Polyamorph

Dear Polyamorph, Because this seems to be the only way to send you a message, please excuse this path if it is a misuse. While you provided suggested readings for this 82-year-old on editing, I fear I may not live that long. Would you be kind enough to provide instructions on editing the "Physical Properties" section of the cobalt article where I want to make corrections with this Edit Summary: Replace the nearly identical solid and liquid densities (g/cm3) for cobalt at 8.90 and 8.86 with 8.836 and 7.75 from the 2016 edition of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, page 12-40 and 4-124, respectively, where the liquid density is 88% of the solid density, which is similar for the adjacent elements (iron and nickel) at 89% and 87%. VatievonHans (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi VatievonHans, I removed the barnstar template but kept your message. To send me a message, just click the blue "New section" at the top of this page, or alternatively click the blue text that says "Click here to start a new topic." in the orange welcome to my talk page message. To reply in an existing section, click on the [edit] text on the top right of the section you want to edit.

Regarding your requested edit, the template which contains the data table is protected, so only experienced users can edit it. This is to prevent users changing to false information, which happens a lot. It is a shame it is necessary because otherwise you would be able to make the edit yourself. I will have a look to see if I can make your requested change on your behalf and get back to you. Polyamorph (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done I only changed the liquid value because the Densities_of_the_elements_(data_page), which contains the recommended value to use for the solid as 8.90 gcm^-3, for consistency across Wikipedia. This value is less than 1% from your requested value, so I hope that is OK. The liquid value should now be 7.75 gcm^-3 as you requested.Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Polyamorph,

Thanks for the help editing the cobalt data where I suspected that the 8.90 value was possibly from rounding 8.86 to 1 decimal place. Even the CRC shows 8.9 for sp. gr. (20 °C) for cobalt in "The Elements" section (p. 4-10). The CRC data does support the exception (from solid density > liquid density) for Bi, Ga, and Ge where liquid density is 103%, 103%, and 105% of the solid density, respectively. Do you think that would be worth adding to those sites? VatievonHans (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @VatievonHans: I just checked our internal reference table for liquids, here: Densities_of_the_elements_(data_page)#Density,_liquid_phase, and the recommended value to use for Co is 7.75 gcm^-3. So I am not sure why this wasn't used in the infobox. Anyway, that's fixed. Si also experiences contraction on melting, and the expansion on melting for Sb is exceptionally low (< 1 %). It is definitely worth making sure our data tables reflect this consistently across wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Polyamorph,

This is VatievonHans who is unable to login on my new Pavilion PC or to reset my password. I have graduated from densities & m. p. to b. p. Below are issues for your consideration because I am not qualified to change b. p. values on Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia accepts the b. p. temp from Zhang et al. (J. Chem. Eng. Data 2011, 56, 328-337) for Tb at 3396 K rather than the CRC value at 3503 K (or 103% of Zhang) and for Ir at 4403 K rather than the CRC value at 4701 K (or 107% of Zhang), should the current b. p. temp at 1802 K for Eu on Wikipedia be replaced with the 1713 K value from Zhang et al. (where 1802 K is 105% of Zhang)?

For Gd, Wikipedia & Zhang claim b. p. at 3273 K, but the 2016 CRC shows (p. 4-14) 3273 °C (not K) and adding 273 = 3546 K (which is 108.34% of 3273). Zhang et al. do show (in Table 1) a CRC value of 3546 K as well as values of 3533 K and 3539 K from two other handbooks along with 3273 K (°C?) from two different handbooks.

Below is my 9/13/23 email to the corresponding author for Zhang et al. (before I noticed the Gd issue).

Dear Professor Shoufeng Yang:

Concerning J. Chem. Eng. Data 2011, 56, 328-337, the "corrected" B. P. values are the same in Tables 11 & 13 for Ba, Be, C, Pd, Pr, Rh, Sn, and Y, but the Yb value in Table 11 is 116% of the value in Table 13 (1703 vs 1466 K), the Tm value in Table 11 is 110% of that in Table 13 (2203 vs 2003 K), and the Nb values differ slightly at 100.9% (5017 vs 4973 K). Perhaps errata could be submitted to the journal to avoid confusion for other readers. Sincerely, Thomas A. Hinners a recovering chemist 68.108.51.9 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Polyamorph,

FYI

Dear Complex/Rational,

Thanks for the help (requiring an editor) in correcting the Wikipedia b. p. for Gd to Kelvin from mislabeled centigrade. I could look at the Gd version history to find how long the error has been there. From my argument above, do you believe the b. p. for Eu should be changed by 5%?

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Polyamorph,

The Template: Infobox gadolinium version history shows that the b. p. was changed from 3546 K to 3273 K on 21 Feb 2014 by Materialscientist with the summary "consistently updating BP and heat of vaporization per doi:10.1021/je1011086" which is citing the Zhang et al 2011 publication where 3273 °C is shown as Kelvin. The error was only there for 9 years and 8 months.

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello VatievonHans, apologies for the late reply, is there anything that still needs attention? Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Polyamorph,

Whether Eu b. p. should stay at 1802 K (an old CRC value) or be replaced with the Zhang et al 1713 K or the 2016 CRC 1868 K is still open. Per Complex/Rational, "Regarding europium, I'll have to examine the sources more closely. It doesn't look like a simple case of mislabeled units. Complex/Rational 21:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)".

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Polyamorph,

Correction to my msg above (for Eu b.p.): That should be 1869 K not 1868 K (via 2016 CRC 1596 °C + 273 = 1869 K). It seems that editor Materialscientist entered the Zhang et al "corrected" b.p. values in 2014 for only some of the lanthanides, such as Pr, Sm, Tb, Gd (erroneous), & Ho.

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Materialscientist: might be best looking at it, since they made the previous changes. Polyamorph (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI. Materialscientist keeps his notifications turned off, so if you want him to look you'll have to ask him directly. Zaereth (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Zaereth, I'll ask on his talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can't recall why I have updated boiling points only for some elements. My guess is that I selected only those where the correction was large and/or obvious, and skipped those like Eu - Zhang et al. admit that 5% is a minor change, perhaps within the accuracy of their methodology. In other words, I am neutral on this matter, but won't mint changing 1802 to 1713. Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done. Thanks Materialscientist for your quick response. VatievonHans: Let me know if all is now satisfactory. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Polyamorph & Materialscientist,

Perhaps then b.p. for Eu should stay at 1802 K which is 105% of the Zhang et al. recommendation of 1713 K and 96% of the 2016 CRC value at 1869 K. Differences of 89 K and 67 K from 1802 K seem surprising to me unless impurity is involved.

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see your point, 1802 K roughly sits at the average of the two. I'll move back to 1802 K? Polyamorph (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Polyamorph,

Thanks for the agreement on 1802 K for Eu b.p. A 1999 version of Lange's Handbook has centigrade that equates to 1800 K.

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done Polyamorph (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You closed the discussion at talk:Koryo-saram#Requested move 10 October 2023 with the comment “with no clear MOS rationale one way or the other.” But as I noted, MOS:PEOPLANG gives an unambiguous rationale: “Names for peoples and cultures, languages and dialects, nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, demonyms, and the like are capitalized.” And the normal rules of capitalization only point to the proposed title. Counter arguments were spurious.

If you’re insisting this isn’t so, then the decision needs a more detailed rationale, as it sets a precedent that could affect dozens of article titles.

Thanks.  —Michael Z. 14:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

There was no clear consensus from the discussion. MOS based arguments were provided by both sides of the discussion and there was no clear consensus either way, as reflected in my closing statement. Polyamorph (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

In my view opposing arguments cited guidelines but incorrectly interpreted them or made unreasonable leaps. I expected more interpretation of the arguments vis-a-vis the guidelines, rather than just a result based on the WP:VOTE. But I guess no consensus leaves it open to try again with a clearer or more detailed argument. Thank you for closing.  —Michael Z. 14:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

If I'd considered it a vote, I'd have closed as not moved. As you say, it is open to try again. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Polyamporph

Just wondering why you opened the RM at Talk:Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina when the originating requestor had not done so? Generally, in recent times, we don't open discussions on people's behalf - if they want to open a full discussion they should do it themselves and sometimes they just drift away when the request is contested and there's nothing further to be done.

Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Amakuru: we used to do so, I have noticed more the nominator is being asked to open the discussion themselves, and I have suggested to users to do this at times but have also opened a few discussions on requesters behalf. I can stop doing this but I think we need a more detailed discussion on how to deal with stale requests. Perhaps the "move" and "discuss" options in the template can be modified so that it is clearer the discuss link is for the requester only (perhaps also a change in the "This is a contested technical request" text), and maybe have a "decline" link if we deem it unsuitable for discussion? Polyamorph (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that's fine. Maybe a discussion is needed, not sure. UtherSRG may have some thoughts on this too, as I know they have been working the RM/TR space for a while. Personally when it's stale I just remove it from the page with a final ping to the nominator in the edit summary so they're definitely aware that the nom is not going anywhere without their intervention. I think if someone isn't going to put in the leg work to actually start the RM themselves and defend it properly, it's not our place to do that. I know in the past, in the days of Anthony Appleyard and all that we used to always start the discussion for people, but I thought the move to not doing that any more a bit improvement in terms of not wasting community time unnecessarily. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, I will do that (ping the users in edit summary when I remove stale requests). Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, well that is my preference anyway. Obviously if you think it's not reflective of the wider community consensus then we can also have a discussion about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

You closed the proposed move of two pages where one was uncontested as ''no consensus''. Killuminator (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The move of Morihiro Higashikuni was opposed. After two relistings the RM didnt receive any further comments. You're right that Takehiko Yamashina was in fact uncontested. I'll modify the close and thanks for pointing it out. Polyamorph (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Killuminator:   Done Polyamorph (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Polyamorph,

I am sure there is a preferred font style and size for English Wikipedia edits, but I can't find them. I am not able to look at printed words and identify the font.

Sincerely, 82-year-old VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi VatievonHans. I'm not sure what you mean, but the default font for Wikipedia is, I believe, simply sans-serif. It will just use the default sans-serif font for your machine. WP:TYPE is an essay, still under development, that has some additional information. Polyamorph (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Polyamorph,

Thanks for the reply because I want to insert some comments (with the proper font) in the "lanthanide contraction" article on patterns for the b.p. temps and the electron shells.

Sincerely,

VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would really like to see a justification of your close, since I believe the support votes are not policy-based (UAPLACE is not a guideline as stated there). Thank you. Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done added closing remarks. Polyamorph (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I still disagree, but I will see what I should do about it. Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, no worries. Polyamorph (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Polyamorph. Hope all is well. You know, I just recently had an opportunity to reflect on my past here, and it brought back a lot of memories. Hard to believe it has been so long. Glad to see you're still around. I just wanted to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas, and a very Happy New Year. Not to mention a great Solstice. Woohoo! The days will soon start getting longer! (Ok, that probably means more here than where you're at.) I hope your holidays a wonderful and may the coming year bring all your wishes true. Here's to many more years to come! Zaereth (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Zaereth, I added my own reflections. It has indeed been a long time, some things have changed a lot, others not so much! Happy Christmas to you too. All the best Polyamorph (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I really am a wikipedia lightweight. Regarding the 3O request, how should I be handling this? What are other possible ways? I try to rephrase the edits, but one editor keeps blindly reverting, rather than correcting. I am trying to assume good faith, but when their comments are along the lines of "Newspapers are not reliable sources", "We don't quote French sources" and "Don't references somebody's older writings when they have had more recent writings" I start to infer that it is the information, rather than the references causing a problem . . . Do we actually have policies like that? --Bertrc (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Replied on your talk page Polyamorph (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your close; you say While Lake Ellesmere appears to be the more widely used search term, evidence from reliable sources has also been presented which indicate a preference for the dual name.

You're right that at the end some evidence was provided that scholarly sources trend towards the dual name, but I think you may have missed the earlier evidence regarding news sources and book sources that the evidence regarding scholarly sources didn't rebut, both of which showed an overwhelming preference for the single name.

I would also note that if we aggregate the news and scholarly sources together a clear preference for the single name remains, but I didn't make that argument at the time so I won't go into detail on it here.

In addition, even if we do consider the evidence regarding the scholarly sources to be equal to the evidence regarding the news sources and book sources regarding the WP:COMMONNAME, then in assessing consensus we should be looking at the other arguments presented, and the support those arguments had. In that debate, additional arguments were presented for the single name, and those arguments had greater support among respondents.

I am hoping you would be willing to consider your close? BilledMammal (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see consensus for the move in that discussion. There are convincing arguments eitherway. The discussion had been running for over a month (with the last comment 10 days ago) so it was time to close. Closure does not prevent further discussion and re-listing. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Regarding the specific arguments, most of those in opposition are far weaker than those in support. For example, Schwede66's was based on personal experience, EmeraldRange's was completely rebutted, and Daveosaurus' was effectively "use the official name" (the single source they referenced is the entity which determines what the official name of the location is).

Turnagra's argument was decent, with the single piece of evidence regarding the dual name's commonality, but given the lack of support it received combined with the existence of multiple pieces of evidence regarding the single name's commonality, I think there is a consensus there for a move.

However, you mention re-listing; if you aren't willing to change the result, would you at least be willing to relist the discussion, particularly since it had only been relisted once? BilledMammal (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll relist on your request as that would be more efficient than a brand new discussion. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

 

Happy New Year!

Polyamorph,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — Amakuru (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 — Amakuru (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Amakuru. Happy New Year to you too and thanks for everything you do! Polyamorph (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:OpticsGlass.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @TheImaCow: it's a derivative from other files on wikipedia/commons. File:Fibreoptic.jpg is one of the files, I'm trying to find the other files but since I made this 16 years ago I'm struggling to remember! Polyamorph (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TheImaCow: found the other file File:Laser_glass_slabs.jpg - that's all files used to make the derivative work. I know on commons there is a {{Derived from}} template, is there an equivalent for wikipedia files? Polyamorph (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perfect, thank you for researching this! I've moved the file to commons, with the "Derived from" template there. (at c:File:OpticsGlass.jpg) Licencing status should be correct now. Respect for still finding the source file after so long!--TheImaCow (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Polyamorph. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rue Lesage, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't necessarily have any complaints about the edits you made to the Woodcote Park article. It's just an article that I've been using frequently for a personal project and I'm wondering how you came across it. That's all Ethanshaw908 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Epsom Riot was featured on the main page and I found Woodcote Park from that page. Having grown up in the area it peaked my interest, so I decided to spruce it up a bit :) Polyamorph (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page SN 1987A, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved

Polyamorph (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear Polyamorph,

Using (in German) my same explanation for asking you to correct Gd b.p. to 3546 K on English Wiki was unsuccessful today on German Wiki. Perhaps the editor there thinks it is just a coincidence that the differences among the 5 handbooks is precisely the difference between centigrade and Kelvin values. Do you have access to the 2 handbooks (cited by Zhang et al. by German Wiki) that claim 3273 K to see if they are actually centigrade? Perhaps those handbooks could be in error rather than the UK authors made the mistake in their comparative analysis using data from 5 handbooks. Regards, VatievonHans 68.108.51.9 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate you striking that bit. 28bytes (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you've actually ever held this book. The entire title is NOT just Hopi Dictionary, but includes the Hopi Title as part of the complete title of the work. It is NEVER cited in linguistic literature as just "Hopi Dictionary". See the cover at [1] and just look at the reviews cited in the Bibliography. It is NEVER cited as "Hopi Dictionary". This article should be moved back to where it was--at the correct title of the book. I could cite fifty articles in linguistics and anthropology scholarly works that cite it in full and don't make an atrocious anglocentric truncation. Move this article back to the actual title of the book. "Hopi Dictionary" is NOT its title. TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I moved it following a technical request by Dream out loud at WP:RM/TR. You can request it be moved back, as an undiscussed move, if you wish. Polyamorph (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have submitted a request for a revert at WP:RM/TR. I'm not a fan of making a page move without starting on the Talk Page of the article. I spent a dozen years involved in the move of Kiev to Kyiv so the notion of a major page move "in the dark of night" is anathema to me. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done I performed your request. Dream out loud can submit a formal WP:RM if they still feel there is justification to move. Polyamorph (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note that you closed this RM discussion less than 24 hours after it was started (?) Discussions should be kept open for at least 7 days. 162 etc. (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apologies. I was looking at the wrong queue. Polyamorph (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm rather surprised by this move here, and it seems to have been made on not a huge turnout. Surely the 1967 invasion during the six day was is by far the most significant Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip, prior to that it was Egyptian territory, and many events that followed have sprung from that. The current war is sought after now, but looking at longterm significance I don't think it's a clear primary and I think the prior disambiguation page was the right situation. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Amakuru OK, please revert and relist. Polyamorph (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Amakuru can you fix the fact that the page no longer has the move notice and is no longer listed at WP:RM? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vice regent: ooh apologies for that, not sure how I managed to mess it up. Should be fixed now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I see the page listed at RM and assume the notice should be put by a bot shortly.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if the bot was confused or what, but I added these notices back manually. Polyamorph (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The bot will add them.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for closing Talk:Doctor_of_Philosophy#Requested_move_24_May_2024. However, can I ask you to please reconsider the close? You mention consistency, but that is just one of the five WP:CRITERIA and in any case it was shown the abbreviation is also used in other articles, such as PhD-MBA. You also say PhD is not a universal abbreviation, but surely it is more universal than the full name, which is not very commonly used at all. Vpab15 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, I read your many comments in the discussion and the consensus is not in your favour. Polyamorph (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi…why did you relist this move? It seems both uncontroversial (probably I should have just done the move instead of carefully posting about it on the talk page, waiting 3 weeks, and then formally proposing a move), and then it was relisted once to notify a few wikiprojects last week, why relist it again? I am confused, but I don't do a lot of moves so maybe I'm missing something basic. jhawkinson (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jhawkinson I relisted it simply to give it more time for other users to comment. On reflection, I will move it as an uncontested and uncontroversial move. I agree you probably could have just moved the page, or for uncontroversial moves you can't perform yourself you can also request at WP:RM/TR to avoid the (often) lengthy discussion period. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. But I'm still confused, I didn't think "more time" was a valid reason to relist a second time, which is disfavored? (And is "more time" a good reason to relist the first time?) By "more time" I mean waiting for a discussion to start — that's distinguishable from a robust and active discussion that is ongoing and doesn't yet seem to have reached its conclusion, or which is evenly divided, but this is not that. Sorry to be asking dumb questions about the process, but I would like to better understand how this [is supposed to] work. jhawkinson (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's common for WP:RMs to be relisted multiple times, despite the ideal described at WP:RMRELIST. The whole point of WP:RM is a discussion takes place to decide on consensus, if no discussion has taken place then it is not possible to judge that consensus. But I agree in this case that the move is uncontroversial and since it is uncontested I have now closed the discussion as moved. Polyamorph (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a Move review of Doctor of Philosophy. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Vpab15 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Polyamorph You recently closed the move request for Talk:Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography to revert to the original title of Electrical Capacitance Volume Tomography with the decision to not move. I originally proposed the move, and I would like to express that there was not yet a consensus on the discussion.

