User talk:Modest Genius/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blue Origin New Shepard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Space News. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 10:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Epsilon Eridani

You removed a brief description of semimajor axis, with the comment semimajor axis != mean radius. I think the description was useful for someone not familiar with conic geometry, and Kepler's laws define that the semi-major axis is precisely the time-averaged mean distance to the barycenter. Using the term "radius" is imprecise, but I feel a not unreasonable shorthand. More precise would have been to say "estimates of the time-averaged mean distance between the object and barycenter in the elliptical orbit" would be clumsier, while leaving it simply as "size of elliptical orbit" (not specifying what the measurement means), I believe short-changes readers. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tarlneustaedter: The lay reader will certainly not appreciate that this statement is only valid when time-averaged and the distance measured to the barycentre. 'Radius' is certainly wrong and misleading. The description as originally written could easily be interpreted by a non-expert as the average of the semi-major and semi-minor axes. A slightly vague but correct description and a link to semi-major axis, which has the full explanation, seems better to me than a potentially misleading statement. Modest Genius talk 15:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Modest Genius/Firearms

I noticed that you created User:Modest Genius/Firearms many years ago but it seems to have been created at Firearms (video game) in the meantime. Would you consider merging your edits there and then redirecting the draft away? I'm just working on clearing out Category:Userspace drafts from May 2007. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Done, draft blanked. I never managed to get much content on there (lack of sources) but have merged what little I had into the article. I've also listed the dead link possible sources on the talk page. Modest Genius talk 15:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Modest Genius,
I'm afraid I just undid a lot of your edits, as they fail WP:VG/MOS. From what I understand you wrote the draft years ago, so maybe that's why it isn't up to on the current guidelines of WP:VG. Sorry about that. --Soetermans. T / C 20:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, although a lot of those versions were in fact substantially different games, akin to sequels or expansions rather than mere updates. The change from 2.5 to 2.6 was particularly large. That's why I included the full list of releases, though perhaps the infobox was the wrong place for it. Modest Genius talk 12:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I get that. I'm not familiar with the game, do you think any reliable sources mention the changes and what they are? Because searching for "firearms video game", "firearms mod", "firearms source mod" is, uh, surprisingly difficult. --Soetermans. T / C 16:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I of course mean looking for Firearms using those phrases to look it up is difficult. --Soetermans. T / C 16:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, and that's one of the reasons my draft died before it had any real content on it. 'Firearms half life' works a bit better. IIRC one of the review I posted on the talk page discussed the big 2.6 change, but that link no longer works. Modest Genius talk 16:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
That's too bad. I found a couple of sources, I'll leave them at the talk page. I might get around to them later this week. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gallic Empire may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The '''Gallic Empire''' ({{lang-la|Imperium Galliarum}}{{refn|name="style"|group="note"|The state was never officially

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, although the error wasn't where the bot thought it was. Modest Genius talk 17:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

You are an exemplary editor—indeed remarkable.
You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and you are qualified!
You personify an Administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!

Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you, that's very flattering. However I don't have time to dedicate to administrative duties (it took me a month before I even saw this) and don't have much desire for the admin tools either. The only things I would ever use them for is fixing stuff from WP:ERRORS and posting things from WP:ITN/C. I don't think it's worth the hassle for such an occasional usage. Modest Genius talk 20:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles William Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Blind and Bastard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 11:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Field officer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rank. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 11:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Current conflicts listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Current conflicts. Since you had some involvement with the Current conflicts redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I commented there on 6 April. Modest Genius talk 11:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles William Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Argonne and Frederick II. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited London Stansted Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West End. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Modest Genius talk 15:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case on TRM

I invite you to discuss The Rambling Man. You might be an involved party. --George Ho (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any wish to get involved in that mess. ArbCom can manage without my input, and there's no way I'm an involved party. Modest Genius talk 14:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask you a couple of questions for the Wikimedia blog?

Hi Modest Genius, I work with the Wikimedia Foundation's communications team. I'm currently working on a blog post for the Wikimedia blog about the supermoon and the news effect on Wikipedia. I was wondering if I can ask you some questions and use your answers in the post? If you accept my invitation, would you provide me with an email address that I can contact you with, or send me a message at selsharbaty@wikimedia.org? Thank you! --Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I don't believe I've ever edited supermoon, but I can certainly comment on the astronomical event. I've sent you an email. Modest Genius talk 12:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
For the record, the resulting blog post is here. Modest Genius talk 17:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Modest Genius. 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)

@MediaWiki message delivery: & @Mdann52 bot: I strongly object to this totally inappropriate spam, which is clearly against the 'spamming and excessive cross-posting' part of WP:CANVASS. Modest Genius talk 12:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

TFA

Do we rerun the same article at TFA a second time these days? I missed that - thought it was an absolute no-no. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we don't, no. That was kinda my point: If an article goes FA -> TFA -> FAR -> demoted -> FA again, we can't run it a second time, so re-promotions don't help the numbers for TFA. I'm not particularly involved in either FA or TFA though, so may have that wrong. PS. Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article_oddities#The_ones_with_featured_articles_that_have_appeared_twice discusses the few times that an article has run twice. Modest Genius talk 12:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Instrumental temperature record

On 19 January 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Instrumental temperature record, 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. Stephen 10:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Kim Jong-nam

On 16 February 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Kim Jong-nam, 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. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

... for the input over at ITNC. Much appreciated! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Glad it was useful. Modest Genius talk 11:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Transfer pricing"

Greetings, M. Genius! I wanted to talk about your recent edits to the transfer pricing page.

It looks like you added a link to an article called "transfer mispricing." I humbly suggest that you remove this link because the author of that page confuses transfer pricing with trade misinvoicing, makes a number of strong but unsourced claims, and leaves the reader with an inaccurate idea of what these terms mean.

As you likely know, trade misinvoicing is a matter of submitting phony documents to customs officials, and it is illegal and abusive by definition. Transfer pricing refers to a whole regulatory framework for intra-group profit allocation that, though often susceptible to aggressive avoidance, can be complied with or not. The only similarity between the two is that they both have something to do with taxes and prices. This confusion results in a number of errors:

1. The lead incorrectly associates aggressive transfer pricing practices with evasion and fraud. Taking an aggressive position on your tax return (like Apple or Google) isn't the same as providing forged documents (like Al Capone or Wesley Snipes). They whip out the cuffs for the latter.

2. The second paragraph seems to be referring to transfer pricing, but it's confusing and saddled between references to trade misinvoicing.

3. The third paragraph's statistics on capital flight from Africa have nothing to do with transfer pricing. They're talking about trade misinvoicing.

4. The fourth paragraph starts off not especially wrong but then goes off the rails talking about goons funneling dirty diamond money. Transfer pricing has no bearing on this.

5. The fifth paragraph has no cites.

I'm more than happy to delve into more detail on any of this. My job is to write about transfer pricing for a trade publication :)

Ryanmsfinley (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Annex 1

M.D. Genius:

Please forgive my blowing up your page, but this is an important issue and I think it's critical that Wikipedia gets it right, so I need to add a few things:

1. My prior post incorrectly states that the Al Jazeera article has nothing to do with transfer pricing. The author rightly identifies transfer pricing abuse in extractive industries as a major problem in Africa. The OECD actually addressed this, albeit breifly, in its 2015 BEPS report on transfer pricing. But the article is based on the same misunderstanding that now has me frothing at the mouth.

2. Global Financial Integrity, who as you probably know is the heavyweight research and advocacy group on illicit financial flows, aptly distinguishes trade misinvoicing from transfer pricing on its website:

"Because they often both involve mispricing, many aggressive tax avoidance schemes by multinational corporations can easily be confused with trade misinvoicing. However, they should be regarded as separate policy problems with separate solutions. That said, multinational corporations can and do engage in trade misinvoicing. This activity, however, involves the deliberate misreporting of the value of a customs transactions, and is thus illegal tax evasion, not legal tax avoidance."

http://www.gfintegrity.org/issue/trade-misinvoicing/

3. I bet you will find some otherwise reliable media and advocacy groups making this error on the Inter Waves. This is disturbingly common, even among organizations with some expertise in tax policy. But it's still wrong, and their making this error make it more pressing that Wikipedia does not.

4. As a portmanteau of the two concepts that are being inappropriately conflated, the term "transfer mispricing" itself contributes to the misundertanding. I therefore urge that the page be deleted, and to the extent that we want to preserve any of it, incorporate it into the transfer pricing page.

Thanks for indulging my compulsive concern about this.

Ryanmsfinley (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust the transfer mispricing article as you see fit! My entire understanding of the issue comes from the references in that article. If they are incorrect or incomplete, please clarify the content (and add references). Given that you admit the term is used by reliable sources, I doubt deletion is a good idea - better to have a clear and correct article explaining the issue. As for transfer pricing, my only motivation was to make sure that there was a link to the other article - I found it very odd that there wasn't one already. Modest Genius talk 15:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, M.Genius! I'm sorry that I posted my deletion proposal before responding - I didn't see this. Would the Denizens be more amendable to merging this into other articles? I really think it's a combination of misleading and redundant, but I won't protest if in others' considered view it should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanmsfinley (talk • contribs) 13:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I once made an adjustment to transfer mispricing to make the example clearer. That's my entire involvement with, and knowledge of, the topic. I'm really not that bothered about the article. You might get a better response at WT:BUSINESS or WT:TAX, who doubtless know a lot more about the subject than I do. Modest Genius talk 13:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cup-tied, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Football manager. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 11:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Carme Chacón

On 14 April 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Carme Chacón, 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. SpencerT♦C 13:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Colombo

Hello there, I just wanted to thank you for revising that section I wrote on the Sinhalese-Portuguese War article. It does look much better now. Just one thing though, the city was besieged some three or four times, so I'm gonna have to put the date back up in the future to distinguish between them. Regards, -Crenelator (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for adding some well-referenced content to that article! I don't think there's any need to add the year to the link yet, given that we don't have an article on any of the sieges. If/when those articles are created then we can disambiguate. However I'm not that bothered about it so won't revert if you make that change. Modest Genius talk 18:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Monopoly

The accidental DAB was my fault but I think you're right to express surprise that this went past the ten people who supported the nomination! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, but I'm amazed that none of the reviewers thought to click on the very first link. No harm done. Modest Genius talk 17:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

ITN "Lowering our standards"

I am of the opinion that a) there is no set-in-stone standard of what's ITN and what's not (it is very, very clearly subject to personal opinion), and b) we are being too strict about what is promoted to the ITN section. I know that's kind of beating against the grain, but that's how I feel right now. Particularly since North Korea's posturing and claims was all over the news on Tuesday, yet couldn't make ITN despite a ton of available sourcing (at least one editor said that it shouldn't make ITN until PDRK actually nukes Guam). Meanwhile, sporting events that happened weeks ago are still on ITN. While you may disagree with me, can you at least see where I'm coming from? (Also, FWIW, a quick perusal of my contributions will see that I have added prose and sources to the Kenya election article). pbp 18:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Mercury revert edits

@Modest Genius:@TJRC:@Jon Kolbert:

You wrote on Mercury this undid revision revision 796126641 by TJRC - "there is no underlying paper for 2007AAS...210.4205S . It's just a meeting abstract - that's all that exists."[1] and this "that's just a meeting abstract, not a reliable source. replace with cn" [2] There is absolutely no justification in these reverts, whose second revert is plainly vandalism. Just because you can't find the information or source it doesn't mean a cite should just be removed. TJRC is 110% correct in saying: "It's the paper itself, not the webpage content, that is the cited source; the web link is a navigational aid to assist in getting to the source."

Further reverts of this cite should not continue, as it is legitimate source. An editor with your experience frankly should know better. (Please consider reading WP:Citations, which says: "While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source." Also please consider reading again WP:SCG, where the source given is clearly "uncontroversial knowledge." Continue down such paths in future may find more drastic editing actions (like editing sanctions).

Proof to justify this source is below.

Text is available here [3] and has been formally cited, including [4] under MUL.APIN, and appears in many books. I.e. Terry Mahoney "Mercury" pg.297 (Discussed pg.2.) (2013) [5] The author Bradley Schaefer is also legitimate and renown author.[6] Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @Arianewiki1: I don't appreciate being threatened; please WP:AGF rather than accusing me of not understanding core policies. Have you ever seen a copy of BAAS? I have: it's a booklet of meeting abstracts (or was until 2010, when it stopped printing). There is no publication beyond those ~300 words - there's no full paper to find. That does not qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS (in particular, it has not been 'vetted by the scholarly community'); nor is it a textbook summary of uncontroversial knowledge under WP:SCG. More to the point, it says absolutely nothing about Mercury, so does not support the statement in the article. Now if that fact can be cited to actual publications, then the appropriate course of action is to replace the {{cn}} with that. The 2004 paper by the same author you linked to is freely available at Bibcode:2004JHA....35..161S, but I can't see any mention of Assyrian observations of Mercury within that paper either (MUL.APIN is mentioned only in the context of identifying constellations and influence on later sources). If the book you mentioned does state this fact, then the best solution would be if you replace the {{cn}} with a reference to that, not to a non-reliable meeting abstract which doesn't support the statement. I don't have access to the textbook to check. Modest Genius talk 11:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: "I don't appreciate being threatened" There is no threat. I have seen and read this paper. It says as it claims on Mercury. End of story. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Which paper? Bibcode:2007AAS...210.4205S is not a paper. Also, you clearly threatened 'editing sanctions'. Modest Genius talk 13:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: "...but I can't see any mention of Assyrian observations of Mercury..." but then say "...I don't have access to the textbook to check." followed by " There is no publication beyond those ~300 words - there's no full paper to find. " , then falsely originally say the untrue "there is no underlying paper for 2007AAS...210.4205S . It's just a meeting abstract - that's all that exists.". Eh? Please do stop these gross emotive expressions. Wasting other editor's time is also actionable. Either get the due consensus for the change on the article's talk page or stop these reverts. %hanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Did you actually read what I wrote? 2007AAS...210.4205S is not a paper and does not contain any mention of Mercury, so is not a suitable source for that statement. The textbook you mentioned might be a suitable alternative, but you're the one claiming that and I cannot check it. I notice you also ignored my question, whilst implying that I made further reverts (I haven't). Modest Genius talk 11:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki.J.Sci

Hi MG, I'm sorry I didn't respond to your comment on the WT:AST page about this. I thought I'd watchlisted it, but evidently not. I thought I'd reply here as better late than never, rather than edit an archive page.

So the idea behind Wiki.J.Sci and other WikiJournals is to complement the FA system with external peer review, and publication of a stable, citable version of record (examples). My hope is that it will be an avenue for content that attracts people who might not have otherwise considered contributing.

I've recently overhauled the page, so it's a bit more developed than when I mentioned it on WT:AST. I'd be very intersted in your opinions for it (and the sister Medical journal), give your experiences. Also, let me know if you'd be interested in possibly joining or advising the editorial board. All the best. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Modest Genius. 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)

"Evince"

In this edit, you took issue with my use of "evince". I'd always thought that it meant "to make evident, to provide evidence of". which is roughly what Wiktionary:evince and its quotes seem to say, although my ancient OED says "show, indicate". Have I got something wrong in my use of English? Have we got a dialect difference here, perhaps geographic or between academic and colloquial English? How do you use the word? I am really curious about this now. HLHJ (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@HLHJ: I think of evince as 'show, make evident', whilst the OED currently defines it as 'reveal, indicate' [7]. So we're not far apart. The problem was that the sentence as written meant 'modern research has shown that those claims were made', not 'modern research supports those claims'. I presume the latter is what you meant - in fact that might be better phrasing anyway. Modest Genius talk 11:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It is indeed what I meant, maybe I should have said "these marketing claims". I really rather hope my cited source adequately evinces the claim that such marketing claims were made. At any rate, it's clear now. HLHJ (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Modest Genius|<b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] : Modest Genius talk
[[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] : Modest Genius talk

to

[[User:Modest Genius|<b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] : Modest Genius talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Those two code snippets appear to be exactly the same as each other. What changed? And what on Earth is a lint error? Modest Genius talk 16:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how that happened. I have now supplied your original signature with the deprecated <font> tag. For more on why, see Wikipedia:Linter. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah I see. I've not looked at that box for many years! I'm still none the wiser as to why the old version is causing problems, but I've changed it to your replacement version as requested. Modest Genius talk 12:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Abundance evolution

Hi, I notice you rewrote the lead of R-process a few months ago. I don't understand the term "abundance evolution" as used in the last sentence of the lead. I think I know what you were going for, but could I ask you rewrite that sentence to make it a little clearer?-- Father Goose (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Done, I've expanded the term to hopefully make this clearer. I'm trying to avoid the common (but incorrect) phrase 'chemical evolution', as this has nothing to do with chemical bonds. Modest Genius talk 04:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Why focus on the evolution (of their abundance) instead of simply saying the processes produce the majority of heavier-than-iron elements found in the universe?--Father Goose (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Because it changes over (cosmological) time. Feel free to edit the text so both those aspects are clear. Modest Genius talk 12:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Electron (rocket)

On 22 January 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Electron (rocket), 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. Stephen 23:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cher Ami, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hen (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) 09:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

That was deliberate, as the relevant material is in a paragraph at the top of the dab page. Modest Genius talk 11:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Donald Lynden-Bell

On 8 February 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Donald Lynden-Bell, 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. Stephen 12:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northern Spire Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Modest Genius talk 11:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sacred Cows

Thanks for in effect pointing out that it's seemingly pointless (and doubtless also evil, insane, treasonous, blasphemous, diabolical, politically incorrect, politically correct, and any other synonyms for wicked in one's thesaurus) to try to remove the Canoe Race from ITNR. But do you by any chance already know whether it's equally pointless trying to balance things a little by adding in the World Rowing Championships? Tlhslobus (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I suggest you take a look at the archives of WT:ITNR for the previous discussions about the Boat Race, and to see if the World Rowing Championships have ever been considered. You should also take a look at the archives of WP:ITN/C for previous nominations - proposals to add an event to ITNR rarely succeed if it has never been posted through the candidates page. Modest Genius talk 11:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. And sorry, perhaps I should have added a after 'evil, insane, ...', etc. And again sorry, I also know well that you didn't actually say it was pointless to try and take the Boat Race out of ITNR. It just seems to me that if you have repeatedly been in the minority that means that in practice any new proposal to remove it will again fail, if only for lack of consensus, so that any such attempt seems in effect pointless, at least to me. (Despite watching it myself quite often, I would love to see it removed, but that seems beside the point). Am I missing something? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Consensus can and does change, but often slowly. I don't remember how long ago the Boat Race was last properly discussed on WT:ITNR. Modest Genius talk 11:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, and regards.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Modest_Genius/Archive_5&oldid=1074929811"