User talk:Kri

Have you learned anything since June 2012 about the possibilities for using equation numbers, figure numbers, etc., with Wikimedia software? I added some comments to yours in "Template talk:Ref#Derive numbering templates from {{ref}} and {{note}}?" Thanks for raising the issue. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, maybe someone else knows how to do it. The thing that is needed in order to automatically number items are counters. I know that there are at least two counters for each Wikipedia page — one that is used to number links and {{ref}} and {{note}} instances that haven't been labeled (e.g., [http://example.com] and {{ref|a}} and {{note|a}} give and and ^ , respectivelly), and one that is used to number references (e.g., <ref>Test reference</ref> gives ^[1]).

If these are the only counters that exist for each Wiki page, a generic counter type needs to be added to the Wikimedia software. Maybe they know at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). If that is the case, the best bet would probably be to propose to introduce generic counters in the Wikimedia software either at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) or at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

—Kri (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As an example of a really bad (but not so unlikely) scenario that can happen if an article contains many equations that are not automatically numbered, there is this article which I just encountered. —Kri (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Best friends forever 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/Best friends forever until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tlxi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Internet forums 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/List of Internet forums (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use the talk page for raising the topic of conflicts of interest, as it is disruptive. Any COI concerns should be taken to WP:COIN. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. A scientific paper, due to size constraints, cannot provide all possible low-level details. The first image on wiki looks same as on page 1 in paper. The fact that authors did not specify some details about images, is not enough to call the images misleading. I'd suggest to undo your "misleading" tag. Thanks.

I left an answer on the article's talk page. —Kri (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Kri,

What should we say in the AsciiDoc article about the file extension? I am surprised that Talk:AsciiDoc#File extension? lists so many different extensions for AsciiDoc files. --DavidCary (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the slow edit war at Template:Definition, or you will be reported. WP:BRD is very clear over how you should act if your changes are reverted, and this is a perfect example of why that guideline exists. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I tried discussing the edit, but didn't get any answer in well over 24 hours. If I have to wait for an answer before I can make a change, and I don't receive an answer, the whole development process is stalled, which in my opinion is not a good thing. I therefore think that you should be allowed to redo the change if you have tried discussing it but don't receive an answer. So for that reason I would argue that this is a poor example of why WP:BRD exists. What makes you think this is a good example? —Kri (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You failed to take into account two things. 1. That 24 hours is not much time for a template. 2. That if you were reverted, that proves you have no consensus for the edit, so there is no justification for repeating it, even if you would not have received a reply ever.

In any case, you now have an answer on that template talkpage. I also think that when changing a 7 year consensus, you should have a better argument than "nobody replied to my question". Debresser (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your answer. I will read the answer on the template's talk page. —Kri (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you recently added a {{clarify}} tag on the mathematical article about classification of discontinuities. I would like to provide the clarification needed but I'm unable to spot exactly what you find unclear. Are you wondering whether ${\displaystyle \lim _{x\to 1^{+}}f(x)}$, that is ${\displaystyle \lim _{x\to 1^{+}}{\frac {1}{x-1}}}$, is considered infinite or does not exist ? Pyrrhonist05 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering whether ${\displaystyle L^{+},}$ or ${\displaystyle \lim _{x\to 1^{+}}{\frac {1}{x-1}},}$ is considered to exist, since infinities are not always considered to exist, at least not as real or complex numbers. But I see now that the article says "only one of the two one-sided limits needs not to exist or is infinite," so I guess it is considered to exist but as an infinity, and hence give rise to an essential discontinuity, just like ${\displaystyle L^{-}}$? —Kri (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The author of the example did not make any comment whatsoever on whether the limit ${\displaystyle L^{+}}$ is infinite or does not exist. Indeed, I think she/he did it intentionally because it don't make any difference since it is defined that there is an essential discontinuity at a point where at least one of the two one-sided limits does not exist or is infinite. Therefore, if we consider ${\displaystyle L^{+}}$ to exist but be infinite, there is an essential discontinuity. On the other hand if we consider the limit to not exist, there still an essential discontinuity, so there is no difference. Anyway, we could make it clear in the article by adding a little comment on this matter. Pyrrhonist05 (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Open-ended game, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The article Stone damage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary definition.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. EEng 20:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the template {{about2}}, which you've created, has been nominated for deletion at TfD. The nominator appparently forgot to notify you. – Uanfala (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You may wish to know that I just corrected a typo/malapropism of in the Grelling-Nelson paradox. PJTraill (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC).

Oops, yes that was definitely a malapropism. Thanks for letting me know! —Kri (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Lists of types of robots, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I see, but just claiming that an article needs more sources and citations in general is not especially helpful, as I'm not sure exactly what those would be or why they would be needed in a list article like this which, in my opinion, doesn't really constitute its own topic. Is there any claim or part of the article in particular that you think is controversial and needs a reference? —Kri (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. For "international" usage see U2 and the Beatles. For American usage see Metallica and Talking Heads. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Gy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TarkusAB^talk 12:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kri,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Hughesdarren and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Polhem's mechanical alphabet, for deletion, because it's impossible to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not an article; it is supposed to be a redirection page. I see that the link had become broken, so I fixed it. —Kri (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kri. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of types of robots".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Behavior modelling, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Behavior selection algorithms, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Behavior models, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

One or more or your scripts uses the warning or success classes. Be aware that the styling for these classes may be removed in the near future. See WP:VPT#Tech News: 2021-18 for a list of scripts. Izno (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:CiteSeerX/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Gravitational interaction has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Electromagnetic interaction has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Strong interaction has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Weak interaction has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for creating the Tree-structured Parzen estimators and Tree of Parzen estimators redirects. Would you consider adding to the target article (Kernel density estimation) a sentence or two about Tree/Parzen estimators? I would add it myself but I don't have the background to understand the material past being able to see that they're related, and it seems like it could be helpful. originalmess^talk 09:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Comparison of deep learning software and Hyperparameter optimization. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand. But then how do we make the people who would want to work on such an article find it? —Kri (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Kri. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Comparison of hyperparameter optimization software, 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) 14:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Kri. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Comparison of hyperparameter optimization software".

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Portmanteaus has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The page Melting stairs has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I see. Would it be better if it redirected to the article itself instead of the talk page which it previously redirected to, since "the melting stairs" refers to a staircase in the temple complex, even though there is currently no mention of it in the article? —Kri (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Kri,

Thank you for creating Policy gradient method.

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

Great start! However, it is usually better to cite the published articles (if possible) rather than their arXiv preprints.

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 begin it with {{Re|Chaotic Enby}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

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

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kri,

I hope I've addressed your concern at absolute zero. --Trovatore (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Trovatore,

Yes, "coldest point" sounds more correct than "lowest limit". I understand that discussing negative temperatures is not something you want to do the first thing you do in the article about absolute zero, so I think this is a good way to get around that. —Kri (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Critical range 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 October 22 § Critical range until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 13 § Category:Surfaces of constant curvature on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)