The discussion was originally between myself and one opposing editor who originally changed the title of the article without discussion. The opposition posted twice and then did not answer my final post. The discussion remained dormant for almost three weeks before another user @Toadspike weighed in and sided with the opposition. However, you closed the discussion the same day, and I did not get a chance to formerly respond to the new participant. I have since started a discussion with him on his talk page if you would like to review it there as well.

I would therefore request you to re-open the discussion so that the discussion can take place in the correct talk page. Marashdeh (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is clearly no consensus to move, you have spoken to Toadspike and after considering your comments they do not wish to change their mind. I do not see that a consensus to move will develop if the discussion is reopened. Polyamorph (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suppose I am confused. There was never any discussion to move the title in the first place. It was originally ECVT and was changed to 3D ECT without consensus. There was never even a discussion. Should it not be returned to the original title until a consensus is reached? Marashdeh (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The problem with that is there has been a discussion now and the consensus is to keep it where it is, even if participation was limited. Polyamorph (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Marashdeh I've decided to re-open the discussion and inform some relevant wikiprojects to try and get some more participation in the discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Numbers articles by priority indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 13:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I subsequently re-requested it be deleted since I'm using Category:Numbers articles by importance instead. Polyamorph (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have seen that you operated WP 1.0 bot working on the WP:NUM assessment. How did you do that? In that case as well, would you like to help me in the case of WP:3TOPE as well? Many thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dedhert.Jr The way to do this is to create the categories Category:Polyhedra articles by quality and the associated sub categories for FA, GA, A, B, C, Start, Stub etc. Similarly for importance (optionally). Then populate those categories using the project talk page banner. The categories should be placed in the Category:Wikipedia_1.0_assessments index and the bot will do its thing. I'll have a look at WP:3TOPE for you. Polyamorph (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ahh... many thanks. Some off topics that I have to include here. I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers/Recognized content, but it seems there are some incompleted lists. Perhaps this can be discussed in WikiProject. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem. It looks like you did most of the work already, it was just the Category:Wikipedia_1.0_assessments missing from the Category:Polyhedra articles by quality and Category:Polyhedra articles by importance. The bot should index the articles within 24 hours or so, when it does Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Polyhedra_articles_by_quality_log and User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Polyhedra should turn blue. Re: the Recognized content page, that's very nice. Probably best to raise it at the wikiproject discussion, there are various bots and templates that can automatically populate these lists. Polyamorph (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am puzzled why you seem to think that the deleted sentence: "The modern digit '1' did not become widespread until the mid-1950s." is obviously true. What am I missing? The "modern digit" seems to refer to a character with a vertical line, a top serif to the left, and a baseline serif to both sides. (Am I wrong?) But this just seems to be the normal form for the digit '1', um forever, almost. I'm looking at a page of sample typefaces (p. 408, "Books and Printing" Paul A Bennett) showing Baskerville, Bell, Bembo, and Bodoni book ar all extant decades before 1950. The claim struck me as very strange indeed. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sans serif fonts, such as Helvetica, were popularised in the 1950s, resulting in the simple standardised form of 1 that we see now. Polyamorph (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just checked, the fonts you mention, all have serifs at the bottom, the last two (Bembo and Bodoni) are similar to the Roman numeral. These are missing in (modern) sans serif fonts. Polyamorph (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Polyamorph! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks The Herald. Polyamorph (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Polyamorph (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have made some comments. Happy improving. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Dedhert.Jr:  Doing... Many thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Dedhert.Jr:  Done Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article 1 you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:1 for comments about the article, and Talk:1/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yay! :) Thanks Dedhert.Jr Polyamorph (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring 1 (estimated annual readership: 2,300,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks Reidgreg Polyamorph (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

On 17 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the number 1 is its own square, square root, and factorial? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Chris Polyamorph (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Sure thing! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply