User talk:The Mysterious El Willstro

Welcome to Wikipedia, The Mysterious El Willstro! I am User name one and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

username 1 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...For your contribution to the article human's discussion page! Chrisrus (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC) By the way, do we really need the words about us eating "inorganic material"? What can it mean? Salt and such? I can't think of any other orgainic material that we eat. If you wish to respond to this latter idea, please do so on that page, not here, because there's a place there where I asked this same question and no one has responded yet, and I'd like some support for removing those few words before I go ahead and do it, so that's why I'd prefer you answered at the end of that thread, if you would like to. Chrisrus (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm always glad to make useful contributions. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this RfC wrapped up. As it is, it is very unclear where we stand on it. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read some of your posts in Homo sapiens and thought you might be interested in lending a hand in human ecology. I started re-working the article a few weeks ago - it was in terrible shape when I started. Anyway, it seemed like a topic that you would be interested in and would like to attract some help.Thompsma (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just might take a gander at that Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm one of the primary editors on Alpha Phi Omega and List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters and work quite a bit with Greek Letter Organization pages. I've made some comments on the talk page and I also reported the timeline as a Copyright Violation of the Timeline page at tri-beta.org, but there is a lot from that page especially on the conventions and on the Chinese chapters that could be readded with the Timeline as a reference. I'd love to be able to pull the chapter list from somewhere other than one that is alphabetical by schoolname (like at http://www.tri-beta.org/localchapters.html) but I don't see anywhere on the web for that. Also, preferably to me, original chartering date would be the date listed for a school. Let me know how I can help.Naraht (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let me just point out that I am not the one who copied that whole timeline from the site. I did try to make the best of the situation by re-framing it as an extended quote (there was an edit by me, later reverted, that changed the Section Title to "Timeline (Quoted from official Website)"). At any rate, I have been using the National Website as the source, and as for alphabetically by school versus by chapter letters, I'm rearranging it myself (which is why it is taking so long). For better or for worse, the National Website lists chartering dates by current charter even if the chapter was disbanded and later reinstated at some point. It would be nice to be able to avoid that, but I can't find a source that does, and I know this must be the case because that's the only reason they wouldn't all correspond with where the chapter letters fall in the Greek Alphabet.

In case you're wondering, I'm a TriBeta Brother myself (Rho Beta Chapter), which is why I've undertaken our (my own honor society's) chapter list to bring it up to speed with articles on other Greek (academic, service, and social) organizations.

You are perfectly welcome to help by expanding the Chapter List using the National Website [1]. Now that I started it and established the format, help expanding it would be nice. :-) If you do, I would recommend doing only 24 chapters in one sitting (from Gamma Alpha Chapter to Gamma Omega Chapter, take a break, Delta Alpha to Delta Omega, and so forth). This organization has 553 chapters after all, so don't exhaust yourself typing the list. I will continue working on it as well. :-) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not even sure that the letter order is anything close to what is best. I'm looking through the list of chapters in Baird's and while the first 20 or so chapters were mostly single letters, there is a point in the 1930s where the chapter names just went *nuts*. For example, in 1932, Alpha Mu at Western Maryland, Alpha Upsilon @ American University, and Sigma Tau @ Southern Methodist. One of the ones in 1935 is Lambda Phi @ Lake Forest followed by Mu Sigma at Mississippi State. It looks like for a while they tried to give Greek letters corresponding to the name of the school for a while. To use a more venacular term "Hot mess".Naraht (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first 24 chapters were single letters to be exact. The now-disbanded Omega Chapter is referred to on this Fraternity's own Website.

Also, I tried to find BBB in Baird's and was unable to do so. How did you find our Article in Baird's exactly? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I own several editions of Baird's including those made too recently to be put to google books.Naraht (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might order whatever Baird's edition is currently in print, although I hesitate since the most recent one I've been able to find is from 1990 for some reason. Maybe Google just isn't the place to look. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted some Sections of my User Talk Page. This is not for negative comments, as novices often do, but rather it is because I feel that these Sections, especially the one about geographic comparison between China and the USA but others as well, would have been more relevant on an Article's Talk Page, as opposed to a Member's Talk Page. You can always dig through the Page History if you wish to do so. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In April, you posted a comment on Talk:List of current pretenders about former Indian princely rulers. You also gave a link to a mirror website containing my original article. If you want a copy of that article in wiki markup, I can email it to you. I've been meaning to work on the sourcing myself in order to have it restored. Nightw 23:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Privately, I suspected the site may have been a clone of the now-deleted Article here on Wiki. For partly this reason, I didn't say it was a wonderful source; I only said it was better than nothing at all.

Yeah, we can both keep an eye peeled for better sources, and hopefully some others will do the same. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By way of introduction, I am User:Brendan_Oisin, a relative newcomer to Wikipedia (WP). I respectfully request your guidance.

This is intended to initiate suggestion for a change to an article with which I believe you are associated - "Pretender" (and more specifically, its section of "List of current pretenders"). Within that list, my suggestion pertains to the Ireland sub-section, and the addition of Liam Trant MacCarthy Mór, Prince of Desmond, to the current listing of pretenders to Gaelic-Irish historic monarchies.

Rather than make the direct edit to the article _first_, I have prepared the proposed change on my User Sandbox, where I can also present notes and references to help support the basis for this proposed addition to the list, and to provide a venue for any questions and/or discussion that might be required _before_ such an edit might be accepted or contested.

If this approach is agreeable to you, please see what I propose at User:Brendan_Oisin/sandbox . Please indicate, on my Talk page, whether you feel my proposed edit is acceptable as it is, or what might be required to make it so. Of course, I will be pleased to respond to any questions, or need for further information, you may have. Thank you, in advance, for your courtesy.

Respectfully Yours, Brendan Oisin (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To: Hazard-SJ Night w The Mysterious El Willstro Yopie  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan Oisin (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]  

I added the law codes to the page, and you're right about the Constitution, of course. In fact Article II starts with "The executive Power shall be invested in a President of the United States of America." Article VII closes with a reference to "the Independence of the United States of America..".VictorD7 (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, that's at least 3 places in the Constitution using the full name, the Preamble and Articles II and VII. I still can't remember if this is also found in some of the Amendments. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a small remark about your !vote at the Volume! AfD. You wrote that "2 other WikiProjects concluded it was notable enough to include in their respective projects". This is a misunderstanding of what projects do. Often, when I think something is not notable, I PROD an article, but then I will still tag that article for the appropriate project, so that the ArticleAlertbot will notify them and editors knowledgeable of the subject can have a look at it. A project tag doesn't mean anything else than that an article falls withing the interest zone of the project, so that has nothing to do with notability. In addition, anybody can add such banners, whether they are members of a project or not, making the presence or absence of a banner even less significant. The AfD has closed as keep (as it should), so this is not immediately important, but I thought it might be helpful to explain this. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My vote was Keep as well, so it's almost a moot point if you think that Keep decision was what should have happened anyway. Thanks, nevertheless. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, I used Archive Hats when closing a Talk Page Section, as opposed to regular Archive Tops. That's because at the time I only knew the syntax for a Hat. Now that I know both syntaxes, I will use Hats only for Sections that are inappropriate in the first place, and Archive Tops for all other closures. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hola El Willstro, I found your proposal/discussion on version history tables in village pump. I am very happy that there are more people who think alike, regarding standardized layout. Please have a look at Template:Version, which was transferred from german WP. I translated it and soon I will try to establish it as a standard template for software articles, section release history. If you support this development, please comment on the templates talk page. I will rewrite the proposal now, but basically I try to gather as much opinions as possible before introducing it to a greater audience. --Jesus Presley (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this took 2 days. I've been busy.

Anyway, to answer your question I'm basically in favor, but with a minor change to the color code. I believe we should model the standard release history color code after the one that was already used in the Firefox Article (and until recently the Dreamweaver Article, but not there any more). This code uses Blue for future release and Yellow for old releases still supported, but the other 2 colors are the same.

Here are the advantages of this slightly different color code compared with the one you found on the German Wikipedia:

A. Yellow is in between Green and Red the same as a traffic light. It's almost as though a single version of the program being discussed would move up a traffic light as it ages.

B. Blue comes after Green on a rainbow, so if a particular table even shows future releases (and only certain tables are going to show that, largely for open-source software), a single version would move up either a rainbow or a traffic light over time.

C. Green and Yellow are just that much more distinct than 2 different shades of Green. On a color code with only 4 values (fewer statuses to color code than the 6 Basic Colors), it is best to make our colors of choice as distinct as possible.

So, I'm very much still in favor of standardizing a color code for Version History Tables of software Articles, but with the following color code instead:

Blue for Future Release

Green for Current Version

Yellow for Old Version but Still Supported

Red for Old Version No Longer Supported

Do you see the elegance of this code and making it standard? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The Mysterious El Willstro. You participated at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of endangered species threatened by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill discussion. The result of that discussion was to merge the List of endangered species threatened by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The list was merged. However, there is a related discussion if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Relevant sections for this discussion are this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I commented there. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point as to whether names in a cladogram are captions or not. In many cladograms, informal names like "eukaryotes" are written with a lower-case first letter to show that they are informal, as opposed to formal scientific names like "Eukaryota". It does seem a somewhat useful convention. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's no different than the 1st word in a cell of a table, or the 1st word in the caption of a picture or illustration. Furthermore, the even more informal term "Green plants" capitalized the 1st word already, even before I made those changes. So, as long as it's the 1st word on that particular line, I'd argue to capitalize. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should certainly be consistent. I don't think that words within a diagram are the same as captions; the way the template sets out cladograms puts the text in horizontal lines, but other cladograms in Wikipedia are images, in which this may not be true. I would suggest not changing consistent uses. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except it wasn't consistent. The phrase "Green plants," which is also an informal term, in fact even more informal than "eukaryotes," was already capitalized as it happens. Same with "Red algae," come to think of it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that if you find consistent uses, I would suggest not changing them. This cladogram wasn't consistent and did need sorting, one way or the other. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite all right. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Mysterious El Willstro. You have new messages at Talk:Last universal ancestor.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on Talk:Last universal ancestor. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in Phi Sigma Alpha. Unfortunately I am not allowed to publish my fraternity's constitution. I will see if I can find a source to one of the last initiations with law students (I was running it) and see if I can share it. Regards El Johnson (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Phi Kappa Tau's Constitution, they can also induct graduate students at least in some cases. This being said, we would still appreciate your following up with a source on Phi Sigma Alpha (your frat). More sources for a statement are always better together. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Secular Order of Druids. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Murder of Trayvon Martin. Since you had some involvement with the Murder of Trayvon Martin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm A guy saved by Jesus. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Creepypasta, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Creepypasta, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Creepypasta shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--McGeddon (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the Jared Fogle citation list. I went through each of the citations in Jared Fogle#Criminal investigation and plea agreement. I also did a text search of the current revision for the string "cdn.turner.com/cnn/". I am unable to find a direct link to the documents.

Any link to a newspaper/secondary source article which talks about the documents, even if it embeds the documents, doesn't count. It's necessary to have a direct link. It's necessary to make the links easy and obvious for the reader.

Please understand that sometimes major primary sources (say investigation reports of a major air accident) should be prominently linked from the "Sources cited" (non-reflist) and/or external links of some articles even if the documents are actually cited in the body of the text. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was kind of a typo looking through the Edit History. I was responding to a Revert of another Edit of a completely different Section I had made earlier, thinking that Revert would be at the top and not digging much deeper to see that such was the case. Sorry about that. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now. It's Ok :) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please monitor the Ad Council page as someone is removing cited NPOV material. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The reason for reverting the link to Category:Cambodian companies disestablished in 2007 was that despite having thousands of articles on defunct companies, we don't seem to have any other categories of that form. As you say it would seem a natural partner to the establishment categories, so the fact that we don't have disestablisment categories means that it will certainly have been discussed somewhere and a positive decision made to reject the idea, rather than just noone thinking to do it. I'd guess the main reason is that such categories will naturally be WP:SMALLCATs, which would be better organised by having more general categories that anyone interested can analyse by intersection of the two bigger categories. If you want to take this to WP:CFD then be my guest, that's the place to discuss this further. Le Deluge (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about this edit. Looks like you were trying to refresh the article cache in order to see an update template after this update.

If you want a page refresh for a template, you can perform a null edit (Save with no content change) or Purge (Under Preferences->Gadget there is a checkbox to add a purge link, which makes Wikipedia refresh the article cache). But this isn't necessary unless you're in a hurry to fix an issue, Wikipedia will usually refresh the article cache, usually within 10 minutes I'd say. -- ferret (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't commend you enough for your edit, it really makes the page more thematic now that you've linked the series release history timeline the colours of Xenoblade Chronicles. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The article Shallow pan of food has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

nonsensical creation, none of these dishes are known as "shallow pan of food", nor is it a plausible search term for any such cookware.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shallow pan of food is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shallow pan of food until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'm busy in real life with a Master's Thesis on crayfish behavior and pharmaceutical pollution. Here are the few significant results.

The project is almost done! I'm so excited. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite incorrect in your edit comment that "Wikipedia Articles have the format I wrote earlier, and the Style Guide supports that. There's a reason for it." In fact, Wikipedia:Citing_sources#WP:CITEVAR supports many variations of citation styles, and most strongly supports the way that the editors of an article have already established it.

Variation in citation methods

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article.

Further, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Notes_and_references gives some different examples. The very screenshot that they use shows the very method you keep removing, that of "Notes" followed by "References." First Light (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So that part of the Manual of Style must have been revised after I last read it. Anyway, did you check the YouTube Article, which I cited as precedence for the compromise I later offered? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I posted here? "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." The Arbitration Committee goes even further, when they state that editors should not "edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike." Considering that your only edit to the Kali article was to change the reference formatting to your preferred way means that you are going against the Arbitration Committee and a Wikipedia guideline. And it doesn't matter what other articles do: "Editors should not attempt to . . . make it match other articles,..." How is that not clear? First Light (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't historically my only edit on that Article. Dig deeper in the Article History. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that only leaves the following reasons for leaving the article alone: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference"; "to make it match other articles"; "without first seeking consensus for the change." I may have not dug deep enough, but your only interest in the Kali article seems to have been a previous attempt to completely confuse and merge notes/references/further reading. First Light (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I, Jamesjpk (talk), would like to invite you to join WikiProject YouTube! We're working on: Writing, cleaning up, and expanding articles about YouTube, in particular, these articles Putting {{WikiProject YouTube}} on the talk pages of articles involving YouTube, and assessing articles with the template. This helps to categorize articles! Sourcing BLP's affiliated with YouTube Updating the project page, and spreading word about the project and more! It seems you might be interested, so please stop by! Thank you. You were given this message because of your involvement in the YouTube article.

Hi, I've never had an wikipediaaccount before so not sure this is the right way to go about, but I saw a comment you made in 2010 on the "female" talk-page about the definition of female/male sex and had some questions about it. Now I don't know if you get some kind of notification from me writing there? As I would be really enjoy an answer I thought I could write here as well, sorry if it's not the way things are meant to be done :) Raptorialforetarsi (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From each germ line (precursor cell), a male produces 4 equal gametes (sperm). A female produces 1 dominant gamete (the egg) and 3 with only a nucleus and membrane but no cytoplasm (polar cells, also known as "polar bodies"). This is the true definition of male and female.

What exactly is your question? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the meaning of this definition but as I wrote on the female talk-page (perhaps I should have copy pasted it here) I'm interested to know if you have any source (preferably a scientific article) that states this is the true definition. Mainly because I would like to be able to reference such a claim in a paper Im writing :) Raptorialforetarsi (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shit load of fuck. Since you had some involvement with the Shit load of fuck redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PRehse (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Inside the Great Deku Tree. Since you had some involvement with the Inside the Great Deku Tree redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nooo. Since you had some involvement with the Nooo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marge Be Not Proud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Millhouse (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) 09:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The link is now piped, with a corrected spelling. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_cU6tZFe9LmXNm2F&Q_CHL=gl

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

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jew York Times. Since you had some involvement with the Jew York Times redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good work cleaning up the "Zero" and "Fractions" sections. I don't think they have been touched for ages! Beware of fanciful "blog" and "blog-like" sources that have misled some other editors here - but there are one or two minor factual tweaks (if you can find good citations) that would further improve these two sections. It is not altogether clear from our text here that N was not used in Roman times, nor is it part of "current usage" (not counting pharmacists for the moment!). Even in medieval times it never served as a "place keeping" zero, but as a numeral symbol for "nothing". Inscribed fractional symbols do not seem to have been used apart from small coinage - although that I am not so certain about. Modern usage (again apart from pharmacists) dictates that Roman numerals are used only for integers. I have been meaning to work on both of these, but the necessity to "defend" the article hasn't left much time and energy for that sort of thing! Still might, if I can find a moment. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Cambodian companies disestablished in 2007 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

IceBergYYC (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Donald the Clown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Misandry for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Mysterious El Willstro

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Rusalkii and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect He ate him, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 16 § He ate him.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rusalkii}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Rusalkii (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The similar redirects He ate her, She ate her and She ate him have been added to that discussion too. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metallic means are precisely represented by primitive Pythagorean triples.

In a primitive Pythagorean triple, if the difference between hypotenuse and longer leg is 1, 2 or 8, such Pythagorean triple represents one particular metallic mean. The cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of such Pythagorean triangle equals the precise value of one particular metallic mean.

In a primitive Pythagorean triple (a,b,c), if c - b = 1, 2 or 8, the Pythagorean triangle (a,b,c) exhibits a particular metallic mean ${\displaystyle S_{m}}$,

where ${\displaystyle m=2{\sqrt {(c+b)/(c-b)}}}$

and the Metallic Mean ${\displaystyle S_{m}=cot({\frac {\theta }{4}})}$ where θ is the smaller acute angle of the Pythagorean triangle.

For example, the primitive Pythagorean triple 20-21-29 incorporates the 5th metallic mean. Cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of the 20-21-29 Pythagorean triangle yields the precise value of the 5th metallic mean. Similarly, the Pythagorean triangle 3-4-5 represents the 6th metallic mean. Likewise, the Pythagorean triple 12-35-37 gives the 12th metallic mean, the Pythagorean triple 52-165-173 yields the 13th metallic mean, and so on. ^[1] 152.58.20.112 (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[EDIT: In case not obvious, I meant to do this edit at MY page to get your attention, feel free to delete all here, or answer whereever.] Hi The_Mysterious_El_Willstro, I was asked this and then you (same text seemingly) by same IP 152.58.20.112 possibly to avoid WP:COI edit, and then the IP number deleted (I'm restoring here). I suppose I was asked because I probable edited that page at some point, but I'm no expert on it. I'm busy now, but I may look it over if you don't. COI is bad, I'm not sure asking others is considered bad, it might be ok, I would still need some judgement to see if this might be good research/math, correct proof, haven't really looked yet. I would be more cautious with anything than math, but it's either right or wrong... comp.arch (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]