InfiniteNexus

Home

Talk

Contributions

Sandbox

Tips

Citations

Frameworks

Cases

Lists

Logs

XfDs

Scripts

XTools

"Fire and Ash" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fire and Ash has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 16 § Fire and Ash until a consensus is reached. ScarletViolet tc 11:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alien: Romulus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Walt Disney Studios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Focus on the editor

Please look in the mirror. After not reading the responses and the sources fully (that's why I asked that normal question), you are the one alleging that I "falsely claimed" and accused someone (you?) with my "speculation/misinformation" edit summary (which was about the notes and the reception section edit, but you took it personally) while writing that I do not understand the topic ("who may not have fully understood — such as yourself"). And I definitely don't have any sentences questioning "your intelligence". So instead of attacking and creating scenarios every time you see me (it's not helping to make any progress), you can defend your argument by focusing on providing valid reasons that do not oppose MOS:FILMPLOT (and WP:SYNTH, etc.). ภץאคгöร 13:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nyxaros: I don't want to go off on this tangent for too long, but "attack" is a strong word and I didn't "attack" you. It's true that your behavior has been known to be hostile; you must understand that we're all here to improve the encyclopedia and that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. When I said that you didn't "understand", I meant you didn't understand the plot point, which was a testament to the fact that these explanatory footnotes will be helpful. I wasn't insinuating your lack of knowledge in "the topic".

Now, let's refocus on the substance of the argument, which comprised 90% of my latest comment, but of course you chose to focus on the 10% (so your comment here is quite ironic). You can defend your argument by focusing on providing valid reasons that do not oppose MOS:FILMPLOT (and WP:SYNTH, etc.) I did — several times. SYNTH doesn't have anything to do with this, though. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that why you are still trying to make snide comments like "your behavior is known to be hostile"? You have been commenting on me since you opened the discussion. So, leaving aside your personal grievance against me that nobody cares about (and your opinion that "I didn't understand"), you should also learn what WP:SYNTH is: To, in this case persistently, make a claim that is not explicitly mentioned in the source, for example an Engineer's face. ภץאคгöร 16:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

While I'm disturbed by this continued hostility, again, I'm not going to continue with this back-and-forth. The Engineers example you gave was not SYNTH, which means combining sources to reach an OR conclusion; at most, it was an inaccurate summary of the sources — the reason for this is that the original text wasn't even summarizing the sources; it was citing the film itself, per PLOTCITE. If you see the film, you can clearly see that the hybrid has a face resembling an Engineer, but whatever. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Category talk:Microsoft templates

Hello, InfiniteNexus,

There is no need to create this category talk page because the category page, Category:Microsoft templates, was deleted years ago. I've run into this situation with other editors who created unneeded category talk pages for deleted categories and whatever tool you are using that says creating a page like this is necessary, has a bug. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Sorry, that was my bad. I meant to edit Category talk:Microsoft-related templates and accidentally ended up at the wrong page. Thanks for letting me know and fixing my mistake. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

About Gemini

In the revision https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gemini_(language_model)&diff=prev&oldid=1240044180, you removed the statement about Oppo and Xiaomi integrating Gemini, claiming they are not notable. But why is the content about Samsung retained? 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable, secondary sources are needed to demonstrate notability; simply citing primary sources on the announcement does not indicate that the information is noteworthy, or else we would need to include every minor update to Gemini. In any case, we do not need to mention every company that integrates Gemini into their products — Oppo and Xiaomi were neither the first to do so, nor are they highly prominent players in the smartphone industry, nor is this partnership particularly impactful or extraordinary, so this information is unlikely to interest most readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chromecast

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chromecast. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 108.44.167.147 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This page has not been nominated for deletion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)