Jump to content

User talk:Dr. Universe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello Dr. Universe, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

THEN WHO WAS PHONE? Good luck, and have fun. --THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


June 2010

[edit]

{{Uw-vandalism1}} Xeworlebi (t•c) 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I read: "Season 4 aired its season finale on December 13, 2009 to a record-breaking audience of 2.6 million viewers, making it the most-watched original series episode ever on Showtime." I didn't understand what was meant by "original series" , so I put an identifier there for "clarification needed" .. ie, the [clarification needed] . The sentence should have been more specific, or if 'original series' is a common term that has an established meaning, there should be a link to its wikipedia page. Also, why did you mark my edit as "vandalism" ? when it was clearly just adding to the page that that sentence should be improved ? Dr. Universe (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My appologies then, all I saw was someone adding {{what??}} to an article resulting in "Season 4 aired its season finale on December 13, 2009 to a record-breaking audience of 2.6 million viewers, making it the most-watched original series{{what??}} episode ever on Showtime." which looks a lot like a random "What??" vandal insertion. Dexter is an original series for Showtime, meaning they made the show, not syndicated, and it was the highest rated episode for an original series for Showtime, fairly clear to me, I see no reason why that has to be clarified even if the correct existing template was used, which is {{Clarify}}. "Original series" or "Original programming" are common terms and a lot of networks use them to identify there original series, but there is, I believe, no article for them, I find the term quite self explanitory. Xeworlebi (t•c) 10:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! Dr. Universe, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! -- Trevj (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trigonometric integral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Primitive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of artists with tracks not on Spotify concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of artists with tracks not on Spotify, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

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.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i WILL work on it. Sorry I have been busy Dr. Universe (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Auto-Tune, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Around the world. 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) 08:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect capitals

[edit]

In this edit, the reason the link to Quantum Master Equation appeared as a red link was the incorrectly capitalized initial latters. I have created a new redirect so that links to the incorrectly capitalized phrase will go through, and I have fixed the incorrect capitals that you put into the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my capitalization error, I will be more careful in the future. However, the link you redirected quantum master equation to is quite inappropriate. That article provides the quantum master equation FOR "an even degree element W of a Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra" ... it's not the article on "quantum master equations". In fact, The Batalin-Vilkovisky is a bizarre area for the application of a quantum master equation: a highly esoteric subject that only briefly overlaps with the use of quantum master equations in theory, while quantum master equations are more typically used in the study of open quantum systems. Until a real article is made for quantum master equation a more appropriate link would be to http://www.quantiki.org/wiki/Master_equation or to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Open_quantum_system .. but really the only place it should truly be redirected is to an article dedicated to the subject itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Universe (talk • contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're quite wrong. I redirected Quantum Master Equation (with capital initial letters) to quantum master equation (with lower-case initial letters). I never redirected anything to Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra. Someone else redirected quantum master equation (with lower-case letters) to that page. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me. I thought you had re-directed it to that page. Dr. Universe (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey theory talk page

[edit]

Sorry that I didn't catch the fact that you merely moved material from the top to the bottom of the talk page. Had I spotted that, I still would have reverted, but wouldn't have accused you of erasing material. The revert would have been based on WP:TOPPOST as it is customary on WP (although not in the rest of the internet) to add comments to the bottom of the page. There is no such thing as an introduction to a talk page and your moving these disjointed comments to the bottom just doesn't make sense in this set up. Again, my apologies for the incorrect edit summary, but my action was correct with respect to WP norms. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Ok what I've done now is much cleaner. I read that conversation (which was going nowhere, and ended in Marc 2004), and figured out that all that stuff at the beginning of the page which made me have to scroll down to find the table of contents and section headings, was all just a conversation about what the intro should be. So I put this under a section "The Intro" , because as that page you pointed me to says, this kind of stuff really should be in sections with headings. I then added proper indentation so that it reads more nicely. Since the whole conversation was from March 2004 and the first proper "section" with heading started in 2006, I kept this "The intro" section at the beginnin (albeit now in a proper section rather than what looks to be like the "intro" to the talk page, which as you said, there is no such thing). Dr. Universe (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open 2015!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

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

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Sal Khan were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert J. LeRoy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waterloo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antelope Valley College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JBA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

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

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

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

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

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

Ways to improve Nike Dattani

[edit]

Thanks for creating Nike Dattani.

