Kmhkmh

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The file File:Intercept theorem proof3.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned graph/chart/diagram.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The file File:River chart.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned graph/chart/diagram.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have deprodded File:Intercept theorem vectors.png and File:Trapezoid midpoints.png because both have previously been nominated at FfD. I only did this to comply with policy and would not object to nominating this article at WP:FFD again. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Kmhkmh,

Thanks for creating Constant chord theorem! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for one issue.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Boleyn:

No offense, but such a message as well as the associated tagging are a bit off and somewhat counterproductive. Instead of a formalistic tagging seemingly based on "I can't see a footnote". I'd suggest to actually take a look at the text and sources of the rather short article. The paragraph on the history of the theorem pretty much explicitly describes in which source you find which content. The gain of artificially (and somewhat redundantly) turning that into footnote ia about zero, although admittingly it would have avoided a(n automated) posting such as the above one.--21:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

At the talk page, you said in part: The latter however seems to be used here to be able to argue that WP policy requires to dismiss this study (or any other new differing result) out of hand. There's no problem here yet, but I want to make sure that you are aware, going forward, of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Casting aspersions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've added the newly created Maxwell's theorem (geometry) to the List of triangle topics. If you know of other articles that should be listed there and are not, could you add those too? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, note that, as in this edit, the convention is that journal titles are italicized and article titles are in quotation marks. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

That was a seriously uncool move. You knew from my edit summaries that Draft:Braid (film) existed, and rather than do the right thing and work on the draft and move that into Mainspace, you "went around" process, and created Braid (Film) (which is, incidentally, at the wrong disambiguation title). Please don't try to pull something like that again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The "right thing" to do is not wasting of your time in Wikipedia on bugging/impairing editors extending encyclopedic content. Acting otherwise is something i'd describe as "uncool".

If you are seriously think something got lost with that overlooked draft, you're welcome to request a merger/versioning import.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I figured this would be your reaction, rather than apologize for goofing this up. I appreciate you confirming my suspicions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Likewise--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Braid movie poster.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Kmhkmh, would you mind taking a look at my recent edit to X-15 Flight 3-65-97? If it’s mathematically worded wrong feel free to revert it, or let me know what you think and I’ll change it. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I assume you ask me because i'm a mathematician by education?. My knowledge of physics and engineering however is fairly limited and the article falls in that domain. Also your changes seem minimal and undisputed as far as I can see. Anyhow if you are concerned with the wording, best to ask at physics or engineering project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering) or on the article's talk page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

You probably don’t remember but I tried to edit Trisectrix a while back to include the orbit of an asteroid. I was a new editor and you weren’t buying it. I appreciated your succinct but friendly admonishment. I’ll check out the links you provided. Thanks The unrelated kinsman (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please see following subject, the eights circles theorem, if You like the subject, please write a article in enwiki.

https://ijgeometry.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/49-53.pdf

https://cms.math.ca/crux/v39/n5/Problems_39_5.pdf

https://cms.math.ca/crux/v40/n5/Solutions_40_5.pdf

https://cms.math.ca/crux/v41/n5/Solutions_41_5.pdf

http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2018volume18/FG201845.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.10345.pdf

http://www.journal-1.eu/2016-2/Dao-Thanh-Oai-sixteen-points-pp.21-24.pdf

https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90%E1%BB%8Bnh_l%C3%BD_t%C3%A1m_%C4%91%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng_tr%C3%B2n

Thanks you 117.4.247.124 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Everyone Dies Alone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Gleeson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear user User:Kmhkmh; would you mind to help me with a short review on the page International Journal of Geometry that I recently created in the German wikipedia? There might be German language mistakes and if possible I would like to add the cover of the journal in the right hand box (just like in the English version), but I do not know how to do it in the German wikipedia. I hope to receive your feedback, Best Regards; Count Von Aubel (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear user User:Kmhkmh; many thanks for your editing. I saw your message in the talk page of my eventual German user page (correct?). I am a bit confused here with all these different versions of wikipedia, but I would prefer not to have a German account as my German level is very poor (I had a huge help in translating the IJG page). I would like to keep only the English wikipedia account and work there and, from time to time, jump and translate in others wikipedia (Italian is my native language). Best Regards; Count Von Aubel (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The message on your user page on de.wp is just a standard welcome template with some info for beginners. If you can't read German just ignore it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The page Category:Orthocentroidal circle has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

C1: empty, and G7: author states that the category was an accidental creation and meant for Commons not En

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Kmhkmh I created an article on Section formula few months ago. I think it is notable enough but it was declined. I resubmitted it but the review is pending for a long while. Can you offer me some help in this regard?

Shubhrajit Sadhukhan (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The "Ukraine, Nordstream pipeline" section as written (i.e., "echoing claims by the Russian and Chinese governments") reflects a distinct POV (guilt by association), bias or incomplete context at best. BLPs are held to a higher standard and written conservatively. The topic overall is also not pertinent to his biography, NOTNEWS, and reflects RECENTISM. There is a growing consensus the section should not be included. See talk page. 158.82.159.130 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well you probably can remove the "echoing claims ..." part, but the text is properly sourced as far as I can see and I see absolutely no reason why we should have section about his opinion on Syria and Venezuela but not ukraine/Russia when Sachs was similarly outspoken on all of them. That aside this discussion is best pursued on the article's talk page.--Kmhkmh (talk)

I was very concerned with how our discussions went on the article talk page, given at least three sanctions apply. I assumed from your edit history that you would be familiar with the policies and their application. Would you be interested in discussing the matter? No problem if you don't. Thanks for being civil and working to build consensus. --Hipal (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

You lost me there. What sanctions?--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

WP:ARBBLP, WP:ARBAP2, and WP:GS/RUSUKR. You've been previously notified of WP:ARBGMO [1], so I assumed you were familiar with such sanction types and areas. --Hipal (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see. No I wasn't aware of those in particular nor do I really follow the ARB cases or the current sanction list. So unless there is note regarding them on the concerned article's talk page, I usually won't really be aware of them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

My concerns then were that you were addressing the dispute extremely casually, and not as if sanctions applied. For example, the length we went to just to get a clear statement from you about why you felt Polygraph.info shouldn't be used, and apparently without your realizing that VOA is a reliable source as described at RSN and RSP. --Hipal (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well for regular editing most people don't check RSP in fact i'd bet most editors aren't even aware of it (which probably holds for the discretionary sanctions list as well btw.). They just browse the most common policies at best and use common sense based on that. I think people working a lot in disputed areas often forget how far away the bureacracy around it might be from the other (average ?) editors. I probably looked at the RSN list less than 10 times in my 15 years of Wikipedia, usually in case when in a dispute over sources somebody was referencing it directly for his argument. Having looked at it again now, your are right it greenlighted VOA as a source in general, though my personal assessment is probably still a bit more skeptical than the note there. In any case it was/is somewhat obvious to me that in the given context (with Russia and the US the most likely suspects) an outlet directly owned by the suspected states aministrations is not a particular good source, in particular for a statement in biographical article of living person that can be read as derogatory.

I have to admit though that I did edit somewhat casually indeed. I just reacted to an edit on my appearing on my watchlist that looked at first glance unjustified to me. I wasn't aware of the hornet's nest any recent US politics associated articles have become (and the discretionary sanctions on it) otherwise I probably would have read the whole talk page carefully before editing rather than just fast browsing it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think people working a lot in disputed areas often forget how far away the bureacracy around it might be from the other (average ?) editors. Exactly right. Looks like you understand the situation well. I'm very relieved. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

you're welcome--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Permit me to draw your attention to the age ofHafize Gaye Erkan whose age has a level of dispute. I initiated the creation of her page prior her appointment as Turkey central bank Governor, I didn’t see anywhere her birthday or year was mentioned but I saw reliable sources who quoted her age, see references 20, 21, & 22.(I hope new citations don’t shift it). This actually dates her birth year to 1979 which I used but was undone by a user whose comment you will find on my talk page.

.

I will also like to bring to your notice that all publications citing 1982 were done after publication of her Turkish Wikipedia page. Unfortunate this English page hasn’t been reviewed yet and I felt good seeing her new employer putting up 1979, I felt like for once that my maths degree isn’t useless. Kindly do your findings. I agree her birth year is 1979, from ages cited from American Banker, Crain and now tbmm TEB001 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DoctorMatt (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply