Tritium6

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jack Vance's birth dates

The hidden note you inserted is an excellent, and extremely elegant, solution. Keep up the good work! Tetragruppasum 08:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Pentacles and "five"-ness

Hi, just a note to say I removed the {{fact}} tag you added to Pentacle, since that section (and indeed the rest of the article) continues by giving plenty of supporting examples. You should find quotes and references to a number of sources that state the pentacle can be of many designs. You should also find several example images of pentacles that quite clearly don't incorporate much to do with "five". I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but the fact of the matter is that pentagram-shaped pentacles were the minority in the old grimoires. Perhaps the most famous set of magical pentacles is that given in the various versions of the Key of Solomon, and if you look through these you will find that a remarkably small minority of them incorporate pentagrams in any prominent way. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Atheism rv (moved from User talk:Brian0918)

Hi, You seem to know more about the Britannica numbers for atheists than I do so I'm fine with you changing that back, but I don't understand why you reverted all of the changes I made instead of selectively changing the ones you disagreed with. Please see Help:Reverting#When_to_revert Tritium6 22:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no way that 18% of the world has any idea what the terms strong atheism or weak atheism mean, much less would so many refer to themselves as such. The other change- using names instead of "some", makes the statement meaningless with no context as to who these people are or what their statements might indicate. johnpseudo 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you suppose that one must know the vocab words in order to be considered an atheist? Under that philosophy it is logical to say "I believe there is no God, but I am not an atheist", which to me is nonsense. If I'm afraid of spiders, but I don't know that the name for this is arachnophobia, does that mean I don't count in the statistics of those afraid of spiders? No. Atheists are defined by their beliefs, not by whether they consider themselves atheist.Tritium6 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. You wanted to add the sentence "The first individuals to self-identify as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century; today, about 3.8% of the world's population describes itself as strong atheist, while 18.5% describes itself as either strong or weak atheist."

I think I missed the point tooTritium6 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"18.5% describes itself as either strong or weak atheist" is incorrect. 18.5% might be classified as implicit atheist, but they certainly wouldn't describe themselves as either a "weak" or "strong" atheist. johnpseudo 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Zero interest-rate policy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Zero interest-rate policy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. greenrd (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tritium6. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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