User talk:TakuyaMurata
- See the page history to retrieve old threads.
Tried to email you re IP Block Exemption
[edit]You requested IP block exemption, and it has been granted. Please note that the email address you provided with your request is listed as not valid. Should you wish to have IPBE extended, please send a brand new email with a current email account. Risker (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Constrained minimum criterion
[edit]You seem to think that Draft:Constrained minimum criterion should be deleted because the topic does not seem to merit an inclusion in Wikipedia, since the criterion seems too recently introduced. In other words, there is no need to develop this draft
. If you think that you should use the process at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. If you do not want to do that, you could always ignore the draft, and if nobody edits it for six months it will get deleted anyway.
Attempting to turn the draft article into a redirect is the wrong thing to do.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Toddy1: It was actually already deleted before by G13. I requested it to be undeleted to see if the topic is notable or if the draft contains some materials that need to be merged into the existing articles. As it turned out, the topic seems to be too recent so it probably doesn’t pass the notability but the notion was already mentioned in an existing article so I simply redirected it to that article. In my opinion, the redirect is preferable since anyone who disagrees with my editorial judgement can undo the redirect and develops the draft. Also, if the draft is deleted, to revisit the notability question later, we need to undelete it first: undoing the redirect is simpler and thus is more productive. What do you think? —- Taku (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The logic that you are using would apply if you moved the draft into mainspace. But if you did that, it would be sensible to copy some sort of talk page discussion into the redirect-page's talk-page.
- But the logic you are using does not work in draft-space. This is because in draft-space, Draft:Constrained minimum criterion will be deleted if it goes for a 6-month period with no edits. If the thing is going to remain in draft-space, then it should stay as an article (not as a redirect intended to mask an article).
- Having redirects in draft-space works when you have two draft-space articles on identical subjects, and you merge them, and turn one into a redirect to the other. It is also works as a temporary thing when you move an draft from draft-space to main-space; but in that case, sooner or later, the draft-space redirect gets deleted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Toddy1: Sorry but I don’t think I quite follow. For example, it’s actually quite common that a draft turns out to cover a topic that is already covered in mainspace articles. In that case, the best course of action is to merge the draft into the existing articles (and I do that a lot). The case of this draft is actually quite similar to such a case: the notion this draft is about is already mentioned in one mainspace article. It is a common and preferable practice to leave a redirect after the merger instead of deleting the article since it would be easier to undo the merger if needed afterward. The "logic" of leaving the redirect instead of deletion is exactly the same: my editorial judgment was the topic is not notable but if some other editor thought differently, it would be easier to undo the redirect, develop the draft and then move it to the mainspace. By the way, I am very familiar with G13 but it doesn’t mean we must use G13 to handle drafts; redirecting is fine too. —- Taku (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you want the draft deleted, go through a deletion process.
- If you want the draft preserved but hidden behind a redirect, move the draft to mainspace immediately after changing it to a redirect.
- Or leave it as a draft article, and see what happens.
- -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Toddy1: Or just leave the redirect. Basically, you seem to think that is not an opinion, but it is an opinion since for example we leave a redirect when we merge drafts into the existing articles. I am not going to insist (not too important for me) but I just want to point out that a redirect is an option in addition to G13. —- Taku (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Toddy1: So, do you still believe a redirect cannot be an option? (It’s just that from your non-response response, I cannot tell if you actually read and understand what I wrote above). —- Taku (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I read it. But it does not make sense. And your following it up with the 8 July message suggests that this is important to you, even though on 6 July you said the opposite. That does not make sense either. If you do not want to develop the draft into an article, then please just leave it as a draft and maybe someone else will. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Toddy1: I don’t understand why you respond with non-repose again. I asked "do you still believe a redirect cannot be an option?" You can say yes or no and preferably with some reasoning. Like I said, a draft in question isn’t too important for me but I would like to know why you think what you think. I am quite active on the draftspace. So, what is important for me is to know what other editors think about the draftspace. That’s why I was interested in knowing why you insist on G13 instead of a redirect. At least, I explained why leaving a redirect is preferable in some instances; if you think it didn’t make sense, again you can tell why, that’s a response. Taku (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the draft article is left as a draft article, a number of things may happen:
- Someone will read it and find it useful.
- Someone will improve it.
- Nobody will do anything, and eventually it will get deleted.
- If the draft article is left as a draft article, a number of things may happen:
- @Toddy1: I don’t understand why you respond with non-repose again. I asked "do you still believe a redirect cannot be an option?" You can say yes or no and preferably with some reasoning. Like I said, a draft in question isn’t too important for me but I would like to know why you think what you think. I am quite active on the draftspace. So, what is important for me is to know what other editors think about the draftspace. That’s why I was interested in knowing why you insist on G13 instead of a redirect. At least, I explained why leaving a redirect is preferable in some instances; if you think it didn’t make sense, again you can tell why, that’s a response. Taku (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I read it. But it does not make sense. And your following it up with the 8 July message suggests that this is important to you, even though on 6 July you said the opposite. That does not make sense either. If you do not want to develop the draft into an article, then please just leave it as a draft and maybe someone else will. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Toddy1: Sorry but I don’t think I quite follow. For example, it’s actually quite common that a draft turns out to cover a topic that is already covered in mainspace articles. In that case, the best course of action is to merge the draft into the existing articles (and I do that a lot). The case of this draft is actually quite similar to such a case: the notion this draft is about is already mentioned in one mainspace article. It is a common and preferable practice to leave a redirect after the merger instead of deleting the article since it would be easier to undo the merger if needed afterward. The "logic" of leaving the redirect instead of deletion is exactly the same: my editorial judgment was the topic is not notable but if some other editor thought differently, it would be easier to undo the redirect, develop the draft and then move it to the mainspace. By the way, I am very familiar with G13 but it doesn’t mean we must use G13 to handle drafts; redirecting is fine too. —- Taku (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is no valid reason to turn the draft into a redirect. And if it were turned into a redirect, it would be appropriate to delete the redirect after 6 months. The policy at WP:RDRAFT is not applicable, since the draft has not been moved to mainspace.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Toddy1: Thank you for the reply. I would say the logic doesn’t apply some instances. Besides the merger case mentioned above, another would be a case when a draft is a duplicate of an existing one in the mainspace; in that case, it is a common and preferable to redirect the draft. Just to confirm, you do agree there are some instances when redirecting is appropriate, right? You said “ There is no valid reason to turn the draft into a redirect. And if it were turned into a redirect, it would be appropriate to delete the redirect after 6 months”. This is plainly false. There is no such policy and is contrary to standard practices in the draftspace. —- Taku (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- We do not agree. User talk:Arjayay#Draft:Constrained minimum criterion shows that I am not the only person to disagree with you on this point. There is no value to Wikipedia in continuing this conversation. There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Toddy1: Good. You finally answered my question. You are wrong (there is no prohibition on redirects as you seem to believe) but I agree we don’t need to continue the conversation. —- Taku (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- We do not agree. User talk:Arjayay#Draft:Constrained minimum criterion shows that I am not the only person to disagree with you on this point. There is no value to Wikipedia in continuing this conversation. There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Toddy1: Thank you for the reply. I would say the logic doesn’t apply some instances. Besides the merger case mentioned above, another would be a case when a draft is a duplicate of an existing one in the mainspace; in that case, it is a common and preferable to redirect the draft. Just to confirm, you do agree there are some instances when redirecting is appropriate, right? You said “ There is no valid reason to turn the draft into a redirect. And if it were turned into a redirect, it would be appropriate to delete the redirect after 6 months”. This is plainly false. There is no such policy and is contrary to standard practices in the draftspace. —- Taku (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is no valid reason to turn the draft into a redirect. And if it were turned into a redirect, it would be appropriate to delete the redirect after 6 months. The policy at WP:RDRAFT is not applicable, since the draft has not been moved to mainspace.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Merging
[edit]Just a reminder that when proposing a merge, the justification goes on the talk page of the preferred target (not in the edit summary). That way, people can respond to your comment and hence allow a discussion. See Step 1 in WP:MERGEPROP. For the relevant merge, I've started on for you at Talk:Riesz's lemma. Klbrain (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Klbrain: I don’t think it’s necessary mandatory. Sometimes the rationale for the merger is clear enough and the discussion is not needed. In fact, you can just go ahead and do the merger without putting a merger tag. Putting a merger tag and if no one opposes to it after several days passed, that would be a good enough indication that there is no opposition. (Unlike an afd, you don’t need sufficient support votes to do merger.) —- Taku (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that discussion isn't always needed; the issue is that you recognised the need for an argument (hence in the edit summary), but put it a non-standard location. It was also in one edit summary, but not the other. If the case for a merge is clear (that two pages are clearly about the same subject), then I agree that a case isn't needed. I didn't think that this was the case here, as there are many theorms or lemmas named after people that look similar, but in fact are distinct. While I've done some maths in the past, it wasn't obvious to me, and therefore I suspect to many other readers. Klbrain (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Klbrain: when you put a cleanup tag, it is often enough to put a reason in the edit summary since the expectation is that other editors would be reading edit summaries. I don’t think a merger tag is much different. Of course, it really depends on cases, though. —- Taku (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree that discussion isn't always needed; the issue is that you recognised the need for an argument (hence in the edit summary), but put it a non-standard location. It was also in one edit summary, but not the other. If the case for a merge is clear (that two pages are clearly about the same subject), then I agree that a case isn't needed. I didn't think that this was the case here, as there are many theorms or lemmas named after people that look similar, but in fact are distinct. While I've done some maths in the past, it wasn't obvious to me, and therefore I suspect to many other readers. Klbrain (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Voting for coordinators is now open!
[edit]Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Nagoya Bunri University for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagoya Bunri University 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.🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
The article Tokyo Women's College of Physical Education has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Article subject fails notability. Insufficient reliable significant coverage found on search.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lenny Marks (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
"Smooth variety" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Smooth variety has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 14 § Smooth variety until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
"Simplicial spectrum" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Simplicial spectrum has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 14 § Simplicial spectrum until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!
[edit]Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Union Bank of Switzerland
[edit]Union Bank of Switzerland has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (trout me!) 06:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!
[edit] | The Wikipedia Birthday Committee wishes you a very happy birthday TakuyaMurata! Enjoy your special day.--DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
Thank you!
[edit]Thank you for your reply on Mac Lane's coherence theorem and sorry for the late reply. I think creating a strictification would be a good idea, so I'll looking for some references. By the way, I found a discussion on mathoverflow about strictification theorem for closed monoidal categories (https://mathoverflow.net/questions/404315/strictification-for-closed-monoidal-categories). Happy belated birthday! SilverMatsu (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Michael's theorem
[edit]I don't see why you're adding an external link at Michael's theorem. The place for that external link is paracompact. Someone interested in Michael selection theorem may not be interested in it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 08:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Because it is useful? The linked page lists several instances of Michael's theorems. Of course, it can be linked in any other places but I don’t see why the page is irrelevant. —- Taku (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Michael's theorem isn't even supposed to be linked from other articles, which is why I think disambiguation pages typically don't have external links. I doubt many people are going to look at it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I know disambig pages are not meant to be read by our readers. But the link is still useful for editors who need to know about the usage of Michael's theorem. —- Taku (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your average Wikipedia editor will be able to Google pretty well. How is that specific link more useful to editors than the Wikipedia articles already linked or anything you could find on the search engine? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Google results can sometimes not be useful, and so following a link is easier. Generally speaking, I don’t think putting an info that *could* be useful for the purpose of disambig is a bad idea. —- Taku (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @TakuyaMurata And why is it less useful than the Wikipedia articles already linked? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t say “less useful”. An external link is complementary and is not redundant since the paracompact article has a lot more stuff not just his theorems. —- Taku (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- But why is it useful to compliment a disambiguation page with an external link when there are two internal links already present? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Because a priori it is not clear what are possible ambiguous terms that can exist. In fact, there is more than one Michael's theorem currently listed in the disambig and that can only be known from an external link or some other Wikipedia articles. —- Taku (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- An editor would know how to click on the articles in the disambiguation page, though. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Basically you are arguing that other links suffice. I am not disagreeing with that, but on the other hand, it makes some sense to have other info relevant to the page, even if it might be redundant. (Some redundancy is useful since it can be used to check for accuracy.) — Taku (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just add the disambiguation page to your watchlist to make sure no one inserts inaccurate information? Because, as much as I hate to say this, it's not like the gnomes who'd actually view the disambiguation page would check the page for subtle factual errors. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia, in principle, everything should be checkable from references. This is because editors will come and go and so we shouldn't solely rely on particular editors for accuracy, including disambig pages. (The external link in question is not for factual accuracy but just for references though.) -- Taku (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just add the disambiguation page to your watchlist to make sure no one inserts inaccurate information? Because, as much as I hate to say this, it's not like the gnomes who'd actually view the disambiguation page would check the page for subtle factual errors. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Basically you are arguing that other links suffice. I am not disagreeing with that, but on the other hand, it makes some sense to have other info relevant to the page, even if it might be redundant. (Some redundancy is useful since it can be used to check for accuracy.) — Taku (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- An editor would know how to click on the articles in the disambiguation page, though. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Because a priori it is not clear what are possible ambiguous terms that can exist. In fact, there is more than one Michael's theorem currently listed in the disambig and that can only be known from an external link or some other Wikipedia articles. —- Taku (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- But why is it useful to compliment a disambiguation page with an external link when there are two internal links already present? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 07:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t say “less useful”. An external link is complementary and is not redundant since the paracompact article has a lot more stuff not just his theorems. —- Taku (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @TakuyaMurata And why is it less useful than the Wikipedia articles already linked? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Google results can sometimes not be useful, and so following a link is easier. Generally speaking, I don’t think putting an info that *could* be useful for the purpose of disambig is a bad idea. —- Taku (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your average Wikipedia editor will be able to Google pretty well. How is that specific link more useful to editors than the Wikipedia articles already linked or anything you could find on the search engine? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I know disambig pages are not meant to be read by our readers. But the link is still useful for editors who need to know about the usage of Michael's theorem. —- Taku (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Michael's theorem isn't even supposed to be linked from other articles, which is why I think disambiguation pages typically don't have external links. I doubt many people are going to look at it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I mean, yeah, we shouldn't rely on particular editors for accuracy (Wikipedia is not compulsory and all that); thankfully, if you aren't around, it's quite likely someone elese will step up to plate. Aren't sources all about making sure the articles are factually accurate? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we both agree on this. The difference here is an external link isn’t quite a source. Generally, external links should be dispensable; i.e., without them, articles should stand on their own. You argument is especially an external link is dispendable, which I don’t disagree. I disagree with the removal of some relevant info even if it dispensable. —- Taku (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I actually regard external links as a source, just not an inline citation. I think other Wikipedians would agree. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- When I say a source, I meant a reliable source and external links are usually not counted as reliable sources (even when they are reliable). —- Taku (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Really? Where did you encounter that belief? I certainly don't share it. A lot of the "cite" templates have a URL= or link= parameter, and {{cite web}} is very commonly used. Generally, "reliable source" means "went through editorial oversight." I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, when I said an external link, I meant to say an item listed in the external links section. I didn’t mean url links to websites. —- Taku (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Aren't almost all url links external links? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Saying url or web links would be less ambiguous. What I meant was in the above, when I said “external links”, I was using that as a short cut for “items listed in the external links section”, which obviously created unnecessary confusion. —- Taku (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- @TakuyaMurata Ah. Let's circle back as why to a disambiguation page needs an external links section. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 08:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Saying url or web links would be less ambiguous. What I meant was in the above, when I said “external links”, I was using that as a short cut for “items listed in the external links section”, which obviously created unnecessary confusion. —- Taku (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Aren't almost all url links external links? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, when I said an external link, I meant to say an item listed in the external links section. I didn’t mean url links to websites. —- Taku (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Really? Where did you encounter that belief? I certainly don't share it. A lot of the "cite" templates have a URL= or link= parameter, and {{cite web}} is very commonly used. Generally, "reliable source" means "went through editorial oversight." I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- When I say a source, I meant a reliable source and external links are usually not counted as reliable sources (even when they are reliable). —- Taku (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I actually regard external links as a source, just not an inline citation. I think other Wikipedians would agree. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year
[edit]Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
About exhaustion by compact sets
[edit]You have reverted my last changes without even having read and discussed what I was proposing on the Talk page first. Please take a look there first and discuss. Let's not escalate this into an edit war. PatrickR2 (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I actually gave the reason both at the edit summary and the talkpage, though there was an edit conflict. —- Taku (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)