AquaDTRS

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I just wonder about the sudden proposal of deletion of "my" article "Plasma Fusion Preface" which has been laying around at Wikipedia for several years. Is it because I replied in a "mean" way to Primefac? He did deserve it though because he was very condescending. I have removed the deletion tag but I will not edit it in a while for the simple reason that I have no time left over. I like my article and it took me a long and hard time writing it but if you wish to destroy my work, by all means go ahead because I really do not care because Wikpedia has mutated into something I really do not like. As an example you people can not let me evaluate and display simplifications (see Relativistic Energy Visualisation) I've come up to by doing serious brain-work of things that is rather hard to understand, Primefac's judgement was "this reeks original research...we do not need a first-year-physics derivation of trivial maths equations". Hello? PS I was about to sponsor you guys but now I have descided not to Knoppson (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Knoppson:, I made the deletion proposal after evaluating the contents of the article and asking around for opinions. I'm no way affiliated with Primefac on that matter. My reasoning for doing so is that I evaluated the article to be a set of notes with different aspects of plasma fusion placed together in a page and because Wikipedia would consider this to be a synthesis of published material based on their no original research policy (WP:SYNTHESIS), the article would eventually be removed from the mainspace. Unless the article was rewritten to prove or describe a specific concept in fusion, I believe other users will still contest keeping the article based on wikipedia policy (which I know can be rather bureaucratic and people will become mean having expected other users to have read all the policies). In any case, I notified you while I was proposing deletion because I can see that you put in a lot of effort into editing the article and I guess that if you were still around you would probably want to save the article. Maybe you can keep a copy of the article's source code in your sandbox (User:Knoppson/sandbox) and work on that instead so it does not get lost and heavily moderated by other editors (the other article on relativity as well). That said, I'm not going to push for deletion any further because it involves navigating through more policies, but I do believe that the article is at risk of being removed in its current state unless it is significantly improved. (PS almost everyone who edits wikipedia is a volunteer and doesn't get paid through the donations) --AquaDTRS (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi AquaDTRS! Thank you, a stone has been lifted from my shoulders! I was so certain that Primefac had gotten himself yet another account just to be able to punish me while not beeing so obvious that it was him. Paranoia can sometimes be rather logical but in extreme ways, I reasoned that while my article has been laying around at Wikipedia for more than a year it was unlikely that I would get a delition proposal the day after I was mean to him, another thing that boosted my paranoia was that his/yours alias was red and thus undefined which is unusual and points to a fast creation of account, finally there were almost no converasions in his/your talk page which indicated the the account was recently opened. But hearing your nice words makes me very happy. While being very afraid that all my articles would have been deleted today (but that notion was thankfully wrong) I have taken some precausions by creating sub article-space clones of my articles just to save their source code. I have done it in swedish Wikipedia while I have some sub-articles there since before. Totally this concerns not more than three articles where one is written in Wikibooks which gave me an idea about this Plasma fusion preface artice because maybe it fits better in Wikibooks. I do however wish more strongly for publishing it in swedish Wikipedia (which do not have your intolerance) instead, this would however demand major translations and I am not so keen on that but maybe, while translating it, I also have the will-power to improve it, maybe even by looking at your improvement encouragement tag. Knoppson (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have just about now learned that it is not possible to print articles in pdf in a normal nice version. You do however have the possibillity of thanking persons that changes your article. Which function is more important? I think you should quit enabling functions that really is not important. Why not focus on stuff that is important? Because if you ommit all these pathetic functions you will probably have a more stable system with the possibility of pdf printing. My tip is to not go beyond bare essentials. Stop the so called evolution and ask yourself what is really important and focus on that, I can promise you that you will not have problems with bare essentials in such a case. Knoppson (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Knoppson: I don't work for wikipedia and I'm just a regular editor like you are. Even if I agreed with you and wanted to implement PDF printing, I have no capability of adding/removing functionality from the wiki. That said, you might want to know that there is a typesetting program known as LaTeX that can format math equations and it is what wikipedia uses to do its math equations. It outputs documents in really nice PDFs and sounds like what you're after. There is a free online version called Overleaf. --AquaDTRS (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello! With reference to Template:Places in Singapore, I would like to raise concerns regarding the removal of links to many Singapore places because of intentions to streamline places in Singapore according to URA's planning area guidelines. I understand that streamlining the template box makes for better clarity and organisation but many of such place articles would now be left isolated since they are no longer reachable by the template box links. A friendly suggestion is to include the omitted places that do not fall under URA's guideline into an annex of the template, because they are still integral to Singapore. Greateasterner (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

That seems like a good suggestion. I noticed a lot of areas I removed are housing estates, roads and places of interest which kind of fit into other templates (i.e. Template:Public housing in Singapore, Template:Major roads in Singapore and Template:Major tourist attractions in Singapore) so I was thinking of reshuffling the navboxes around. However, feel free to edit the template if you have a better idea on how to incorporate that into the navbox. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi AquaDTR. Not sure if you're aware, but there is a way of making a table in an article appear in another without turning it into a template; if you add <onlyinclude> tags around the table, then use (e.g.) {{#section-h:Singaporean general election, 2001|Results}} in the other article, it displays the same table. See e.g. these edits.

I have found that this is preferable to having separate templates as I have >5,000 election articles on my watchlist and sadly there is regular vandalism by IPs changing voting figures slightly. If the results are in separate templates rather than in tables in the articles, this sort of vandalism is far more likely to be missed as the templates often not on anyone's watchlist. Cheers, Number 57 18:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Hi @Number 57:, I don't mean to start an edit war with you, but I didn't realize that you were trying to get rid of the template because it was a potential source of vandalism. I'm pretty much supportive of getting rid of the template and I'm only trying to save its content because the older table seem to have a much better visual appeal than the one that replaces it. Thanks for letting me know about this editing trick. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • No problem. The template version is actually quite problematic – it certainly violates MOS:ICON and the columns are quite confusing, so the simple table is probably better. Cheers, Number 57 20:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the updated definition for orphan article is there is zero links to the article, see Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria. With reference to Ng Gim Choo, the article is not an orphan. I have removed the tag since. Thanks! --Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

So hawu do turn on these demon eyes y basicly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.115.105.46 (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

what do you mean by "demon eyes"? TK421bsod | talk | my contributions 00:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, AquaDTRS

Thank you for creating Roy W. Gould.

User:Blythwood, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I've added his faculty biography as an additional source.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Blythwood}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Blythwood (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Blythwood: Thank you! -- AquaDTRS (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, AquaDTRS

Thank you for creating John H. Malmberg.

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice new article! Keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, When translating from foreign wikis, such as at Sergei V. Bulanov, you must give attribution:

• You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary: Content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at de:Sergei Wladimirowitsch Bulanow; see its history for attribution.
• You should also add the template {{Translated|de|Sergei Wladimirowitsch Bulanow}} to the talk page.
• For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation. --John B123 (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you try split the article for the 2015 Singaporean general election on a new article called Pre-election day events of the 2015 Singaporean general election, because judging from the view the article is big. And there are no post-election events on said article. Let me know if you are going to do. Oh and I proposed the "sample count accuracy" because we want to know if which constituency have the accurate result. Sculture65 (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Sculture65: I can do the split for GE2015, it would be in line with the GE06/GE11 election articles. Also my concern with the sample count accuracy and the rankings is that someone had to do the math and analyse the data, and it would be considered original research as it is difficult for someone to verify the results using sources. The sample count accuracy was reported have a 4% error. I guess it could be argued that verifying it is like calculating percentage changes on day-to-day statistics on COVID-19 cases, but it would help if there were sources that also did the calculation so that they may be cited. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Seen, thanks. Actually that I also want to propose the idea on listing the accuracies, so I gave this a shot. I noticed that the Changes in GRC have been moved to a section, but I think stick to the GE page would do just fine. Sculture65 (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Sculture65: I see. For some reason I had the impression that changes to the electoral boundaries went into the list article, but now looking back at the others I should probably move it back. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Moved to Talk:Mayor of East Orange, New Jersey § Wrong picture for Mayor Thomas Cooke

 – more appropriate there -- AquaDTRS (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Could you please correct the picture for Thomas Henry Cooke, Jr.? You have a picture of Mayor Lester E. Taylor who is not dead attached to Mayor Cooke's information. Adhalll (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello AquaDTRS. Regarding your article moves of the Municipal Commission and City Council election articles, the article titles "1957 Singapore City Council election" or "1950 Singapore Municipal Commission election" are the standard format. For elections to a specific local government entity (which these are), the format of the name is "Year [Organisation name] election". See, for example 2009 Yerevan City Council election or all the articles in Category:2019 English local elections. I will be moving them all back to the original titles as a result. Cheers, Number 57 11:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Number 57: Thanks for the clarification. I had no idea this was the case for local elections as I thought WP:NCELECT applied to all elections. Might have missed it somewhere. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I think this particular convention has simply not been listed (as the guideline focuses mostly on national elections) – I might just boldly add it for clarification. Cheers, Number 57 17:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

		The Singapore Barnstar of National Merit
		For taking the lead in updating and merging the various projects into Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore. – robertsky (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Robertsky: Thank you! :) -- AquaDTRS (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have made changes to the name template. You may vote on the proposal if you agree. Thanks. Gandalfett (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, AquaDTRS. Thank you for your work on Thailand Tokamak-1. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SunDawn:: Thank you! :) -- AquaDTRS (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just came across this page and was wondering if you created this from scratch or from a previous draft? Looks very thorough. CNMall41 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@CNMall41: Thank you, I wrote it from scratch. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Can you provide insight on the retrieval dates for the sources?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, the retrieval dates are simply the dates on which I cited the sources while drafting the article. I created the draft some months ago, worked on it slowly whenever I had the time, and didn't publish any of it until I thought it was sufficiently fleshed out. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Some months" are actually two years according to the dates.--CNMall41 (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply