Template:Inet-note-ref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is this: on March 27 this year, Russia will advance their clocks forward but it will not actually be daylight saving time, as they will be keeping "summer time" for the whole year. As a result, I reworded all mentions of daylight saving time, but, following March 27, I will advance the time offsets for all Russian time zones by an hour to reflect actual time usage. If you think this is presumptuous of me, then the reverts you have done are OK with me (except that the table for the tz database will need to be changed so that it is a bit more consistent), but I think that some sort of edit similar to what I have done should be performed after March 27 to prevent confusion. ZanderSchubert (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the article on superacids talks about free protons in liquids, but it gives no references, and frankly I don't believe it. Ab initio QM calculations show protons hopping from anion-to-anion in the strongest superacid known, just as they do in water, via the Grotthuss mechanism. See [2].

So, some editor who claims to know what he's talking about, has reverted me on this point. There's my cite and there's my reasoning. Now, what have YOU got? And by the way, I'm going to go add a ^{[citation needed]} to the statement in superacids. SBHarris 00:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used to leave comments like that until I learned that insult and arrogance interfere with editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, explain, what means this[3] edit. It is highly implausible that a very experienced user is not familiar with well known things about page moves and maintaining edit histories. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it "highly implausable" that a highly experienced editor did not know there was a reason not to move a page by copy-and-paste, but this is the first I've heard of a need to preserve a sacrosanct edit history for copyright purposes. You'd think that with all the destruction of contested articles, that are eventually again started in another form or by another name (with no attribution to previous versions), and then kept, that somebody would have mentioned this potential alligator in the swamp. ;) Never have I seen a mention of it in the RfD wars. Nor did I know that non-admins can move a page using page-move. So, I learned two things. Next time, I'll do it correctly. Thanks for the lesson. SBHarris 18:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PNG Stereo 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. — Smjg (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a relatively new editor, you certainly had a bright idea on the MOS (linking) page about redirects rather than # direct links. I never even thought of that. Brilliant! And well-explained to boot. Keep up the good work! Student7 (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a new editor. I contribute since 2005 and have over 12,000 Wikipedia edits in various languages. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. (I call everybody "young fellow" when they are younger than me! You have 1/4 of my edits!). Still a good idea though. Student7 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - I did try that when I created the account and started on wikipedia but it didn't work. I'm not sure if it really matters; the caret-wedge shape symbol ⋀ and the cross-times symbol × are both used for the vector product of two vectors, so its not completley unrecognizible. Thats whats in the formula - the vector product of velocity v and magnetic field B. The process of changing names seems lengthly and involved, somehow, and you need to see Bureaucrats and all that. I would rather just stick to the current name and continue to edit - but thanks again =) Happy New Year! -- F = q(E + v × B) 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was under the impression that you were going to change the discussion to merge? User's are allowed to merge articles themselves, an administrator's approval is not required. Gsingh (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is an RfC concerning the Eidos page in which you have shown interest in the past. This is a small notification in case you may wish to take part in the discussion. Salvidrim! 20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Grand National Tournament in Declamation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winona (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting my inadvertent change to the Talk page of Entailment. I was browsing on a slow tablet. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited P-adic number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saturation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Intensive and extensive properties, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relativistic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse this intrusion, but you've got it all wrong, Incnis Mrsi. I never become insulted, or look for credit becuase I'm so self-obsessed with my edits, or any of that crap. All I ask for is feedback on my edits, becuase I really would like to know if people think mine are really bad, and what other editors prefer instead (whenever I appear to be "insulted", although not). I really don't mind if others obliterate my edits in place of better content (also - the point of Wikipedia would defeated if this were not so).

Of course: anyone may assume what they assume, but thats the truth. It just becomes irritating when a statement like that is made without reason. -- F = q(E + v × B) 20:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check the terminology used here? -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not willing to proof-read slash (punctuation) after merger with Solidus (punctuation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) occurred. I am not fluent in English typography/typesetting terminology. It is an improved symbols' presentation in articles that was interesting to me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please click the diff link. It is about the first words you added. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Soft sign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your diagram requests to their talk pages. (Also, a parameter could be provided to specify the type of diagram wanted, but I did not do that.) FYI the pages: Talk:Address space and Talk:Memory address. Mark Hurd (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Native (computing) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to EGA and Data format

Typographic approximation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Text and Vision

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to follow up to see if you would be willing to participate in a one-hour long interview about your experience with categories. Thanks!

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Midpoint (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Line and Plane

False (logic) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Formal theory

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just noticed you used {{mvar}} within {{math}}. {{mvar|name}} is just a shorthand for {{math|''name''}} for use in running text because referring to variables in text is so common. It'll make the characters too big if used within the math template. Dmcq (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have re-instated the split tag that I removed about a month ago. May I suggest that you put a note on the talk page to start some discussion. Also, if you are sure the article should be split then there is nothing to stop you from doing so. Op47 (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Truth value, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Variable, Equality and Provability (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double sharp (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Logical connective, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Involution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Conjugated system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conformation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Datagram

• Connectionless
• Every packet is processed independently
• Each packet (from the same message) can be transferred through any reasonable path as long as they are going closer to the destination mentioned in each packet's info
• Packets can arrive in a different order
• Packets can get lost
• It's the receiver's job to "order" the missed packets and organize them in a proper order

Virtual circuit

• Connection-oriented
• Before sending each message the path is decided for every packet
• Connection is request- and accept control-packets (handshake)
• Instead of destination info, each packet has a description of its own virtual circuit

As you can see, datagram and virtual circuit are indeed opposite of each other. I am returning my edit to both articles.

If still in doubt, please don't change the articles any more, but:

1. read some books (like the Tanenbaum's Computer Networks).
2. create the open discussion and tell me about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixer (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent revert with the comment to "please, walk through average and arithmetic mean links to verify that such definitions are inapplicable to most bodies. the only relevant case would be a body composed of several *identical* particles":

Please note that my wording was "average location of all the mass", not "average location of all the particles". If the mass is unevenly distributed at different points, the average location of the mass will reflect that. This is in agreement with the average of a function:

Make it a triple integral over the entire body or set of bodies, define f(x) as the mass density, and you have the average location of the mass, which is the mass center. MarcusMaximus (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have the mean density. And what do you have? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake in defining the integrand. I should have defined f(x)=x*ρ(x), which is a generic position vector x multiplied by the density function ρ evaluated at the position x. The integral is taken over all the mass, and the leading factor is 1/mass. Now the result is the center of mass, right? MarcusMaximus (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Uniform motion. Since you had some involvement with the Uniform motion redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Tideflat (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incnis Mrsi, ​ While I agree with your reasoning for reverting the absolute value page as you did, I think it was rather clumsy of you to undo a change several edits back without more careful examination of the content. There was at least one change that was completely valid that you effectively erased with your revert. Please be more careful in the future, otherwise, happy hunting.KlappCK (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to discuss the conflict at my personal talk. Join Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Weisstein and Wolfram as source ? discussion or use the article's talk page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very mature comment Template talk:Sister project links#Wikisource does NOT work anymore.21.--Wikien2009 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for renaming the American Frontier. Can you please do the same for Timeline of the American Old West. Thanks Rjensen (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk, a good essay on quality/reliability. Would you like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability? Membership is free. History2007 (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LittleWink (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Describing Globbett's edits, both on article talk pages and in comments hidden in the Nutation (disambiguation) article as "contamination" is not acceptable behaviour, per WP:CIVIL. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now resolved, I think. Globbet (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, friendly advice: if you think you understand English better than native speakers you will make yourself look daft. Globbet (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Incnis- I saw your edits to the Delete key article, partially reverting my previous ones, and wanted to let you know that the way I changed the lead sentence did in fact retain the article title as its subject. The construction "performs a function...which is to discard" is quite awkward English, which is why I changed it. In addition, I believe it is preferred practice on WP to use italics in lieu of double quotes for presenting terms the way del and delete were in the last sentence. I don't want you to think I made my edits without considering well what I was doing. I think your addition of the delete key "x" symbol is an improvement, though this imageis more representative, I believe. I hope if you consider what I've written, you will agree that my edits were improvements to the article intro. Regards, Eric ^talk 23:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My research found MANY Paul Dohertys just in the UK. There is a scientist, a (I believe) footballer or some such sport, and there is a musician, and then there is another writer, and then the author in the article. There are several also in Ireland and the U.S. These are just the FAMOUS ones. Mugginsx (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I gave you a chance, you did not present any other Paul C. Doherty, famous or not especially so, but anyone (but the author) who could meet WP:BIO. Just one concrete objection, and I would stop. Since your adding of "(author)" appeared to be redundant, I reverted it. You did not discuss you move (which was made against guidelines), so I did not announce my revert, which rectified the page title according to a guideline. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incris Mrsi, Would you please tell me what or why you did this?

(Move log); 10:50 . . Incnis Mrsi (talk | contribs) moved page Paul C. Doherty to User:Mugginsx/Paul C. Doherty without leaving a redirect ‎(kicking off a meddled redirect created by two hasty and reckless page moves – unfortunalety I have not a sysop to suppress)

It looks like you tried to move the entire article to MY talk page? For the record, I did not interfer with your changing of the article name in ANY way, though I disagreed with it and moved the explanation for my disagreement where it should have been discussed in the first place, i.e., on the article talk page. This is perfectly acceptable Wiki practice. Mugginsx (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It was a side effect of a WP:MOR. If you do not like that pages in your user space, use {{db-u1}} on [4][5]. And move a page once next time. Unlike edits, a page move is a resource-consuming operation and should not be done hastily. First think, then move, not versa. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say, I am too busy to argue and it was awhile ago. I have been moving pages for many years and have never had a problem. Mugginsx (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this guy is so busy that removes a thing he just do not like from his user talk page. The censorship is a big busyness. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some reason you cannot edit articles today I apologize in advance, but tell me, what is the point of arguing on Wikipedia instead of editing? If you do not know what article to work on there is a section entitled: Wikipedia:Articles for creation. At the present we are short on editors and long on troublemakers. This will surely give you something creative to do. Mugginsx (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ever edited 1938 pages in en.wiki's main namespace, not counting contributions on Wikimedia Commons and Russian Wikipedia. When I do not edit articles, I spend my time fixing mistakes of Wikipedia users which have dozen times more hits to "Save", "Move" or "Delete" than distinct articles edited. Or, sometimes, arguing with them. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you finally interjected some humor. While I have been editing articles, you have spent these hours looking at statistics to see what you could say about me. As I said, we are short on editors and long on troublemakers. Mugginsx (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could use a little more elaboration on what you think was wrong with the edit. Correctly replacing three hyphen-minuses with two minus signs and one en dash was correct in these circumstances. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not welcome on my talk page since this. It is a bigotry, a thing not forbidden in Wikipedia, but a kind of behaviour I hate. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I will stay off your talk page until September 19, as long as you stay off mine. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the three example Boolean logic diagrams (under "Examples"), the "and" and the "or" symbols need to be exchanged in their respective example diagrams. I update only rarely, and my updating skills are rudimentary. Would someone else please make that change? Clarepawling (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exchanged for which rate? ☺ I do not see anything wrong with "∧ as and, ∨ as or", and their respective truth tables are perfectly correct, seriously. Post your concerns to article's talk page if you are dissatisfied with my reply. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Elder (administrative title) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Maya

Power quality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Device

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Your edit summaries come across as condescending and border-line personal attacks, and not least are pointy behaviour. Please refrain from hostile commentary within edit summaries. Please comment on content, not contributors, per Wikipedia guidelines. If you don't have anything good to say, don't leave a summary at all, that way you can't be accused of offending anyone. Such attacks may be reported as uncivil. Please respect other editors, and in return they will respect you. Thanks for your understanding. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another personal remark without diffs (I mean the section #Proton above). One of things the most detrimental to the collaborative spirit is such ambiguous and imprecise accusations. If not on my personal talk page, I just ignore it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• what a crap?
• why do you think that U.S.Americans were always the first? "Early" actually means - →‎1941: . also, three different(!) misspells of "Ploiești" detected (sorry, can't fix "Polesti" because it is in a file name) – is it a record?
• MISERABLE_FAILURE
• I hope, there are many people in Engilsh Wikipedia who know when World War II was started

Seems "collaborative spirit" is something which eludes you, given that these are just a few of your uncivil remarks in edit summaries. Your retort, however, carries no weight. Evidence does. Further attacks on editors such as this will be brought to admin attention. In short, stop being a WP:DICK by making obnoxious summaries to get your own way. WP:AGF is a core principal of Wiki. You seem to forget thet with remarks such as "what a crap?" as a summary. All the evidence lies here, Special:Contributions/Incnis Mrsi. You need not acknowledge that they are uncivil or not, as Wiki is not a place where you can judge yourself. Ignorance is what leads to people getting blocked, FYI, whether they be vandals, socks or hostile towards others edits. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All evidences? Do you speak about, possibly, a hundred or two hundreds of mistakes among more than four thousands edits? I do not see anything wrong with "what a crap?" and "there are many people who know" altogether, and consider "MISERABLE_FAILURE" an adequate description of the entire https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_period_of_World_War_II&action=history (although not good as an edit summary for that single edit). Sorry for "U.S.Americans were always the first", it really was an unjustified remark directed towards a certain part of users. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an edit summary is.. oh, surprise.. to summarise the edit you just made. Since when does "miserable failure" ever describe any form of edit? Or "what the crap" for that matter? It was clearly an attack on the previous editors redirection which you strongly disapprove of. Furthermore, your opening of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 9#.E2.80.A6 period of World War II without notifying editors in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#World War II started in.E2.80.A6 was nothing short of rude behaviour. When a discussion reaches no consensus, it is unwise to WP:FORUMSHOP until a result that suits you. In this case, you should have left a comment advising MilHist editors of the RfD, as a common courtesy, not dismissed their remarks to pursue your own avenues. And I agree that you should not be using remarks such as "hostile" and "clumsy" in an opening post to sway opinion, it results in an unbalanced discussion from the outset. As I said, it's a matter of being civil when a dispute arises. You need to tone down your attitude and be more objective, in order to achieve your goals. Call it advise.. bearing in mind that I'm not involved in the discussion, so I can't be accused of talking sides. ;) Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A forum shopping? Please, try to understand better what is means, rather than to bog into such a dispute with (sorry) an experienced user. What we see with the redirects?

• I discovered that redirects and started a discussion.
• Andrew Gray (talk · contribs) reverted my edit with an unclear edit summary.
• The discussion on the wikiproject actually led to a stalemate with Andrew Gray on one side (who was willing to push his position in the article's space) and two users on another side (which were not willing to engage into edit wars).
• Henceforth, I passed the question to evaluation by a broader community.

It is a normal and useful dispute resolution process. If you could refer to this as a forum shopping, then you probably never saw a real forum shopping. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have 4,273 edits on en-wiki

