User talk:Pabsoluterince/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Pabsoluterince, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Team Trees, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internet subculture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

H3 revert

Did you read the source? Perfecnot (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s no problem :) Perfecnot (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: Daryl Prasad

Hi Pabsoluterince,

Thank you for the message.

I will need to take some time reading and responding to it. I am a bit busy editing and reading at the moment.

But I will say this: Talk pages are very distracting, especially when you are reading and editing pages on philosophy.

I hope to respond more fully to your message later.

Again, thank you for the time and effort you have put into your communication.

Regards Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Darylprasad: Thanks for the reply. I was somewhat worried you wouldn't see it. Take your time reading it. I responded to each of your sections, giving you some policy based explanations and continuations of your experiences. If you manage to read all the pages I linked, you'll know as much as me! Enjoy your reading and editing Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pabsoluterince

Thank you for your thoughts.

You put a lot of time and effort into the message. Thanks!

Your comments have been received well by me.

But, I have decided not to write a longer response.

Have a lovely day!

Regards

Daryl

Darylprasad (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: H3 Podcast (October 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curbon7 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:H3 Podcast and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:H3 Podcast, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curbon7 (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Pabsoluterince! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curbon7 (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Phrasing at Ryan Kavanaugh

Hello, to my understanding, gramatically, someone does not run something "like" or "as" a scheme. Someone simply runs a scheme. Could we correct that wording? Throast (talk | contribs) 12:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: The direct quote is Kavanaugh was operating Proxima and its related entities as essentially a Ponzi scheme (operating as a scheme). I think that makes sense to me though. Maybe: using the company to run a Ponzi scheme. It doesn't really matter to me either way, I just wouldn't be sure if the change of wording would be changing the meaning at all. Also in the interest of openness, this discussion should be help on the talk page. Personally I enjoy this kinda collaborative back and forth but we wouldn't want it to be interpreted as running our our own scheme. I'll ask about the Due-ness of the using the driver info there anyway. :) Pabsoluterince (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a small grammatical issue so I didn't think it would be necessary to discuss there. I just didn't change it right away because you've reverted my proposed phrasing earlier. The phrasing at the source was poorly chosen in my opinion. If you think about it, you can either run a scheme or not. I'll go ahead and change it. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, your use of my talk page are in violation of no rules, though I am definitely not the most knowledgeable when it comes to rules and policy. What I was considering is the optics of it; I don't want it to look like we're collaborating to change the article without others seeing, considering the controversial editing that has been occuring. Also hi! sorry I didn't say hi before ha. Also somewhat ironically, I realised that I didn't know DUE very well. I meant something closer to WP:REL.and everything seems to be okay there too Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GizzyCatBella🍁 12:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cullen328 (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello I am an Administrator

Hi Darylprasad, You may find these categories useful: Category:Wikipedians who opt out of template messages, Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery. Placing these on your page like this: Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery, will stop automated messages from appearing on your talk page. The other category will stop automated templated messages from other people. (I was just pretending to be an administrator so you would read my message Face-smile.svg). Feel free to erase my message now. Pabsoluterince (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pabsoluterince

Thankyou for your message.

I don't know how to place what you are referring to on my page. And am too exhausted from writing the Proclus article to look into it. My 'Silent Page' seems to be working well as you are the only person to write on it for months.

Thankyou for your suggestions, I will look into them when I am less exhausted.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

PS you can write on my talk page to reply to this message. But I will reply here and delete the message from my Talk page.

Darylprasad (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

move of caproic acid

Hi there, I noticed that you made a technical request to move caproic acid back to its systematic name, hexanoic acid. The naming conventions at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#IUPAC_preferred_name_vs._systematic_name indicate that it should be at the common name, e.g. acetic acid, not ethanoic acid, or in this case, caproic acid rather than hexanoic acid. All of the other short chain fatty acids use the common name. There was discussion about this a little while back at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals/Archive_2020#systematic_or_common_names_for_saturated_carboxylic_acids?, and we should continue with that consensus unless determined otherwise. Also, this should not have been a technical request given that it was moved from the page you were wanting to move it to less than 2 years ago, indicating that it is not uncontroversial. It should have been taken to requested moves. I plan on moving the article back to caproic acid; if you still have concerns or objections I will start a requested move discussion. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: Sorry about that. I read the rules but I must have misinterpreted them. In the naming convention page it states that "IUPAC recommends the use of non-systematic names for some organic compounds, and these recommendations should be followed in article titles". Then on the page it says that the IUPAC preferred name is hexanoic acid. So I didn't really read into systematic vs common names. Maybe this is a exception to the rule (where IUPAC prefers the systematic name?). I also took a look at the reference [1], which listed it as Hexanoic acid (the other sources were unreliable or I couldn't access them). This combined with my personal experience prefering hexanoic acid as the common name it seemed pretty uncontroversial to me. It's my first attempt at a move so I was fairly unaware of move rules. Thanks, Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries. The IUPAC recommended name is sort of a nebulous, confusing thing. Basically, in many cases, IUPAC prefers systematic names but Wikipedia follows common names. I agree with you that, in spite of caproic acid being the "common" name, in that case the systematic name is actually more commonly used by chemists nowadays, as I argued in that discussion I linked.

As for page moves, it's fine to make bold moves, but they can be messy to revert, so it's best to do a little research into the page history to make sure what looks like something needing fixing is really something that should be changed, or if there is a reason for the current name. In this case, you couldn't do the move yourself because the redirect was in the way from a previous page move, which is a good signal that the move you want to make isn't uncontroversial. Usually it's good to err on the side of discussion at requested moves, and if there is consensus for your move, someone can deal with whatever redirects are in the way. Best, Mdewman6 (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: Sounds reasonable. What's your opinion on the wording at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#IUPAC_preferred_name_vs._systematic_name? Maybe something less along the lines of "follow the IUPAC recommeded name because it prefers non-systematic names", and more along the lines of "follow the non-systematic names which is generally the IUPAC preferred name". My reading of the rules made me think to "follow the IUPAC recommended name". Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I think revising that section should certainly be considered, as it is confusing and less than helpful. Really, names of articles should use the common name, which is the preferred IUPAC name for only certain common compounds such as the examples given, but most of the time the preferred name is the systematic name rather than the common one (like, hexanoic acid, even though as we've discussed, in that case the systematic name is more common than the 'common' name). Hence, we shouldn't follow IUPAC at all, and use systematic names only when there isn't really a common name. Consider the straight-chain primary alcohols, like 1-pentanol. The preferred IUPAC name is pentan-1-ol, which is not the common name and not the article title. Or, benzaldehyde, not benzenecarbaldehyde. Basically, most article titles for organic compounds don't follow the preferred IUPAC name, so using that as the criterion is silly. Perhaps I will start a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals. I'll be sure to ping you. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Linking in edit summaries

When linking with [[]], anything inside the brackets is translated into a link at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ and then whatever is in the brackets. When you are linking to a template like you did in this diff, you don't need to include the entire wikipedia url to the template.

Putting [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_person]]

is equivalent to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_person.

In the future you can just put [[Template:Infobox person]] (which will link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_person) in the edit summary, because any wikipedia link in any namespace still works in wikilinks. Thanks, ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I will do my darndest :) Pabsoluterince (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"V" and "Z"

Where exactly is it mentioned in the article? I'm sorry I just don't have time to look through everything, please feel free to indicate it. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Whydoesitfeelsogood: Here. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. What about the "Mongoose Leap" operation? Apparently the folder that LDRN addresses were uploaded from had that name on it, and some users made fun of it. "Mongoose Leap" is definitely the codename of the Donbass operation, is it mentioned in the article or do you think it requires mention? (I can find a lot of RS on it, not just memes) --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not well aquainted with the Mongoose Leap operation. It doesn't appear to be mentioned in the article. Feel free to add it to the article if you think it has due weight, but do note that your previous addition did not appear to include a reliable source. You can always the experts on the talk page. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry for reverting again but editor comments are meant to warn editors about commonly made mistakes in-text, not to add hidden disclaimers about what should be added. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem, I found it in Talk. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pabsoluterince:, okay, now what's the issue? I literally quoted the RS saying what the Minoborony said the "V" stood for, and you still don't like it?!? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it is a reliable source. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Cool, do pick one please: 1, 2, 3, 4. Whichever we agree on we insert, 'kay? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Those sources seem unreliable. If they were reliable, I would say they represent fringe theories and the inclusion of such would constitute undue weight. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it though, I am frequently wrong. I suggest you ask the talk page, or the relevant noticeboards. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's have it in the article instead, backed by all of these. And if another editor takes the edit down, then we'll go to talk. Agreed? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No I don't agree. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Check out my most recent edit. IMO as neutral as it can get. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's neutral. There are other things to consider however. WP:DUE, being one; We shouldn't focus on the letter v sightings if it isn't being covered widely in reliable sources. Even if it has been sighted, the media (reliable media) clearly doesn't think it is notable because they haven't covered it. See also:WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Pabsoluterince (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've read the guidelines you referred me to and I fail to see what emphasis a single phrase mentioning another letter-based marking is putting on that specific letter. We're not making an article about the markings (there's no point to it so far), we're not even editing a section which would be dedicated to them alone. But I judge necessary to mention that, just as the "Z" letter, the "V" letter is also featured on their machinery. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Well first of all thank you for reading the pages. There’s one glaring problem with the sentence in my opinion, why does it matter? The most important reason (IMO) that we don’t go around using primary sources is that we as editors do not understand what is relevant and notable to a topic. That’s why we leave the reporting up to the professionals (the journalists). It’s also the reason we are stringent about reliable sources in some (this) area(s). Otherwise you could synthesis any narrative or information you liked due to the amount of blogs and fringe ideas that are published (not to mention you could just upload your own ideas). It’s the same idea with the V, who cares? Do journalists think it’s important to mention? If so, cite them. Otherwise i think it’s best to leave it out. Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, firstly, how can an official statement from the Ministry of Defense of Russia (Minoborony) be "fringe"? It can, probably and most likely, be biased as hell and contrived (such as "V" standing for "praVda"), but it's still an official statement. Not some nutjob who wrote a post about what they think it might be in their blog. Second and most important, these are not primary sources. One thing is to not trust Russian media anymore as you may deem them propagandist, another is to reject them wholly simply of the basis of them being Russian. These are medias quoting the Minister of Defense. So how can these not be RS? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources are those dictated by the lovely Wikipedia editors over at WP:RSN. Typically, I’m told, reliable sources are those that display a high level of journalistic integrity, as well as being generally, well, reliable. Two things I don’t think you sources is. Pabsoluterince (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Which ones exactly, from the four aforementioned, are not RS? All of them? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

All of them. If you would like another opinion, you should take this discussion to the talk page or Reliable sources noticeboard. Pabsoluterince (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Cdjp1 for awarding me my first barnstar . Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Darylprasad,
I was very happy to see you collaborating with editors on the talk page of Proclus. I am also extremely impressed by the breadth of your knowledge of Proclus. Also I hope you are sleeping well. I had a brief look at the page and noticed some things. Firstly per wp:circular: citing Wikipedia pages is a no-no, I saw one citation for a Wikipedia page. But otherwise I can see you're using excellent sources. I hope that you're less worried about editing in the Wikipedia environment now that you have had some time to settle in. In regards to what I wrote before; don't really worry about it. Unless you get annoyed by the automated messages like this one it doesn't matter. As always feel free to send me message if you need advice or help on Wikipedia. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pabsoluterince,

Thank you for your kind thoughts. Just lovely.

Re: citing Wikipedia

I will be reviewing the article in the next week and will fix that reference.

Once again thanks.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hidden content in articles

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, including this edit to the article Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis. In your edit summary, you questioned the inclusion of the section #Snake Island sailors because it is not disinformation, but misinformation. I agree with you completely; that section does not belong in this article. That said, your approach of how to deal with it wasn't right: you added Html delimiters to turn the section into a hidden comment You moved some Html delimiters that were intitially added by someone else, but the content should have been removed from the article entirely. An alternative is to delete it from the article and copy it to the Talk page for further discussion, but that isn't necessary, as the content remains in the history where anyone can access it, so just deleting it is enough. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Hi Mathglot, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Why is it not an appropriate approach? One of the appropriate uses of hidden comments is "Hiding a portion of the text that has been temporarily removed while consensus is pending. However, it may be preferable to transfer such text onto a subpage of the article's talk page." Given the presence of hidden comments for the same purpose on the page, is that not just a case of page preference and local consensus? Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Pabsoluterince, I apologize, I have to admit, I did not see that you only moved it; my comment above was not accurate, and I've redacted it. (Let me know if you think it needs further adjustment.) You make a good point about the "temporary removal" issue, which I *did* notice, and was troubled by, enough to have already raised the issue at the guideline. I invite you to take part in the discussion at WT:HIDDEN. Thanks again, and sorry for the misfire on my part; you did nothing contrary to guideline. Mathglot (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries! Take a look at what I wrote on the talk page. I think following my rewording of the rule would have been more ideal in this case, but obviously might not work as a general rule. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see you had already found the discussion and contributed there; well done, and thanks again. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hila Klein / Teddy Fresh Page Split

Hello, because you have done prior edit to Hila Klein's page, I am sending you this message. Please see split discussion on Hila Klein Talk Page. Jupiteralien (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Heya! How do I show that thing about the disclosing information about the alternate accounts?

I am a bit confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzaed (talk • contribs) 12:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Pizzaed: don't forget to sign your posts with the four ~~~~ those thingys. It looks like you have already disclosed the alternate account by adding this template. There should also be a template on the User:Dreww4761 page. Usually editors just use one account, additional accounts usually serve a different purpose such as for editing on secure networks, to do technical testing and so on. Take a read of the policy page which details what you shouldn't use your alternate account for. Pabsoluterince (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so what template userbox should I use? The same one I used to show it was an alternate account? Or Would it be the user master one? Thanks. (Sorry if I sound like I do not know what I'm doing, I am not that all familiar with some of this.) Pizzaed (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I am new to it all too. I assume it's this one, {{User alternative account master}}. I'll take a deeper look now though. Alternatively, you can you state on your page: "Pizzaed is my alternate account." and do away with the templates. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah so the top two templates used on this page: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Related accounts could be used. I stress that some editors will find it disruptive if you edit from two different accounts without a clear reason. That doesn't mean that you've done, or would be doing anything wrong per se. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks! Pizzaed (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Moses Hacmon. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. A recent deletion discussion was closed as no consensus and no additional sources that would clearly establish the subject's notability have been added since. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me for templating you, I'm just now noticing that you're the same editor who's been watching the Ryan Kavanaugh article. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Throast, I could hardly cry foul of a template considering I regularly WP:template the regulars, though some customisation is generally in order to "make the message appropriate." The validity of my edit summary has no consensus. But there are plently of sources that prove me right. Given these sources I think Hacmon passes WP:BASIC. Obviously they need to be incorportated to "resolve the problem" so I'll get around to that. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Sounds good. In case you didn't see, I did provide a little custom message at the end of the template linking to the deletion discussion that prompted me to add the {{Notability}} template to the article. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the overall template and I did find the italised message informative. However I was more refering to the welcome to Wikipedia, pointing out where I can learn to edit or experiment in my sandbox, all of which I would have removed. Also you can use {{tl|notability}} to produce {{notability}} when showing template code (if that's helpful at all). Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that was hastiness on my part. As I said, had I noticed who you were, I wouldn't have used a template at all, obv. Will make sure to check users more thoroughly before templating them. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay yeah no worries. I was trying to not make a fuss of it and give some friendly advice at the same time (that you probably didn't need). I hope it doesn’t come off as passive aggressive or something. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

re:Royal Society elected in 2022

This article is based on the 2021：List of fellows of the Royal Society elected in 2021--Htmlzycq (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

If there is a copyright conflict in 2022, the article of 2021 will also have a copyright conflict with this page new-fellows-announcement-2021--Htmlzycq (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Understandably. I think that one is likely bad as well. I am no expert but it looks like a copyright violation to me, so I am carrying on like it is one. Should be relatively easy to revert if the reviewing admin thinks everything is kosher. Disregard the majority of the warning because you were just copying what was already a page, but it's still your responsibility to make sure you understand copyright violations. So you can touch up on all that. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I think some of the contents of [ that page] should be included in this article, such as the Institutions of fellows and the nationality of foreign fellows--Htmlzycq (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You could use a table with a columns for flags and institutions.

Caption text

Name	Institution
Ian L. Boyd	School of Biology, University of St Andrews
	Example
	Example

Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issues in Chloropicophyceae

Hello! I saw your message on my talk page. I would like to know how to attribute the source of the article and provide a link to the license. I thought it was enough to put the source as a citation/reference. Thanks in advance. Snoteleks (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Snoteleks: I didn't see that you have cited the paper earlier in the article. It's still important to maintain WP:text-source integrity by placing your citation close to the material. I just saw the uncited paragraph which is why I cited it. When you are copying text licensed under CC BY 4.0 you're required to additionally "provide a link to the Creative Commons license" which can be done using {{Creative Commons text attribution notice}} template. Bit of a misfire on my part, I apologise. Pabsoluterince (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Edited Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's alright, thank you for pointing it out anyway! I'll make sure to add the CCBYSASource template next time. Snoteleks (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

New message from Pizzaplayer219

Hello, Pabsoluterince. You have new messages at Pizzaplayer219's talk page.
Message added 14:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you TonyBallioni. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for h3h3Productions

An article that been involved with (h3h3Productions) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Ethan Klein). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Thats Just Great (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry

Dear, Pabsoluterince

 I'm very sorry about everything I've done on Wikipedia. Apparently almost nothing I do is good enough and it frustrates me to no end. I knew when I created this account more than 2 months ago I would have at least some of my edits reverted but definitely not to this extent. What I do here is not out of malice. I guess my edits from my autistic and anal retentive self are not up to par here. While I am happy to have made some good contributions to some articles, I don't want to cause anymore problems. Therefore, I am done editing Wikipedia as of right now. Again I sincerely apologize for any wrongdoing. Bye. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. There is always going to be mistakes and learning opportunities on Wikipedia and your heart is in the right place. Consider each revert a learning opportunity that you can use to read up on the relevant policy plages and take onboard (or even reject if you think I am wrong!). This is a collaborative place, where people work together to build upon the project, we have to make bold edits in order to get anywhere, and part of the process always includes someone guiding you towards the correct policy. One great thing about Wikipedia is that you can't break it. As long as you take advice onboard you will never be a problem on Wikipedia. Pabsoluterince (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

MD khokon

Dhaka Bangladesh 103.97.163.90 (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Proof?

Hello. There has been convincing evidence online of autocunnilingus being performed by Russian webcam model Nika Legran. However all videos of her doing such come from porn sites. Is there a way we can cite a source about this without citing porn since that would not be considered reliable according to the rules? Thanks. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Good idea but probably not worth mentioning unless it is covered in some kind of publication. Wikipedia is not an WP:indiscriminate collection of information. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)