User talk:Sentriclecub

Welcome!

Hello, Sentriclecub, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tiptoety 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your note. You may find that if you look at the article on chess you may be able to help there. Remember this is an encyclopedia, and that people search for information using a quite rudimentary interface. The odds on someone typing in an exact sequence as per your article title are basically non existent. Why not check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess for some help - there's lots of Wikipedians there who may be able to give some input to help you contribute more to our encyclopedia. Thanks! Pedro : Chat 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you created the article as a test page (like you stated on my talk), then why don't you try the Sandbox as that is the appropriate place to make test edits. Cheers! Tiptoety 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tiptoety. Use the Sandbox for anything else you need. If you think that your article is necessary, post it again and then under "Discussion", post why it is important.Empezardesdecero123 23:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. I read both the Chess meta wiki-project page, and the general FAQ's and I'll sleep on it and finish tomorrowSentriclecub 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! —ZeroOne (talk / @) 11:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chessgames.com

Hello again! We are crafting the new Chessgames.com article at User:ZeroOne/ChessGames.com, you might want to edit it. :) —ZeroOne (talk / @) 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of collegiate secret societies

I have replied to your concerns on Talk:List of collegiate secret societies. Corvus cornix_talk 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Main article template

Go here to find out how to use the main article template. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi there, I was also disappointed by Graft's response to your comment, I mentioned this to him and I'm sure he won't be so rude to you again. I'm sorry if you found this off-putting, but I assure you that it is not a common experience and is not an accepted way of talking to somebody on Wikipeida. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Hi Sentriclecub,

Please excuse my extremely poor choice of words on Talk:Genetic code. I left a comment there hopefully explaining myself; your comment was made entirely in good faith and was a valuable, constructive comment, and I appreciate that you made it. I hope you'll not be dissuaded from further contributions as a result of my stupidity. Graft | talk 19:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Investigation for that London company

Sorry, don't know where you got my name from, but I suggest you take your concerns to WP:AN/I and someone should be able to deal with it there. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post the spamming related accounts, diffs, all the domains on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Health_problems --Hu12 (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever wrote it, but yes, you are correct, I independently also concluded that one of the spamming campaigns was done for the benefit of Reckitt Benckiser, a huge fortune 500 company. Even their obscure toothpaste has its own wikipedia page and someone removed the afd tag immediately when it was challenged. "However, my CSD template was removed as soon as I put it on the page" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bonjela

I think you guys misunderstand the scope. Its a pyramid. The bottom level is the "legitimate looking health websites" like the four seen here...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reckitt_Benckiser&diff=prev&oldid=135087597

The middle level is "web design and online promotion companies" such as alchemyinteractive and webheads (identify and connecting all these are crucial, it was a huge leap that I was able to deduce that they are in-family companies, 100% identical, but they hide this fact), all based out of the same address and london and same telephone number (thanks to google).

The top is the owner of the middle level, who if we could identify this, we could trace fully the whole pyramid. As it is now, we're simply adding one domain at a time, and flagging one wikipedia spammer account at a time. I have heard that WP has some very sophisticated IP tools and what-not (I'm a noob, but still know a lot more than most ppl) and was hoping to fix this whole scheme in like 15 minutes, if the right person got this message. Sentriclecub (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science desk misunderstanding [here]

In response to your question about "wikilawyering" on the science desk...

There is a long-standing rule on the reference desk against offering diagnosis or treatment of medical conditions (as well as offering legal advice). There are no rules against providing medical references when asked for. The overall policy is to remove the question and all responses when a request for diagnosis or treatment is requested. In the case you referred, the questioner was offering a self-diagnosis and asking if it was a correct diagnosis. I explained my opinion that asking if a diagnosis is correct is equivalent to asking for a diagnosis - which is not allowed on the reference desk. Because it wasn't a blatant "Please diagnose me!" question, I didn't delete it.

You made the point about being a ~~pending~~ physician. On Wikipedia, a personal expertise means very little. There has been multiple cases of a person claiming to be an accredited expert in one field or another and, in the end, being revealed to be neither accredited nor an expert. It would be nice if there was some sort of help desk manned by proven accredited professionals. I know a world-wide highly respected and heavily published expert in hypertension that uses Wikipedia. Imagine being able to ask him questions about hypertension whenever you like. As it is, he can claim to be a hypertension expert, but it is just a claim. So, on Wikipedia, his opinions on hypertension have no more weight than anyone else's.

There is another rule you'll come across as you learn the boundaries of what is acceptable on the reference desk. It is a reference desk, not an opinion desk or a discussion desk. People frequently come in and try to spark some sort of debate or gather random opinions. For example, a user just recently asked what people thought about the new Cuil search engine. The proper response is a reminder that the reference desk is not a place for opinions or debate. It is for the request and offer of references. It is nice for it to be informal, allowing comments to stray from strictly academic references. However, it has gone down the road of opinions and debates in the past and the regular users don't want it to go back.

I hope you hit the status of Complete and Perfect Tutnum of the Encyclopedia. -- kainaw ™ 14:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree factually with what you said, however I don't believe you read what I wrote. You have out-responded me 3 words to 1, and have not met my proposition that counting teeth is to practicing medicine what playing starcraft is to hitting home runs.

No big deal, I hoped you would not go off on a side-tangent and try to dismiss my propositions. Please actually count that I've made 7 edits to the reference desk, I'm new, and am learning slowly. Sorry for our misunderstanding. Please re-read my original post. Thanks again, happy for your inputs, I will re-read it over carefully and will try to avoid this type of encounter in the future. Primum non nocere Sentriclecub (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize you thought I was claiming you were practicing medicine. My comment on the RD was towards the questioner, not your answer. I thought you were here asking about the policy behind my answer, not against your answer. I completely misunderstood. -- kainaw ™ 14:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that we're A-OK. I knew it was probably a misunderstanding, thanks for being patient with me. Sentriclecub (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teeth during pregnancy

Please note that a discussion on the talk page about whether this question constitutes medical advice may be found here: [1]. StuRat (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Your post [2] makes no sense as yet to me. Are you sure you have the right person? I honestly can't imagine why I would require sensitive information.87.102.86.73 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right. Copy/pasting error. My apologies, i've had a rough morning.

If you would like to e-mail a user, it usually says "E-mail this user" in the "toolbox" on the left-hand column. It is the third last link on the left, for me. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny story as it turns out, I didn't need to give you sensitive information but instead needed to engage in a sensitive discussion and you're numbers_screenname made me think that you were on the wrong page. The whole thing is on your talk page. Sentriclecub (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the reference desk's backroom!

... and we hope you choose to stay! It's too late to reconsider whether you should stick around and help out or not, I already added you to this list. As for molehills and mountains, I suppose the medical advice is just one of those perennial and perpetual topics at the desks' talk page. There are those who prefer to err on the side of caution, and those who prefer to err on the side of *ahem" perceived likelihood. It's better we talk (or shout) rather than edit war though, in my opinion. Even if and when we go in fallacious circles, at least it stays in the backroom. Again, welcome, and looking forward to seeing your answers at the desks! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my welcome to Sluzzelin's. Wikipedia has a number of 'landmine' issues that you often don't find out about until you've stepped on them—it's a very rough way to get into Wikipedia, and I hope it doesn't damp your enthusiasm for the project for too long. As Sluzzelin says, the issue of medical advice is one that we want to treat sensitively on Wikipedia, but we have a large number of editors who have a correspondingly large number of disparate opinions on how best to accomplish that.

For what it's worth, the process that we have – removing questions, and discussing them before restoring them – was a compromise established a year (two?) ago to try to keep a lid on the tension. (There's some really nasty stuff in the Ref Desk's talk page archives; I don't recommend wading through it.) Instead of having a storm like the one you've just seen once every month or two, we'd have knock-down drag-out fights all over the Desk and Noticeboards every other day. It was a miserable, unpleasant mess, and things mostly hum along smoothly now under the guidelines that were oh-so-painfully hammered out.

As far as I'm concerned – and I don't think you'll find many editors who would disagree – we have three major goals at the Ref Desks:

By far our most important goal is to protect our readers from harm. We're supposed to be here for the good of humanity, and offering medical advice based on incomplete histories from unqualified editors just doesn't fit with that aim.
We also want to protect the reputation of the project. Wikipedia does a lot of good things, and having our reputation dragged through the mud interferes with our good works. (The Seigenthaler incident illustrated how one person's reckless action could precipitate massive damage to Wikipedia's reputation—and in that case, nobody was physically harmed.)
To at least some extent, we try to protect our writers from themselves. There are limits to what can be accomplished there, but we don't like to see our good-faith editors put in a position where they might feel responsible for harm to another person, or where they might get sued (legitimately or not) or harrassed.

I hope that you do take the time sometime in the days ahead to look through the guideline pages that I linked on the Ref Desk talk page. They should give you some idea of where we – on Wikipedia – have chosen to draw the boundaries that limit our answers. Please, in the future just talk to me before you go trying to recruit a gang to attack me for my unethical, manipulative, conduct that sidesteps the bounds of ethics. I like to think of myself as a generally sensible, intelligent person, and formal, civil discussion really isn't over my head. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting posts on the ref.desk talk page

[3] edit summary:"see kineua's forum"
[4] edit summary:"removed the post--he was typing his the same time I was typing mine, I'll put his below mine at my talk page"

It's not really usual to delete other peoples posts.

~~Also what is "kineua's forum"?~~ must be user:kainaw 's talk page I suppose. 87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked his permission, and sought yours. Review my edits within 30 seconds of both those you cited. With the second one, I even pre-typed both things in two word documents so that I could copy/paste them in an extrelely short lapse of time. Also, the sequencing was non sequiter because you accidently jumped into the series of posts and my post was not responding to your post, but the one before yours. Sentriclecub (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I was in fact trying to email you about that. My post contradicts yours and I was hoping you'd reword in such a way that my post wouldn't be disrespectful of yours. Imagine if you thought I responded to your post and that I disregarded your propositions, you would think I brushed off all your arguments and proceeded with delivering only my message. I wanted to try to tell you personally if I could move your post either to the top of the series, or to my/your talkpage. If you see, I've spent soooooo much time this morning trying to wrap this up. I've left messages on 6 people's forums, trying to work behind the scenes to get those who believe they are right that we should just let it slide and not to expand this meaninglessly further. The last thing I wanted was to start a 7th series of discussions if you took my post the wrong way. Maybe I should insert a placeholder next time I'm going to put in the time for a meaningful, well written post? Hopefully, you don't think I'm a disruption, and that my explanation was satisfactory. Sentriclecub (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a more detailed followup with all the references and timeline here at his talk page. Sentriclecub (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your recent deletion of another editor's comments on the Reference Desk Talk Page here was not appropriate and not in accordance with the Talk Page guidelines. I doubt very much that user Bowlhover "accidentally" replied; I am confident that he or she replied quite deliberately. If you feel a discussion has reached the end of its productive life you are free to no longer participate. I do not believe you have the right to insist that no one else comment, nor to delete their comments. I have restored the comment you deleted. - Eron^Talk 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minutes before you posted, the matter has been resolved at Bowlhover's talk page, and I'm awaiting JdRewitt's response. I'll answer more fully, please allow me to respond further at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Tooth_advice Sentriclecub (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll respond here to your recent comments on the Reference desk talk page. Again, please review the talk page guidelines. I refer you specifically to the section on unacceptable behavior, which states "As a rule, do not edit others' comments." As to your declaring the discussion closed, I cannot see any other way to interpret your statements:

"For anyone who is just joining, please just let the issue die," "walk away from it and let it die," "Its about time we agree to stop adding to this thread," "you replied to a post which wasn't supposed to exist," etc.

You stated that the discussion needed to end, then you removed posts that continued the discussion. The fact that you then went to the editors in question and explained yourself, and that they did not protest, does not mean that this removal was acceptable.

I am not trying to bait you, on the reference desk talk page or anywhere else. I don't care one way or another which side of the original medical question discussion you are on. I am simply pointing out to you that your removal of talk page posts is contrary to the guidelines. - Eron^Talk 01:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your forum here. Sentriclecub (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On terminology

Hi again. Just for the sake of clarity, there is a bit of Wikipedia-specific terminology that you might want to adopt. The pages that you've been calling forums are almost universally described as talk pages or (occasionally) discussion pages. (The names come from the format of the Wikipedia interface—all such pages can be reached by clicking the 'discussion' tab at the top, and all have the word 'Talk' in their names.) Calling those pages 'forums' may be confusing to other readers, who may assume that you're describing bulletin boards or discussion pages not located on Wikipedia. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ten_of_Trades, I have a lot of respect for you being helpful to me even when I misjudged you. I want to fully answer your original post later, but I'm seeking a wikipedia essay of some guy that got banned because he was warned to register for an account and he was left with a warning at his ip# talk page, but when he registered the new account he made the same edit again (which he never received the warning addressed to him). I wanted to show how my impression of you changed so much in the course of 12 hours! You are a superb at treating people who may have disagreed with you in the past, with persistent courtesy and respect. You're a great person to work with from across the aisle, and I applaud your patience. My initial impression of you was that you were a fellow noob with a vendetta against wikipedia! Then Sturat said a remark about admins disagreeing with us, and low and behold I resarched you're actually an admin! I then rethought everything and its just 3 minor happenings that made me conclude my first impression of you. As the day has went on, nothing else was consistent with those 3 flukes! You have won me over and I wholeheartedly believe your interests in this matter are pure. Also my explanation will resolve any misunderstanding you may have had. I want to write it without getting interrupted. Currently, I have 8 tabs open, and hitting refresh every 30 minutes. Sentriclecub (talk) 23:41, 30 July

Hello again - about deletions etc

Hello got your response: User_talk:87.102.86.73#Re:_Funny_post

I think I understand the course of events - of course I am not 'angry' about this - don't worry about that, though deletions may have proved in the long term to have been helpful (who knows?)

I just wanted to point out that in general - deleting other peoples on the 'talk pages' or 'forums' as you describe them can cause trouble.. and the 'rules' come down on the side of 'do not delete at all'.

Clearly we have been 'talking at the same time' which has cause much misunderstanding.

Anyway there is no need to worry about contraditing me, or causing offence to me in these cases, also please feel free to discuss anything on my talk page; I tend to hold the view that that which cannot be discussed in public perhaps should not be discussed at all.

Also are you aware of the use of indentation in discussions? For example:

person A:blah,blah,etc 1pm
:person B:respond to A - blah - 2pm

Suppose you are person C and wish to respond to A, but B has already done so - you can do this and I think the meaning is well understood

person A:blah,blah,etc 1pm
::person C: respond to A and not B at 3pm
:person B:respond to A - blah - 2pm

I only mention this because I think it may have been applicable.

Good luck in future. And be careful to follow the guidlines - no matter how well intentioned you are. As you can see the subsequent 'paperwork' can be quite extensive...87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough reply. Sentriclecub (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a bit more detail, and examples of how to use indentation to thread messages, you might also have a look at Wikipedia:Indentation. If you start a line with a colon (:) it will be indented by a small amount; additional colons produce additional indentation (::, :::, etc.) to show 'nested' remarks. Apologies for bothering you if you were already aware. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clearifications. If I assumed that everyone understood indentations (which is pretty amazing when I see admin-discussion pages like RFB) then I dont have to worry about my post being misinterpreted. It will always respond to the one with a solo indentation less than mine. I'm glad that it seems like most of the heavy-users on wikipedia would have understood my post was not replying to the one above mine, if I use correct indentation style. Thanks! WP is slowly earning my faith again. Sentriclecub (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About measurement

I was just reading an article which used nanograms per milliliter.[5] This seemed to make things even more complicated. Brian Pearson (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. I have 3 brothers that are going to get skin cancer from too much fishing, so I'm trying to learn enough about skin cancer risks so that they will listen to me! Thanks Sentriclecub (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once read that most of the damage is done by age 18. But it does look like there is a lot of promising research going on to fight cancer. I remember this[6] one from some time ago. I'd be curious to see if they've done anything else in that direction. BTW, I'm not a researcher or scientist, I'm just a guy who likes to read this stuff. Brian Pearson (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might like this article its a good read. Sentriclecub (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC) My recommendation is to always errr on the side of caution. If in doubt, look it up. I think skin cancer can be deadly at any age and a serious health risk so always be careful.[reply]

Flower power for cancer?[7] Brian Pearson (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, what did you think about the one above? Sentriclecub (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks promising. Who knows what we'll see years from now? :) I've read that people are looking all over the earth for plants that might have some positive affect on people, including the jungles and the seas. I suspect there is a lot more to the ocean than the jungles. Brian Pearson (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agreed. The genetic diversity in the sea is likely 10x that which exists in the rainforest. I believe that the pharmaceutical companies can afford whatever protective measures (bribes or by force) that which can be gained from exploring the rain forest. Sentriclecub (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit about me

Hi Sentriclecub. I'm going to be a bit vague in answering some of your questions, because as an administrator I occasionally brush up against the crazier side of the Internet and I'd rather not directly link my real-world and Wikipedia identities. (I'm not suggesting that you're one of the crazy ones, but I know crazy people definitely do read Wikipedia.)

My graduate school is a large, internationally-known English-language university. I'm older than you, but by less than a decade. Our article on biophysics gives a good outline of the field; because it's multidisciplinary, the definition is necessarily fuzzy. I've worked with geneticists, organic chemists, biochemists, molecular biologists, 'hard' physicists (optics, acoustics, ionizing radiation), computer scientists, cell biologists, and neurologists over the last few years. The work I'm doing right now involves advanced applications for optical microscopy.

The amount of time I spend on Wikipedia in any given month varies widely. I find time to contribute to Wikipedia by neglecting my work and by neglecting my girlfriend, in various proportions. :D Somewhat less facetiously, I find that answering a couple of Ref Desk questions or reverting a little bit of vandalism (I have a thousand-page watchlist) is a good way to clear my head for other tasks or kill a few minutes of dead time. (At home, my computer is next to the kitchen and not far from the television; I can do an edit or two while I'm waiting for the oven to preheat or during a commercial break. At work, I've often got periods of time from three to ten minutes long to kill during an experiment, and sometimes Wikipedia fills those gaps.)

Why I do it is a bit fuzzy. I think I started out because it seemed like a worthwhile project—my volunteer efforts had a tangible and immediate benefit. (You could ask the same question – and get roughly the same answer – about why I give blood. To be fair, Wikipedia hurts less and is more fun.) I like being part of a project that is used by millions of people every day. For a less high-minded reason, I find that Wikipedia is a hobby more interesting than Sudoku.

Once again, welcome aboard the project. Drop by my talk page any time. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Desk

soz, yes i did post to the r/desk, just didn't realise i hadn't signed in... thanx ! ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differentials

In regard to your question on differentials, see Jerome Keisler's book Elementary Calculus. You can find the whole book in pdf formats on the web. Keisler lays out explicit rules derived ultimately from Robinson's non-standard analysis but phrased in a way intended to be comprehensible to first-year calculus students.

Don't rely on Stewart in this kind of thing. Stewart's is a standardized book on a standardized assembly-line type of subject matter in which you show your textbook's brilliant originality by making two or three minor changes from the standard format. He gets the standard stuff right, but isn't too insightful about things not on the very well-beaten path he's following. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, do you have any recommendations on physics? I almost wish the physics book I'm using was a bit more like Stewart. But I do agree that I sometimes get the feeling that Stewart's book is written in such a way that "tricks" the reader into learning the material by using very harmless looking approach to a subject, then when you get to the problems set, they look way harder than the formulas and walk-throughs, but when you really focus on it, and look back to the formulas--everything's there, and all you need is in just the short few pages. It has helped me understand that the power of math lies in creativity. Sentriclecub (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular preferences in physics books---sorry. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Cat Bounce

This edit is yours, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dead_cat_bounce&diff=prev&oldid=238711033 I don't think it's really necessary or valuable on that page, but if it is, it definitely needs clarification. And I can't see how the symbolic expression adds any value. Do you want to rephrase it? Joe (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I was just trying to give the article a little bit more explanation for readers who are completely unfamiliar with the subject. I was just trying to restate the main idea, since the article isn't in too great of shape. Plus the reference about presidential polls isn't that helpful either. Sentriclecub (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Chessmetrics

Hi Sentriclecub. I am just responding to this part:

Peter Ballard, if you can recommend any improvements in the way I tackled the chessmetrics situation, share them with me so I can grow as a wikipedian. I still consider myself still a newbie. I only learned the mathLaTeXformulastuff a week ago. I have no knowledge of protocol and administration (such as what I ventured into with WP:PROD recently). After reading your talk page, you respond to people ideally the way I would like to. Fair, respectful, and effective. Any advice you give me, I will take literally.

OK, here goes...

Don't write too much. You claim to be a good communicator, but I must say I find you very hard to follow at times.
Don't bother trying to justify yourself. It's almost always a waste of time. Even if I'm in the right, I find that retractions and apologies are very hard to get out of people on Wikipedia (and on Internet discussions in general). I'll do it occasionally, but generally it's better to ignore it and move on. And that's on black and white things, like when I've been accused of saying X when I said Y.
Don't suggest an article be deleted when you don't actually want it deleted; all that does is created tension.
If you are to suggest an article for deletion, do it the right way. As I've mentioned before, Wikipedia help pages are pretty messy in places and it's an easy mistake to make. But for future reference: WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. For disputed deletions (as in the case of Chessmetrics, follow WP:AFDHOWTO. When in doubt, follow WP:AFDHOWTO.
For Chessmetrics, I think the best way to proceed is to initiate a discussion at Talk:Chessmetrics on how widely chessmetrics should be used. Contrary to your assertion, the overuse of Chessmetrics has met a fair bit of resistance (see Talk:Howard_Staunton#Chessmetrics and Talk:Emanuel Lasker#Using Chessmetrics for rankings), and some decent guidelines could still come out of it. Personally, I think it can be used widely, with caution, simply because that's all we have. We'd use historical Elo ratings if we could, but they're not easily available, at least not on the internet.

Peter Ballard (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Its going to be tough to figure out where on the continuum I should settle on between succinctness vs effectiveness. I honestly don't know what style of communication is optimal here on this website. Truthfully, I am an OCD perfectionist. Additionally, I imagine that different niches of wikipedia all have different expecations for style and communication. I seem to do well in editing math articles, so I'll try to keep learning about wikipedia, a little bit at a time. Sentriclecub (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of Change of Acceleration

great scens!! thanx ATMarsden^{Talk · {Semi-Retired}} 21:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Question

Hi there. To answer your question, some rights can be granted separately, and some only come as a part of the admin tools. The ones you can get on their own are:

Rollback (through Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback)
Account Creator (a rather specialised tool, I'm not actually all that sure how one gets a hold of it).

You can read further detail on these (and others) at Wikipedia:User access levels. Hope this helps! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks a lot for your quick reply. Sentriclecub (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Question #2

Hi there. You should be able to revert to that version (you don't need admin tools to do reverts). On the link you put on my talk page, click on the link "Revision as of 23:45, October 2, 2008", and then go to the "Edit this page" tab. You should get the edit screen with a warning along the lines of "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed." Simply save the page as is, and you'll revert the "main" version of the page to that particular version of it.

As an aside, while I'm more than happy to help you out on these, you might be able to get a quicker answer to these sorts of queries at WP:AN - most of the admins there will be happy to lend you a hand. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the WP:AN link. I misunderstood its purpose, will be glad to use it in the future for generic questions. Sentriclecub (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biting newbies

Call my a cynic, but I will be extremely surprised if Mr. Breiding turns out to have any interest in adding anything to our articles except links to his own site. I've seen a lot of editors start out on the same track, and I can't think of one who turned into a real editor. My reaction is based on the fact that he has yet to add anything but links, plus the fact that he turned straight to the Village Pump rather than trying to make his case with me-- I did leave the mildly-worded {{spam}} on both his username talk page and his IP talk page. Besides, anyone who is so sensitive that my responses at the pump turns him away, probably couldn't cope with the routine give-and-take that is Wikipedia. I will grant you that I might have left off the "How not to be a spammer" link, but it does have useful info on it. But think about it-- someone who is busily trying to build their own site is really not likely to have a lot of time or inclination to help us build ours.

Anyway, good luck with him. I hope I'm wrong. Feel free to delete this message if you fear that he will see it and take further offense. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 22:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your civil reply, I hope he has the opportunity to read this and sees how we discuss things neutrally and with a lot of care. Parks have the potential to be outstanding articles, they provide a real service to readers, and they don't require lots of human resources and are not full of controveries, but instead pictures. There's never any issues about WP:NPOV with parks, and I wish we had more editors with sincere interests in building and developing articles on parks, which is probably my reason to wanting to believe the best about Mr. Breiding. I am a nature lover, and let me label this as my personal bias. Sentriclecub (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly uninterested in nature myself-- see User:Mwanner/Photos, or state parks-- see User:Mwanner#Places. I spend 3 - 4 months a year in a tent. And yes, we could definitely use more folks interested in adding photos and writing articles on state parks! -- Mwanner | Talk 23:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parks and the Village Pump

I'll attempt to apologize to you for your feeling offended as a result of your interpretation of my post at the Village Pump, which you objected to in a post on my talk page. But considering the severity of your objections, I don't know if this will convince you.

First, let me admit I am guilty of using a little sarcasm toward you. I shouldn't have done that with a stranger. If you and I knew each other, you would probably know there was no malice behind it, and in fact there was none. In my first reply, I said, "I'm sure he will appreciate your additional advice and offer to help", and I meant to show that I thought your attempt to answer him was helpful and worthwhile, even if I didn't completely agree with it.

The way I interpreted your post, you seemed to be telling the other person that he didn't have to be concerned about copyright concerns and advice given in the "how not to be a spammer" help page, because his website is so wonderful, it can exempt him from the rules. You probably didn't mean to say that, but that's how your post reads. And by the way, pointing him to that page is not calling him a spammer. The title is clearly in the context of "how to avoid being a spammer without really intending to be one". The article is not intended to tell off genuine, malicious spammers; it is intended to explain the rules at Wikipedia. It merely has a whimsical title.

On the message you posted on my talk page, you said that my post seemed to interpret your post as advising the editor "to insert parts of text verbatim from his website, as 'chunks' scattered through various parts of the article." Well yes, that's what you seemed to be saying, which is why I pointed out the problem with that. I quoted exactly what you said, and don't see that I altered its apparent meaning at all.

Next you say he could fix the problem in an edit summary, or by putting a note on the talk page. I've never heard of declaring copyright details on an edit summary, and I can't imagine it would hold any weight legally. That's why all these rules exist at Wikipedia: for legal reasons. On help pages, advice is given on how to declare that the author of the website has given permission for his content to be used on Wikipedia. One way is to change the copyright license on the website. Another is to email the Wikipedia foundation. (Follow-up clarification: these methods make it clear the website owner is giving permission; a message on a talk page can't be proven to come from the website owner; that is the difference.) Given those options, surely edit summaries and posts on talk pages are insufficient. So I stand by my statement that bad advice was being given.

I did not use the term "bad advice" to insult you, nor to make the process more difficult than it needs to be for the other person. It should be clear that I said what I said because I thought your advice was wrong, and could cause him troubles later on. You should not take this personally. If my wording was harsh, it's because I considered my reply to be an urgent message.

On my page, you said, "There are no editors who patrol articles on state parks, manually checking for copyright violations, and if there is I would hope that editor has enough judgment to email the website owner..." Well first of all, the posting started because someone did patrol the article for copyright violations, and did remove links. Next, belief that editors address copyright concerns by emailing website owners to ask if the copied text is okay with them, is completely contrary to what I've seen at Wikipedia. When apparent copyright violations are found, they are removed immediately, and it's up to the person who inserted the material originally to take the initiative and explain their reasons, and make arrangements with the copyright holder, if they want to put it back in. The editor removing the material may post a note about the removal on the original editor's talk page, and may also post links to help files when more information about copyrights can be found. But emailing a website owner on someone else's behalf? I doubt that happens, and could be regarded as tattling and interference if (as is usually the case) the website owner had no idea his site's content was being copied to WP. By the way, in your post at the Village Pump, you gave good advice on how to declare a license at flikr, therefore you appear to be knowledgable about copyright declarations, so I don't know why you're now talking about edit summaries and such. That is definitely a step backward!

I take it you agree with the original poster, that Wikipedia's rules are "unnecessarily rigid and counterproductive". I take the opposite view. WP's rules are what they are, because the WP foundation's legal advisors are concerned that with so many articles on WP, they could be inundated with many copyright violation lawsuits that could shut down the site. Frankly, many people have expressed concerns that WP's rules may be too flexible, and could still leave them open to lawsuits. Some have said that they would be within their rights to make rules more strict by completely disallowing "non free" images, or by not making edits immediately available to all until they have been reviewed by admins. WP's current rules are a kind of compromise, in my opinion, and its hurdles are not there without good reason.

Regarding your asking me to help you advise and encourage the other editor, to undo damage I've supposedly done, I still maintain I have said nothing to discourage him, and merely stated the facts about the way things work at Wikipedia for his benefit. I was only discouraging in the way I contradicted and objected to your preceding advice, for which I apologize, but I still think it needed to be said. I don't have any advice for the editor, aside what I've already said. I think it's great that you are going to help him further, and hope it all works out fine.

Peace — --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, (I replied via email). Sentriclecub (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second email sent immediately before this timestamp. Sentriclecub (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting an account

Thanks for the advice. (I think you should sign your talk messages, even to IP editor talk pages.) I don't want to fight with you, but you bring a lot more drama to the chess articles than we are used to seeing, and I don't think it is helping the quality of the articles or the discussion. I appreciate your enthusiasm, good luck. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a good writer, and I do not like drama. Thanks for your feedback, and you may drop by my talk page anytime. Cheers, Sentriclecub (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors aren't second-class citizens

Please don't treat them that way. You can't order someone to get an account, and it's poor practice to declare that you're going to ignore another good-faith contributor solely because they haven't got a login.

Incidentally, you should always take care to sign warning templates—even when you leave them on IP talk pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was very tolerant at first, but he's been edit warring and criticizing my edits, replacing them with poor sentences that don't even make syntax sense. He replaced my version Two rounds of tie breakers are in place to resolve a tie. with his version The match regulations specify a series of three tie breaks. (which isn't completely accurate since they are contingent, and the regulations can't syntax with a transitive verb, should be "the organizers" specify, or similar type of subject noun) and I've even put up a request for semi protection to prevent his further harrassment (but later withdrawn as he is an auto-confirmed user), plus his user page has stuff about sockpuppeting and harassment. Thanks for the tip about signing templates, I didn't know about that. The whole thing started on archive1 of talk:world chess championship 2008. (going back in time 48 hours now)-In contrast, I have treated this IP user User talk:67.163.168.102 with mucho respect and courtesy, and have helped walk him through his first image upload [8] after two top editors at the village pump said all he will ever amount to is a spammer. I just have never had someone hard to deal with before in my year on wikipedia. It doesn't bother me if he or she creates an account or not, but its my way to try and avoid spending hours defending every single edit I make to chess articles. I just change the subject to something else, and hope that he or she will see I'm not easily rattled. Sentriclecub (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here. I didn't actually notice the kerfuffle above about 67.163.168.102 (though some conduct there is worrying as well; I have replied to your email). My concerns were over your interactions with 165.189.91.148. You appeared to be in an edit war with the IP at World Chess Championship 2008, and you left an unsigned, templated block warning: [9]; later you left an unsigned message curtly instructing him to get an account: [10]. Saying "I'm ordering you to consider creating an account..." and deleting polite messages from your talk page purely because they come from an IP ("I'll put your comment back after a signature not made up of numbers" is also quite tacky. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I definitely shouldn't have made the second comment. I'll put your comment back after a signature not made up of numbers I'm going to add it back to my talk page now. The other statement is in reference to his repeated accusations of me ordering the user around, and I keep trying to argue that I'll match his good gesture and allow him to have full say-so on how a section of the article is written if he will consider creating an account, since it will "clean up" his talk page image and if he's actually willing to yield on the minor issue, I'll yield to him on the editing issue (as a means to show him that I'm not the dictator of the article and i don't WP:OWN it). Secondly, this seemingly senseless edit war between is observed by other chess editors on the WCC2008 article, and if I can't give subtle hints that he may just be out to harass me, then I'd be forced to answer every ad nauseum attack he throws at me on the talk page. I try to divert it into a second front, which exposes his intentions. The effect is lost now, if he reads this, but the underlying message I was trying to emanate was "if you want to have the say-so on how the article is written, why spend several hours debating it with sentriclecub, when he says you can have it for free if you make an account which takes 30 seconds? Why would you rather do the more difficult route, if its not simply to tie up Sentriclecub's time and harass him".

One last point, is that he or she acknowledges to know me from a chess article which I tried to get deleted (and an arbiter at Kainaw's RFC agreed with my chief reason: that being mentioned in a research paper by Mye and Young, does not satisfy notability; and that the only other references were written by the chessmetrics article) coupled with Philcha's message on the wikiproject chess that I have "an agenda". So it seems natural to speculate that he has the mens rea and his edits are seemingly directed at my contributions on the 2008WCC.

I'll restore his post, but it gives the impression that it's written in good faith. But given this clarification, I don't risk readers skimming my talk page and believing his or her insinuations. Sentriclecub (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what you're saying to this editor, and think about it. You're telling him that if he jumps through a particular hoop on your say-so – getting a Wikipedia account, something that's totally unrelated to an article about chess – you'll let him have his way in an article content dispute. Does that make sense? Is that a good practice? Article content decisions should be decided solely on merit; we don't bribe other editors with editorial freedom in exchange for doing as we say. If you're involved in a content dispute, consider an article content RfC or consult the reliable sources noticeboard. Let the username thing rest.

Trying to camouflage a content dispute by picking a new fight is a bad practice, and likely to lead to an escalating spiral of bickering. Don't you wonder if he's thinking to himself, "Who is this Sentriclecub, and why the hell would he waste hours of his time pretending to care about this article's content as a way to manipulate me into getting an account?"

Finally, I'm not clear on what Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kainaw has to do with this. (For your reference, be aware that RfC's don't have 'arbiters', just random people who drop in — often editors with vested interests in the dispute.) Are you saying that 165.189.91.148 is a sockpuppet of one of that RfC's participants, logged out to harrass you? Or something else? You've as much as said that the IP isn't editing in good faith, but you're not supporting that with hard evidence, and as an outsider to the dispute I have trouble understanding what accusations you're making here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer more fully later, but [11] was the edit which I can say connects him to the chessmetrics deletion discussion which resulted in Kainaw's RFC. I don't think he's a sockpuppet, but he or she certainly didn't want chessmetrics deleted, or believed Philcha's allegations [12] [13] [14] [15] that I was running an "agenda". I made a pretty strong case about that the article at that time, definitely failed notability, as was found by the arbiterUser:WhatamIdoing who gave the neutral summary on Kainaw's RFC which had unanimous support for being well written, accurate and neutral. I criticized chessmetrics, and its author, and wikiproject:chess for letting chessmetrics spread to 40 chess articles before looking into chessmetrics notability. So anyone with a vested interest in the person or his research, would enjoy draining my time. Again, I've never had a problem with a user before who was nitpicky about my edits and gave me a hard time, until after the chessmetrics deletion discussion/kainaw's RFC which happened 3 weeks ago. Sentriclecub (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are people on Wikipedia who aren't necessarily the friendliest or most laid back. (Frankly, you're coming across as one of those people right now, and it's not pretty.) Some folks are inherently nitpicky. The guy doesn't necessarily have to have anything at all to do with Chessmetrics—he could have easily seen the references on your talk page and looked into it. He might have an opinion on the topic, but not be at all related to Chessmetrics or its author. You're seeing a conspiracy when it's probably just some fellow who disagrees with you.

And you're getting more worked up that you should at Talk:World Chess Championship 2008. If you can't keep a civil tongue, then take a break from the article. Stop reading the talk page for a day or two, and stop reverting. If you're at the point where you're trying to mock another talk page participant ([16]), then you're obviously not acting in a way that will move discussion forward. If the article spends a day or two as The Wrong Version, life will go on.

You seem to suggest that he must be out to get you because he's unwilling to spend thirty seconds creating an account "...to avoid a several hour debate". Once again, I ask you to look at what you're saying. You've clearly decided that the point is worth several hours of your debating time, so why wouldn't he? Either the point is worth discussing, or you're both demonstrating poor judgement—but no malice beyond that is necessary on his part or yours. He's probably wondering why you're playing power games—trying to make him jump through hoops you've chosen so that you'll stop bothering him.

If you want to structure the discussion on the talk page, go ahead and do it. Copy his points to the bottom of the page, add (third- or fourth-level) section heads as necessary, and respond as you see fit. Don't ask him to do your heavy lifting. Right now, all I can see for certain is that you're both being unnecessarily abrasive towards each other, and it's quite possible you're both perfectionists who view the article slightly differently. WP:AGF and all that. Quit digging yourself deeper. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. He got to me pretty good. Sentriclecub (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it off my watchlist, I almost posted to that page, a lengthy post outlining how I baited him, which would have been my official quits. I was actually finishing an email to you before I got the 3rr warning, but I'll take the day off and send you my thoughts, prior to the 3rr warning. It really got me tilted very bad. Sentriclecub (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Yes, you're free to remove notices and warnings from your talk page. Thank you for pointing out 3 reverts from 165.189.91.148, I have given him an additional warning. Conscious (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No! I didn't want you to give him a warning, I was specifically seeking your help in finding someone who can basically listen to the merits of a WP:STYLE argument, that way we don't have to convince each other (which seems impossible) and we can simply convince an editor who knows the difference between a B-class article and FA article. "Concensus" should be about more important things, that's why its ridiculous to try and solve this particular edit war by giving out more wanrnings. We need someone outside of wikiproject chess who can be neutral and explain to either of us, WP:PG.

The person I'm dealing with doesn't know about transitive verbs. He writes the following

The match regulations specify a series of three tie breaks.

This sounds like it has been translated from russian to english. The tie breaks are contingent, and the word specify is not grammatically compatible with regulations because the syntax is terribly poor. I can think of 4 improvements right away, which better give the appropriate meaning. Style isn't something which is about concensus, especially whenever its a 3 ppl vs 1. The 1 editor can be shutout simply by insisting comment from the other two editors who would be willing to voice support against my edits. I thought wikipedia would back me, when I venture into chess territory and its niche. Sentriclecub (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:World Chess Championship 2008

Hello, Sentriclecub. You have new messages at Mendaliv's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pareto principle

Hi, I've responded to your remarks on the Pareto principle Talk page. Best wishes DaveApter (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but just remember that if the article is a little 80'ish, then that's great as well. Sentriclecub (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Competence (law)

You're either talking about a non-federal USA speedy trial provision, or more likely, a statutory time to trial provision. Under the constitution of the USA, there is no set time for when speedy trial becomes an issue. At any rate, whatever jurisdiction you're looking at, I believe you'll find that lack of competency/fitness suspends a proceeding, including the passage of time for any statute/rule requiring a trial commence after so many days following an arrest/charge/complain/indictment/whatever. I'm including this in your own talk page and the WikiProject:Law discussion, as the issue was not raised on the article's talk page. IMHO (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in Florida, its written in the statutes entirely contradicting. Lack of competency/fitness does not suspend a proceeding because it is such a complex topic that lawyers even have trouble with (even tougher than the 50 million rules on hearsay and its 49 million exceptions to them). Sentriclecub (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new WP:RDREG userbox

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaming lawye r^c 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CRGreathouse

Replied at the RFA and on my talk. Pedro : Chat 07:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: E-mail

Hello. I would respond to you via e-mail, but it doesn't look like you have it enabled. Regarding my edit here, yes, I did once say, "When I consider an admin candidate, the most important item I consider is whether I trust their judgement." However, I do not see these two sentences as contradictory. Please take a look at User:Useight/RFA Standards. Under "Experience", it says that I want to see "lots of quality activity in areas mentioned in Q1". Just because a candidate has my trust, and CRGreathouse does, it does not mean an automatic support from me. The three core values are: trust, experience, and civility. Based on my assessment, CRGreathouse has two of the three, only experience is lacking. And in this case, it is only slightly lacking. He has practically no experience in CSD, a place he has expressed interest to work. He also advocated cool down blocks, which do not work. Useight (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to commend you for your humility and conciliatory attitude to <CRGreathouse>. I was going to take you to task for hawking your RFA criteria when they conflict with the best interests of wikipedia, but now I won't have to.

Second, you have every right to express your opinions in that discussion even when they sharply disagree with mine. However, I do ask that you be respectful in your tone and refrain from dominating the discussion.

When planning your comments, please try to generate light, not heat, and when you disagree, try to do so without being disagreeable. If you follow these practices, I think the team will respect you more and will be more open to your ideas.

This post is not meant to initiate a discussion, so I do not plan to comment further on this matter. I will, however, post some feedback in the near future to some of the ideas that have been mentioned during this discussion in a distant, relevant RFA or RFB. Sentriclecub (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2009

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 02:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. -- ferret (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]