A New Page Patroller Rosguill just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

The article needs some copyediting for tone and flow, and should probably be broken up into sections. Additionally, please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and you should not cite it in the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jiri Cizek moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Jiri Cizek, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. JC7V (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jiri Cizek

[edit]

Hello, Dr. Universe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Jiri Cizek.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

[edit]
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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Dan arndt: I'm new to sandbox. Which article did you reivew? Dr. Universe (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I declined the AfC request. Dan arndt (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting

[edit]

Hello there,

I've currently been handling part of the old AfD backlog (those with 3+ relists) and your name is behind some of the oldest relists. Some are warranted, others are not. In general, it's not wise for an editor still new to AfDs and in particular to the closing/relisting of them to undertake 3rd relists. 3rd relists should only be undertaken where there is both currently no consensus and there is significant reason to think that consensus would be found in another week - it's usually assessed as a controversial area and thus one generally handled by admins to avoid WP:RELISTBIAS. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, I now see There was a 17 (!!!) day gap between the last relist and mine. I might have closed the AfD as a "delete" if I could, but delete decisions require an admin, so I relisted. What else was supposed to be done?. That's almost an exemplar case of relist bias. If you relist something it gets removed from one of the categories that gets prioritised, so it actually makes it less likely to get it closed rapidly. If you feel that reasoning occurring again, please do not relist it. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Hello there. I've taken a break from AfDs anyway. You don't have to worry about me relisting anything any time soon. You haven't provided a link to the case where I said that (which you've quoted in green font) however it looks like one of the very many cases that I tried to take care of when we had a huge backlog at AfD recently (dozens of AfDs going back to 15 days prior, which is far more than the usually 7-day guideline for AfDs). Relisting it allowed it to go back up to the top (though as you said, it's a controversial area, and some people think this causes it to stay in AfD for another 7 days, which is actually not the way relists are supposed to work, according to the policy pages). It depends on whether admins are looking at the AfDs (and other editors) from top to bottom or bottom to top, and in my experience there's people that do both. One thing for sure though, is that there is the 3+ relists backlog which you yourself said that you were taking care of, so that AfD seems to have finally been seen by you. For the record, after doing that relist, I noticed that the AfD acquired the category "AfDs with 3+ relists" which I then started reading about, which lead me to learn that AfDs are almost always supposed to have a maximum of 2 relists. I have gone to great lengths to avoid relisting things a 2nd or 3rd time after seeing that. However, something that is not quite apparent now, is that before I spent a huge amount of time over a few days, attacking the AfD backlog, there was quite an unusually large articles in the AfD backlog which was causing harm to the overall Wikipedia Project. People have been disagreeing with me about the existence of a backlog, and they say "right now there's only 2 articles that are overdue", which is further evidence of their ignorance of what it looked like before it was "only 2 articles that are overdue". Others have pointed out correctly that the AfD backlog is one of the smaller ones, compared to AfC for example, but two wrongs don't make a right and just because AfC has a backlog doesn't mean AfD should too. For the record, I have tried to tackle the AfC backlog too, but it seems like a much less valuable use of my time because I found myself fixing all these poor quality articles which may or may not even pass notability criteria! Now why would I want to spend hours of my time fixing a bunch of poor quality articles that might be deleted the next day? Dr. Universe (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Bunker

[edit]

Hi, I was inspired by your comment to get to work on a page for Philip Bunker. Sure looks to me like he's plenty notable. I've started a page in my sandbox but it's got a long way to go. Any advice and input would be welcome if you have the time. KeeYou Flib (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qflib: Thanks! That's great news and I'll try to contribute to it next week when I have more time! Dr. Universe (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Universe: Thanks for your edits to my sandbox. I have put the page up as a draft, hopefully it will be accepted. KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qflib: Great! Thank you so much! By the way, are you familiar with "coupled cluster" theory in computational chemistry? It was apparently brought to chemistry by two people named Josef Paldus and Jiri Cizek. I tried to make an article about Jiri Cizek a couple months ago: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Dr._Universe/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_%C4%8C%C3%AD%C5%BEek Do you think it's ready to be made? Dr. Universe (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Universe: I'll have a look as soon as I can, pretty swamped right now! KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to help out. I see that there's been significant activity on this project. I did take a quick look at its current state and I have a few recommendations to make, and then you might consider resubmitting. What would be the most efficient way for me to give you suggestions? Just go in and edit it and let you revert if you don't like it? KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:Dr. Universe/sandbox

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Dr. Universe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Dr. Universe/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jiří Čížek (November 4)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
As per WP:ANYBIO need to demonstrate signficiant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The University of Waterloo is a primary source. It may comply with WP:NSCHOLAR but you will need to establish that via reliable secondary sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Universe, we'd talked about Jiří Čížek in early draft. Since I noticed the decline at AfC, I'll make some suggestions: I would say more clearly (on the talk page, or in an AfC comment, or similar) that the distinguished professor position is a pass of WP:NPROF C5, and that some of the fellowships are likely passes of WP:NPROF C3. But more importantly, you also need to citations to back every fact in the article. You have citations for a couple of facts in the lede. You also need reliable sources for every fact about his career and work. For basic career facts (only), I think it is ok to use the personal profile page. The awards should definitely be backed by reliable sources that are secondary at least to Waterloo and the subject (pages of the awarding organizations would be fine). I would also suggest trimming some of the earlier career awards, like the Sloan fellowship and probably the Heyrovsky medal. WP:Verifiability is very important, and especially so for a WP:BLP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Russ Woodroofe: I'm a bit new to all this, since those articles I'd created many years ago, never had to go through this "AfC" process. I got a notification saying that my article would get deleted if I didn't submit it within the next few days or something, so that's why I submitted it. All the facts that I wrote about Jiri Cizek, came from an article that was published in a journal (the journal usually publishes about science research, but this article was about ¸ life). I cited that journal paper once already I think. Unfortunately I heard that I should stop editing articles about UW professors, and Jiri Cizek is indeed a University of Waterloo professor. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Universe, you do need to edit a draft space page at least once every 6 months to avoid deletion. (But you don't need to submit to AfC, only to make an edit, which does not need to be substantive.) Anyway, I'd suggest slowly trying to add references, paring unreferenced facts, and then submitting again. Using a journal article about Čížek as your source would probably mostly suffice (once you add some inline citations to it)! Also, editing a draft article is not so problematic; editing in main space has vastly different COI standards. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of this. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
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) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For softening tone on article about 4th, 5th, and 6thd derivatives of position! SpiralSource (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Jiří Čížek

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Dr. Universe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jiří Čížek, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Universe - I happened to see this warning and decided I'd better get on the stick. I made some edits to the page to make the subject's contributions and qualifications clearer, and resubmitted - and it has been accepted. I'm pleased that I was able to help with this, although it took awhile - please let me know if I can help again in future. Also, best wishes for your health. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much User:Qflib. I really appreciate that!!! Dr. Universe (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You’re welcome! Incidentally I saw that you restored information in the page about service on a faculty senate; that would be very unusual to include on a Wikipedia page since it’s not considered significant enough in and of itself to be encyclopedic. Only reason to include it would be if it were very unusual or if he had done something newsworthy in that role. Same for the number of graduate students supervised in dissertations. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback User:Qflib! It seems that it's acceptable to include information about all the various departments he worked in, and all the different titles he had (Associate Professor, Adjunct Professor, Distinguished Emeritus Professor, Visiting Professor) so I felt that being a Senator was also worthy enough (certainly it's more interesting to me than the academic titles that he held). Every Senator of Canada has a Wikipedia page of their own, and there's only about 15 R1 universities in Canada, so a Wikipedia page for every Senator of an R1 university in Canada wouldn't seem unreasonable to me (though in this case the subject earned his Wiki page not by being a Senator, but by being the first to use coupled cluster theory on atoms and molecules). I have however, refrained from adding his 13 PhD students though. Dr. Universe (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you were referring to a faculty senate. If this is the national body of course that’s very significant. Can this be clarified? Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo, Ontario

[edit]

I think the wind chill says zero, not because it's actually zero degrees, but because the editor meant "none", because there's no wind chill in the summer in Waterloo. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I changed it to "—". Dr. Universe (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jiri Cizek

[edit]

Hello, Dr. Universe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jiri Cizek".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I don't understand. The article seems to be here. Can you show me the draft that was deleted? Dr. Universe (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Dr. Universe/sandbox

[edit]

Hello, Dr. Universe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment

[edit]

Hello, Dr._Universe,

Thanks for the talk page message, I don't usually see pings. If you go to the pages, Draft:Jiri Cizek and User:Dr. Universe/sandbox, you can see in the deletion tag at the top of the page that these were both pages deleted via speedy deletion CSD G13 which is the criteria for stale drafts. In fact, both of these pages had been deleted as CSD G13s a couple of years ago and you asked for them to be restored so you should be familiar with this process. Draft pages and User pages, ones that have been submitted to AFC for review, are eligible for CSD G13 after six months or longer without a human edit.

Jiri Cizek was a short draft which I guess got incorporated into the main space article and your Sandbox was just one sentence and it concerned making a list of people with PhDs. Either page can be restored to you upon request on my talk page or by going to WP:REFUND. I hope this explanation helps answer your questions. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Herschel Rabitz

[edit]
Notice

The article Herschel Rabitz has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. BostonMensa (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hello, Dr. Universe. Thank you for creating Herschel Rabitz. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton Hi Bruxton. I wonder why you would say "Thanks!" for me creating the article about Herschel Rabitz. Did you know who he is before? Dr. Universe (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was a little kerfuffle there where the page was going to be deleted because it had no references. Looks like someone fixed that, though. Perhaps the "thanks" was indeed for creating the page. It does need some more work done to flesh it out with more details though, and I'd be glad to help with that, but will wait if you have such in mind yourself. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Qflib Thanks so much! I do wonder why @Bruxtonthanked me for making the article. As for the article being a "stub": I just whipped up something quickly because I was very surprised that Herschel Rabitz didn't have a Wiki page despite publishing about 1000 papers and being so big in the field. I don't have any immediate plans to work on the article now, so if others want to contribute, it would be nice. There's a long list of other scientists that I want to add articles for. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the page on NPP and it is my custom to thank editors for creating articles on notable subjects. Bruxton (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Dr. Universe/sandbox

[edit]

Hello, Dr. Universe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jiri Cizek

[edit]

Hello, Dr. Universe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jiri Cizek".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian architecture (2nd nomination) 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.

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 finished.

Paragon Deku (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr._Universe&oldid=1152759724"