User talk:Solomonfromfinland

Truth behind indian independence..:---

Hello, Solomonfromfinland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RockMagnetist (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Amputees are people whose limbs have been removed, as opposed to the people in this category who never had limbs in the first place. While checking the category page I noticed another change that is needed, so I will remove those categories at the same time. --Mirokado (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the term "amputee" is usually meant to include congenital ones, people who were born missing limb(s).--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you may not have realised that there is a long-standing convention that actors are not categorised by any series that they have appeared in. There was a large discussion of this five years ago and that discussion forms part of the guideline at Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by performance. I think we have three ways of proceeding here: (1) add {{db-self}} to Category:Harry Potter actors and undo all your changes to the articles (boring); (2) I can set a bot to do the work for you if you like; (3) if you think that you want to overturn the guidance, then we would have a discussion at WP:CFD but you're unlikely to be successful given the category system we have here! Bencherlite^Talk 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but could we make an exception in the case of HP actors? on the grounds that (a) the Harry Potter series is unusually influential, both on screen and on paper; (b) Many HP actors are known as HP actors, more than anything else; (c) it seems blatantly wrong not to have Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, or Emma Watson in any HP-related categories. Could said three articles, and perhaps some others on HP actors, be placed in Category:Harry Potter in the real world?

I am working on a separate article on Ginny Weasley (the fictional character herself, not Bonnie Wright). Does everyone approve? I explain in Category talk:Harry Potter characters why this is necessary.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harry Potter actors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Solomon, Thank you for adding this list on to the "Nude Beaches" category. Also, since you are from Finland, do you agree that most public Finnish saunas are both obligatory nude and mixed gender? If there are any other venues in Finland such as resorts, please let me know so I can add them.

Thanks,
DNBR (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd say they're obligatory nude, but they are certainly customarily nude.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding Category:Astronomical controversies to the article Vulcan (hypothetical planet)? The planet does not exist and there is no scientific controversy. -- Kheider (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before it was proven not to exist, there was a big contoversy.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please stop categorizing things until you stop messing it up. you are adding clearly inappropriate categories to articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astronomical controversies lists historic controversies. It lists for example Galileo_affair. It turned out earth was not the center of the universe but the controversy was real at the time. Solomonfromfinland is right and Kheider is wrong.

Adding something to Category:Astronomical controversies makes it seem like a current controversy and looks fringe. Maybe you should make a category called "Category:Former Astronomical controversies" so you do not mislead readers. -- Kheider (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

adding Category:Unsolved problems in physics to cold fusion is also perfectly uncontroversial. IRWolfie- is wrong.

Please continue adding categories to articles, you are doing fine. :-)

84.106.26.81 (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating some crazy idea that Vulcan, or any large object interior to Mercury, really exists; however, the unexplained extra perihelion precession of Mercury, and the lack of any observed object that would explain it, was so perplexing for so many years that I felt Category:Astronomical controversies was justified.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, 'Tropical immersion foot', has been proposed for a merge with 'Immersion foot syndromes'. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Anon423 (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solomonfromfinland. You have new messages at Talk:Coffin ship.
Message added 11:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

benzband (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Effects of global warming on human health, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Borderline life, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Graham Colm (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any other categories with similar scope that Category:Borderline life could be merged with? Btw, I am not a such puppet of anyone. I just like creating new categories and populating them, whenever there are multiple pages related to the same topic. However, I don't believe in sock puppeting because I think it's dishonest.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was my mistake, I'm very sorry. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, is it appropriate to create a new category for almost any subject for which there are multiple (preferably at least 4) relevant articles? I understand that some categories are inappropriate; see Wikipedia:Overcategorization.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clostridium novyi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zeta toxin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salutations!, I've seen your post on Blue whale. Can you give a more elaborate explanation and also sources, because in that case, wouldn't it mean we should change the taxonomic data of everything which comes under cetacea? (Like dolphins or narwhals) and then we really need to report this to Wikiproject cetaceans too. Most sources which I've come across (example) made no mention of this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Science: A Custom Edition for Western Washington University by Scott Freeman, Pearson Books, Inc. (2011), page 477-479, carefully describes the DNA and fossil evidence that shows that the hippopotamuses are the sister group to hippopotamuses; that is, the hippos are the group of living organisms that are most closely related to whales, and vice versa. Next most closely related are ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats, deer, giraffes); then pigs and peccaries; then camels and allies. Therefore artiodactyls are not a monophyletic (or natural) group unless whales (incl. dolphins and porpoises) are included, and as I have explained on other talk pages, such as Collodictyon, the consensus among biologists is that only monophyletic groups can be valid taxa. Therefore Cetacea must be declared part of the order Artiodactyla, or Artiodactyla must be split into four orders. Aforementioned book was the textbook for Biology 204, a class I took at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington.

The claim that hippos are more closely related to whales than to other Artiodactyls, is supported by “World Book Encyclopedia”, 2001, article “Hippopotamus”.

