User talk:Bernanke's Crossbow

Hi Bernanke's Crossbow. I've noticed that you've change changing a lot of LaTeX code (i.e. <math></math>) into Unicode. This is discouraged in Wikipedia for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons. Specifically, some readers may be using browsers that either don't render certain Unicode (such as arrows → or ∈ ) or don't render it correctly. In addition, some Unicode characters might not be interpreted correctly by some screen readers. Here are some relevant quotes:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Special symbols - "Not all of the symbols in these lists are displayed correctly on all browsers (see Help:Special characters). Although the symbols that correspond to named entities are very likely to be displayed correctly, a significant number of viewers will have problems seeing all the characters listed at Mathematical operators and symbols in Unicode. One way to guarantee that an uncommon symbol is rendered correctly for all readers is to force the symbol to display as an image, using the <math> environment."
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Links - "Do not use Unicode characters as icons; use an icon with alt text instead. For example, a character like "→" cannot be reproduced into useful text by some screen readers."
• MOS:BBB - "A particular concern for the use of blackboard bold on Wikipedia is that the Unicode symbols for blackboard bold characters are not supported by all systems, or that font substitution on browsers often render these symbols in discordant fonts. The use of Unicode characters for blackboard bold is discouraged in English Wikipedia. Instead, the LaTeX rendering (for example <math>\mathbb{Z}</math> or <math>\Z</math>) or the standard boldface must be used."
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Fractions - "The use of Unicode precomposed fractions (such as ½) is discouraged entirely, for accessibility reasons" (Footnote) "Characters in ISO/IEC 8859-1 (¼, ½, and ¾) work with screen readers, but others, like ⅐, might not."
• Help:Displaying a formula#Unicode characters - "Non-ASCII Unicode characters like π work in MathML and MathJax but not in texvc so should currently be avoided."
• MOS:FNOF

Other issues with Unicode characters are mentioned here: Wikipedia:Rendering math.

Here are some guidelines from Help:Displaying a formula#LaTeX vs. math template:

The disadvantages of {{math}} are the following: not all formulas can be displayed. While it is possible to render a complicated formula with {{math}}, it is often poorly rendered. Except for the most common ones, the rendering of non-alphanumeric Unicode symbols is often very poor and may depend on the browser configuration (misalignment, wrong size, ...). The spaces inside formulas are not managed automatically, and thus need some expertise for being rendered correctly. Except for short formulas, there are much more characters to type for entering a formula, and the source is more difficult to read.

Therefore, the common practice of most members of WikiProject mathematics is the following:

• Use of {{mvar}} and {{math}} for isolated variables and very simple inline formulas
• Use of LaTeX for displayed formulas and more complicated inline formulas
• Use of LaTeX for formulas involving symbols that are not regularly rendered in Unicode (see MOS:BBB)
• Avoid formulas in section headings, and when this is a problem, use raw HTML (see Finite field for an example)

And some more guidelines

• MOS:FORMULA - "For a formula on its own line the preferred formatting is the LaTeX markup, with a possible exception for simple strings of Latin letters, digits, common punctuation marks, and arithmetical operators."
• MOS:FORMULA - "Even for simple formulae the LaTeX markup might be preferred if required for uniformity within an article. For readability, it is also strongly preferred not to mix HTML and LaTeX markup in the same expression."
• MOS:MATH#PUNC - "If the formula is written in LaTeX, that is, surrounded by the <math> and </math> tags, then the punctuation should also be inside the tags, because otherwise the punctuation could wrap to a new line if the formula is at the edge of the browser window."
• MOS:NOTED - "avoid contentless clichés as Note that, It should be noted that, It must be mentioned that, It must be emphasized that, Consider that, and We see that." "Avoid, as far as possible, useless phrases such as: It is easily seen that ..., Clearly ..., Obviously ..."
• MOS:MATH#TONE - "Articles should avoid common blackboard abbreviations such as wrt (with respect to), wlog (without loss of generality), and iff (if and only if), as well as quantifier symbols ∀ and ∃ instead of for all and there exists." Also avoid abbreviations like "iff", "i.e.", "e.g.", "resp." (spell them out instead: "if and only if", "that is", "for example", "respectively").

Mgkrupa 18:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mgkrupa:

• This is a giant mass of text. For some of it, the relevance to my work is unclear. (When do I "use Unicode characters as icons"? Heck, when do I use anything as icons?)
• I have a strong preference for {{math}} in inline text, for many of the reasons listed in WP:Rendering math#Pros of HTML. Also, {{math}} simplifies proper punctuation formatting relative to <math>. I rarely find that preference outweighed by uniformity.
• In general, I think that my use of {{math}} comports with common practices here. I diverge at blackboard bold, which I think the guidelines over-dissuade. Neither LaTeX nor HTML substantially simplifies screen readers' job, and most browsers can reproduce all symbols, including blackboard bold, just fine. The problem is that browsers recognize HTML character entities inconsistently. For example, some browser systems recognize ℝ, ℝ, or &#211D; as ℝ inconsistently at best — but the direct character code (as earlier in this paragraph) almost always displays fine.
• Wikipedia has, in general, maintained a nice balance between inline formulas in HTML and block display formulas in LaTeX until the past few years, when it has started to trend away from HTML formulas. I'd like to see that trend reversed, if possible.
• I don't edit articles solely to convert LaTeX to HTML (not that you claimed I did). When I'm editing the text of a paragraph, I make sure the punctuation is formatted correctly. MOS:MATH#PUNC doesn't emphasize the correct way to punctuate LaTeX equations^[1] as much as it ought, so I often find myself needing to adjust the inline equations. And if already I'm adjusting the inline equation, well...it seems apropos to write it using the formatting I prefer.

Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Subgroup distortion at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Subgroup distortion

On 26 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Subgroup distortion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that subgroup distortion theory, introduced by Misha Gromov in 1993, can help encode text? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Subgroup distortion. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Subgroup distortion), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Cite stackexchange has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You recently added a redlink to Exeter Theatre Royal fire about the play that was being performed, in order to spur its creation. Whilst another editor reverted, I thought the underlying idea was right, so I have now created the outline of the article at The Romany Rye (play), if it is of any passing interest. With thanks. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

<3 Thank you. jengod (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to thank you on having started some cleanup of Quotient space (topology). (hope you don't mind, I just did some further cleanup in the Definition section.) The version before your changes was just full of ramblings. It was again a case of editor Mgkrupa going on an editing spree (back in 2021, 2022) and adding all kinds of minutiae not central to the topic at hand and saying the same thing in a multitude of ways to the point that one can't see the forest for the trees anymore. He did not understand that this encyclopedia is not meant to "teach" (see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK item 6 for example). For background info, there was some backlash at some point and he has improved since. But it still annoys me when I need to wade through all that (there are articles of his a lot worse than this one). Anyway, sorry for the rant and thanks for the editing. PatrickR2 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

​ No problem on both ends, and many thanks for continuing the work; I had to restrain myself from fixing more duplication because I needed to prepare for a meeting with my advisor soon. I feel much the same way about MgKrupa, except that I'm not really sure it's a case of NOTTEXTBOOK. I feel awkward bad-mouthing another editor behind his back in public (especially since I think he did make some positive changes on a few articles), so I'll forbear from commenting further. But yeah, I'm glad I'm not the only one cleaning up his carnage here and there. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that he has made and continues to make many valuable contributions. Regards. PatrickR2 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The situation with CuS is complicated, otherwise you would be correct to call it cupric sulfide. But the compound is mixed valence with some S-S bonds. As I recall. Its a little like FeS2 not being Fe(IV) but Fe++, S2 2-. Of course if you talk to a physicsy person, they even dispute assigning oxidation states to such highly covalent (semiconducting, glistening) materials. Cu2S is more cuprous as you indicated. Figured you might be interested. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Yes, I suppose I am curious to know that.

Separately, I do think the formulas on Copper sulfide should be link to the pages currently titled Copper monosulfide and Copper(I) sulfide, whether or not the latter nomenclature is accurate. Is linking to those titles OK, or are there particular redirects you would rather I use?

Thanks, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Your linking ideas look good to me. Never can be too many redirects etc, almost. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

As is written at Norm (mathematics)#In abstract algebra, the statement that ${\displaystyle [E:k]}$-th root of a field norm is a norm in the sense of the article (assuming the concept makes sense) is not clear. For example, if ${\displaystyle k}$ is the field of rational numbers, ${\displaystyle E=k({\sqrt {2}}),\alpha =17+12{\sqrt {2}},\beta =1,}$ then the triangle inequality ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {Nm(\alpha +\beta )}}\leq {\sqrt {Nm(\alpha )}}+{\sqrt {Nm(\beta )}}}$ does not hold. Albrts (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

For someone outside of organic chemistry, these articles look similar but to an organic chemist, they are distinct. Reductive amination especially is a well defined topic separate from imine reduction, at least IMHO. This kind of dramatic reorg should be discussed prior to executing. I am all for merging and simplifying, but not in this case. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Smokefoot:

Yes, I agree. I think that

• Reductive amination traditionally includes a (one-pot) precursor reaction to attach the nitrogen.
• Nor does it require specifically imines, and i.e. also includes nitrile reduction (maybe this is wrong?).

I also think

• Our current page on nitrile reduction incorporates both catalytic hydrogenation and stoichometric metal reductants
• Currently there isn't enough material that we should split the two.
• We could should do the same for imines: have a single page on reduction that includes both catalytic and stoichiometric methods.
• Such a page would certainly include the current content of Hydrogenation of carbon-nitrogen double bonds.

Likewise,

• Most of the current reductive amination page content discusses imine reduction but neither the nitrogenous precursor nor nitrile alternatives.
• Consequently that content could should move to the hypothetical unified imine reduction page.
• Once a page on imine reduction exists, the page on reductive amination needn't include the material on imine reduction in great detail; in can "incorporate it by reference" (as the saying goes) by linking to the unified imine reduction page.

That's what I tried to achieve with my merger. Did I fail to achieve it, fail to explain it clearly enough in edit summaries, or fail to choose an desirable goal? Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I could say a lot but, the main thing is that these move-merge actions require consultation with our colleagues.

Additional comments and opinions:

Hydrogenation of carbon-nitrogen double bonds is awful. The author, a fetishist organic grad student, wrote many articles that I have been chipping away at for years. His refs are narrow and the artwork is inferior. But, he writes facts, and narrow facts are one of the great impediments to establishing an encyclopedic overview.

• I recommend that reductive amination be left alone. Its a super well developed and useful. But you can put the article to a vote.
• Re Nitrile reduction is sorta stand alone. Again, IMHO.
• Organic chem "culture" is deep and almost impenetrable, FYI. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Smokefoot: Thanks for the advice. Just two more quick points of agreement:

  • I was ambiguous above. I too agree that nitrile reduction should be left alone; I just meant it as a model for a hypothetical "imine reduction" page (which I'll put to a vote when I get a chance).
  • "Hydrogenation of carbon-nitrogen double bonds is awful." is the genesis of this whole shambles.

  Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid offering advice, except to ask around. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Please note that edits made directly to the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions will be overwritten by the bot and deleted. If you would like to comment on move requests, please use the linked article talk pages. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You're an excellent Wikipedia Event lab partner. :) best, jengod (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jengod: Aw, thanks! You're great too! Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Bernanke's Crossbow. Thank you for your work on Cumenol. Aviram7, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good Work 😊

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aviram7}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 05:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Bernanke's Crossbow,

I am puzzled that you nominated Towerlands Tram Road for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Towerlands Tram Road) and argued that the page should be deleted as OR and then copied it to your User space (User:Bernanke's Crossbow/Towerlands Tram Road). If you thought the article was unacceptable for main space, why are you saving a copy of it? And if you thought you could improve the article through editing, then why did you nominate it for deletion instead of just improving it? Thank you for any clarification you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: I don't think Towerlands Tram Road should be stored here on Wikipedia. I think it is a good piece of historical original research, and ought to be *somewhere* on the web. I saved a copy intending to look for a better host and then ask Roger Griffin if it would be possible to reupload the material there, but I don't plan to re-add the content to Wikipedia's mainspace. Hope this helps, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Factor through has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Factor through until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it was clear that 24 and 40 are typical average numbers for bicarbonate and pCO2 at sea level. Actually the blood gas machine measures pH and pCO2 and then calculates a bicarbonate value using the Henderson–Hasselbalch equation. Reknihtdivad (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Emmdas07: Yes, that was why I removed those numbers. If you agree with me, then why did you revert? Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not agree that the numbers are pulled "out of nowhere". There was a statement that "Adding the other normal values, we get" but that didn't seem clear.

I think the statement I added clarifies where these numbers come from.

When I did the revert I meant to add a comment and expected that clicking the publish button would pop up a comment window. I explained the rational on the subsequent edit which did pup up the comment window. I guess the revert is not actually attached to the revert itself which was not my intent.

I think the typical numbers would be familiar to clinicians and nicely illustrate the use of the equation. I like it that way but that is just my opinion. I am interest in what others have to say. Reknihtdivad (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What i meant to say was "I guess the comment is not actually attached to the revert itself which was not my intent." Reknihtdivad (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Emmdas07:

• In general, I tend to look askance at WP:EXAMPLES in WP pages whose primary WP:TOPIC is not math, philosophy, or law, because otherwise articles on applied science tend to degenerate into a WP:TEXTBOOK-like set of worked problems (see especially my first link). I freely admit that I may remove examples to excess; WP:TEXTBOOK notes that "examples intended to inform rather than to instruct may be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia articles."
• I think that if "the blood gas machine measures pH and pCO2 and then calculates a bicarbonate value", then
  1. metabolic acidosis should say so explicitly and
  2. the sample computation ought to have information flowing in the same direction. That is, the computation should determine a bicarbonate concentration from pH and pCO₂ values.

Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I think a statement in the article that is as you say "the blood gas machine measures pH and pCO2 and then calculates a bicarbonate value" is a good idea. The rearranged equation would be in an unusual form. Most people would recognize the Henderson - Hasselback equation in its usual form. Clinicians, doctors, nurses and respiratory therapists are always handed all three numbers to them and don't use the equation. Reknihtdivad (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You obviously do a lot for Wikipedia and I am glad that you do. Keep it up.

Also some people might think that this is a medical article and should only be edited by those with medical credentials of some sort. I don’t think so at all. I am glad to see someone with an interest in math and chemistry in this. Keep it up. Reknihtdivad (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Emmdas07: I have adjusted the article following our seeming concurrence detailed above. The partial pressure and concentration values ought to have units given, but I don't know what they should be, so the numbers are unitless right now. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The numbers for PaCO2 are in millimeters of mercury (mmHg), I guess probably kPa in Europe. By the way, PaCO2 with little a is for arterial blood and PACO2 written with a capital A is used for Alveolar PACO2.

HCO3- is milliequivalents per liter (mEq/L)

The pH is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration in moles per liter.

Clinicians tend to throw these numbers around without using units but I think you are right in an article like this they should be given.

The normal numbers are usually reported as a range like 35–45 mmHg for arterial PCO2 because some variation around the mean is of course normal. The Wikipedia article on arterial blood gasses  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arterial_blood_gas_test is an excellent reference. There is a table it it labeled "Pathophysiology sample values" which shows just single numbers, HCO3− = 24 paCO2 = 40 paO2 = 95 pH = 7.40.

Thank you for helping with the chemistry, math and the knowledge of Wikipedia in the way articles are supposed to be written. Reknihtdivad (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@RamzyM (WMF): I have already voted. Is this message a sign that my vote has been lost? Or are you simply posting this message to everyone, independent of current voting status? Thanks, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Berkelium oxide. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@JoeNMLC: Per WP:DABREF, sources are inappropriate on these WP:DABs.

I know that the articles are formally labeled WP:SIAs, not DABs. I am simply following standard on-Wiki practice for inorganic chemistry navigational aids; see, for example, sulfur oxide, lead fluoride, or vanadium chloride.

(Organic chemistry does not appear to follow the same practices, which makes your draftification of chlorophenyl azide much more defensible. Butanol, dihydroxybenzenes, or hexene do all include a few citations and a notional overview of the subject. I think that practice is a mistake, but it may have consensus.)

Please undo this draftification. Thanks, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the draftification of the two pages, and left a comment on JoeNMLC's talk page, before I found this comment. Just mentioning here that I did so. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Chlorophenyl azide. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bernanke's Crossbow, please try not to use {{Math}} template in chemistry pages unless it is essential. The reason is that it does not match the style guide, it makes it hard to edit and reuse with copy paste or otherwise. It is the same reason we don't use <chem> markup. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

OK. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I was just looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Manganese nitride. Maybe you can draw an image for the article? Check out this link. --evrik ^(talk) 23:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I have little experience creating 3D graphics, sorry. I could mess around in OpenGL and try to get something working, but I think that's an inefficient use of my Wikipedia editing time a.t.m. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

On 17 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Manganese nitrides, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that making the manganese nitride Mn₂N requires a sponge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Manganese nitride. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Manganese nitrides), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Bernanke's Crossbow. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Campbell 66 Express, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bernanke's crossbow,

I'm a Wikidata user without article creation rights at entwp. May you please be so kind to create the above link as a redirect to [[Mogden_Sewage_Treatment_Works#Mogden_formula]] for me?

Thank you in advance --Alfons Yondraschek (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It seemed better to me to move the current content of Mogden Sewage Treatment Works § Mogden formula to Mogden formula, so I have done that instead. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got a second request: Riedel shear to Strike-slip_tectonics#Riedel_shear_structures

I would be very glad if you'd helped me.--Alfons Yondraschek (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Note that you can also submit these requests at WP:Afc/r, and in two days you should be WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, which will allow you to create redirects directly. Anyways, thanks for helping to improve the encyclopedia, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit at Finite model theory! Do you happen to have a page number where Ebbinghaus and Flum make the assertion that all the incongruence with classical model theory follow from Trakthenbrot's theorem? Felix QW (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not off-hand. TBH I just copied the cite from Trakhtenbrot's theorem. But since you asked nicely 😉, I just looked it up in the 2^nd edition (and modified the cite to match).

§3.5 (p. 62) says: "[I]n the finite [situation] the compactness theorem for first-order logic fails and we shall see in Chapter 7 that there is no sound and complete proof calculus. These facts raise the question whether and why first-order logic can serve as a useful means for the investigation of finite structures....as other central methods of classical model theory (such as the use of ultraproducts or saturated structures) become useless". Then §7.2.1 is about Trakhtenbrot's theorem (alternatively transliterated as "Trahtenbrot"); that section's final paragraph (p. 129) discusses the uselessness of any proof calculus.

Hope this helps, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that Tumblr is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. Some perspective can be found at WP:RS. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: As I'm sure you know, WP considers Tumblrs self-published sources, such that they are RSes if the poster is a subject-matter expert. Is the particular guy I cited a bunch a subject-matter expert? Maybe not; I can't tell if he finished graduate school (to be fair, neither did I), and he certainly doesn't have too many publications. I'm also enough of an WP:INCLUSIONIST that I'd rather include his information and search/wait for a better citation than ignore his postings altogether. Such inclusionism can be overdone, sure. But I tried to only include information that seemed taken from a non-WP src and relatively reliable.

In any case, I'd appreciate it if you attempted to argue on substantive grounds like the counterarguments I discussed above, rather than blithely citing WP:RS to an experienced editor. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

All nice comments and being an inclusionist sounds laudable. Thank you. To double down: we are engaged in a business of reliable sources, and I just do not think that social media are acceptable, ordinarily. I saw the image of phenacyl bromide]], uninformative photo of some flask with some crystals. And the photos the sep funnel for some lumiphore was pretty, but I think we need to do better in terms of authentication and credentials. Best wishes,--Smokefoot (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

At Talk:January 2025 Richmond water crisis! Have a good evening.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 05:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The redirect James map has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 12 § James map until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. I added the talk-page tags to help clarify and preserve the attribution. DMacks (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raison oblige theory, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raison oblige theory (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that the revert u pinged me over was an accident. I meant to only revert the part about America being included. Somehow some other text got copied in when I did so. Apologies. Genabab (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Genabab: Yeah, I figured as much; I only pinged you in case I had mistaken your edit summary. It's hard to avoid collateral damage when people edit articles this intensely. Somebody else did the exact same thing as you when I reposted it, and I ended up needing to repost my revision a third time (!). I think it's stuck now🤞. Thanks for including the US stuff, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Bernanke's Crossbow, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Correlation diagram (chemistry). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it has sat for a month without sources, that is long enough.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I hear you regarding adding "other sources say." There is some good work being done on other signs of AI writing, like the Roman genitive problem and the causation problem. I'm just not sure how to add it. ReadWrite222 (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course. There are many smart people studying AI right now; they can't all produce dreck. I think the first step is to find such good work. The articles cited in the content I removed don't add much to the discussion. Good luck, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the causation problem in that one article was really pertinent to specific signs of AI. It can't be cited as a general source, I agree, but would be useful in the list of signs. But, that's just my two cents worth. We can leave it. ReadWrite222 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Linear logic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algebraic semantics.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Retro-Diels–Alder reaction, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vinyl was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)