Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages by four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: We, Wikipedians, dislike fragmented discussions. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page, my talk page, as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Short DescriptionEdit

This article was listed in the category Articles with long short description. See here

With short descriptions, we have a situation where we are aiming to have a maximum of 40 characters. The driving reason is that the short description is displayed on the mobile access to the article in a search result. 65% of access to Wikipedia is now via mobile devices or tablets. With courtesy, your reversion somewhat defeats that objective to display a short description that is readable on the mobile device. Descriptions over 40 characters get chopped off. In this instance, your guidance is sought. What form of short description would you consider appropriate? --Whiteguru (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Whiteguru: Fair enough. I reverted because a nonsensical short description is worse than useless for those users. I agree that the pre-existing text was too long, which is why I then cut it down, but apparently not by enough. 40 characters is really short. I'll have a think to see if I can come up with a briefer description, but am struggling to do so. Some scientific topics cannot be explained to non-experts in such a brief phrase. (For anyone wondering what we're talking about, see [1] and [2]) Modest Genius talk 11:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from. You should see some of the chemical compounds we have to deal with. Same problem, trying to get to a reasonable description with common sense. Thanks for your efforts. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Steven Weinberg ITNEdit

Since you have a scientific background, I think it should be a blurb Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I commented at WP:ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 10:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Antony HewishEdit

On 16 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Antony Hewish, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


I suggest you actually read the RfC. It certainly did not conclude that the template should not be changed. It concluded that either size was okay: which means the original size when the postnoms were added should be retained, not the size when the template was first used (given some editors applied the template to thousands of articles that already had postnoms, that would mean that the small size was preferred over the normal size - not what the RfC conclusion said). However, I can't be bothered to argue further. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: I did read the RfC. The original question (which you wrote!) refers specifically to the template: "should we keep the template default for the size of post-nominal letters at 85% or increase it to 100%?". The outcome was 'no consensus' and the closing rationale stated "status quo ante should remain with the template default at 85%" and recommended "seeking consensus on the talk page before changing the size in an individual article (either to or from the default)". I agree that this isn't worth arguing about, and suggest it's not worth changing in articles either. Modest Genius talk 11:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Applying the template to an article that already has 100% postnoms without changing the size to 100% is changing the size! Nowhere does it say "after the template has been applied"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The template was added to the article in 2017. The RfC wasn't until 2019. Modest Genius talk 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter messageEdit

 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) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion pages.Edit

What if the page im trying to voice concerns on have been locked? What forum do I have to voice concerns? Skeszler92 (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Skeszler92: You can still post on the article talk page even if the article itself has been protected. Modest Genius talk 17:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)