User talk:Red Act

Welcome!

Hello, Red Act, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Again, welcome, and thank you for editing this article. To say that you have improved things over the substance that was there before is the understatement of the year! I dislike of course the idea of population control as a mitigation strategy, my view is that any application of this strategy that would produce noticable effects on the CO2 output in a timeframe that would make any impact on this centurys temperature rise while at the same time not lead to riots and or rampant extremism or gross unfairness to the poor is unlikely in the extreme. kind regards sbandrews 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is the following :

Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23.

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% JPotter 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did asking for the name of something on the human body become a medical diagnosis? A person on the RD asked for the name of the white tongue bumps that are common for some people. He didn't ask what caused them. He didn't ask how to treat them. He didn't ask if it was a disease. He didn't ask if it was something he could pass to someone else. He didn't even claim that he had them. He just asked what the name was. Yet, you decided that asking for the name was a medical diagnosis and decided it was worth deleting a link to an article that describes the types of bumps that some people get on their tongue. Are all questions about the human body banned from Wikipedia now? -- kainaw™ 16:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just "asking for the name of something on the human body" would be something like "what’s the name of the little piece of tissue that extends a little ways over the base of the fingernail?". I’d obviously have no problem with that question. The actual question asked, however, differs from asking for the name of a cuticle in two important ways: 1) The question was about a condition which most people don’t have most of the time (at least, I’ve never had a symptom that fits the description). It’s not like a cuticle, which everybody has (AFAIK). Indeed, the title for the question calls it an "abnormality". 2) The condition is "very sore to the touch". Normal things that are just "something on the human body", like a cuticle or philtrum or something, don’t usually cause pain.

Asking about a painful abnormality sure sounds to me like asking about what could potentially be a serious medical condition, and is a lot more than just "asking for the name of something on the human body." For example, skin cancer might also present itself as a painful, abnormal bump on the tongue.

Asking for the name of a painful, abnormal condition is asking for a diagnosis. The symptom is an abnormal, painful white bump on the tongue. Whether the name of the condition that produces that symptom is "herpes" or "canker sore" or "lie bump" or "skin cancer" or "epithelial cyst" or "parasite" involves making a decision as to what condition is most likely to be causing that symptom. Making that decision is making a diagnosis. MrRedact 19:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent that you do not know what papillae or geographic tongue is. Neither is a medical diagnosis. Papillae are a normal part of the body that everyone has. Geographic tongue is rather normal with only a few people having severe geographic tongue. Most people only have the symptom of raised papillae - which look like white bumps and can be painful. But, it appears that your intent is to refuse this information to everyone and hide the fact that everyone with a tongue has papillae and those with geographic tongue commonly get raised papillae. I find it very pathetic that you can rationalize this as a medical diagnosis. -- kainaw™ 14:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If geographic tongue isn’t a medical condition, then why does our article on it contain sections entitled "Symptoms", "Histopathology", and "Treatment"? More importantly, why does the National Institutes of Health Office of Rare Diseases list geographic tongue as a "disease"?[1]

Our article on diagnosis defines diagnosis as "the recognition of a disease or condition by its outward signs and symptoms". Geographic tongue may not be a very serious disease, but saying that the questioner's symptoms are indicative of geographic tongue is still a diagnosis.

According to our article on geographic tongue, geographic tongue is a synonym for benign migratory glossitis. How can you, with no medical degree, and without having looked in the guy’s mouth, distinguish between benign migratory glossitis and less benign forms of glossitis? According to the glossitis article, some of the possible causes of glossitis are bacterial infections such as syphilis, viral infections such as herpes simplex, iron deficiency anemia, pernicious anemia, oral lichen planus, erythema multiforme, aphthous ulcer, or pemphigus vulgaris. Do you really think you can tell that his condition isn’t one of those disorders from his two-sentence description of his symptoms?

What makes you so sure that his condition is even any variety of glossitis? For example, mouth cancer can start with a sore area on the tongue.[2]

I highly suspect, in fact, that you did not make a correct diagnosis. He describes his condition as "very sore to the touch". The geographic tongue article says that it "is not common for the condition to cause pain." His condition involves a single white bump. Geographic tongue involves irregular areas of discolored papillae.

Reference desk editors not being allowed to offer a diagnosis is not just a stupid, arbitrary rule. Like it or not, we live in a very litigious society, and huge sums of money have been awarded for really ridiculous lawsuits. You basically told the questioner that his condition did not warrant medical attention. If it turns out that he really has mouth cancer, he could sue Wikimedia for providing a forum in which incorrect diagnoses are frequently made by people with no medical qualifications, and I’m not so sure that the lawsuit wouldn’t succeed. I’m sorry I hurt your feelings by deleting your post, but I think it’s more important to prevent the risk of Wikipedia from being harmed by a lawsuit, and to prevent Wikimedia from deciding to close down the Science ref desk due to legal liability concerns about too much unlicensed medical advice slipping through on the page. MrRedact 18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, your rationalization that naming a body part is a diagnosis is pathetic. I'll ensure to wrap any comments about body parts with "THIS IS A NAME OF A BODY PART AND NOT A DIAGNOSIS" next time. -- kainaw™ 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Papilla" is the name of a body part, but "geographic tongue" is the name of a disease. The National Institutes of Health calls it a "disease".[3]. The Mayo Clinic calls it a "disease".[4] The Diseases Database lists geographic tongue in that database of diseases.[5] The New Zealand Dermatological Society says that it has "no cure",[6] which implies that it’s a disease. DermAtlas lists geographic tongue as a "diagnosis,"[7] which not only implies that it’s a disease, but provides direct evidence that determining that some symptoms are due to geographic tongue is making a diagnosis. You can wrap a post about geographic tongue with a disclaimer that it’s just the name of a body part, but that doesn’t actually turn the phrase into the name of a body part. The name of a body part and the name of a disease are two very different things. And if you list the name of a disease in response to a question about what a symptom is, that’s making a diagnosis. MrRedact 23:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've shared your post with everyone else and you've made an otherwise very boring day in otolaryngology an enjoyable one. -- kainaw™ 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those templates look like they’ll be very useful, especially if I continue to patrol the new pages like I've recently started doing. Thank you for pointing them out to me! Red Act (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor thanks for the deletion of একতারা, sorry, unfortuantly I did this, I made a plan to write in http://bn.wikipedia.org. Thanks again. --Librarianpmolib (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Bill Clinton's sex scandals, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Clinton's sex scandals and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Nancy Shevell, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Shevell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Bongomatic (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Bongomatic (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article "Prada Transformer", suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

unreferenced, no indication that this meets notability guidelines

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Prada Transformer", with quotes, should be deleted. I created the article with quotes in the title by mistake, and moved the page to Prada Transformer without quotes. But no redirect from the quoted version is needed. However, I believe Prada Transformer, without quotes, does meet notability guidelines. I've added a bunch more external links to big-name sources like Vogue, Vanity Fair, and New York Magazine, so that it's clear that the Prada Transformer has received reasonably wide media coverage, especially within the fashion industry.Red Act (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on "Prada Transformer", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Turgan ^Talk 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fine answer. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		To Red Act, for consistently good answers at the Reference Desk. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Red Act. In the future, if you choose to revert a removal I've made from the Reference Desks, could you drop me a line? It's not something that I tend to do lightly. In that particular case, you were restoring a trolling question posed by a former editor called Light current (talk · contribs). He's been banned for a number of years, based on a truly remarkable amount of disruptive conduct. He comes back periodically – probably while he's on holidays from school – and trolls the Reference Desk. If you watch closely, you'll probably also see him or his socks vandalizing the user and talk pages of a number of admins (including me).

He has created dozens of sockpuppets over the years (and indeed, used GaseousPhasor (talk · contribs) just a little while ago after I blocked his IP). We do our very best to ignore him and deny him recognition, and I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't feed this particular troll. His IP addresses are uniformly from the Tiscali UK DSL range. (WHOIS says that includes everything from 79.72.0.0 to 79.79.255.255, but most of the IP addresses I've actually seen Light current use are from the 79.75 pool.)

You may have noticed he was back again today, making childish Uranus puns ([8]). I don't understand him, truth be told. At some times he comes across as having at least a firm undergraduate grasp of electrical and acoustic engineering; at others, he's got the sense of humour and emotional stability of a slightly-dim eight-year-old.

Just thought you'd want to know about what's happening — as a new Ref Desk regular, I'm afraid you're going to see more of Light current than you ever wanted to. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that explains things! I totally misunderstood your “rv light current trolling” edit summary. I had no idea that “light current” was a user name, so I thought that “light” and “current” were adjectives modifying “trolling”. I was puzzled as to what difference it made whether a trolling question was “current” (recent) or had been around awhile. But I took “light” trolling to mean that you considered the question to just be mild trolling, i.e., was a borderline case. Indeed, the initial question, while quite childish, wasn’t all that bad, until the follow-up question turned it into a request for medical advice. Given that I had already started researching an answer before you deleted the question, I didn't figure you'd have any major objection to me restoring the question, since according to my misunderstanding, you considered the question to only be “light” trolling. Red Act (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Before I restored that question, I did check that specific IP address to see what previous posts from that IP address were like, and there were none. So since the original question was childish but not really bad (yet), I figured that restoring the question would be in keeping with assuming good faith and not biting the newbie. Obviously, if I had understood that your edit summary was identifying the user as a known troll, I wouldn’t have restored the question. Red Act (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Unfortunately, Tiscali IP addresses generally rotate fairly rapidly, so checking the contribution history seldom gives any useful insight. (They're not quite the mess that AOL used to be, but Tiscali trolls can get a new IP address (apparently) by cycling the power on their modems.) In any case, if you hadn't run across mention of Light current before, I can see how my edit summary could have been a bit opaque. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this edit, hope you don't mind :) hydnjo (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine. Red Act (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then - see ya 'round the desks! -hydnjo (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for your vandalism reverts on my page.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 19:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the rollback privilege to your account, because it looks like you could use it. Check out Wikipedia:Rollback feature and the linked policy (and practice) pages if you need any guidance on how the tool should be used. If it was too presumptuous of me to flip the bit for you, say the word and I'll turn it off again.

Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Red Act (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Red Act. Today you amended Work (physics) saying the work-energy theorem only applies to rigid bodies. I agree that the work-energy theorem is not immediately applicable to compressible fluids because some or all of the work causes a change in internal energy rather than kinetic energy.

However, I disagree with restricting it to rigid bodies because I believe the work-energy theorem is also applicable to incompressible fluids. If you look at Bernoulli's principle#Derivations of Bernoulli equation you will see that the derivation of the Bernoulli equation for incompressible fluids uses the work-energy theorem, and explicitly mentions the work-energy theorem.

• Please also have a look at a question on this subject that I have raised on the Talk page. See Talk:Work (physics)#A question for all Wiki physicists. Your comments will be greatly appreciated. Best wishes. Dolphin51 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the whole Work (physics) article doesn't say anything at all about fluids, before or after I got to it. The article that discusses work in the context of fluids is Work (thermodynamics), which is the article that presumably would be linked to by the Bernoulli's principle article. Unfortunately, Work (thermodynamics) doesn't say anything at all about the work-energy theorem, which is what that proof in the Bernoulli's principle article needs. I think perhaps the best solution would be to add a discussion of the work-energy theorem as it pertains to fluids into the Work (thermodynamics) article. I think that makes more sense than starting to talk about fluids in the Work (physics) article. Red Act (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't disagree with anything you have written above. In particular, I'm pleased to see we are in agreement about the value of a discussion of the work-energy theorem as it pertains to fluids. However, elsewhere you wrote The work-energy theorem only applies to rigid bodies. Are we now agreed that the work-energy theorem does not only apply to rigid bodies? Dolphin51 (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a version of the work-energy theorem applies to fluid dynamics under appropriate circumstances. My comment you're quoting was part of an edit summary for an edit to Work (physics), which only discusses single, solid objects. The point of my comment was that in the context of a single, solid object, that object needs to be rigid for the work-energy theorem to apply. I wasn't intending for my comment to have broader applicability than in the context in which it was used. Red Act (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That clarifies your position. I agree with your recent edit.

Any thoughts on the question at Talk:Work (physics)#A question for all Wiki physicists? Dolphin51 (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a bit concerned about your answer on the reference desk. The work energy theorem as well as applying to newtonian inviscid fluids also applies to the standard treatment of flexible chains and many multiple body systems. I have tried to be diplomatic in pointing this out. --BozMo talk 07:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the reference desk question for a citation to a textbook problem that explicitly points out that the work-energy theorem does not apply to the rope problem in question. Red Act (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only according to how you have formulated it. --BozMo talk 13:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I do understand the principle behind what you are saying. If you imagine a weight at the top of the rope the problem does look a lot like an inelastic collision between that weight and the segment of rope being accelerated. However attractive this conceptual picture is however it fudges the join with the table to make it hard to recognise any meaningful situation. --BozMo talk 13:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply sometime today on the reference desk. I think it makes more sense to continue the discussion there than here, so that anyone following the issue there can see the various considerations that go into it. I mean, this is just a calm debate about the finer points of a physics problem, not some flaming religious argument or something like that that needs to be taken off-page. Red Act (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Well I am not flaming anyway. But there are different people in different places on it. If you think very hard about the element of rope which has just unwound you realise it is not just travelling upwards at v it also has to be travelling along the rope at v to keep up with the join in the coil. So at that instantaneous its kinetic energy is double what I think you said... --BozMo talk 15:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your paragraph to me in the midst of a bigger discussion. I'm sorry about the circumstance you're describing. If you had e-mail enabled, I would have written to you personally. Would you like to send me e-mail, so I have your address? Your reply also has interesting aspects for my little essay; maybe we could move the message there? That would be a place where some added discussion would make at least one well-intended editor happy - me. ;-) — Sebastian 17:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to take a bit of a wikibreak. I'll get in touch with you or respond to your message or whatever when I "get back". Red Act (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Have a good holiday season! — Sebastian 20:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)[reply]

I am going to resume editing after a Wikibreak. Hope you will do same. Edison (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from my wikibreak, to the extent that I'll be editing Wikipedia again. But I'm not really interested in furthering the earlier discussion, and for now, at least, I'll just be editing other parts of Wikipedia. Red Act (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Red Act. I found your reply to the "Is there anything Ellen Page couldn't do that another human being could do?" question over on WP:RD/S fascinating, and was quite disappointed that it was removed for WP:BLP concerns. I hope that you don't mind that I restored the question and you response, rewording them slightly to avoid mention of any specific living individual. -- 124.157.254.112 (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind in the least, in fact, I think what you did was excellent. You may have found a way to save the baby from being thrown out with the bathwater. Hopefully others will find the reworked thread acceptable. Thank you! Red Act (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Red Act. Thanks for your excellent detective work on the trail of LC. In September 2010 there were a couple of postings on the Science Reference Desk that were almost certainly from LC, but not from his traditional IP addresses. They were:

diff 1 from 81.44.97.243. (This post was reverted a couple of times but restored both times by the original author.)

diff 2 from 81.44.99.150.

A later posting on this thread came from one of LC’s traditional IP addresses, 88.104.92.205, and confirms the original posting was from the same person. See diff 3. Dolphin (t) 02:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to make of that. It's not only a different ISP in a different country, but I don't think LC ever uses an apostrophe in "n't" contractions, so the correct spelling of "aren't" and "couldn't" in 81.44.99.150's post doesn't look like LC's typing. Maybe LC has a friend in Spain that he was using as a meatpuppet? Red Act (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. Good luck with the task. Dolphin (t) 06:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal on the reference desk [9] is being discussed on the Talk Page. Please remember to notify people when you remove their responses. I have done so for you [10], [11], [12]. Buddy431 (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were involved in this matter back in 2009. It's flaired up again. Could you add any perspective to the discussion? Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard# Revisiting the labelling of David Ogden Stiers as gay   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you undid your edit, I thought I'd comment anyway. I wasn't aware I was asking for medical advice. I asked because the Wiki article on short-term memory says nothing about regaining memory recall once its gone, so I wondered if that was because it was impossible. Apologies if it comes across as asking for medical advice, it is after 1am here! -- role^player 00:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually sure if it's a problem or not, which is why I undid my edit, and brought it up on the talk page.[13] Red Act (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Peter Warne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Passengerpigeon (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Super Yang-Mills requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 16:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at Talk:Super_Yang-Mills. Red Act (talk) 17:47, 26 August 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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give GetTaxi a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Gett. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bimetric gravity 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/Bimetric gravity 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. Yann (talk) 15:27, 15 January 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (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) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]