Jrincayc

The reason no edit summary is given is because I used the rollback button, which automatically inserts the words reverted to last edit by ... and marks the revert as minor. The reason the revert was made is because User:142.177.etc is a hard banned user. If hard banned users attempt to circumvent their ban and continue editing, the general guideline is to auto-revert them. It's just a way of enforcing the ban when IP blocks don't work. Having said that, if you feel the content is useful, there is nothing stopping you reinserting it. In fact, some articles by this user, which would otherwise have been deleted, have been "kidnapped" by Cyan so that other users feeling the content is useful can repost it under their own name. There's a list of them at User:Cyan/kidnapped if you're interested. There are more details of the ban of this user under his other login names at User:Mediator/ban and User:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban. Angela. 15:44, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Additional comments : in spite of what Angela says, User:Mediator is not hold by the banned user any more, so there is no sense in removing what has been written by that user. Besides, reverting good edits by banned users is controversial. Feel free to revert any edits you think are relevant. thanks PomPom

Fine, you do that. Here's a link: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_and_nominations_for_de-adminship. You might want to request desysopship of the following at the same time as they have all done exactly the same thing over the past month. If you have an issue with the policy, I suggest you write to the mailing list or something rather than making threats towards me. Angela.

• The Anome
• Cyan
• Secretlondon
• Maveric149
• Daniel Quinlan
• Viajero

Tell me where this policy is so I can go and complain about it there. If this is a general policy, then I severely disagree with it, and not necessarily you for carrying out the policy. Jrincayc 21:51, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Bans and blocks which states

All edits by a hard banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. We ask that users not reinstate any edits made by banned users, but some strongly oppose this policy

How else do you propose to enforce a ban if a user is allowed to carry on editing? Angela. 21:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Funny, I can't seem to find the place where it states that all edits from an ISP that has had a banned user are to be considered edits from the banned user and should be reverted. I am right now working on hand examining the edit to Economics and it is mostly an improvement to the article. That same page you quote states:

Most Wikipedians are good contributors, and we encourage people to show good Wikiquette when dealing with them. For example, we suggest that it is almost always better to fix bad edits, rather than revert them. In particular, reverting without some meaningful comment is particularly frustrating and off-putting to newcomers.

Where is the evidence that the edits by a user from sympatico.ca (an isp with thousands of people) was the same person as the banned user? You have no proof and you reverted edits that are valid nonvandalism edits of an unknown user. I think that was wrong. Jrincayc 22:13, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I never said "all edits from an ISP that has had a banned user are to be considered edits from the banned user". If you refuse to be civil about this (making edit summaries such as "bullshit"), then I do not intend to discuss this further with you. Try reading Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Angela. 22:17, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I apologize for getting out of hand. I should not have used BS as an edit summary. While you have not directly stated that "all edits from an ISP that has had a banned user are to be considered edits from the banned user", so far as I can tell, the only evidence that you have about 142.177.92.201 being EntmootsOfTrolls, is that they are from the same ISP. Therefore, from my point of view, it seems that you are operating under the assumetion "all edits from an ISP that has had a banned user are to be considered edits from the banned user." If I am mistaken, I would like to hear why I am mistaken on this point. Again, I apologize for getting out of hand and being uncivil. Jrincayc 22:30, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks. You can tell this user by the type of edits he makes. As Adam Bishop said today "IPs tend not to make the kind of sweeping edits, or fully wikified new articles that he makes". Also, I know the topics he works on and the biases he adds to articles, and also the kind of edit summary he makes. He has also created the same articles at Simple recently. Added to this, I knew he was active on Wikipedia as he had been editing Simple and Meta very shortly before, and his edits on Meta are a dead give away - he was creating pages like Banned user club! I am fully aware that not every 142 address is EofT but I strongly believe that this one was. Angela. 00:48, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that you are probably right about the articles that you reverted. I do however strongly disagree with the revert all edits even if they are useful contributions policy. Jrincayc 16:07, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

this is fine Jrincayc. Some prefer reverting in any cases; others, less numerous, support keeping the good edits. Just do as you feel. And be aware reverting back will anger or sadden or just midly irritate those who prefer removing all banned users stuff. So try to do it *only* when it is really worth. Also, Angel knows 142 kind of edits quite well, so likely, when she feels it is 142 edit, it very probably is.

Hi JR, I recall that last month you mentioned that production theory basics would be improved by adding some price, cost, and output elasticity material to it. My comment at the time was that I wanted to keep the article purely non-monetary because the introduction of prices would be too much for some readers to handle in this introductory article and might reduce the clarity of the rest of the material in the article.

I think you are right that this material should be introduced somewhere, in fact, I have discovered that I have to cover it. I was fixing a stub social cost that was on cleanup which lead to my rewriting the article on welfare economics. But I realised that I can’t explain welfare economics adequately without dealing with the pricing and optimum usage of factor inputs, so I am going to start an article optimum factor allocation in which we can add issues like output elasticity, Marginal Revenue Product, and Marginal Resource Costs. In the production theory basics article I want to add a section on isoquants. Just thought I would keep you informed about what I am doing in case you have any more good suggestions.

By the way, what do you think of the new expanded economics page? mydogategodshat 22:19, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Okay. The new economics page looks fairly good. I looked at the isoquants section, and added a comment about more that two dimensional isoquants. I have a thesis to write in the next few months (on teaching the pumping lemma), so I will be rather time constrained, but I will try to continue to at least look at the changes that are happening on wikipedia's economics section. Keep up the good work. Jrincayc 16:00, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination on labour economics. I would like to reciprocate. What are some of the better articles that you have writen or contributed to? mydogategodshat 01:06, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. Supply and demand might be approriate to nominate. Jrincayc 17:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet another economist. I saw you are interested in programming languages as well, so I wondered if you might help me with a project about learning I am starting. Please check my user page and let me know. Get-back-world-respect 21:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Well, I haven't programmed in basic for a while, and I don't have easy access to quick basic any more (since I use Linux and Mac OS X), but I might take a look some time. If you have specific questions, if you email me the question and the code you have a question about, I will probably respond fairly quickly to it. Jrincayc 03:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

It was just the wrong word. It was just clearly the wrong word. "I specialize in Macroeconomics" isn't something I've ever heard. "I specialize in open currency flow models for developing economies" is. Stirling Newberry 13:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. I just think that the summary "reverting minor useless edit" 1) does not explain why the edit was reverted 2) does not give any hint as to how if the editor had a good reason they should explain the reason. 3) could seem nasty to a newcommer. Jrincayc 02:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What kind of problems do you expect to be discussed on the Wikipedia:Unsolved_Problems page? It's not at all clear to me. David Merrill 15:01, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Things that are currently at Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great, but lack evidence. Jrincayc 15:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please consider reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snowspinner/Avala_Evidence

and then voting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#User:Snowspinner_.2854.2F6.2F2.29_Ends_17:06.2C_31_July_2004

-- orthogonal 18:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What you might ask is the Business and Economics Forum? Well, Im not sure yet. At this point it is little more than scattered thoughts in my scattered mind. But I do have a vision of what it could be so I wrote this. I respect your opinion, so I am asking for your input before I mention it to anyone else, or list it on the community portal. I am particularly asking for any ideas you have that might make it work. mydogategodshat 18:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, what's the license of Image:Monopoly pricing.png ? We use it on french wp and would like to know the original license. Thanks in advance. Tipiac 16:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Public domain. I just added the license tag to it. Jrincayc 01:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the strategic management nomination. mydogategodshat 20:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you for writing such an comprehensive article. Jrincayc 01:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the Wikinews project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at demo.wikinews.org. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later.

You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a global Wikinews mailing list for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an IRC channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles.

If you're looking for something to do, check out the articles in development and articles in review. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.--Eloquence* 02:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Revert MacGyverMagic's edit-summary-less revert back to 212.85.24.83's Justified removal of outdated hardware status (It was old and incorrect since local search is now enabled)

True, I could've been better at explaining the revert, my apologies. I'll do it now.

I don't like deletion of material, when simply updating it could fix it. Have you discussed it with other wikipedians before you deleted? Maybe being informed about it will push someone to update the section. Or since you knew it was wrong why not update yourself? It's essential to have the info available.

By the way, due to recent requests on WP:HD I believe we still can't search locally, but on a database dump, which is not the same thing. I think we should ask some other people for their opinions first. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 15:46, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

You managed to hit a pet peeve of mine. I have had a edit of mine that I thought was constructive but was reverted with the default revert message. I was rather ticked off about it for an hour or so. I can agree that the deletion probably was wrong, but I think 212.85 probably was well meaning, and so the revert without giving a reason probably would annoy them. I see a fair number of posts on forum sites about how wikipedia is too quick to revert, and sometimes I think there might be a case. In other words, I think the there was good reason for you to revert 215.85's edit, however, I think you should have given a specific reason for your revert. (Of course, deleting material is probably your pet peeve ;) Jrincayc 02:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nah. It's cool. I didn't read enough context before putting it in and got upward/downward sloping backwards. And then I stuffed it in between the wrong two words. It's what I get for doing edits waiting for important stuff to finish running. Blair P. Houghton 04:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That okay. That's what watchlists are for :) Jrincayc 13:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean you second the request for an explanation for my revert? You should have read the talk page prior to putting that on my talk page because I already left an "explanation". I also edited the article again if you are interested in reviewing it. I changed to "all things equal..." for ceteris paribus and I also updated the talk page again if you are interested in reading my "explanation" again. UH Collegian 02:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I missed that explaination when I wrote the message on your talk page. Sorry. Jrincayc 02:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you are interested in economics, I have a question for you. Now, most universities in the U.S. categorize economics as a "social science" and award either a BS or BA, which I agree with. However, some universities (mostly small ones), categorize economics as "business administration" and grant a BBA degree, which I do not agree with and is totally wrong in my opinion. What is your stance on this?

I think that sounds somewhat strange, but I can't say I particularly have a opionion on that. For what its worth, at the University I went to, economics was part of the Agriculture College (you can probably guess that they had a strong agricultural economics program from that fact). Jrincayc 03:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You reverted my revert on that article. You must have overlooked something. The edit I reverted was clearly vandalism. It removed a part of a paragraph that looks like it belongs there. It offered no explanation for doing so. And it left a fragment of a sentence lingering there. Please take another look. Rl 14:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

You are completely right. My appologies. I misread the diff. Jrincayc 14:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I was reading through the monopoly article and saw that your monopoly diagram has Profit shown as a polygon. Is this a mistake, or am I missing something?

Yes, profit is a polygon of the revenue minus the cost to produce. If this doesn't make sense, ask on the talk page for monopoly. Jrincayc 12:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

My query was more in relation to the profit area being shown. Surely an ATC (or AC) curve is required to derive the cost of production at the Monopoly output? I could be wrong, but I think the diagram and associated description at the moment are misleading.

If I recall correctly ${\displaystyle AC(Q)*Q=\int _{0}^{Q}{MC(q)dq}}$ , so the area of the marginal cost will give the total cost to the company. In other words, the marginal cost and the average cost curve are related so either could be used for this graph. Jrincayc 02:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! Your user page hasn't been vandalized :-) --it was updated to use the new User Categorization scheme. I have categorized your User Page as a Wikipedian in Idaho (Category:Wikipedians in Idaho) since your name was listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Idaho page. The Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Idaho page is scheduled for deletion. Thanks! Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 00:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Business and Economics?. Thanks. --Pamri ^{• Talk • Reply} 12:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, User:Radeksz has proposed a rewrite of Microeconomics on that article's talk page, in case you care to have a look. dbtfz^talk 09:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Perhaps you can address my recent comments at talk:consumer theory? Michael Hardy 22:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Thanks for your attention.I should be more careful.--Sa.vakilian 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing the date. Jrincayc 19:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. I apologize for intruding, and I hope I'm writing this in the right place. Tonight upon searching for a playable version of the world's second video game, Space War!, I found that Jrincayc has had some historical involvement in this matter: he was listed as the keeper of the source code of a version of it written in 1998. It seems to me that it would be appropriate that he be mentioned somewhere in this connection.

2. As open as he has kept his life on the web, I'd love to have an email contact for him which seems mysteriously not listed where I've looked. Can someone supply that to me, please?

3. As I know little to nothing about the internal workings of Wikipedia, and having only recently attempted a first edit to correct some obvious typos, I know nothing about the messaging conventions on this page, and I apologize in advance if what I've written here is inappropriate in any way.

4. Thanks in advance for your patience,

jim the corndodger corndodger2@hotmail.com

Reply via email. Jrincayc 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Discrete_supply_and_demand.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indifference_curve_perfect_comp.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Indifference_curve_perfect_sub.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is a new Wikiproject for Idaho. Hopefully the project will coordinate the creation and editing of articles related to the US State Idaho, its cities, sites, history, etc. It aims primarily to expand Wikipedia's resources on Idaho and present the state in a fair and accurate manner. Check it out. You can leave a message on the WPIDAHO talk page or on my talk page --Robbie Giles 16:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just wanted to compliment your page. It looks nice! And if there was a friends list, I'd add you.

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Meraki, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Oli Filth 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

hi there. I am disputing that the figure you drew at Consumer_theory for the substitution effect is correct. However, I do have to say that I love the figures, they are some of the best I've seen! Can you tell me what you used to create them? (The image in question is Image:Substitution_effect.png). Pdbailey (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I used Xfig to create the diagrams. (Inkscape is another one that might be work trying.) Jrincayc (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I use mainly R to create graphics. But it doesn't have a fully functional vector graphics add on yet. Looking at your figures, I can see that for thin lines and figures with loads of detail, this is hugely helpful. Thanks for the links! Pdbailey (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Replied on User talk:Osgood the Crazy Lizard. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

In further research on MPEG-1, I came across Philip's Video CD IP licensing program, which includes a handful of potential candidates for patents that may still be in-force, covering MPEG-1. Specifically, any mentioning "frame" "motion" "image" (video), "subband" "filter" (audio), etc., are prime candidates. I haven't done any research yet, so I can't say if any are essential. The list does appear to be comprehensive.

See all (4) "Annex A" PDFs listed at: http://www.ip.philips.com/services/?module=IpsLicenseProgram&command=View&id=52&part=4

You may well be the only person on WP that cares (myself included, as I've happily moved on to Citizendium and now refrain from any work on WP) so I opted to point them out to you directly. Good luck. Rcooley (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Thank you. I will have to take a look at those patents. Jrincayc (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

The article European Union 95 year recording copyright extension proposal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is really news content, fails to meet WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I don't think the anon has good faith. The anon cares nothing for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and has been adding material on 350.org and related material without any consideration as to whether it's appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, there was no comment with the revert, and no discussion on their talk page. Jrincayc (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's a floating 99.* IP dedicating to spamming information about 350.org around the Internet. Where is an appropriate talk page to comment? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The edit summary. Jrincayc (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Josh. I stumbled across your Python patent code at User:Jrincayc/Patent utils. I was thinking of writing something along these lines too, and would rather piggyback off the work that you've already done. Do you have any objection?

Have you considered open-sourcing this? I looked into this a few years ago, and from time to time I'm contacted by someone who googled to my query and who is looking to do the same thing, asking if I ever found anything; so I think there's a niche for it.

Also, I see that open-source attorney Van Lindberg is going to be presenting at PyCon next month: "How to kill a patent with Python"; and part of his talk may be interesting for this: The USPTO as a data source.* The full-text of each patent is available from the USPTO (and now from Google.) What does this data look like? How can it be harvested and normalized to create data structures that we can work with TJRC (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely. I added a comment that it can be used under the GPL 2 or later. If you need a different license feel free to ask. Jrincayc (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

According to your table at Talk:MP3#Expiration of Patents, the patent will never expire. Take a good look at that date in 2015 :) —mjb (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the joy of parsing patent text. Sometimes the program only finds month and year, and puts in 32 as the date. Jrincayc (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

The article New Spelling has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources given to indicate any notability or wider cultural or academic impact.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think you need to read WP:Verifiability, not truth. That phrase exists because we have had hundreds of people over the years who have told the community, "WP:But it's true!, so it doesn't matter that it's not verifiable". It does matter if it's verifiable: You may include material that is verifiable, and you may not include material that is not verifiable, even if that unverifiable material is True™.

Similarly, you must occasionally include some material that is verifiable and not true: For example, if you have personal knowledge that a company is re-stating its earnings from last year, but the new numbers have not been announced yet, then you must list the untrue, published numbers for now, rather than the true, but as-yet unpublished, numbers. The fact that the new numbers are "true" is actually irrelevant: Wikipedia wants to reflect the published sources, not the spreadsheet on your computer.

"But it's not true!" is the battle cry of many POV pushers in controversial articles. One goal of this sentence is to remind editors that their personal beliefs that abortion is/isn't murder, or that climate change is/isn't happening, or that Barack Obama is/isn't an American citizen, or whatever, are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's "really" True™ (according to your personal beliefs). If a proper reliable source didn't say it, then even WP:The Truth does not meet the threshold (=minimum requirement) for inclusion in Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I disagree with WhatamIdoing in every respect. Wanting the encyclopaedia not to be a pack of lies is not necessarily the "battle cry of POV pushers", and it's extremely unhelpful and belittling to stick that ™ sign after the word "truth". It's perfectly possible to seek the truth through published sources and I applaud your commonsense stance on this.—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

For what it is worth, I have read WP:Verifiability, not truth, and I agree with most of it; I think the essay would be better (and mean about the same) if you just removed the 'not truth' part. I got motivated to this discussion because verifiability was brought up in Talk:The Limits to Growth#Exponential reserve index formula is wrong when we were having a discussion of what the true equation should be. I have not seen any discussion that changes my mind about removing the 'not truth' from the verifiability page. I expect that my edit will get reverted tho. WhatamIdoing, I fully agree with your statement, "You may include material that is verifiable, and you may not include material that is not verifiable, even if that unverifiable material is True." I would also like to list Stress (mechanics)#Equilibrium_equations_and_symmetry_of_the_stress_tensor as an exhibit of something that is very verifiable, but does not list a reliable source. Jrincayc (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

And for what it is worth, my person canon: http://jjc.freeshell.org/things_i_believe.html Jrincayc (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Idaho, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about Idaho.

--BDD (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Simple supply and demand.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are the scripts written in python2 or python3? I get some TabErrors (TabError: inconsistent use of tabs and spaces in indentation)--Kopiersperre (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Python2 Jrincayc (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as {{own}}, amending the {{information}} added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{media by uploader}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transfered to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is there a common phonetic equivalent to this sentence, that has every English phoneme? The only one I could find was "Hum, thou whirring fusion; yes, Joy, pay each show; vie, thaw two wool dock bags." at http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1980.1056231 which phonetically is something like "hʌm ,ðaʊ wɝrɪŋ ˈfjuː.ʒən; jɛs, ʤɔɪ, peɪ iʧ ʃoʊ; vaɪ, θɔː tu wʊl dɒk bæɡz." That sentence is a bit awkward however. Jrincayc (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC).

Yes, it seems they are called phonetic pangrams and there are several. Some are

• "That quick beige fox jumped in the air over each thin dog. Look out, I shout, for he's foiled you again, creating chaos."

• "The hungry purple dinosaur ate the kind, zingy fox, the jabbering crab, and the mad whale and started vending and quacking."

• "The beige hue on the waters of the loch impressed all, including the French queen, before she heard that symphony again, just as young Arthur wanted."

Source: ^[1]

Damaru_wiki

Awesome, thank you. Jrincayc (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

On 19 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article LaMDA, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an erroneous claim that the neural language model LaMDA is sentient has generated conversations on the efficacy of the Turing test? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/LaMDA. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, LaMDA), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Surplus,Supply and demand has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 10 § Surplus,Supply and demand until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

The article World3 nonrenewable resource sector has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't see a strong reason why this article should exist when World3 also exists. I can't find any evidence to support an argument for why this portion of the model is independently notable and deserves its own article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply