User talk:Incnis Mrsi

Archives

Good luck

Hi Incnis,

I happened upon your retired status. I'm sorry to see you go, as you've made many valuable contributions to WP Math, WP Physics and associated articles. I wish you good luck in your future work. --Mark viking (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to see you back soon. We need more knowledgeable unpolished sunowabitches like you around here. YohanN7 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Runit

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

no clear indication of notability; no reliable independent references

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Deb (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other alphabets in Morse code listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Other alphabets in Morse code. Since you had some involvement with the Other alphabets in Morse code redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Heritage

FYI; I've probably removed hundreds of links/references to those World Heritage mirrors over the last few months. Their attribution method has confused even experienced editors. There's actually quite a few more domains involved - I've started a list here. More have popped up recently. Kuru (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the fakers could (and will) register hundreds more domains, especially in zones related to countries where intellectual rights are unenforceable. Maintaining such a list – a task for a Web indexing and search site, not for a wiki. But Wikimedia Foundation can suggest Project Gutenberg (the “.org” one) to dissociate its “.us” parasitic twin, kicking it from “self.gutenberg.org” in a relatively respectable second-level domain. It would confine our dear scammers in the Internet’s underworld. “P. G. Consortia Center” (gutenberg.us) and “World Public Library” = “W. H. Encyclopedia™” are likely the same gang. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snark

"Some basic understanding of light polarization will not hurt." Very, very clever comment. Not constructive though. But oh so clever. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of territories governed by the United Nations

Please review the Talk Page entry "UNTEA in West New Guinea" and consider if you can further assist the List of territories governed by the United Nations article and related articles. Daeron (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Incnis Mrsi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

Hi IM!

I know you are not involved much these days, but I thought I might let you know that I have nominated Representation theory of the Lorentz group for good article rating.

Best, YohanN7 (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biological role of nitrogen listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Biological role of nitrogen. Since you had some involvement with the Biological role of nitrogen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=1R1zIzg92FHco4d_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_0Di0rStCbxyh1hX&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Incnis Mrsi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Train_wreck#In_French_'collision_ferroviaire' 23 January 2018 (UTC)magnon86

J+12 : i see this user is 'retired' Sorry Magnon86 (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)magnon86[reply]

Help please

Sir, Hi, Greetings. Sir you added a comment for my request for file mover in commons. Sir you said some of my limitations. Sir please help me by giving advices to overcome it. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 12:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit the user pages of CU blocked accounts

I've reverted these edits. The user is free to appeal their block, and I have no opinion one way or another about it, but they need to be the ones to appeal it, or the blocking admin/another CheckUser needs to deal with it. You are not an admin or SPI clerk on en.wiki, and basically editing the user page to say to ignore the tag is disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially repeating the same thing I told on IRC, but for this time you, TonyBallioni, certainly knew that Solomon203 appealed the block and a sysop reacted with a run-around without really touching the substance. If Huon has neither devices to judge about “the technical evidence” nor qualification to analyze the case as a whole, then why is he entitled to put official resolutions onto such unblock requests? IMHO many of yours know why – that’s your modern Wikipedia. But look… the great English Wikipedia is vigilant to deny write access for important accountability to a random Incnis_Mrsi. Hopefully you may understand why I despise this regime nowadays. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrator may decline any unblock request if they feel there is no policy-based reason to grant it. At the time, Huon was 100% correct to decline it, as no CheckUser would have given him consent to lift it. en.wiki admins can be desysoped for lifting CU blocks without the consent of a CheckUser, and most CU block appeals on en.wiki are declined by non-CUs on these grounds, with the appeal referred to the Arbitration Committee as a last resort.

As you know, a global unlock does not mean that local blocks are invalidated: each local project must decide whether or not to unblock. On en.wiki, we only usually accept active appeals from users themselves, not third parties. There is no such appeal in this case on-wiki. If the CU who blocked him or another CU wants to unblock on their own, they may, but if there is going to be an active appeal discussion, the user themselves needs to make it.

Finally, none of this has anything to do with the fact that your edits to that page were disruptive and were basically skirting the local practice where only admins, CUs, and SPI clerks can place or remove sockpuppet tags. Like I said: I don't have any opinion on this block one way or another, but I do expect you to respect the policies, guidelines, and practices of this local project, just as users from this project should respect the policies, guidelines, and practices of other projects. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aren’t functionaries of en.Wikipedia trained to read carefully and apply a due effort to understand? Again: Huon… is entitled to put official resolution onto such unblock request. We are not arguing whether to lift the block by a single sysop. We argue why may such run-around reply be binding. I remember well what you Westerners wrote about my English in 2013, but no serious Wikipedian can argue that I am not intelligible to a qualified reader. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Any sysop can decline any unblock request on en.wiki unless they are involved: even on CU blocks. The user is free to appeal again (like I said above, I am neither for or against lifting the block). They are the ones who need to appeal, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An experienced en-wp CheckUser has confirmed the technical match. It's possible that they're different people despite the technical match (which isn't based solely on IP addresses; CheckUsers also have heard of dynamic IP addresses), but that there's "no any relationship" is... difficult to believe. I don't think we need another CheckUser to confirm the first one's results just because the blocked editor says "no". Declining an unblock request that doesn't do more than that is saving CheckUser time. If they can explain the technical match, they're welcome to request a new review of their block and to give that explanation. Huon (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we assumed that there was an ideal “technical match”—say, the Nipponese Dog and Solomon203 edited from the same workstation in a computer club—would this offence worth an indefinite block then? Of course it is reasonable that Huon—as a sysop on the site—has a vote in this process. It is another thing wrong, that such admins who are competent to judge surrendered Solomon203 to a random sysop’s indulgence. Fortunately, an open nature of wiki publicly exposes this regime of hive-minded incompetence at least in some instances. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On English Wikipedia is difference from other project sites, without consulting a CheckUser for consent to unblock the user account that was in CU blocked, all admins are not allowing to unblock the user account that was in CU blocked, read more from WP:CUBL, the only best option is email to arbitration committee at "arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org" for appealing the requisition, although PlyrStar93 and I also agree that Solomon203 has no any relationship with NDC. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have more interest in improving Wikimedia policy than in wretched metapedianism on the site where I don’t contribute for years and my influence is nearly zero. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick

statement presumedly by a banned user

This administrator also edited as "AA Milne". This fact was not declared in either of his RfAs, which it should have been. Also, although his previous usernames should be linked in his userspace none of them are. 80.5.88.70 (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an obnoxious person who stalks me for several days and meddles into my arguments with Commoners and users of Freenode without understanding what is going on. Again Vote, I already asked you to stop posting on my talk page(s). I don’t want to be a party to scrabbles on Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Incnis Mrsi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bomsori

Done. DS (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I'm a vandal?

Incnis, I promise to you that I am NOT a vandal. I promise. 😀😀 If you don't like what I did on Multiplication, then fine, I won't do it again. Again, I promise I'm NOT a vandal.

Warm Christian regards

Tom TomSmithNP (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Island of stability

Incnis Mrsi, I read your edit summary in which you told me "Don't do it". If it was in regards to phrasing, I see you fixed it already (so thanks for that), though that was in response to a question on the talk page. Could you please clarify what it is exactly that I should not do? ComplexRational (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ComplexRational obviously crapped out both in the article and its talk page. Firstly, a neutron is heavier than proton + electron; this difference enables β⁻ decay. Secondly, there are such things as the binding energy and mass defect – see semi-empirical mass formula for details. The grim irony of the situation is that Graeme Bartlett asked for the “meaning of

A

” while the notation is featured in {{Nuclear physics}} (which was edited by ComplexRational) and other articles edited by the user as well; yet the answer was failed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still did not answer my initial question of what not to do, and your language is coming across as rude. While I agree that my language was imprecise and the mistake is now corrected, I fail to understand the rest of your response. For starters, that diff on {{Nuclear physics}} is irrelevant to this matter (I added the name of a physicist whose article I created), as are many other of my edits in similar articles. Also, I am aware of the mass difference, binding energy, mass defect, etc., or I would not be editing those articles at all. Please do not generalize because of one small slip; there is nothing for anyone to gain from this. ComplexRational (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What not to do? Don’t add false statements like “Z and N sum to an isotopic mass A”. It wasn’t a sandbox, talk-page posting, or even an obscure footnote. It happened in a rather prominent spot of an article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes happen. Adding false information would be contradictory to the purpose of building an encyclopedia. ComplexRational (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the user is seemingly as much concerned about adding the word “fuck” to a noticeboard than about false information in articles. A regrettable trend in what Wikipedians perceive as important. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do before I put my proposed changes onto time zone articles?

Hi Incnis Mrsi, what should I do before I put my proposed changes onto time zone articles so they do not get reverted because I’m worried that they might get reverted again if I don’t know what to do, thank you. 210.10.211.170 (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

\text and Roman non-italic font

Hello:

In a post on user talk:107.242.121.3 you ask

Hello.
\text is translated to <mtext> MathML tag. How can you be sure that its content will always be rendered in Roman? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In fact, it might be the wrong question; I'd propose instead, "How do you [I] know that its content will always be rendered in the appropriate font for operators?"

This might be splitting hairs, but the reason for the formatting instruction is not to ensure Roman type, but rather to ensure that one does not get italic type: In this context ‘d’ is not a scalar variable, hence should not be italic, but rather whatever is used for formal operators, like Δ , and the standard function names, such as \sin \ln \exp and \arctan .

In fact, the very best option would be to represent the differential as \operatorname{d} rather than \text{d} .

However, typing \operatorname{d} is tedious, and \text{d} is about as short as it can be, and at least at present, the two produce identical results. 107.242.121.3 (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reports on me.

I want to know what i did to get a report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteStarG7 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect revert

this revert is edit warring. You have been aslked before to engage in a discusison re this issue. You have *not* created consensus for this change. Pls revert by yourself and stay with WT:ELEMENTS talking. -DePiep (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t pose that my edit reflects present consensus. Consensus is more a process than a state. Thanks for the message. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that there is no consensus for your edit. Clear then, we can & will undo your edit. -DePiep (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user replaces {{MfD}} with their preferred speedy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Formal language vs natural language

Hi, Icnis Mrsi! I have been editing some aspects re formal language. I have noticed your editing on some talk pages re the ordinary (or natural) language vs the language of science in dialogue with editor Chjoaygame who seems to have a fascination for ordinary language and some term rather ambiguous from natural language. Therefore I ask to comment on the syntax rules of formal language requiring a finite or infinite set of objects at talk:Quantifier (logic). Thanks!--109.166.134.237 (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Square wheel model

This person edited en.Wikipedia illegitimately

Sir, Whats your problem with the square wheel model? Our students finally understood precession when we presented them the figure and the supersimple calculations from a FiP paper. Please do not delete it. It does not make sense to write pages about "good explanations" which cannot be understood, while deleting the only trivial and intuitive explanation. --Alpenmaus (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Alpenmaus is unable to export what currently is File:Intuitive precession.jpg‎‎ from the drawing program to PNG (if not SVG), then the user unlikely made the drawing themselves (in which case the file description page is a forgery). If Alpenmaus is able to save the drawing as PNG or SVG, then it could be better first to upload the result, and contact me only afterwards. JPEG technical drawings are inappropriate if only because JPEG is impossible to edit without degradation. Moreover, with default quality settings JPEGs just look filthy on a wiki page. Don’t upload filth. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say Don’t upload filth is not a helpful contribution. Especially since Alpenmaus appears very cooperative. -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, what file format would be desired? PNG or SVG? we can provide both. Is there any other professional problem with our contribution, or the only problem is the file format? We are happy to work on both, just we have to delimit the problem. --Alpenmaus (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a drawing which is entirely (or mostly) vector, SVG is the best (although an image could require some tweaks before use, mostly with text). But if it is raster by its nature, it should be saved as PNG then. Don’t hesitate to upload SVG even if it looks ugly – a correction always can be uploaded over, later. Ask on talk:Precession for eligibility of the “intuitive” explanation; I have no strong opinion but there could be objections by other Wikipedians. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JPG is fine. Incnis Mrsi has a personal crusade against it. If you are able to produce other formats, then SVG would be favoured because it's a vector-based format and so encourages editing in the future, such as translating captions.

But we would much rather have a JPG here than nothing.

The "Don’t upload filth." comment is inexcusable, but sadly characteristic of Incnis Mrsi's typical interaction with other editors (Just watch for his imminent reply to me). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The statement “JPG is fine” is an obvious baiting. A long-standing consensus of Wikimedia graphicists exists that JPEG is one of the worst choices for technical drawings. Its use in this context may be compared to showing PDF, DjVu, and TIFF on wiki pages. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colleagues, Let make peace and amicability. The aim is to help our students, isnt it? Here it is the new file: intuitive_precession.png or intuitive precession.png or with capital I. Unfortunately when I tried to save it from Corel to svg, it didnt work, but saving it to png was successful. I also improved the text. --Alpenmaus (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpenmaus: CorelDraw does export SVG, but Corel Corp. is famous for myriads of bugs in import/export plugins, hence it could be a miracle to obtain an SVG immediately suitable for Wikimedia. Again, don’t hesitate to upload SVG whichever ugly it looks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded PNG. SVG is so bad that it would be misleading. Sorry I want to give something understandable to the students.--Alpenmaus (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above discussion was created by Peter.hantz as a violation of his block. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 23:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent incivility

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --JBL (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Rs chen 7754 02:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed thread on Dual-complex numbers article

The posting was added here but then removed by its author

I feel that the discussion wasn't constructive and doesn't need to be on record. Hopefully this time you'll agree. --Svennik (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not agree with such censorship as [1]. It is Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gun-type_fission_weapon&action=history&offset=201910131920&limit=8, the complain is disingenuous. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of uncivil behavior discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding uncivil behavior. Thank you. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A got a notice from you, saying I was 'socking', over just possibly trivial and fixing the infobox's line correctly.

I got a noticed, saying that I was socking over the Ambazonia page, so I may just only wanted to fixing only the wording on the "secessionist entity" word, due the wording itself has to be sound right for newcomers or couple users like myself to make sense; and also just needed the infobox's lines to be right and not that too separated, to be comparable with the other 'unrecognized nations' or 'nation' infoboxes. Chad The Goatman (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not about changes in the article, and a small edit war also wouldn’t merit a noticeboard report. The problem is abuse of IP editing: see Special:diff/922637837 for an admin’s comment. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fermi-Dirac statistics

You undid a revision of mine with the reasoning "this paragraph is not specifically about electrons, let alone electron conductors, let alone metals". I would counter "Then it is incorrect". The present formulation is "At zero temperature, μ is equal to the Fermi energy plus the potential energy per fermion." This holds only when the Fermi level is not in a band gap. Otherwise, μ is in the middle of the band gap, while Fermi energy plus potential energy is the bottom of the gap. So my revision corrected this error, at the cost of restricting the scope. Feel free to make it correct for the general case of fermions, but in the meantime, I would think it is better correct and narrow than incorrect and broad. Seattle Jörg (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what? That’s how WP:BRD works. @Seattle Jörg: go to talk:Fermi–Dirac statistics and present your case there, not here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit that should be okay with both you and me (it does not restrict to the case of electrons in a metal, but to a non-zero density of states). Seattle Jörg (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Rs chen 7754 21:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, this is not an indefinite ban, however, in any block appeal I would expect to see a recognition of the reasons why they were blocked and a credible commitment to do better in their interactions with other editors. --Rs chen 7754 21:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Incnis Mrsi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The blocking admin, Rschen7754, unilaterally supports those users who are in conflict with me. Insults, threats and baiting directed at me, such as [2] [3] [4] [5], were not acted upon by any admin. This event can embolden some people to similarly harass (and drive out of the site) more users and unlikely will make en.Wikipedia more pleasant. Please, at very least, admonish these users for incivility on their part. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM stwalkerster (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

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

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

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

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

Nomination for merging of Template:Logical truth

Template:Logical truth has been nominated for merging with Template:Theories of truth. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Group 1 element

Hello, Incnis Mrsi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Group 1 element".

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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Conditional link

Template:Conditional link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 11:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mvec

Template:Mvec has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Box-drawing sample

Template:Box-drawing sample has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Voting for busy beavers

Wikipedia:Voting for busy beavers, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Voting for busy beavers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Voting for busy beavers during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]