Thanks for you principled standEdit

  The Barnstar of Integrity
For your principled opposition to defamatory synthesis μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


The P. Papers item should never have been posted at ITN, it is pure synthesis (offshore > evil) and violates WP:BLP and a host of other policies. I didn't get involved for the mere reason that opposing SJW presumptions gets you nothing but enemies. Some of us have age and or reason to teach us that salacious headlines are not guilty verdicts.

Bravo! for your (censored) effort at a mature approach to a tabloid meme that has already disappeared from public consciousness. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case openedEdit

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Murder of Kim WallEdit

 On 26 April 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Murder of Kim Wall, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I thanked you twice by mistakeEdit

Sorry, if you're wondering why you have two thanks from me in quick succession, the first one (for Trump-Kim) was a mistake. The second one (your reasons for supporting posting the French Open to ITN) was the one I intended to thank you for. I guess I might as well now add a 'Support per Banedon', even though it's almost certainly a waste of time.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Schrepfer incomplete sentenceEdit

Thanks for pointing out this mistake. It turned out that more than just one word was missing. I've fixed it.Joortje1 (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Modern practice in the QGAEdit

I reverted the "In modern practice" qualifier in Queen's Gambit Accepted because I didn't think it was correct. But I looked at the article again, and it does claim that it was common for Black to try to hold the gambit pawn before 1886. I am a little dubious about this, but quite possibly I am wrong. The article is very specific that it was the 1886 WC match and this seems very unlikely to be random original research added by an editor on a whim. I'm not sure that the current formulation "Black usually allows the pawn to be recaptured" is the best either. I think we should find a source that says something that can be used to directly support some version of the sentence and use that if we can. Quale (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Quale: I'd put that on the talk page, since MaxBrowne's clearly also watching the page and we might as well centralize the discussion there. Banedon (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Many hands...Edit

Hopefully this is more like what you wanted to say, in your change to The New York Journal of Mathematics? Shenme (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Parapsychology Request for CommentEdit

Thank you for participating in the parapsychology request for comment. Can you please clarify your intention for me? You have placed your vote in support but your explanation seems to indicate oppose. Do you mean that reliable sources should be excluded or included? The question is "Should reliable sources that defend parapsychology be excluded altogether?" So support means exclude and oppose means include. Thank you. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Users left feedback they they didn't the the RfC was neutral enough. I have closed it and opened a new one here Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Banedon. 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)

Unbeaten streaks in competitive chessEdit

I've tried verifying the figures previously given at List of world records in chess, but, stumbled when attempting to use the official FIDE rating calculation details for Wang Yue. If you sum up the games from the 2nd round of the 2008 Reykjavík Open through the end of the Dresden Olympiad, you only obtain 74 games, in contrast to the ChessBase source long cited on Wang Yue's page here. Chessgames.com matches the results of FIDE except for the exclusion of two events in 2nd Quarter 2008 (13 games total), but it includes the Russia–China Match held in September of that year in Ningbo, from which Wang Yue played 5 games. So, even if one takes the union of the games from FIDE's calculations and Chessgames.com, that results in 79 games. Where are the remaining 3? 365Chess doesn't even include the 2008 Reykjavík Open, so no use searching there. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: Strongly suggest putting that on the article's talk page - there'll be more people who are watching that. The short answer is: I don't know. Banedon (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

OoopsEdit

I accidentally left a welcome message on your sandbox talk page. Sorry about that! S0091 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Hachimoji DNAEdit

 On 24 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hachimoji DNA, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 04:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you SO MUCH for nominating this! I learned a lot! :D ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 04:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome but thank Drbogdan - he updated the article after all =) Banedon (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

About pingsEdit

Hi, Banedon. Re this: I'm afraid that won't ping OR. If you want to add a ping to a comment you have previously written, it won't work to merely add the editor's name in a template. You need to start a new line, and sign again. See WP:PING: if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent. Bolding in the original. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 23:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC).

RefactorEdit

Please refactor your remark.[1] You don't get to call other editors "delusional". Are you a psychiatrist? Did you examine this person? Did they give you permission to make public statments about their mental condition? I guessing your answers are "no", "no" and "no". Try the words "misinformed" or "mistaken" instead. Jehochman Talk 01:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Trial of Catalonia independence leadersEdit

 On 16 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Trial of Catalonia independence leaders, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 Hong Kong protestsEdit

 On 3 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Hong Kong protests, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

"Proposed" On Dark MatterEdit

"Proposed" On Dark Matter:

I may be interpreting Wikipedia wrongly. It is my belief that Wikipedia strives to be a concise online encyclopedia that reports as accurate information on subjects as possible. During the dispute of whether or not Dark Matter is a proposed form of matter, you cite a university page that never says whether or not dark matter is surely a form of matter. It is true that there exists dark matter that is dust that is unseen by our observations. What I believe you do not understand is the Dark Matter Problem. As a university student in Astronomy and Astrophysics I would like to educate you on what exactly is taught in university on the DM Problem. Firstly, the dark matter problem refers to what you must have read on the Wikipedia page for Dark Matter; simply put, galactic scale features of the universe do not behave as we expect from our current theories. The reason I strive so much to convince you that DM is a Italic textproposed form of matter is because a dark matter particle has not yet been found, thus leaving open the possibility that the Dark Matter Problem is in fact solved in another form such as MOND, which, simply put, prescribes that we do not understand gravity as well as we thought we do and there does not actually exist any new type of "dark matter". It is worth noting that I subscribe to the theory that there does indeed some new type of matter that is DM, however this has not been proven and thus should be referenced as uncertain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npavanel (talkcontribs) 21:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Npavanel: This is more suited to the talk page in the Dark Matter article. I'm 100% sure dark matter is a form of matter - if you haven't learned this yet, you'll learn it eventually (definitely by 4th year when you start taking cosmology courses). See the technical definition section in the dark matter article. Most galactic scale features of the universe are well-explained by dark matter. There are small tensions (e.g. Cuspy halo problem) but Lambda-CDM remains the standard model of cosmology. You are presumably thinking about rotation curves, which is one of the very few things modified gravity can conceivably explain better than dark matter, but it is only one line of evidence. I remind you that there are tons of other lines of evidence for dark matter that MOND is amazingly bad at explaining - e.g. the CMB angular power spectrum. If you are a university student in astronomy & astrophysics, I'd recommend you speak to your professors, who'd be able to tell you a lot more. Banedon (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Banedon: Npavanel 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I am extremely new to editing on Wikipedia so I apologize for the lack of etiquette. As a fourth year student who is actively researching the possible effects that dark matter substructure has onto globular clusters I agree with you on almost all of what you're saying. I agree that there exists lots of convincing evidence for dark matter, that Lambda-CDM is the standard model of cosmology, and that MOND is very bad at describing everything that we observe. Further, I would like to state that I myself do not believe MOND to be an accurate description of reality, but I do recognize that it is still possibly (although less so than Lambda-CDM) the correct solution. The fact that as of now there is no proven solution is crucial. What I initially disagreed with, and am now recognizing might be my own misunderstanding, is the following (I hope you do not mind at possibly educating me here on the matter?): I do not understand how a differently defined gravity is equivalent to a new type of matter. You seem confident that it is because, even in the case of MOND, this newly defined gravity is still created by something whose energy density scales with the inverse cube of the scale factor? Unless I am mistaken I took MOND to say that there does not exist any new dark matter, and that a different gravity could be the solution.

@Npavanel: problem with this is, if you use the word possible in this way, then lots of things become possible. It's possible that the Hubble constant is actually 100 km/s/Mpc, for example, it's just many sigmas away. Similarly it is possible that Relativity is wrong and the Michelson-Morley experiment had discovered aether in 1887 [2]. As mentioned on the talk page, the number of people working on dark matter outnumber those working on modified gravity by roughly 100 to 1. That's big enough that I am against using the word "possible". We can have a WP:RFC on this if you like, although judging by the comments on the talk page, it's not necessary. Banedon (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Banedon: The problem is simply including a single word to be true to reality. What you so ignorantly and stubbornly enforce due to, what only I can conceive as inflamed pride, is ultimately wrong. It doesn't matter if 1,000,000 people are working on DM solutions and zero are working on modified gravity; the truth is the truth and the page can be set true with a single word. As for starting a WP:RFC I would be glad if you started one on the Dark Matter talk page (as I said I am relatively new to Wiki edits and HTML, and have just figured how to reply and sign posts(hopefully)). It seems what has been written there already could easily be remedied with the inclusion of the word 'proposed'. Npavanel (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@Npavanel: I notified the three related WikiProjects (Astronomy, Cosmology & Physics), see what others say. Banedon (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Update on AlphaZero versionEdit

Regarding your revert of my correction on Stockfish version that was defeated by AlphaZero, please read the update in the article. It's the sixth paragraph, and reads as follows:

[Update: Today's release of the full journal article specifies that the match was against the latest development version of Stockfish as of Jan. 13, 2018, which was Stockfish 9.]

Coastside (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

ITN recognition for 2019–20 Australian bushfire seasonEdit

 On 1 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019–20 Australian bushfire season, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. 41.114.178.61 (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019–20 Australian bushfire seasonEdit

 On 1 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019–20 Australian bushfire season, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. 41.114.178.61 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case openedEdit

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 28, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 05:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Steinitz under "longest unbeaten streak"Edit

See Talk:List of world records in chess#Mention of Steinitz under "longest unbeaten streak". Adpete (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Impeachment of Donald TrumpEdit

 On 16 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Impeachment of Donald Trump, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Earlier TCEC Season ArticlesEdit

I've seen that you've created articles for TCEC Season 14, TCEC Season 15, TCEC Season 16, and TCEC Season 17. Would it be possible to create articles for TCEC seasons 1-13? 73.168.5.183 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, TCEC Season 14 is missing the results tables.
@73.168.5.183: it's kinda hard to create articles for these old seasons ... there's a lack of sources, and seasons 12-13 weren't that interesting anyway (it was just Stockfish pummeling everyone). If you want to write them though, feel free! (As well as adding tables to the season 14 article). Banedon (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"No reason given"Edit

Watch the film, or at least search for the character's correct name before changing it wrongly. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 11:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If you're watching the page, I fixed the other instance of the typo. You should still give a reason for reverting, it's just good practice. Banedon (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
A good practice that does not need to be used to explain something quite obvious and simple. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 11:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Heh, so much for WP:REVEXP. Banedon (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Dark matterEdit

Not sure why you reverted my edit. I didn't say dark matter interacts with electromagnetism. In fact, I said the opposite. Anyway, "Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and so it is undetectable by existing astronomical instruments," this is wrong.

It does interact with light through gravity. That's how we know they exist in the first place.
A more scientific correct statement is "Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with electromagnetic force, which means it doesn't emit light, so it is undetectable by existing astronomical instruments." You reverted this, why? 14.169.212.251 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
You're right, I changed the sentence to be more precise. Banedon (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: TCEC Season 19 has been acceptedEdit

TCEC Season 19, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Kaldari (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)