Yes, the same changes should be made to the other Cetacea articles. I will report this to Wikiproject Cetaceans.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please put forward this on the WikiProject Cetacea page, I don't know much about this, and let's see what the others have to say. Thanks, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category “Cold fusion” was removed from BlackLight Power because the company may not actually be promoting cold fusion but rather a somewhat similar idea, the hydrino, a hydrogen atom with the electron fallen to a lower orbit than quantum mechanics predicts is possible. Correct?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add inappropriate categories to articles. Do not add categories which do not direct apply to an article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I am very fond of adding categories. However, I rarely remove categories. Should I do so? Perhaps about as often as I add categories?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I edit a page, should I mention explicitly below, in the space offered, what I did? How about if I merely add categories?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you ALWAYS leave an edit summary, however brief it may be. Helps other editors quickly figure out what is going on. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It improves accountability. How about edits to talk pages or my own user page? I never alter what others have posted on talk pages, as it is dishonest; however, I will edit my own contributions, after the fact. I do not believe in editing others' user pages, as I think it is, again, dishonest, and I feel the user page is the user's own intellectual property.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of long form, but you may find it helpful. I recognize it extremely tardy, and I assure you that no insult is intended or implied. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solomonfromfinland! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solomonfromfinland, You might consider putting something (anything) on your User Page. It will get the red out of the edit history, which is generally a good thing. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else to add. If you need help or have a question, I'll try to help, or send you to someone who can. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On my user page, so far I have mostly give autobiography. Is that a good idea? I figured it would improve accountability by enabling peope to know some about me, so that they know what kind of beliefs and biases I hold. Or is it better to talk about my contributions to Wikipedia?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the standard procedure for requesting new articles? I have several in mind.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requested articles. Graham87 14:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request that the name of an article be changed? There are the following that I recommend (mostly shortenings): Dihydrogen monoxide hoax → “Dihydrogen monoxide”; Portland, Oregon → “Portland”.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requested moves. Graham87 14:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Category:User zh-1 has a “Contents” box, where you can get to different parts of the category quickly by clicking on letters A – Z; while Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter series doesn’t. (My userpage is in both categories.) Obviously, large categories should have such a TOC. How do I create one for Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter series? I looked at the wikicode on Category:User zh-1, but couldn’t figure out how.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See template {{TOC}}. For example use with multiple parameters visit the list of Narnia characters and inspect its code. --P64 (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ginny Weasley, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it some.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for attempting to create a category titled “Nigger”. I saw that there were many articles relevant to the hated N-word and its implications. I didn't realize that the category title would be blacklisted. I was intending to say on the category page something like, “The word “ni[]” and its uses and implications.” I am by no means a racist; I actually believe strongly in equality.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solomon, when adding a category to a page, please try to group it with other related categories and respect the prevailing order of categories in the article. For example at John Eden (athlete), you added Category:Amputee sportspeople below the living people category but it (like many other articles) always has the biographical categories at the very bottom of the page). I've moved it to be close to Category:Australian amputees. Graham87 14:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, main categories for a particular subject should be at the top of the category list, so Category:Smallpox vaccines should be the first one on the list at the Smallpox vaccine. Graham87 15:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You did the right thing in both cases.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have been active at the City Proper population page. I have made a post at [1] about merging/redirecting from the municipality page into city proper (per previous AfD), and it would be useful if you could post your thoughts there. Eldumpo (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was quite a bit of discussion about the appropriate parent categories for Category:Peer review (although most of it was on Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F rather than the actual Category_talk page) that led up to the previous, limited set of parent categories. Could you review the existing discussion, and explain why you want to add Category:Scientific method, Category:Scientific skepticism and Category:Quality control as parent categories in light of it? 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of your contributions since, I will assume you don't want to explain further. Therefore, I'll revert back to the previous set of categories. Feel free to bring it up on the talk page if/when you disagree. Thanks for your other work, in any case. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solomonfromfinland. You have new messages at Philg88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hei, Solomon: About time. Kiitos. In case you need a source for Guangzhou: http://www.gzstats.gov.cn/tjgb/glpcgb/201105/t20110517_25227.htm . Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing : http://www.stats.gov.cn/english./NewsEvents/201104/t20110429_26450.html

Best, BsBsBs (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need sources for any of those cities, except maybe Chongqing, where, for List of cities proper by population, the source cited for the pop. fig. supposedly doesn't state said figure. (However, the latter of the two sources only gives municipal pops., not those of city propers.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City proper = Area within the city limits of a "locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government." Chongqing, Beijing, and Tianjin must all be treated like you treated Shanghai, where city proper=complete municipality. Chinese official censuses always differ a bit, 100,000 is considered a minor rounding error. What they do at that page (calculate the "core districts") is blatant OR, but I have long given up.BsBsBs (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not OR, not if the census figures (or other estimates) give pops. for those districts, in which case a quick calculation can sum them. See Valid Routine Calculations and What SYNTH is not.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, deciding that Chinese cities are "too big," and in order to make them smaller, taking a set of "core districts" from source A, pulling populations of those from Source B, adding them up, and presenting them as a "City Proper" count, which they clearly not are, are a textbook violation of WP:OR. No routine calculation at all. But anyway, I have long rested my case. BsBsBs (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American politicians with disabilities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming it “Category:American politicians with physical disabilities” is fine.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some talk pages have a series of FAQs. I have thought of editing FAQ boxes. Any guidelines about that? Or should such edits reflect consensus?
• Is it recommendable to contribute to Noticeboards or Requests for Arbitration if it is not a Noticeboard/Arbitration case about me specifically and I am likely not to become a dedicated participant (that is, contributing regularly) in the discussion? (E.g. if my current contribution may be my only or almost only one, at least for awhile.)
• There are three main cases where I make edits without giving an edit summary: (a) Null edits (usually to copy and paste Wikicode); (b) Talkpage contributions (who, what, and when is obvious for the edit); (c) Edits to my own Userpage. Is this reasonable?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to sign the questions the first time I posted them.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Solomonfromfinland. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Ginny Weasley".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Ginny Weasley}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page for User Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), I mentioned my plan to create a draft-equivalent article under my namespace, User:Solomonfromfinland/Ginny Weasley, and move the content of the deleted Draft into it, so that I can work on it at my own leisure. I made the undeletion request you suggested. What should I do next? Thank you.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication, it (what I wanted to do) is called, I found out.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Draft was Undeleted. However, should it be placed under the title User:Solomonfromfinland/Ginny Weasley or User:Solomonfromfinland/Draft:Ginny Weasley? I don’t want a redundant Draft and Userfied page. If I have a Userfied page, such as Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has many of, it can eventually be upgraded into a regular article, and is presumably safe from re-deletion by other Wikipedians, so that I can work on it at my leisure. See also Requests for undeletion#Draft:Ginny Weasley.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. I’ll Userfy it under User:Solomonfromfinland/Ginny Weasley, per the practice of User Richard Arthur Norton. The redundancy between Draft and Userfied page is fine.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great cat (no pun). Just added eating crow. -- GreenC 22:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just created the new Category:Foie gras. This should by no means be taken as a condonement of the dish. I think foie gras represents about the most extreme form of animal cruelty there is. I think the California state government should refuse to obey the recent court ruling overturning the state's ban on serving foie (as opposed to merely prohibiting raising it); the state should just enforce the ban anyway.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Enrico Fermi, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a category you added "Category:Wikipedia categories named after terrorist incidents" from all of the above. Kristallnacht was a pogrom against the Jews but it is not terrorism as it is not against the government (even if it is Nazi Germany). The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and attack on Pearl Harbour were strategic events of World War II. If they are considered terrorism, technically that means the invasion of Poland and the bombing of Berlin were terrorist attacks. However, they aren't. Operation Entebbe was related to terrorism but it is fighting terrorism. It is not a terrorist incident itself (except to maybe Idi Amin :P) so it is not the right category for it. Jackninja5 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person from the article is absolute crank, he is not a scientist.So, there is need of this category — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.0.41 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editing. I pointed out that we do not normally put articles on real people directly in Category:Pseudoscience; ~ no other such articles are placed directly in said category, so that makes me think it's a convention. Also, your anonymous editing is unprofessional and reduces accountability.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in sympathy with your position; some of us do indeed care whether a statement is evaluative or factual in nature. I feel that there should be a low bar for reliable confirmation of a fact, a higher bar for a value judgment. (I would not say that mathematics is the queen of the sciences, merely because an exceptionally authoritative source (Carl Friedrich Gauss) said so; it would be reasonable to remain open to the possibility that people active in other areas might disagree with this claim, unless a quite substantial body of evidence proved its wide acceptance. Negative valuations should be treated with yet more care.

I am reluctant to post at the original discussion, however, because many of us have experienced "wolf pack" attacks from the skeptic crowd here when we engage with them. HGilbert (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my thoughts at Category talk:Harry Potter characters#Need more pages, incorporating many links that will be useful if the you are still interested in the issues, either specifically re English Wikipedia coverage of Harry Potter characters or generally re articles vs. redirects.

I hope you do not act on the second of your "Views about WikiStyle", User:Solomonfromfinland#Redirects, especially that you do not replace links to "D" by links to "A#B|C", or similarly when there is no target section B. Only when German Wikipedia editors link de:Sirius Black (the DE redirect Sirius Black, unpiped), for instance, knowledgeable users can navigate back from the target article that contains his section to the coverage of Sirius Black in other-language articles, or to a substantial category that includes Black, such as fictional people (German de:Kategorie:Fiktive Person, under B).
--for more about all that see the linked Category talk --P64 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. {{-r|Sirius Black}} provides a convenient link directly to our redirect Sirius Black. I don't know whether the German DE.wiki or any other has such a shortcut.

I replied also at #TOC far above. --P64 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’m in no position to prevent others from linking via redirects. It’s just that my personal preference to link via the actual title of the page or subsection of page, not by redirect. I definitely do not support getting rid of redirects; they are useful and discourage red links.

As a Harry Potter fan, however, I do feel that 8 pages that are about a specific HP character, is too few, given how influential the series is. I think Ginny Weasley would be the appropriate 9th HP character to have a dedicated article about. Next is likely Sirius Black, then Neville Longbottom.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Pursuing another matter I found crucial discussion of Harry Potter supporting characters at English Wikipedia, namely Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force/Archive 12#Individual characters pages (May 2008) and the extremely long "Merge proposal" that begins a couple screens down (July/August 2008) --which includes hidden imports from the Luna and Neville talk pages.

Talk:Sirius Black shows no such discussion but I did learn (pursuing that other matter) that that qualified as a "good article" in 2006 and failed (presumably new criteria) in 2007, [2]. --P64 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ginny Weasley, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solomonfromfinland. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Ginny Weasley".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you undelete it? I'll Userfy it.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of cities proper by population page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reference error is for Cairo, Egypt; the error was there before I edited; I have not yet edited the entry for Cairo. (Said entry needs fixing; the population figure is too big.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, I believe it was a false positive.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:28, 21 October 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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The 100, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added this category -- but I can't see why. Can you explain? How is a unit of measurement particularly concerned with acupuncture? (It seems more constructive to ask, than just to remove it. Please reply here.) Imaginatorium (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the unit as being used to determine acupuncture points. I think that's relevant enuf.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. it's just a unit of length. A give unit (of length etc.) isn't, in principle, more relevant to acupuncture than it is to any number of other subjects. I think I'll revert my edit.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good; that was my point really. Somewhere it says that sun (the Japanese form) is used for measuring chisels, but it would be silly if there was also a "woodworking" category. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your cooperation! Slightly different topic, so I unindented. Are you a Finnish speaker with an interest in units? A while back an editor created a huge number of pages "Xyz units of measurement", for lots of countries (or former countries) Xyz, and in many cases these are simply copied from two unreliable sources (Cardarelli and Washburn), where in many cases Cardarelli simply copied from Washburn. Washburn's table of Japanese units at least is in part simply gibberish; I am trying to find out how he did on other languages I can't speak. There is very little for Finnish - just one unit of area and a table for capacity. Would you care to have a look? Please see my commentary on this at User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli - the Resources section gives links to both sources, and you want page 104 of Cardarelli and page 5 of Washburn. Obsolete Finnish units of measurement was not created by this editor, and contains much more information, but is completely unsourced. (Personally I think the unsourced truth is a lot better than sourced nonsense, but then I'm not a WP:Wikilawyer.) Imaginatorium (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I know very little about traditional Finnish units, but I could find out more.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to me adding Category:Metrication as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia categories named after events?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- what event is it named after? Imaginatorium (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess metrication is a process more than an event.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else's opinion?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverted my edit. Right thing to do.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you created Category:People associated with death. Could you please clear it up for me? At the moment it seems like pages/subcategories in it would be completely based upon opinion. It also brings the question of "who exactly associates them with death?". HarryKernow (talk to me) 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, people categorized according to how they are associated with death, e.g. murderers, people by genocide, etc.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solomonfromfinland. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burr–Hamilton duel, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bethany Hamilton, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Category:David (Michelangelo), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solomonfromfinland. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after spacecraft, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Dumbledore's Army, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only spelling change (or other change that might represent national variety of English) i made was ‹-ise› → ‹-ize› (organize, realize, etc.); same in derived forms, e.g. ‹organization› not ‹organisation›. But the spellings with ‹z› are valid British English; indeed, some Wikipedia articles that are officially written in British English, officially use such spelling (called Oxford Spelling); as does Encyclopædia Britannica, which mostly British spelling. (Btw, Encyc. Brit. also writes e.g. ‹analyze› not ‹analyse›.) Therefore the article can still be said to be in British English. Also, the article talk page does not explicitly say it is written in British English (Oxford or otherwise); indeed, given that Harry Potter is very popular thruout the Anglosfere, it's okay if a HP-related article is not written strictly in British English; especially since the US is much more populous that the UK. Indeed, the spelling with ‹-ise› rather than ‹-ize› is standard in the US and Canada, which, together, account for most of the world's nativ English-speakers; and is recommended by Oxford; so British English with Oxford spelling is, perhaps, a reasonable compromise between the Britishness of the subject matter and its cosmopolitan popularity. Also, the benefits of a more-transparent orthografy are a fact; e.g. fewer functionally illiterate people, less time wasted teaching a needlessly-irregular spelling system. Just as the Wikipedia article Evolution treats evolution as a fact, not an opinion; for Wikipedia, selectivly choosing the more-sensible of two or more standard spellings, would be entirely compatible with Neutral point of view; as a way to do justice to reality, again, by not treating fact as mere opinion. This was a minor spelling change, so i suggest leaving it be. Sorry if i offended anyone; but i couldn't resist making said change, given that i was editing said article anyway, and the plight of the millions of functionally-illiterate English-speaking teenagers and adults cries out to me. Honestly, at a time when millions of English-speakers are functionally illiterate, should a reasonable person be able to, in good conscience, de-foneticize a Wikipedia article? I certainly can't.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The benefits of a more-transparent orthografy are a fact. To see why, see Handbook of Orthography and Literacy, edited by R. Malatesha Joshi and P.G. Aaron; which i am reading. The book reveals how learning to read and write is consistently harder for English-speaking children than for children growing up speaking other Latin-alfabet languages; likewise, there are many functionally-illiterate teenagers and adults in English-speaking countries, but few in Finland; Finnish spelling is extremely transparent. In order to maintain the factual accuracy of Wikipedia, please make sure Wikipedia, especially the article “English-language spelling reform”, and related articles, treats said benefits as such.