I have 9,640 edits on en-wiki

I guess actions do speak louder than words, and by your own flawed comment, I am more experienced. Kudos to your "logic", but your remark was as poorly thought out as your edit summaries, and an attack on my understanding of something I know fine well about shows that – you seem to enjoy provoking editors with that superiority complex attitude. Do try to learn from your mistakes, rather than compound them further. The only reason there is a dispute here, is because you're too egotistic to accept that you were in the wrong. Next time, I'll refer it to AN/I to resolve it.. seeing how you enjoy the drama. Conversation over. До скорой встречи. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re this edit - I've identified the mysterious blue line - it's the Euler line. Careful examination at high enlargement (800%) shows that the blue of this line is brighter and greener than the blue which is used for both the circumcircle and the perpendicular bisectors to AB and to AC (that perp. to BC being missing, as you correctly noted). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operating system shell, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ambient, CDE and Mainframe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know or care what you're beef with that guy is, but you're personal attack on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 20#Inexperienced user was uncalled for. It's not relevant to the RFD discussion. I've removed it. To quote the personal attacks policy "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's more of this on my talk page as well. Jarble (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More of what? I claimed initially that Jarble makes some waste, and claim exactly this now. The rules of Wikipedia do not discourage to call a harmful product "waste". So, what should I say about a person who makes it in a such ratio? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making that complaint about Jarble on an RFD like that was inappropriate, RFD is not Requests for comment. Our concern at that RFD is the redirect, not Jarble, i.e. the content, not the contributor. Beyond that, I can't offer much help. I'm really not the person to ask about formal dispute resolution stuff. If you're following Jarble around, don't do it in a way that would constitute Wikihounding, but again I'm not the person to ask about that kind of thing. Maybe the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page would help. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not requested any help, and did not invite Emmette Hernandez Coleman to talk here (here is my talk page, not Emmette Hernandez Coleman's, can he feel the difference?). I only commented a baseless "there's more of this" accusation by Jarble. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I offend you Incnis Mrsi, that wasn't my intention. Good thing you don't want help from me, because like I said, I'm really not the person to ask about Dispute resolution. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "here is my talk page" – correct, but it is not a private corner for you to bully another editor, and if another editor has a concern about your attitude, they are free to express it. You do not WP:OWN this page, editors do not need to be invited to comment in every situation. The same applies to all articles, talk pages and anywhere open to edit, Arbcom restrictions aside.
• Your list at User talk:Jarble#Inexperienced user listed at Redirects for discussion is a failure to Assume Good Faith. Instead of politely pointing out a couple of minor mistakes – redlinks and typos, big eff'ing deal! – you were condescending in your approach to the point of making it a personal attack. Your repeated remark that he made mistakes and was aware of them, but failed to correct them, carries no basis and is totally subjective. That's what raises it from a comment on content to an attack on the contributor.
• Some of your edit summaries are still pointy. Even meant in good humour, this is the internet and comments do not always relay your sarcasm. Your edit summaries are often unprofessional making them seem condescending. E.g.:

• you are doing it wrong! – content not contributor!
• although I even briefly edited this about 9 months ago, I did not notice that the article is so poor – not aiming to make many friends here, are we?
• thanks for the bug report, but it is not an invitation for trolling – WP:BITEy accusation given that member is new (2 edits), the word "trolling" should not be tossed about so liberally.

I would agree that your finding and listing of User:Jarble's mistakes is Wikihounding and improper behaviour (NB: it takes far more time and effort to dig through individual edits than to scan through your edit summaries, so don't accuse me of doing the same), and believe EHC was right to notify of this. However, you do not appear to respect the status quo here on Wiki, and have a habit of attempting to claim that other editors are somehow inferior or inexperienced to you, as you did me and were quick to shut your face once proved mistaken. I would suggest, in future, you worry about your own edits, and stop dismissing other editors for their work, as continuation of this line of incivility is liable to lead to you being dragged to Dispute Resolution and sanctioned. Editors have a right to make edits without you policing their work and commenting, as you did. Note, "why they engage in wikilawyering instead of making THEIR OWN EDITS better?" – again, false. EHC is not wikilawyering by showing concern for your attacks on Jarble. You could just as equally be accused of "wikilawyering" by playing Sheriff and listing Jarble's "waste" instead of worrying about your own edits also, right? You listed four mistakes from his 9,000 edits (twice your edits), four... 0.04% of his edits are "waste" ratio? Now who was wikilawyering?

So in direct answer to your question "So, what should I say about a person who makes it in a such ratio?" – absolutely nothing. You are not the person who sets standards here on Wiki and editors certainly are not expected to live up to your expectations. In future, either quietly correct their mistake without fuss, as thousands of other editors do per day, or drop them a polite note with a link to the WP:MOS if they are frequently doing something technically wrong. There is a difference between bollocking someone and advising them how to do it correctly. The only thing that is "waste" is your circular-arguments with editors who disapprove of your conduct. I suggest you step back, take heed from this, and try a different approach from now on.. going on the defensive makes you more unlikable. I don't think Jarble or EHC have enough of a case here to request dispute resolution, or admin involvement, but I suggest you draw the line here, cease provoking Jarble with remarks about his editing abilities, respect that EHC and myself do not find it appropriate, and stop it immediately. Then we can all get on with our regular content editing unhindered. Or you can kick up another example of your superiority fuss and we'll invite an admin to review your edits, and see how you like it? Which shall it be? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, indeed I am "the person who sets standards here on Wiki". Just like you. And tens of thousands of other metapedians. Also, I have just the same right to dismiss your lengthy opinions as you (apparently) dismiss my large metapedian work. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dismiss? Another empty accusation? These are not my opinions, they are supported by fact.. continue to dismiss them, I'm sure you'd regret it, if it leads to your being blocked for persistent incivility. Also, "Metapedia is a multilingual white nationalist and white supremacist,[2] extreme right-wing online encyclopedia." – sorry, I don't think I use this site, so perhaps I do dismiss them. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: What? When I say "Nicole, bring me my slippers, and give me my nightcap," is it something of a prose?

I mean m:Metapedianism☺ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"philosophy of focusing on the internal workings of Wikipedia, including guidelines and policies" – well, you know what they say about people who make rules... they're usually the first to break them. And you're still wrong about being the person who sets the standards, because you're one person, which does not represent a consensus. And nor is it your duty to uphold those standards in the undignified manner you do, with rude edit summaries and wikihounding which are contrary to the standards you claim to believe in. No matter what you say, you were in the wrong. Three editors to one believe that. That's a consensus. "☺" Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incnis Mrsi, you clearly don't get it. You have also made personal attacks on my talk page not that long ago. At the time, I assumed it was an isolated incident, but after reading this, I began to realize that it is a recurring problem. Also, your personal attacks earlier on User:Globbet, User:Andy Dingley, and others in the Talk:Nutation debate were unquestionably uncalled for. Stop with the personal attacks. Now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm starting to think that ANI would be a good place to resolve this. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: a feedback from user:StringTheory11 is not welcome here. Not because he is biased against me, but because he and users alike promulgate the use of double standards. Either StringTheory11 reads (and does not attempt to hide) all that I write him, or I do not read him, at least here. The stranglehold of double standards was the main reason why I ceased to contribute to Russian Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used to read many amusing things about myself, but "DIVA" is one of the silliest ever. Absolutely not my case. I am just a person who helps English Wikipedia to become better, but not a diva. Assuming you really have a good faith, try to write less inappropriate things here please, because I will not spend much of my time extracting few scruples of truth from the flood of personal opinions. Unless you really want to become another ignorable personality. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can ignore me all you like, no skin off my nose, as you're not very agreeable, and your attempts to turn tables on people is pathetic to say the least. However, you can't ignore AN/I or admin attention. AGF refers to contribs. not your behaviour. But your attitude shows a distinct lack of AGF.. you can't AGF when someone is clearly being a WP:DICK. Once again all you've done is praise yourself and refused to address your own lack of civility. You can tell a good editor by the praise/barnstars on their talkpage. You have one in 6 years. Perhaps not everyone feels you're helping en-Wiki become better, because your attitude to fellow-editors speaks more than your contribs which go unnoticed as a result. Shame.. As for DIVA, "A Wikipedia diva is a long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, and who requires regular validation of that belief." You wrote, "I am easily insulted by such things as bulk reverts ... especially if such a revert removes some perfectly correct piece". But read back over this section, you'll find your comments match this description perfectly: "A diva rarely, if ever, admits to engaging in edit-warring, assuming bad faith, disruptive editing, making personal attacks or ownership; it is only their opponents who do this, and they do it constantly. A diva is so rarely wrong that their extraordinary 'specialness' means that no fault could possibly lie with them in a dispute". In fact, it's the only perfect thing I've seen you do.. not a very temperate ego, you haven't admitted to any wrong-doings. Read WP:LASTWORD before replying, the next response you give determines whether or not I visit AN/I.. I WP:DENY you of further responses from myself. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]