User talk:Fmadd - Knowledge (XXG)

3451:

article would be appropriate as an example of a computer storage system. A more extreme example might be linking to in an article discussing some geographical feature within the US (in fact such links are specifically frowned upon by policy). Obviously, in between these examples there are going to be numerous examples of where the link should be obviously appropriate or inappropriate, but in between there will be examples that could be construed as a grey area. In such cases, if you do not believe it to be inappropriate, add it but accept others judgement if you are reverted. You will probably find that borderline inappropriate often goes unchallenged - at least for some time.

1273:. The third does not give a reference of which variant it is talking about. Moore is one of the authors of X-means, which is one of the widely known hierarchical k-means variants (already in the article!). I don't doubt that hierarchical k-means variations exist (they are already there), but that the particular one that you added (which appears to lack peer-review) is notable - it is a 2004 reinvention of a wheel already discussed in 1997 and 2000 by others. The most notable version is probably x-means, from 2000, because it contributes some novel ideas beyond non-notable ideas such as "hey, I can run k-means multiple times". 4090:. I know you are editing in good faith, but "industrial civilization" (a kind of society) does not have the same meaning as "industrialization" (a historical process). The concepts are related, but many of the links you are creating to the redirect page are probably inappropriate. It is especially inappropriate to create a link within the title of a book, without having read that book to be sure that you know what the author means, precisely, by "industrial civilization". And after creating all these links, it is not really fair to go, as you have done, to the 2910: 4031: 3870:, and I have explained in full my edits. Both these statements were chosen very carefully to counteract the continuous unnecessary edits (mostly by either novices or unregistered users) and make the page stable. Furthermore, if you do wish to change this, you must discuss it on the Talkpage, and also need to gain consensus to do so. (So far, you have not engaged with this adopted policy of basic editing processes.) Thanks. 4214: 2813:, which completely restructures an article, it should not be marked as minor, and must at a minimum be accompanied by an edit summary. Ordinarily such edits are usually also accompanied by an explanation on the talk page. Furthermore, leads are not supposed to be this short. The lead should be several paragraphs long, and can serve as an independent capsule version of the article that summarizes its main points. See 5319: 4872: 4703: 4424: 3731: 3593: 1812: 2398: 3466:

with a way to prioritize links in this platform. The links themselves give the system more information to work with (natural language text is hugely difficult for machines to deal with, and these links are free labels which should help). Surely creating link are an interesting means of discovery, *both ways* ('what links here'). There is emergent intelligence beyond our direct, individual input.

3420:. Adding wikilinks for well understood words and phrases is undesirable. This is particularly the case if the link takes you to an article that does not further the reader's understanding of the original article's subject. Even if a link is appropriate, it should not take the reader to a disambiguation page but direct to the appropriate article or, if appropriate, section within an article. 4113:. unfortunately no single page has the exact right meaning (society!=civilization), and i bet if we try to make 'industrial civilization' an actual page people will delete it. civ/soc have different connotations to me.. one is more about social/culture/economucs, the other more about big scale technological systems, industrial agriculture, etc. Take a look at the talk page on the redirect. 4976: 2616: 649: 3497: 4642: 1591: 4270:"chemistry-jargon", "physics-jargon", "computing-jargon") which all those redirects could be classified under .. they could be neutralised in the default colour-scheme. I'm not a webdev, I haven't looked how wikipedia's underlying software works .. I'm sure way more could be done server-side, and you could make something that adapts to a user's own knowledge base 3260: 1704: 575: 5264: 5221: 5186: 5144: 5103: 5058: 4757: 4597: 3981: 3688: 3647: 1900: 1859: 4250:

Because everyone else does not want such a facility. Of course: if you believe other users could be persuaded that such a change would be a good idea, then the correct course of action is to open an appropriate discussion at a suitable venue and garner consensus rather than just blunder ahead and try

1397:

I didn't merge anything before (and wasn't on such a spree as in the past few weeks). I only did so here because I took an interest in that page. I already have it in my head from experience that i'm going to run into notability guidelines or overlap with existing material, when all I'm really trying

1348:

I learned to focus on the glossary: stubs were more likely to get deleted. There's also much more chance of argument if I try to re-organize other peoples articles putting definitions there. Simple terms either don't deserve an article, or are destined for merge. "it appears you've only been here

3946:

ok, but any controversy points to ways in which a system can be improved. Can you help get behind suggestions to alleviate this supposed 'overlinking' hazard automatically; if it could be quantified, the edit could warn you, or even reject changes. ("too many links in this region"). Just imagine how

3465:

Hugely grey area: you just said is self evident but there's a distinction between 'native' and 'apparent' capacity, which can be clarified at the link. The existing term 'storage capacity' seems to have existing use in other circles. Instead of fretting about overlinking, shouldn't we be coming up

3435:

ok, but what is "well understood"? links to Disambiguation seem useful as 'work in progress', because people can clarify the context. I'm going through physics etc articles which have huge amounts of jargon. Would it be possible to handle 'overlinking' hazard another way, by some weighting of the

3052:

What are you on about? The admin in question last made 23 edits (out of a total of 23 edits) without leaving an edit summary in the last 24 hours, the last of which was just over 2 hours ago not '12 years' as you claim. I did not cite any RfA so that point is invalid. Your link to some random RfA

4269:

That thing you showed me is quite interesting. Why didn't you show me it earlier? I've seen it can hide links to 'articles marked for deletion'. It does seem driven by category (because you can highlight stubs, 'seti-indices'). There could be a category for 'trivial jargon' in various domains (e.g.

4157:

fair enough, but I would hope this platform can gain an ability to prioritize links (they could be rendered in different shades). Imagine a formal way of specifying 'pre-requisites' for articles, with something in user profiles to track which ones you say you're already familiar with. ('you should

3561:

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

3372:

yeah, thats kind of why I thought 'storage capacity' should be disambiguation, incase it carries specific connotations. in retrospect maybe I shouldn't have blitzed a load of links. But what's was going through my mind is: that when you see a phrase from another domain , you might carry across the

3336:

I see that you have made a lot of links on the subject. I created the article because in energy parlance there are definitions not so obvious (if you are in computing, you could think about the difference between 1K=1024 and 1000). After I moved the definition to a more specific page, making place

2675:

708:

4544:

linked by articles on 'remote control locomotives', 'remote control submarines', etc. The article itself clearly started out as 'completely general remote control' , then got narrowed down to 'consumer electronics remote' . There's another article "teleoperation", but there's intermediate cases

1417:

You don't have to have actually merged anything before; I'm surprised that in ten years you've never even seen it happen and noticed how it's been done. Another thing I'm surprised you haven't absorbed in ten years is the fact that one positive comment in a discussion does not a consensus make.

1330:

For example - a term that previously did not have its own article should not be newly represented as an entry in a glossary and a redirect thereto. Instead of a redirect, create a stub article. The stub category will (should) attract editors to help fill it out, where a glossary entry will not.

3450:

As I said, a wikilink should aim to further the reader's understanding of an article subject. To take a topical example, a link to from an article about computer storage systems is inappropriate as the meaning of storage capacity is fairly self evident. However, a link to (say) in the same

3931:

Knowledge (XXG) is not here to satisfy the way you like to use it or believe it should be used. It is a community project and whatever format anything takes has to be achieved by consensus. That is why controversial changes must be discussed on article talk pages. There are lots of things

3884:

I dont want to change the structure. I just like the ability to surf wikipedia (and the fact links label the text for AI training). The more links the better. Can't we have a way of prioritizing or deprioritizing, if they think there is such a think as 'overlinking' ... imagine if links to

2962:

for the full story. Edit summaries are not, and never have been, compulsory. It is true that they help others to see what has been edited. It is also true that vandals rarely leave edit summaries so the lack of one is likely to attract extra attention. But they still ain't compulsory.

4501:. Is a "digital television remote control" really so different from a regular remote control? I wouldn't think so; in fact, the article "Digital television remote control" is just a redirect to "Remote control". I'm going to undo that. Please let me know if you think that's wrong. 1298:

Hi, sorry to trouble you, but I've had to roll back your edits to this article as they are both uncited, and wikilinked to an article which does not seem to provide a ready source of citations for the claim made, or I'd have put in a citation for you. Do recall, please, that

5343:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

2410:

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.

1326:

Looking at your edit history - it appears you've only been here since April? I suggest that you slow down and learn the "culture" and the infrastructure a little better before making so many organizational changes and what-you-see-as improvements.

4898:

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.

4729:

4450:

3757:

3619:

3804:

in the case of 'stellar explosion', is a category another solution? The point is exploratory. Don't you like the ability to surf wikipedia? Also, disambiguation links can be made temporarily, awaiting clarification. Why is this all so hard?

3863:

page, clearly 'stellar explosion' is a general simplification to account for the great plethora of differing mechanisms and outcomes. I.e. "A supernova is a type of stellar explosion." Absolute fact. Is there a more fundamental or simpler

3436:

links. My 'itch' is that the links are data-labels that make wikipedia more valuable as a resource for training AI.. this is a massive , popular data-set available to all. Also going through finding links is a great way for me to explore

1620: 5346:

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 until the discussion has

2656:. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Knowledge (XXG). If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2334:

recently, I noticed that you had added a lot of text that had proper nouns that weren't capitalized. In English, things like names and places must have the first letter capitalized, for example Adobe Photoshop, or Sega Saturn. Thanks!

689:. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Knowledge (XXG). If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 1626: 1371:(2) Exactly the reason - well, one of the reasons - you're encouraged to create an account. (And somehow in ten years you never encountered the requirements for merging articles?) (1) Stubs seldom get deleted right away. 4326:

d e f a u l t. You dont want 'the average user' to see them, great. that is possible. But I don't see why that should limit the exploratory, future-proofing, structural anotation etc. that we can record in wikipedia.

5339: 2438: 4902:

4733:

4454:

3761:

3623:

2680:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request 713:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request 1565:; random or sequential will be understood by wide audience of readers, when specialized and research-level articles will be "stubs" and hidden from main categorization, because they pollute huge topics like 3373:'connotations' and get misled. Or vica versa, are there any decent parallels *between* the domains (which are why similar terms get chosen). Making a disambiguation was kind of a question to the community: 4726: 3070:

Your first paragraph more or less agrees with me. My usage of the word 'compulsory' was as in "Edit summaries are not ... compulsory". What is wrong with that? Or did you not actually read what I wrote?

1633:

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

1455:. Here we go, the friction I run into if I try to make pages. Aren't glossary entries better for simple definitions? I'm pretty sure this will eventually be merged into 'locality of reference' article. 1398:

to do here often is explain a specific term more directly .. and I've already had people complain if I add a glossary to an existing article. I jumped in there because I saw a clear reply "go ahead.."

4312:

And if we're pretending the links aren't there in the first place, then we might as well just remove the links entirely. We're going around in circles, because I've definitely said this a few times.

2646:. First, thank you for your contribution; Knowledge (XXG) relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2422:. 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 679:. First, thank you for your contribution; Knowledge (XXG) relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 4158:

understand these before you understand this article' vs 'these are other interesting things'). Also bear in mind the hovercards feature - it's really easy to just glide around and get an preview.

4447: 2988:- the only person using the word "compulsory" is you. The generally accepted view is, as you acknowledge, that they help others to see what has been edited, as you have in 15 of your 16 edits. 5283: 4612: 3996: 3703: 3662: 2684:. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the 717:. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the 5159: 5118: 5073: 4540:

IMO remote control is a misleading page the lead section makes it sound like it really does just mean 'TV,DVD remote controls (i.e. explicitely short range)', but elsewhere you can find

2688:

and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Knowledge (XXG) looks forward to your future contributions. -

2492:, I prefer the automated mechanism to collect these. Lets see what people prefer. On reflection I might need to qualify with 'british *microcomputers*' there. Feel free to improve. 1595: 5194: 1828: 40:. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Knowledge (XXG). If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place 721:

and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Knowledge (XXG) looks forward to your future contributions.

4933:, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. 1915: 1874: 5233: 4772: 4298:

I'm told 'overlinking' is a hazard because 'it distracts the user from significant links'. If the links that 'offend' were blanked out by default, we wouldn't have a problem.

3754: 60:

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Knowledge (XXG), you might want to consider being "

4895: 4218: 2992: 1680:

Yes people forget things all the time. Maybe wikipedia's version control engine could automatically determine who wrote what, and auto sign in it's rendering of talk pages.

1307:

apply to all claims in all articles, even mathematical ones, and that a bluelink, even to a well-cited article, is not a substitute for an identifiable source. Many thanks.

2883:, I ask you, again, to please provide edit summaries. I also suggest that you slow down and try to make more meaningful and thoughtful contributions to Knowledge (XXG). 3616: 2723:(which can be found from clicking what links here then show redirects only) after editing any anchors or section titles, you can make sure you notice if you break one. 194: 4573:

by making a redirect, we have fewer places to check. (10's of redirects, instead of 100's of articles). we also get an insight into how many of each context are used.

2102:

article, but have used only lowercase letters in their titles. It would help greatly if you could preserve the original case conventions of text used in citations. --

2719:. In general the vanchor and anchor templates act as you'd expect but in some cases act really oddly, and I can't list all the ways they can act oddly. If you check 5028:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

4658:

from editing for an apparent unwillingness or inability to comply with content policies. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may

3019:

Fmadd, It's fine if you're not harbouring an ambition to be an admin, but I hope you're OK with the idea of helping other editors to work with you. Happy editing,

4478:

slow down) until this gets sorted. Continuing to ignore the requests of everyone at ANI (and here on your talk) to slow down and hold off will result in a block.

506: 505: 5328: 4884: 4715: 4436: 3743: 3605: 3013: 2275: 2230: 2181: 2136: 1948: 950: 751: 3833:

There's often ambiguity as to where the best target for the link is. By deleting the disambiguation etc , you're making it harder to go back and refine it

5001:, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply 4094:

article and rewrite the lede to shoehorn the term "industrial civilization" into it. You should consider reverting many of these edits. Respectfully --

523:! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge (XXG) and get help from experienced editors like 238: 69: 4136:"simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention." 3416:

I see that you have added many wikilinks to a number of articles. Whilst adding useful links to articles is generally welcome, you may wish to review

174: 3486: 216: 4131:, it might change your expectations. In some cases you are ending up with sentences that are almost completely composed of links, which is not good. 128: 4936:

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

97: 246: 4398:

thanks, i think this page will be deleted eventually anyway, I'm really after a better place to redirect it too.. a glossary entry or something

4373:

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

1822:, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the 4663: 1833: 2271: 2226: 2177: 2132: 1944: 946: 747: 5274: 5256: 5229: 5213: 5178: 5137: 5096: 5051: 4750: 4590: 3974: 3681: 3640: 3284: 1893: 1852: 1758: 1728: 478: 4545:

where it's not really clear which you should point at. I wanted these redirects to help organize, if the articles get renamed or shuffled.

4256: 3933: 3452: 3421: 2452: 887: 234: 4833:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Knowledge (XXG)'s 2935: 2532: 4236:

instead of fretting about overlinking (with all this manual policing and argument), why cant we extend the software to prioritize links.

57: 5324: 5309: 5198: 4997:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge (XXG) is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

3819:

And if there is clarification, the DAB link to should be changed to the proper target. So far, I have yet to see you follow up on that.

1986: 1937:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

1625: 1619: 939:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

740:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

56: 5365: 1112: 225: 4562:

Option 2. 'remote control's lead section is reworked so it really is 'all kinds of remote control' (including TV, Drones, RC cars).

3053:

does not even discuss the subject (though was mentioned in passing). Oh and edit summaries are not automatically included in an RfA.

430: 212: 4625: 4604: 4511: 958: 366: 3222:

This conversation would go much more smoothly if you asked me to justify what I said, not what you want me to have said. I said it

1599: 289: 229: 4048: 3186: 3092: 2968: 2590:, requiring the puzzled reader to actually click the link to go and find out why the link was put there to begin with. Tricky! - 394: 339: 2448: 1503: 4367: 2672: 2642: 2625: 2609: 2431: 1349:

since April?" I've done edits here and there going back to 2006/2007 , it's only recently that I bothered to make an account.

658: 407: 343: 141: 4710: 4694: 4570:

Option 3. leave it as it is, and you have inaccurate redirects, and more in the future, because the phrase is so ambiguous .

2268:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2223:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2174:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2129:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1941:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1818: 1803: 943:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 744:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 694: 4659: 3781:

As you've seen many, many times in notices on your talk page so far, please stop creating links to disambiguation pages per

2824: 2738: 470: 326: 3932:

Knowledge (XXG) could do better, in my opinion, but none of them are going to happen because most people disagree with me.

3885:

disambiguations & lists were displayed in a different (less obtrusive) shade - like they're just there for navigation

3181:

Please point to the policy that states that leaving edit summaries is a pre-requisite to being appointed to admin status.

1971: 1082: 1052: 3563: 2677: 710: 426: 317: 263: 259: 151: 4192:

redirects, as explained, and we replicate excessive material if we try to work a definition into each potential target.

4014: 2795: 2785: 992: 5332: 4888: 4719: 4654: 4649: 4440: 3859:

Primefac is absolutely right. Please do stop this incorrect use of disambiguation notices for page deletions. With the

3747: 3609: 285: 4565:(... but reading the history, the reverse already happened - it used to have drones etc, and people narrowed it down!) 3219: 3182: 3117: 3088: 2985: 2964: 2443: 93: 37: 3526: 3525:

disambiguates two or fewer extant Knowledge (XXG) pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a

2958:

Nonsense. There is an admin who seldom leaves edit summaries, and seldom left them before being made an admin. See

2632: 1938: 1823: 940: 741: 665: 553: 452: 448: 268: 189: 4991: 4969: 4930: 4918: 4798: 4790: 4360: 2888: 2847: 2260:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2211:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2166:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2121:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

726: 530: 3012:

page shows your use of edit summaries, and it's automatically included as part of an RfA - check the latest RfA -

361: 280: 221: 4850: 2752:, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted: 2464: 1566: 1509: 690: 681: 4431: 4415: 2818: 352: 321: 250: 133: 61: 31: 4260: 3937: 3456: 3425: 1278: 2536: 2419: 416: 412: 403: 399: 65: 2880:

Given that you haven't responded to these requests from your fellow editors to please supply edit summaries:

5252: 5202: 5167: 5126: 4181: 4083: 4076: 3867:

As for saying 'astronomical event' is also a simplification for the Introduction. The reasoning appears here

2791: 2001: 1524: 1312: 1037: 778: 599:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

588: 5029: 4947: 4826: 4002: 3357:. I would like you to take a look at your last edits about that, and reverse if not relevant. Thank you. -- 2778: 2587: 1656: 1603: 461: 293: 255: 51: 5361: 5241: 5151: 4908: 4801:, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from 4184:, I have followed through on my impulse - it seemed to me wikipedia should have somewhere describing this 3319: 2016: 1793: 1127: 848: 78: 4998: 4946:

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

2528: 2360: 1602:

and Knowledge (XXG) pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to

348: 334: 276: 180: 5110: 4621: 4507: 3875: 3009: 2884: 2843: 2212: 2031: 1841: 1826:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

1562: 1482: 1452: 722: 465: 47: 5278: 4378: 4128: 3417: 2711:

you accidentally broke a redirect to the vanchor because the first field of the vanchor was linking to

2305: 537: 520: 330: 184: 137: 5236:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

5197:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

3988: 5040: 4958: 4683: 4460: 4099: 2661: 1163: 1022: 769: 631: 3600: 3584: 3375:"please clarify if there are interesting similarities or differences between these uses of the term" 2920:

This is the kind of stuff that gets noticed and earns oppose votes if you ever want to be an admin.

2406: 2388: 2372:

fair enough, I might not always "dot i's and cross t's" so diligently, but I know it has some value.

2336: 2103: 1496: 422: 389: 5298: 5190: 4384: 3558: 3504: 3490: 3399: 3362: 2903: 2899: 2316: 2107: 1992: 1671: 1645: 1555: 1274: 1007: 812: 5032:. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. 4987: 4940: 3782: 3547: 3512: 2415: 5225: 5163: 5122: 4780: 4739: 4531: 4483: 4388: 4374: 4317: 4289: 4226: 4110: 3824: 3794: 3767: 3711: 3670: 3629: 2870: 2577: 1715:

that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

1574: 1536: 1308: 1263: 1197: 1103: 998: 908: 618:

File:ControlSurfaces.gif|thumb|alt=Moving the [control stick to the left moves the aileron in the

2554:

Additionally, please stop creating random redirects. If you want to link to an article, use the

474: 3087:

But as I did say: edit summaries are helpful to other editors. And that is as far as it goes.

2959: 5350: 5237: 5083: 4904: 4146: 4091: 4087: 4063: 4037: 4030: 3738: 3722: 3315: 3264: 2291: 2246: 2197: 2152: 2084: 1923: 1882: 1789: 1708: 1250: 1150: 1028: 925: 818: 73: 2814: 2681: 2555: 2427: 2309: 714: 456: 272: 85: 4879: 4863: 4669: 4616: 4502: 4010: 3871: 3330: 3231: 3145: 3024: 2925: 2749: 2742: 1837: 1528: 1188: 977: 863: 827: 797: 784: 72:

for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the

4983: 4838: 4834: 4252: 3543: 3508: 3271:

that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

2909: 2685: 2653: 2430:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2423: 1660: 1513: 718: 686: 357: 169: 5036: 4954: 4926: 4764: 4679: 4456: 4177: 4095: 3289: 2858: 2728: 2657: 2648: 2569: 2559: 2478: 2331: 2265: 2261: 2061: 1763: 1733: 1547: 1013: 857: 788: 627: 623: 579: 4812: 4806: 4802: 2839: 1304: 1531:

unless you plan to write a full page (not a stub) with multiple sections (at least 3-5)

1269:

Two of the three additional references you added do not talk about hierarchical k-means

5288: 4541: 4523: 3572: 3395: 3358: 3307: 2748:

Hello, Fmadd. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started,

2720: 2693: 2595: 2544: 2312: 2171: 2167: 1977: 1907: 1866: 1781: 1750: 1664: 1638: 1097: 759: 705: 675: 642: 5284:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 18 § Current running thread

4822: 4818: 3507:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

2991:

If you want to cite an admin or their RfA it would be better to choose one that isn't

2861:

when they truly are minor edits; adding anchors, headings, or otherwise modifying the

1617:

With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (

1300: 68:

to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click

4776: 4735: 4527: 4479: 4313: 4285: 4222: 3947:

much effort goes into arguing, when that effort could go into software improvements.

3820: 3790: 3763: 3707: 3666: 3654: 3625: 2999: 2866: 2573: 2282:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2237:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2188:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2143:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2075:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2046: 1570: 1532: 1488:

If they were split into 10 pages, they will be as stub for prolonged periods of time.

1423: 1376: 1336: 1241:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1218: 1141:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

916:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

833: 5079: 4138: 4055: 2287: 2283: 2242: 2238: 2193: 2189: 2148: 2144: 2080: 2076: 2067: 1919: 1878: 1520: 1246: 1242: 1146: 1142: 1073: 921: 917: 842: 147: 2881: 2397: 1481:

There nothing inherently wrong with 10 paragraphs about Memory access patterns at

3789:

known. Intentionally linking to a DAB is not appropriate, and should be avoided.

4006: 3695: 3562:

tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

3227: 3176: 3141: 3047: 3020: 2921: 2676:

tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

2489: 2037: 1780:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

1233: 1212: 1067: 709:

tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

1655:

I see that you continue to fail to sign your posts. You are also going against

622:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

5195:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 28#Compressed textures

4574: 4546: 4399: 4328: 4299: 4271: 4237: 4193: 4159: 4114: 3948: 3900: 3886: 3834: 3806: 3532:

disambiguates no (zero) extant Knowledge (XXG) pages, regardless of its title.

3467: 3437: 3377: 3306:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

2939: 2724: 2493: 2474: 2373: 2220: 2126: 1962: 1681: 1456: 1350: 1203: 4559:

Option 1. 'remote control' gets renamed to 'remote control (disambiguation)

3860: 3567: 2689: 2591: 2540: 2052: 1956: 1720: 1182: 1058: 878: 5234:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 9#Astronomical event

4641: 2586:

But using the pipe trick, please make sure that you don't create so-called

525: 5340:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Glossary of computer software terms

4370:

tools, as having some issues to fix. Wikibooks is not a reliable source.

2624:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

1419: 1372: 1332: 1118: 1088: 902: 803: 657:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

5263: 5220: 5185: 5143: 5102: 5057: 4756: 4596: 4474:

If the ANI is any indication, your activities need to STOP (or at least

3980: 3687: 3646: 2434:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1899: 1858: 1590: 3276: 2857:

I second this. Additionally, as mentioned previously, please only mark

2099: 1292: 1227: 3553:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may

5065: 4082:

Hello Fmadd -- You have created many new internal links for the term

2936:

Knowledge (XXG):Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Automatic_1-line_edit_summary

2667:

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may

2122: 1169: 872: 700:

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may

592: 4982:

Hello, Fmadd. It has been over six months since you last edited the

4727:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of scattering experiments

2488:

after creating the list I thought it was better to make a category,

1495:

make reading one big topic (Memory access patterns) hard, they will

5281:. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at 3132:

an admin. There are no requirements except occasional activity for

5369: 5302: 5245: 5206: 5171: 5130: 5089: 5044: 5035:

Thanks for your submission to Knowledge (XXG), and happy editing.

4962: 4912: 4856: 4837:

and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the

4784: 4743: 4687: 4666:, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: 4630: 4582: 4554: 4535: 4516: 4487: 4464: 4407: 4392: 4336: 4321: 4307: 4293: 4279: 4264: 4245: 4230: 4201: 4167: 4152: 4122: 4103: 4069: 4044: 4018: 3956: 3941: 3908: 3894: 3879: 3842: 3828: 3814: 3798: 3771: 3715: 3674: 3633: 3577: 3475: 3460: 3445: 3429: 3403: 3385: 3366: 3323: 3235: 3190: 3149: 3096: 3028: 2972: 2947: 2929: 2892: 2874: 2851: 2828: 2799: 2732: 2697: 2599: 2581: 2548: 2501: 2482: 2456: 2381: 2366: 2320: 2295: 2250: 2201: 2156: 2111: 2088: 1927: 1886: 1845: 1797: 1689: 1675: 1649: 1611: 1578: 1540: 1464: 1427: 1380: 1358: 1340: 1316: 1282: 1254: 1154: 929: 893: 730: 635: 103: 4448:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Stattenheim remote control

2777:

you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on

2471: 1173: 1043: 964: 5224:

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

3000:

The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there

2652:. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for 2437:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

685:. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for 4221:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

2216: 2022: 2007: 1133: 983: 968: 765: 548: 5150: