attic Salt has now decided to leave this place, which will create an echo chamber here. You should reflect upon your actions as an administrator. TrueQuantum (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to get past this. You know how many times I've been blocked? So you see, you're in the best of company.

I've sometimes thought we ought to have rule that everyone gets a partial block once a year; if 365 days go by without a given editor being blocked, we randomly pick one article they've edited in the prior month and block them from it for a week. Then people can stop being ashamed. EEng 19:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:EEng, that's not a bad idea. I'll point out, though, that Attic Salt posted a "retired" template on their userpage seven hours before I blocked, so they probably didn't mean to imply they retired because of the "scarlet letter" block. Anyway, I'm very proud of my own scarlet letter block, and I feature my block log on my userpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@EEng: Last night I was thinking something along the same lines. Perhaps WP would be a better place if we would deal out blocks more easily, but also not take them as serious as we do. Block some, unblock some, but not make it into such a big deal. Same would go for adminship: sysop more easily, desysop more easily, it would take away a lot of the unnecessary gravity. I feel that Bishonen by advertising her own blocks may be expressing some such similar. At the same time however, I think that no one really has any control over this kind of thing, and it would be hard to make out a definite answer to these issues anyways.

@Attic Salt: I would like to second EENG: it would be great if you could ignore this business and just get on with improving the encyclopedia, which is after all what we're here for. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a userbox:

This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!).

EEng 22:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attic Salt, I don't know if you will see this message or not but I just wanted to say that I really appreciated your presence and contributions here on Wikipedia. I will be heartbroken if you decide to leave. The last thing we need is for Wikipedia to become an echo chamber. There must be room for opposing viewpoints so long as our desire is to follow the guidelines as closely as possible, which I believe we were trying to do in good faith. If you leave, I don't want to stay here anymore either. TrueQuantum (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you see, A.S., if T.Q. leaves it will be your fault. Do you want that on your conscience? EEng

Like EEng, I also have been blocked 18 or 19 times, often deservedly, but you know, think this: in this instance I don't see that anybody's opinion of you is tarnished. Have seen Bishonen about for years and years, and always had the feeling she *gets it* and would not think less of you for a single transgression, esp as you are such a highly productive and respected editor, and Bishonen has herself written quite a few FAs and can be thought of as a "content admin" (the most rarified and exquisite caste to be blocked by). Long ago Attic I learned to shrug this stuff over my shoulder and just keep on going. In fact a lot of the admins doing this stuff are grand and sound if you talk to them. so, like, come back pls. Ceoil (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ps, Bishonen had the stones to block Jimbo back in the day, and he's barely edited articles since. I think you are worth two Jimbos, and if was you would just start up again, per everybody above; I'm obviously not the only person to have worked positively with you. Ceoil (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stay. Wikipedia is stronger with you here. I have seen your work and and Wikipedia needs you. A certain amount of dealing with disagreement is inevitable. That the block is placed on a single page seems to indicate the work you've done on all the other pages is just fine. Attic Salt, you are a valued contributor to the pedia. Please consider taking a break and coming back when gumption is high. BusterD (talk)

I think that it would be worthwhile if you came back to the website after awhile, whether that be a month, or a year or more. As someone who became disillusioned by aspects of Wikipedia's culture and basically left the place for a couple years, I can say that it was good to get some space and find another perspective. In the end: everyday, perfectly normal people use this website for legitimate purposes, and if there are small things I can do to help them, then that's worth it to me. Plus, there's something enjoyable about editing in its own right. Remember that there's no requirement to engage in the contentious back-rooms of this website. BirdValiant (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Psychology on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Afghanistan on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sogdia on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Apple cider vinegar on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Attic Salt,

So sad to see you leave... You were one of the best editors to contribute to this website. When so many good editors leave, the content of the website will suffer. Ber31 (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiments of my fellow editors as expressed here, but the experience of being hauled into the BLP committee, with accusations made against me and TrueQuantum, with irresponsible and inflammatory statements made by some editors (and, in some cases, administrators) even though they obviously made very little review of the circumstances, and when they were asked for real evidence of some sort of transgression, nothing being produced. Bullying as well. I did my best to do something positive, but apparently a difference of opinion on the Zina Bash article as to whether or not we should say "accused" or "falsely accused" is enough for Bishonen to apply a block. Somehow I'm supposed to either carry that around with me for the rest of my time at Wiki, or appeal the penalty (where I would be expected to grovel, yes), even though I don't feel like I really did anything wrong, well, it was just too much. I found it all disappointing and, yes, disgusting. And it doesn't help to hear silly statements about how Bishonen is fair minded and all. I'm pretty fair minded as well. I'm happy now occupying my time with crossword puzzles and spelling games. Sincerely, Attic Salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:1780:1C38:FCB0:21F:D7F4:C146 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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. Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your edit at 13:10, 6 August 2018, in which you wrote <the younger Jung>. I found it quite comedic. TheFells (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for Gothic boxwood miniature, introduced: "Impossibly small wood-cut miniatures from the 15th and 16th centuries, which have unfortunately been under studied until very recently, partly because they are too small to fully appreciate even with the naked eye. I have watched people come across them in museums, and the usual reaction is jaw drop; it takes a few minutes to realise what you are looking at." Exquisite and eye-opening! - Miss you. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]