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with Pluto, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with conflicts of interest, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with death, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with the MMR vaccine controversy, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with bribery, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solomonfromfinland. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vaccine controversies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Language versus dialect requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created a WikiBooks article on Cornish (b:Cornish). Please expand it.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cesarian sections, which you created, has been nominated for possible speedy renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trolls (film) has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unite the Right rally has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 20:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Almond yogurt, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian language outside Italy has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dissolution of the Soviet Union armed conflicts has been nominated for merging to Category:Post-Soviet conflicts. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with water has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solomonfromfinland. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Almond yogurt, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft should be kept. It is a significant subject, more than notable enuf for a dedicated Wikipedia article.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hav, however, been reluctant to expand the article, largely because i did not want to include a list of brands of almond yogurt, as that would like an ad, which would violate neutral point of view. I would prefer to expand the article with other information, but that was a bit hard to find. One possibility is to expand the article with info other than brand names, so that brand names can also be included, without making the article look like it is primarily a list of brands, and hence an ad. How does that sound? Under the principle of NPOV, Wikipedia describes products; Wikipedia does not advertize products.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add the category amputee? The article does not mention this. Do you understand the term means the removal of an arm or leg? He might have had a brain tumor removed (again, no evidence in the article) but that doesn't make him an amputee. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says he lost a finger when he was young. That counts as an amputee.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Balto (film) has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the disambiguation page “Memory mapping”. It has a template at top that says, “The present disambiguation page holds the title of a primary topic, and an article needs to be written about it. It is believed to qualify as a broad-concept article. It may be written directly at this page or drafted elsewhere and then moved over here. Related titles should be described in Memory mapping, while unrelated titles should be moved to Memory mapping (disambiguation).” What does this mean?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Protection policy and Special:ProtectedTitles. Can a title be creation-protected even if no-one has attempted to create an article with said title? Wikipedia:Protection policy says creation-protection is useful if someone has previously created, or tried to create, an inappropriate article; but is said creation or creation attempt a necessary condition for creation-protection?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaulish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brittonic. 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) 05:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't realize it was a disambiguation page. An easy mistake to make.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unite the Right rally has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Solomonfromfinland. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Almond yogurt".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you have started to edit several Middle-earth articles, with edit comments to the effect that you are "decluttering" the text. However, all of them are written in British English, which has its own idioms, spellings, and grammar. These differ from other variants of English. It is policy on English Wikipedia to permit different language variants on different projects, and given that Tolkien was British, indeed English, that is the variant we use. I do hope this is clear. If there are specific phrasings that you think are awkward, we'll be happy to discuss them on a talk page. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i was cutting out unnecessary verbiage, as i hav been doing on a number of other Wikipedia articles, such as "Flerovium". After all, in Hamlet, Polonius says it well: "Brevity is the soul of wit."--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of this thread, please be mindful of certain word choices and MOS rules. I reverted your recent edits to flerovium because changes such as until → til, number → #, and massive → big are not stylistically appropriate and read as colloquial rather than encyclopedic prose. Feel free to ping me if you have additional questions. ComplexRational (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully agree. With "massive" / "big", i think you mean "massive [big] nucleus". Here, i think "big" is fine; people know what it means; all nuclei hav ~ same density, so a nucleus' volume and mass should both be more or less proportional to atomic mass number (total number of nucleons). A lead nucleus is pretty big, and a uranium nucleus is even bigger; the biggest known nuclei are those of tennesine and oganesson. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Massive" is unambiguous in that it refers to atomic mass, which increases in the way you describe. On the other hand, "big" could also refer to atomic radius, which is greatest for caesium. With more precise language, such ambiguities are resolved before they arise, and I don't think "massive" is too jargon-y for the layperson to understand. ComplexRational (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we say "big nucleus", then that is unambiguous because we know it is size (mass) of nucleus, not atomic radius. People will understand "massive"; but "big" is more concise. Btw, i think the biggest atomic radius is for francium, not cesium, tho i suspect the atomic radius for element 119 (ununennium) will be even bigger. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, "big" can also mean other things, and such concise/simplistic words are often not used in formal or technical writing for this very reason. It is always preferable to use the word with the most precise definition available, so long as it does not obfuscate the intended meaning. Additionally, some of your replacements of words with symbols are awkward or informal. I see that several other editors have also expressed concern about, and partially undone, some of your changes along these lines, especially when the prose has been subject to a good or featured article review (intense scrutiny and refining by many editors). I'll be happy to answer any specific questions you have about prose or point you to some relevant style guidelines.

Regarding elements specifically, the atomic radius for francium is unknown, and that of element 119 is not expected to be greater due to relativistic effects.

Please keep these points in mind. I'm not claiming to be the oracle or a perfect writer myself (many times, my own writing has been tweaked for verbosity and MOS guidelines I was unaware of) – echoing Chiswick Chap below – though certain writing conventions are expected to be followed. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cs is probably bigger than Fr indeed. doi:10.1002/chem.200800987 gives 232 pm for Cs, but 223 pm for Fr. Double sharp (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, on articles on chemical elements, i often see the wikicode (only visible when editing, not when viewing the article itself) " ". Typically, the code is between a number and a unit-name (whether spelled out in full or abbreviated). This code looks ugly; visual clutter. Other options: a regular space (no  ) between numeral and unit (15 kg), or no space (15kg). Some texts put a space between numeral and unit (if abbreviated), some don't; i prefer no-space (only if the unit is abbreviated). Opinions?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this post just now, briefly contained some irrelevant content. It took me alot of testing out wikicode, before the post looked right. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously suggest that you stop editing for a while and study WP's various style guide rules. The space between a number and an ISO unit symbol (not an "abbreviation") is standard style; but to prevent it line-breaking to separate the unit from the quantity, a non-breaking space is required. And your concept of "visual clutter" is utterly at odds with the way html coding works, so please stop using it as a reason for changing things. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By "abbreviation" i of course meant ISO unit symbol. "to prevent it line-breaking to separate the unit from the quantity, a non-breaking space is required". I knew that. A regular space is doable, but it risks separating numeral from unit, which may make the text a bit less legible. Said "visual clutter", only applies if looking at the wikicode; so said clutter is not visible when reading the article itself. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once again, the styles, idioms, and conventions of British English are not always the same as those in International English and other variants. All Tolkien articles are in British English, as I've stated, and making them more "concise" may easily also make them wrong, unidiomatic, or simply not British. If it's any help, you might like to know that once upon a time, in a time and times, I was awarded an A in "Use of English" by a British examinations board; and I have had a great deal of practice since then in writing British English. I do not guarantee that I never make mistakes, or that I write with no unfelicities of style: but on the whole, there is a good chance that what I write, especially when it has been reviewed already by other editors, is in fact "BE". All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any examples of wording that would be shorter that the alternative, but would be seen as un-British, or unidiomatic in British English, tho not necessarily in other forms of English? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you're making similar edits despite growing concerns by myself and other editors. Unfortunately I've had to revert quite a few because they introduce grammatical errors and go against the manual of style. Take [3] as an example. This unnecessarily changes en-GB to en-US (e.g., theorise → theorize); generally, one established English variety in an article should not be changed to another without discussion. Although this differs from the Tolkien articles in that nuclear physics has no inherent ties to any particular English variety, mass changes such as this are discouraged (MOS:ENGVAR). Changes such as synthesize → make, using the number sign in lieu of more appropriate notation for atomic numbers, attempted → tried, etc., similarly introduce language that's inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Other types of publications, even outside of academia, adhere to certain writing standards without introducing too much "clutter" or sophistication. I would consider the language in those appropriate for a Wikipedia article, striking a balance between technical accuracy and ability for non-experts to understand.

Although everyone makes mistakes sometimes, and they're usually easy to fix, mass changes such as these arguably leave more clutter for other editors to clean up. This is especially so with copy editing rather than writing – occasional errors in contributed prose are quick fixes, whereas well-intended but incorrect copy editing leaves a lot more to be fixed. Some of your changes would probably raise no objections, and I have no doubts of your good faith, but unfortunately these are a minority (as you edit all at once – nothing is inherently wrong with that, though) and picking them out is often more time-consuming and tedious than flat-out reversion. For that reason, I and other editors have reverted a number of your edits.

Therefore, I strongly urge you to refrain from copy editing until and unless you have a very good understanding of English grammar and conventions and are familiar with the pertinent Manual of Style pages – among them MOS:TONE, MOS:NUMBERSIGN, and WP:COLLOQUIALISM concerning those of your edits which I have reverted. I stand by my offer to explain details or answer specific questions, though you have to be willing to take the advice being offered to you here and see that several independent objections are being presented. This issue evidently has persisted despite previous comments here, and I really don't want it to escalate further. ComplexRational (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the example, namely "extended periodic table", it does not say which of my edits hav or havn't been reverted. Also, what about grammatical errors? I try to keep it grammatically correct, albeit less wordy.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link I included is that of the edit as you made it, which I have reverted entirely. Regarding grammar, here are several examples where it was correct before and incorrect after:

• On the other hand, a more rigorous analysis → But a more rigorous analysis is dubious (sentences usually should not begin with conjunctions).
• No atoms were identified, leading to a limiting cross section of 300 nb. → No atoms were identified, hence a limiting cross section of 300 nb. leaves a very awkward and incorrect fragment at the end.
• Niobium is slightly less electropositive and more compact than its predecessor in the periodic table, zirconium, whereas it is virtually identical in size to the heavier tantalum atoms, as a result of the lanthanide contraction. → Niobium is slightly less electropositive and more compact than the previous element, zirconium; but nearly identical in size to the heavier tantalum atom, due to the lanthanide contraction. (from this diff) incorrectly uses a semicolon in lieu of a comma.

The fundamental issues are this and your replacement of technical language – no scientist or scientific writer substitutes "abundant" with "common", "synthesize" with "make", "until" with "till", "observed" with "seen", "performed" with "done", etc. It's more so a problem because you're doing so en masse. Does this make sense?

On a slightly unrelated note, I notice that you're writing "hav" instead of "have" (it does not say which of my edits hav or havn't been reverted) in your reply. Not to obsessively nitpick, but that too is incorrect (regardless of ENGVAR), and I hope you're not writing that into articles as well. ComplexRational (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say you "try to keep it grammatically correct, albeit less wordy." Well, please just stop. Perhaps your username is intended to tell us your English is unimaginably better than our Finnish, but in this case your grasp of English is not remotely what you think it is. Unless you do stop, I will be happy to take part in whatever admin action can be taken to stop you. Imaginatorium (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the article "Greta Thunberg", i accidentally deleted all the content; i don't know exactly why. Please revert this. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amputee sportspeople has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 19:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Earless seal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cystophora.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Easy mistake to make. Pointing to what you think is either a redirect or a full-fledged article, when in fact it's a disambiguation.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Case law disambiguation pages. But when you go to one of the articles in said category, you don't get said category linked below. Instead, you typically don't see the disambiguation page placed in any categories. That, IMO, doesn't look pretty; every article, including disambiguation pages, should be a member of at least one category. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patrick Henry has been nominated for purging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long after you created the category, four articles for ships named after him were added. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States presidents and death has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. pbp 19:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Tamburlaine 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 12:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 18 § X in fiction II on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 22 § X in fiction XIII on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Kepler-70 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Rhodium. There i posted a plea for help: I had tried to edit c:File:Rhodium 78g sample.jpg on Wikimedia Commons, but i couldn't get the wikicode right, and the page looks wrong. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article “Pentacarbonylhydridomanganese” for concision. It now says, in part (citation deleted):

A common reaction involving HMn(CO)₅ is substitution of the CO ligands by organophosphines, as occurs both thermally and photochemically. In this way the following derivatives form: MnH(CO)₃[P]₂, MnH(CO)₂[P]₃, and MnH(CO)[P]₄, (where [P] = P(OEt)₃, PPh(OEt)₂, PPh₂OEt, PPh(OiPr)₂).

This is confusing, with all those so-called chemical symbols (SCCS) that don’t represent elements! Using “[P]” is confusing: P = phosphorus; and the brackets “[]” seem out of place, you don’t normally need brackets (of any shape) around a single entity in order to denote order of operations. (Here they presumably denote that the thing isn’t phosphorus; still, the brackets seem at first glance, to be out of place, and there is still the confusion with phosphorus.) Et = ethyl (C₂H₅), and Ph = phenyl (C₆H₅ i.e. the benzene radical); i suppose? What is “Oi”? Pr = propyl, i suppose? If so, “Pr” should not be used; it should only be used to mean praseodymium. The Wikipedia article should say what these SCCSs mean! (Unfortunately, the source cited is a book rather than a website, so it is harder to verify from the source, what the SCCSs mean.)

Even if the SCCS “Pr” means propyl, or C₃H₇, then does it necessarily mean n-propyl ([CH₂]₃H, i.e. propane with a hydrogen atom removed from the carbon atom at either end)? Or might it also refer to isopropyl (CH[CH₃]₂, i.e. propane with a hydrogen atom removed from the central carbon atom)? Likewise, there are two types of propyl alcohol aka propanol: n-propyl alcohol, HO(CH₂)₃H; and isopropyl alcohol, CHOH(CH₃)₂.

And to make it easier to read, these SCCSs should be marked somehow, to show that they are not normal chemical symbols. (I once saw the SCCS “R” for “radical” or “rest [of molecule]”; i was confused because no element goes by the symbol “R”.) For Ph = phenyl, i recommend “Φ” (which has been used for phenyl); people will immediately know that this is not a normal chemical symbol. For Et = ethyl, i suggest “É” or “Ét”; the written accent would immediately alert the reader that this is not a normal chemical symbol. And if “Pr” means anything other than praseodymium, then it has to go; i suggest Př (the character ř, is borrowed from Czech).

Likewise, i recommend, as does IUPAC, that deuterium and tritium should go by the chemical symbols ²H and ³H respectively; not the SCCSs “D” and “T” respectively. “D” and “T” are not on the periodic table, so there is the same potential for confusion as with the SCCS “R”. And the notation “²H” and “³H” would mean that all isotopes of hydrogen would go by the same chemical symbol (H); just as with every other element, all isotopes of the same element go by the same chemical symbol. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, i found an abstract of the source: “Synthesis, Characterization, and Reactivity of Cationic Molecular Hydrogen Complexes of Manganese(I)”. Unfortunately, while said abstract givs said confusing formulas, it does not explicitly say what the SCCSs mean, so, frustratingly, i cannot rule out the possibility that “Pr” here really means praseodymium. Also, said abstract uses SCCSs beyond than what said passage on Wikipedia currently includes; said abstract also has places where i truly can’t tell if “P” means phosphorus or one of the things denoted “[P]” in said passage on Wikipedia.

Another thing: the Wikipedia article uses the SCCS “Oi”. Said abstract spells it with a superscript: Oⁱ; in which case what does the superscript “i” mean? Or is it superscripted by mistake? Also: i said the source was a book. Actually, i now think it may be a journal article.

One possible solution: do an internet search, for other sources that support the same factoids, and which do not leav any SCCS unexplained.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i now think that the superscript “i” means iso-: isopropyl. If said hypothesis is correct, then “Pr” must mean propyl, not praseodymium. Still, the source’s notation is quite confusing, and Wikipedia should replace it with something less confusing.

Also, i think i found a source that explains what all those SCCSs mean.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think i fixed it.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikitext
• Eris
• Newark
• This is big text, but the rest of this passage is not.
• Deuterium is ²H.
• Water is H&sub2;O.

Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No: Water is H₂O. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium-238 is &sup238;U. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solomonfromfinland. Thank you for your work on Oxalylglycine. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT." What does that mean? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think wikicode should be concise. There ar many ways to shorten it. For example, if you want to superscript something, you can use the wikicode "{{sup|}}" instead of ""; equivalent for subscript, of course.

Likewise, excess verbiage should be removed from articles. For example, write "enough" instead of "sufficient(ly)", or "element" instead of "chemical element" (if the context makes it clear what you mean by "element"). (In fact, i think the term "element" should refer mainly to chemical elements, rather than other uses of the term.) I hav at times edited out a surprisingly large amount of excess verbiage from Wikipedia.

I think red links look ugly. There ar several ways to fix them: (a) Create an article with said title; (b) create a redirect with said title; (c) direct the link to something else; (d) remove the link altogether. Feel free to discuss, on a talk page, what is the best remedy for a given red link. Or if you want to "be bold", fix the red link yourself. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid long profusions of zeros (which look ugly and ar hard to read), use scientific notation (10ⁿ) or metric prefixes (mega-/micro-, giga-/nano-, tera-/pico- etc.).

I prefer the notation "BC"/"AD" over "BCE"/"CE", tho i don't think the latter looks ugly like e.g. red links or certain un-concise wikicode. These expressions, BC/BCE/AD/CE, ar often written in small caps, but i prefer to just use regular caps; small caps ar, i think, unnecessary extra work to typeset, and using them on Wikipedia presumably requires extra wikicode, which i think would look ugly (see above).

Isotopes should be denoted "^{(mass number)}(Chemical symbol)" rather than "(Chemical symbol)-(mass number)". So, for example, "²⁵²Cf" is preferable to "Cf-252". (See Isotopes of californium.)

This also applies for isotopes of hydrogen: IUPAC recommends that the chemical symbols for deuterium and tritium should be ²H and ³H, rather than D and T, respectivly. I strongly agree with IUPAC's recommendation, for multiple reasons: e.g. the notation "D"/"T" makes it look like deuterium and tritium ar not hydrogen, when they ar; and to be in line with the notation for every other element: namely, all isotopes of an element go by the same chemical symbol; the isotope is specified if desired. This applies even for chemical compounds; e.g., for heavy water, write ²H₂O, not D₂O. The former notation has another benefit. For potassium dideuterium phosphate, if you write K²H₂PO₄, the superscript "2" looks anomalous (normally, chemical formulas contain only subscripts, not superscripts). But said anomaly is a good thing: I know (from experience, after editing the Wikipedia article "Potassium dideuterium phosphate", and looking at the results of my work) that said anomaly quickly alerts the reader that here, for one element, the isotope is being specified.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hydrogen isotope biogeochemistry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclear energy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hydrogen isotope biogeochemistry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phase change.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cyanogen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quack.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Orders of magnitude (angular frequency) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orders of magnitude (angular frequency) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be deleted? Why is this article any less desirable than all the other articles titled "Orders of magnitude (quantity)"? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethically disputed practices has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toothed whale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beluga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, your changes to mathematics/technical articles the past few days seem like a combination of completely unnecessary (e.g. turning ² into {{sup|2}}) (mildly) harmful, e.g. taking out miscellaneous words and thereby making sentences less clear and sometimes ungrammatical, and arguably mildly helpful, e.g. normalizing regional spelling variety. But in particular, could you please stop taking all of the non-breaking spaces (whether written as {{nbsp}},  , or {{nobr}}) out of technical articles – those are included intentionally for good reason – and could you please refrain from eliminating {{math}} and {{mvar}} templates. This kind of drive-by minor format twiddling, even in cases where it makes a minor improvement, is generally not all that useful, but in these cases in particular you are just reformatting pages against whatever the previous authors' preference was, for no clear reason.

I haven't examined your changes to non-technical articles, but if they are similar, you might just consider altogether changing what kind of Wikipedia editing you work on. Drive-by formatting twiddles are, in general, of pretty low value and often cause more distraction than whatever benefit they might have.

Also could you please try to use more explicit edit summaries than "clutter out"? For example you might use as an edit summary "changed British spellings to American spellings for consistency" or whatever. –jacobolus (t) 19:53, 30 September 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) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Ecumenopolises has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:25, 30 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]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what is the purpose of Category:Wikipedia categories named after numbers? Fram (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote at the top of the page, "Categories named after individual numbers." Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a description, not a purpose. You created a maintenance category, but no special maintenance seems to be needed for these categories. Fram (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is obvious that Category:Eponymous categories is for categorizing categories according to what they are named after; since some categories are named after numbers, it seems appropriate that there should be Category:Wikipedia categories named after numbers. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies to Category:Wikipedia categories named after theorems of course. Fram (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll nominate them both for deletion. Fram (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after numbers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fram (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after theorems has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fram (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]