User talk:Dhrm77

License tagging for Image:Nonominosudoku.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Nonominosudoku.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nonominosudoku.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nonominosudoku.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 19:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tube references

You asked in this edit summary if it was ok to reference to Youtube. There is no proscription against Youtube as such. However, references must come from reliable sources, and a lot of the sources on Youtube are definitely not reliable. In short, it depends who posted it and what information you are taking from them. SpinningSpark 18:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usage for userboxes

The easiest way is to look at "What links here" for the userbox, and select "hide links" and "hide redirects" to see a list of transclusions. If there are many uses click "Transclusion count" in the external tools list.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi!! Can you app keplar 22 b as a fav exoplanet Cassette-kiddo (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fraction

Dear Sir, I am very sorry that my short writings about fraction is not acceptable to you.So far as I know what I wrote is not wrong.There may be many explanations about fractions.My definition or explanation i think is one of them.A number can not be defined.But its existence is obvious to us in the number system.Any number can be compared to any other number.A fraction is used as one of the methods to compare between two numbers.2/5 means 2 is compared with 5.Fraction has its own existence also in number system.Existence of proper fractions is in between zero and one.Mixed fractional numbers exist between any two adjacent whole (integers) numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naren0202 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one who reverted your changes. I merely put a note on your talk page regarding your revert. You should talk to User_talk:Rick_Norwood about why he reverted your changes. But from what I see, your first sentence shows that this can be construed as "original research". For the rest, the style is very confused and non-encyclopedic, and the location of your change is completely wrong. This is in my opinion 3 reasons why it was reverted. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divisibility rule

Hi Dhrm77,

Please see Talk:Divisibility rule for my explanation of why those edits were reverted. Thanks, Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 22:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Rubik's Magic

An article that you have been involved in editing—Rubik's Magic—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Dr. Neurosis (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 10 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali. 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) 09:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed.

Divisibility rule

Dhrm77 I am samyak doshi I do not want to delete formula but I want to edit my formula who can I do this plz send step or video on my Wikipedia account plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam007yak (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been working on the problem as well, following your contribution. I have a general rule on testing the divisibility by any number. But I want to work some more before I publish it. Most formula have an infinite number of alternate equivalent ways to do the test, but only 1 or 2 "most reduced" ways. I don't have a video on step to edit, but you can let me know here what you intentions are. Maybe they are similar. For divisibility by 26 you can also do: add 3 times the last digit to 4 times the rest of the number. Or add 4 times the last digit to the rest of the number (divisibility by 13) and check that the last digit is even. Dhrm77 (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

62 (number)

Good point! Well 2... Just maybe. The anon did appear to explain it here! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the weirdest log I have ever seen. I'm not sure what I was reading. It almost look like some log generated by some dictating machine that just transcribes everything that many people are saying in a computer room. Because it's so incoherent. Dhrm77 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of brain dump? List of every message that popped up on the anon's computer? I think that Wikipedia user and talk pages are ripe for psychology thesis. Adakiko (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Hi, I see you reverted my removal of external links. I sort of get your point, but there are rules discouraging external links ("With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article."), while encouraging red links ("Red links help Wikipedia grow"). The long term solution is to create a red link, which can be turned into an article, instead of relying on an external page (which ofc could be used as a source for the new page). Could you point me to any guideline that recommends keeping the external links? Dajasj (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well. I see your point too. But if someone wants to know about 'independent vertex sets' for instance, with an external link, there is something they can check, and wolframalpha is a reliable site. And yes, internal link would be better, but I suggest you create these pages first (to replace the external link) before you remove these external link, so the user always has something to check for further reading. Dhrm77 (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhrm77 There are other people more capable of writing articles about these topics. That's why I want to red link it, so it will be taken up. Keeping the external link is only a short term solution and simply against guidelines... Dajasj (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dajasj In this case, why can't you change the links into references, so that it is not just deleted, and create your red-link? Would you consider that be a good compromise? Dhrm77 (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's acceptable to me :) Dajasj (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Removal of Subtraction Example section

You left a note saying that "... i'm not sure if an example is needed ..." which confuses me very. Is it not needed because it is a topic that most of the population may know? If so, then an example for Addition should also be omitted, but it is not. So why the removal of the example? Angerxiety (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's what I meant. But the revert I did was because of the mistake. I could have fixed it, but, that's your project, you can put it back after you correct the mistake. So, going back to your question, yes, I'm not sure if any of the examples on addition, multiplication or division are really needed. Perhaps they would be better on https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic than on Elementary arithmetic. But that's not really my decision. If the majority of the editors feel it's ok... I won't challenge that. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I was thinking that these examples would help more people if they actually didn't understand Elementary arithmetics, but has access to a computer because of the article on making technical articles more understandable, with the use of examples. Angerxiety (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gratitude

Hey, I wanted to extend my thanks and appreciation to you for looking out after several of my edits. It feels good to have kind support. I hope you have a blessed rest of your day and weekend. Radlrb (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for the recognition. I have been more involved in the past on "number" articles, not so much today. I have other projects. But I have noticed your good work, and generally support it. Dhrm77 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your words, @Dhrm77, and my pleasure, I seek also to make connections here, aside from expanding the number articles. It's been great thus far, I am going to try and bring structure to the first 10-digit number articles as I've done with 5. Some are harder than others, like with 2, which has properties in all sorts of places; a good evolution of that article would likely be very diverse in nature. Here's this barnstar for you, very much overdue I think given how long you've been here!

		The Special Barnstar
		For your efforts here in Wikipedia since a long time, and for your neutrality, temperedness, and good vibes. Radlrb (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Radlrb. Thanks for the barnstar. I have a request for you. Recently, the IP 68.150.64.128 made a series of edits to the number articles, which were subsequently reverted by David Eppstein. Asides from a few inconsistencies of style and some phrasing that could be improved, they were generally good edits. So I started to revert some of those reverts, and in the middle of that, David re-reverted that saying that "... these number articles are the TV Tropes of wikimath. People keep adding unsourced junk properties to them and the weeds need to be trimmed or it will become all weeds.". I don't feel that way, and I don't really know how other editors feel about it. I believe we need a standard as to what should and shouldn't be included in number articles. I think some guideline exist, but they are pretty vague. For instance, "Prime numbers" are very common, so an idea was to mention them if they are a special kind of prime. But what about other kind of numbers, harshard numbers, palindromic in various bases, 10 and others. I believe that the rarest the characteristic, the better the reason to include it, except if that characteristic is really obscure. There are about 358,000 sequences in OEIS, and only a few are noteworthy to be mentioned in wikipedia. So perhaps we need to some very precise guidelines, listing exactly which properties should or should not be included, and if so, for what range. For instance, for numbers that are primes, but not any special prime (like sophie germain prime, or twin prime...), say perhaps all of them until 100, and after that inly the special ones... Perhaps we need to create an RFC on the subject and bring in all editors that have recently contributed to number articles. Thoughts? Dhrm77 (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome! It was due I believe, as I said.

So, I think you have a great idea, and I've been working on some guidelines in my head for a couple of months. This is my philosophy regarding this:

Really, deep down, there is no such thing as a meaningless property. Even Harshad numbers, or twin primes, are not useless, ever (twin primes are particularly important for very large prime numbers - the exquisite properties of the composite numbers held inside twin primes, I suspect, is a treasure-trove of mathematical algebraic and geometric information). The point, however, is that these should be included if we have today found them to be useful. It is very unlikely that any property in math is useless, this is because every property hinges on a mathematical formula, so by definition these sequences are evolving in some way. The reason why we cannot see the interconnections yet between seemingly uninteresting properties to other more notable properties simply condenses to the fact that we have not found ways to connect them, and usually these ways will always be novel and striking, it's just a matter of time before we find meaning in all of these sequences (I have developed different mathematical objects to study gaps between these sequences, primarily within sequences of composites and primes - and mathematics within those sequences), and in a way that interconnects them.
So, with articles here in Wikipedia, the addition of information relies mainly on the following factors:

1) How important is the number. Is it a small number? Is it a large number, but a number that has been infused within other mathematical fields, such as computing, engineering, or physics and chemistry?

2) How well known is the number within mathematics itself - is it well studied and important to particular axioms that lead to important consequences in mathematics and other fields?

3) Is it a culturally important number?

Incorporating information inside a number article then depends on the richness of information known about that number. I have the following guidelines for this:

Major properties should be included first, and throughout, with intermediate properties fit in between major properties as best as possible. Meaning, intermediate properties of interest should be included alongside like-properties. It should not be a haphazard soup of information, but a well-developed list of such information such that there is an evolution within the article itself. Because most of us do not know all the known properties of a given number, one should largely do one's best in incorporating what one knows, and include it with what is already incorporated accordingly, and with respect to what existed prior.
Minor properties. This is the sticking point mainly regarding what we are interested in solving here, right? Well, I think it depends on two factors:

- Is the article already rich in intermediate and major properties? If so, then there is more room to include minor properties that add context to intermediate properties, and ones that need-be connected to these properties. Like for instance, if there is an interest in digital roots of a number, or in modular analysis that ends in a particular digit, then it can be of interest to include Harshad numbers. But if we're talking about a number that is not dependent on the nature of the digits of a number, then including a property of Harshad numbers might not be as much of interest, especially with larger numbers. However, the flip-side could also be true: maybe some numbers are so unknown to us that Harshad qualities are really some of the better known qualities that we know of a number, which might include other digit-dependent properties (palindromicity, and the such).

- Does the minor property have an evolving history of interest to numbers that are in proportion to the number of interest at hand. If this is the case, then it could be of interest to incorporate that property, because it is then in fact not disconnected from the number. With this, one has to be careful because it really only counts strongly if the proportions are smaller rather than larger, meaning that the closer to a difference of a factor of 1, or 2, or say 5 if its a base-ten analysis, then the more relevant such a connection is. For example, maybe we are speaking about the number 140. While it is not a perfect number, it is a harmonic divisor number, which includes in its list the first three perfect numbers: 6, 28, and 496. Well, 140 happens to have arithmetic mean of its divisors of 28 precisely, so I can invoke the number 28 within an explanation of the properties of 140, and especially so since 28 is also a harmonic divisor number. While the arithmetic mean of the divisors of a number generally would not be of interest unless it is a whole number, or if it contains a repeating decimal expansion of interest, here it is of interest, because the property is relevant with another major property. Another example is 270, the subsequent harmonic divisor number, which has a harmonic mean of its divisors of 6, which is the first perfect number.

This would generally be the guidelines that I follow, including these:

They should be stylized such that there is an introductory paragraph, and a final paragraph that incorporates one of the most important properties of the number, or a very curious property, or even an imporant cultural association with the number.
Number-theoretical properties first, then geometric properties since they tend to be heavier in information and sometimes need more description to grasp properly.
They should be accompanied by an image, ideally, or two, depending on the size. Many of these pages need images, and they really do invoke interest in readers, as most people are visual learners.
They should be neutral but if possible carry some sort of voice, that reflects a general nature of the property of the number. I.e. is it a very concrete number, or a very abstract number? The voice of the article should reflect that, while maintaining neutrality.
They should be well-referenced, and in my opinion, include notes - notes that add context. Here is where minor properties could also be cleverly included such that they do not disrupt the article, but add flavor and context in a meaningful way.

Overall, I think it is not necessarily appropriate to say that a number property should not be included if it's too far down a list of OEIS sequences, because by that standard, then many numbers will simply rarely be mentioned regarding these very properties. And, because a larger number that shares a property with many other numbers actually is in equivalence with all those numbers regarding these properties - therefore it is more or less, unjust to dis-include it. What is key is that we need to make sure some of these numbers do contain properties that are unique to them, while also some properties that are shared by many numbers, because what this means too is that these numbers are part of a large family of numbers, and such they are notable for that very reason. Lack of uniqueness is in many ways as important as uniqueness, mainly because then it is a property that permeates the mathematical landscape more universally than not, with respect to specific properties (i.e. deficient numbers, or square-free numbers). These would be included in such likeness, though. I have other ideas for pages that are well developed too: maybe we can have a small section that lists properties that are shared by many other numbers, rather than being singularly unique to the number. I would have to reflect more upon that. This would be included and connoted as such, to make sure a reader would be able to distinguish it from the properties that make a number unique (like the first member of a particular sequence, or one of the first members), and would only be acceptable if there are a sufficiently large number of major and intermediate properties.

These are for the most part the guidelines that I use. I think that's a great idea you invoked, and as I said, I've been thinking about it for some time too. Let me know what you think of these : )

Best! Radlrb (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC) (shortened 20:44, 22 January 2023)[reply]

I'm sorry I haven't been replying to your long message. I appreciate the effort you put into it, but I'm working on a different project right now, and I don't want to be distracted by this project, which isn't any less important. Dhrm77 (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries at all, I had been wanting to cut some of what I wrote here, since it was a bit too long. Thank you for the update, I was also wondering. I made some updates to Wikiproject numbers, and added you to the list of people could join, I'm trying also to restart the group, slowly. Good fortune on your projects, we can converse whenever. Radlrb (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify, since in the midst of deleting some of my commentary I took some perspective out, that I believe (and further changed my mind in the direction) that the edits of the IP user were at least 75% appropriate. Even for the Harshad number inputs, and refractorable and isolated prime inputs s/he made which might seem trivial, were good indeed. Aside from some citation issues, and placement of information, they were fine. I'll go back and add most of them in appropriate fashion, the only thing is that for some of these, greater context might be needed to make them more involved in the section. Usually, this can easily be done by searching for similar properties, such that there is a sense of continuity. If for example, say 18 is cited as Harshad, then looking for something of meaning behind the number 9 within 18 would be useful, that way it is not isolated alone. I think this is what David was pointing out to in part, that these properties if cited, would need to be accompanied by something else to make them truer, in a sense. But yes! They were quite alright, and I hope we see the IP editor back sometime, he definitely has a passion for these, even if still elementary. It's how the path starts. : ) I'm sorry for removing this beforehand, which was also not true to how I felt (I was also in the midst of trying to find balance with the conflicting and pained experience I had then as a new editor, when I edited the golden ratio. This has since been mostly healed, from both ends I feel). I did mention this on his talk page [1], in an attempt to help him understand how to edit with greater depth. Thank you for correcting my edits too, I definitely laughed internally at my silly mistakes when you corrected [2]. I hope your projects have been fruitful, Dhrm. Radlrb (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Thank you for your message. I have been pulled in so many directions that my other projects haven't made much progress lately. But going back to numbers, it's nice to know you seem on top of that project, and that we agree. Dhrm77 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Teegarden b.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Teegarden b.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 04:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: TRAPPIST-1e

Hey, thanks for fixing my edit on TRAPPIST-1e. I really appreciate it. Do you take requests in other areas, or are you mostly focused on science? I have an article on a painting that requires an eagle-like eye like yours if you have the time or inclination. It's Lise with a Parasol. It's okay to say no, just wondering if you have the time to copyedit other areas of the wiki. Thanks, again. Viriditas (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks. I have many projects going on, and editing Wikipedia is my way of trying to get some time off from other projects. I have a special interest on Trappist-1, and "number" articles, so that's why I monitor these, but I probably shouldn't scatter myself too much with other articles, especially arts, for which I have no real background. But thanks for the appreciation and the compliments. Dhrm77 (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I was curious... I looked at it.. There seem to be a small issue. a statement by Duret quoted by Farrell "For instance they perceived that in winter sunshine the shadows thrown upon the snow appear to be blue, and they painted them blue accordingly", doesn't seem right. Do you have the original quote? I'm guessing it would be in French. Dhrm77 (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What seems wrong about it to you? It’s one of the most famous disputes in Impressionism. Academic art tradition didn’t know or care about local color. Impressionists observed it in nature and painted it anyway. You can read more about this in some detail in the article on The Magpie. Of course, I’m happy to find you whatever you need, I’m just not at my desk at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In am not sure how to understand the part :"in winter sunshine the shadows...", is there some kind of missing punctuation, or perhaps mistranslation? That's why I wanted to check the original language. Dhrm77 (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for explaining. I wasn't sure what you meant. Yes, please check the French. It is easily available. The part in question is not from Farrell but from Duret 1910, which was translated by J.E. Crawford Flitch. The translated source is here. I can probably find you the original French as well. But, you did fix an error! I had only page 93 listed, not 94. I will fix that now. Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the original text that you quote, I believe that that text is missing a comma after "sunshine". Regardless, I found the original text, in French, here: https://archive.org/details/lespeintresimpre00dure/page/16/mode/2up , and it appears that the translator took quite a few liberties in translating. It's not quite what Theodore Duret actually said. that whole section is quite different from the original text which actually says: "Winter has come, the Impressionist paints snow. He sees that in the sun, the shadows cast on the snow are blue, he paints blue shadows without hesitation. So the audience laughs outright. Certain clay soils in the countryside take on lilac appearances, the Impressionist paints lilac landscapes. Then the public begins to be indignant. Under the summer sun, with the reflections of the green foliage, the skin and the clothes take on a violet hue, the Impressionist paints characters in wooded area, violet. Then the public is absolutely unleashed, the critics shake their fists, call the painter a "communard" and a scoundrel. The unfortunate Impressionist may claim his perfect sincerity, declaring that he only reproduces what he sees, that he remains faithful to nature, the public and the critics condemn him. They do not care whether what they discover on the canvas corresponds to what the painter has actually observed in nature. For them there is only one thing: what the Impressionists put on their canvases does not correspond to what is on the canvases of earlier painters. It's different, so it's bad." Also, this text applies to impressionists in general, not to Manet in particular as the translator implies. Dhrm77 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that’s an altogether different book, but same topic. The correct book is linked below, along with the correct quote. It’s confusing because different editions were often published alongside each other. The book you cite is from 1878 and is quite famous. The one the quote is from is much later, from 1902. There are editions published in the 1920s that combined the two books, hence the confusion. If you look at the links below you’ll see it’s different. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the original French: "Les Impressionnistes avec leur système de travailler tout le temps devant la nature, étaient arrivés à en saisir les multiples aspects et à fixer ainsi sur la toile des effets inattendus. Ils avaient, par exemple, reconnu que l'hiver, lorsqu'il fait soleil, les ombres portées sur la neige peuvent être bleues et ils avaient peint de telles ombres bleues . Ils avaient encore découvert que, l'été, la lumière sous les arbres, colore les terrains de tons violets et ils avaient peint des terrains sous bois violets. Renoir avait en particulier peint un bal à Montmartre, sous le titre de Moulin de la galette et une Balançoire, où des personnages sont placés sous des arbres éclairés par le soleil. Il avait fait tomber sur eux des plaques de lumière à travers le feuillage, en colorant toute sa toile d'un ton général violet. Les tableaux peints en 1875 avaient été montrés en 1876, à une exposition des Impressionnistes, rue Le Peletier. Cette nouveauté d'ombres bleues et violettes avait excité une indignation générale. Personne ne s'était sérieusement demandé si, lorsqu'il fait soleil, les ombres sur la neige et sous le feuillage pouvaient apparaître réellement colorées, telles que les Impressionnistes les représentaient. Il suffisait que les effets montrés n'eussent pas encore été vus, pour que l'esprit de routine, amenât les spectateurs à se soulever violemment. Mais Manet, pour qui les Impressionnistes restaient de vieux amis et qui s'intéressait à toutes leurs tentatives, avait été frappé par leur manière hardie de peindre des ombres en plein air colorées. Il était allé regarder en particulier les reflets que le soleil donne sous le feuillage et, ayant trouvé qu'en efî^et les ombres prennent alors des tons où le violet prédomine, l'envie lui vint d'exécuter lui-même un tableau dans ces données."

So, it looks like you were correct. J.E. Crawford Flitch mangled the original punctuation. "Ils avaient, par exemple, reconnu que l'hiver, lorsqu'il fait soleil, les ombres portées sur la neige peuvent être bleues et ils avaient peint de telles ombres bleues" (They had, for example, recognized that in winter, when it is sunny, the shadows cast on the snow can be blue and they had painted such blue shadows.) Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a side by side comparison with Flitch and Google translations. The only major difference is punctuation, which I assume was partly due to the style of 1910 writing at the time Flitch made the translation. Because there isn't any major difference in meaning, I've left the Flitch translation in for now, as that is the preferred secondary source method. Google translate's French to English is said to be 97% accurate. In case you are interested, the original work is Histoire d'Edouard Manet et de son oeuvre, 1902 (p. 141) while the translation is Manet and the French Impressionists, 1910 (pp. 93-94). Thanks for your help with this. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to electromagnetic spectrum

Your recent edit to electromagnetic spectrum has an edit summary that does not sufficiently describe your actions.

You wrote, "yes but no". This is not sufficient.

Big love.❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ 96.227.223.203 (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editing IP was being a smart ass. It's true that radio waves are emitted by transmitters, but the point was that they are both emitted and received by antennas. So, even though it was still a true statement, it was muddying the meaning of the whole paragraph. Dhrm77 (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I had to revert your edit to RfA; you need to read what it takes to get the mop, put it into practice for at least a year or so, then get back to one or more admins to nominate you. Feel free to reach out to me or any other admins for advice, but just a week ago you called someone editing (whom I presume was not a vandal) a "smart ass", which is unacceptable for an aspiring admin. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, there are no objective requirements for requesting adminship (e.g., no specific minimum number of edits, no requirement to be nominated, etc). But you do have to correctly create and transclude the request. Though, to be clear, I would consider name-calling to be unacceptable for all editors - admin, aspiring admin, or otherwise. Useight (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Useight: While that's technically true, I don't want to give him the impression that those de facto requirements (especially the 10k edits and having a nom) can be waived lightly without incurring significant opposition. More importantly, though, edits such as this, while perhaps not intended to be so rude, come across as extremely bitey and inappropriate for a long-term user, much less a serious adminabile. Again, a year of putting RFAADVICE into practice, and getting into the loop of Wikipedia policies, practices, and cultures, should do wonders. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I see what you mean.. but consider this. About the 2 edits that you mentioned, i.e being "a smart ass" and about "garbage", there is a growing trend on Wikipedia, where editors (possibly bored high-schoolers), instead of being outright vandals are making tons of unconstructive edits wasting everyone else's time. The "straight lines not always being straight" is clearly non-sensical, and responding politely to every disruptive edit is time consuming. Personally, considering the amount of unconstructive edits, I don't quite understand why the policy of WP is still to allow anonymous IPs to make any edit until they get blocked. In my opinion, all edits should require an account, and any new editor should go through a phase where their edit is validated by an more experienced editor. That would eliminate tons of bad edits and subsequent reverts, and the time saved could be used to make constructive edits instead. I have also seen a growing trend where editors make a small change, without explanation, that is hard to evaluate as a good or disruptive edit, like for instance a sign in a complicated equation. And I find myself spend a ton of time to figure out if it was better before or after... So disruptive editors do this kind of "under the radar" type of edits, that can be creating chaos. And I don't see Wikipedia trying to address to problem. The use of the word garbage comes from a growing frustration regarding the wikipedia not addressing the growing "under the radar" unconstructive edits. Recently I have seen a lot of non-sensical new sections added to talk pages, and I am not even sure they are made by humans. It might even be done by external robots.

But regarding my request for adminship, I don't really need everything that comes with it. I'm just looking for the ability to quickly block some clearly anonymous IPs that clearly do not have the intention to help build Wikipedia. I'm not interested in dealing with dispute resolutions or some other administration tasks. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have the best of intentions, but the fact that you seem interested solely in blocking people and not anything else has already shown that you misunderstand adminship, if not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not preventing others from building an encyclopedia. While obviously we do not take too kindly to vandalism (heck, I was the admin who proposed we protect TFA for a good couple days), and there is certainly merit in your proposal to mandate registration (which is done on several other wikis), we do and should err on the side of letting too many people in, rather than keeping too many out. That is why admins are, and must be, expected to deal with any and all editors who are not 100 percent obvious trolls with the utmost respect and diplomacy (and even for the 100 percent obvious trolls keep our tongues tied). Sure, this might lead to some wasted time, but going in the opposite direction – which is what mandating a probationary period for all newcomers would do – would literally kill Wikipedia by starving it of the oxygen of newcomers, rendering any time waste from the vandalism that does occur insignificant by comparison.

Also, you might notice that the admin toolkit is a package deal between deletion, blocking, and page protection. This is for very good reason; it is utterly fatuous to believe that blocking vandals can be separated from cleaning up their vandalism or protecting pages from vandals. Relatively few admins actually do all three of the block-delete-protect trio at once (much less all of the other abilities adminship offers), but one must be trustworthy enough in all three to have any realistic chance of passing RfA, and rightly so. All three are in turn related to policies that are reflective of Wikipedia's culture and people. This means that a successful RfA candidate would have to be consistently in the loop of constantly-evolving policy, including such venues as AfD and the village pump, resolving disputes, and other administrative tasks that you so blithely dismiss. Importantly for cultural awareness, and you are not the only one to stumble on this, there is a deep-seated expectation that RfA candidates participate in making at least some content. For someone who so heavily insists on building the encyclopedia in good faith, your own most-edited article is a C-class that you have edited only 24 times. I have multiple articles that I have poured countless hours and hundreds of edits into, and they are largely in the good article and featured article categories. If you think I have dropped a lot of pages and venues with which you are not familiar, this does not scratch the surface of what a genuine adminabile is supposed to already be accustomed to.

If you still genuinely want the mop after this spiel, drop the "Blockmaster 3000" mentality (and thoroughly convince others you have done so), explore the joys of Wikipedia and writing about something you are passionate about, explore the inner workings of this wondrous website, and put the mop in the back of your mind as you come up with a much more compelling case for why you should be given the tools. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox request

@Dhrm77:

This user is a fan of Airwolf.

This user is a fan of Army Wives.

This user is a fan of Boston Legal.

This user is a fan of China Beach.

This user is a fan of Combat!

This user is a fan of Homeland.

This user is a fan of JAG.

This user is a fan of Matlock.

This user is a fan of SEAL Team.

This user is a fan of Without a Trace.

Catfurball (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

moving to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas Dhrm77 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop restoring predatory journal citations e.g. [3]

These are not reliable sources and we should not cite them on Wikipedia. See WP:VANPRED and WP:IRS for more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water! If one publisher is predatory, fine, remove the link for that publisher. But if you look at the paper, it's fine. And for the little bit that is cited, you can easily verify that it is correct. Why do you choose to remove some information just because of one particular place where the paper has been published. That makes no sense to me. And claiming that it violates WP:IRS in this case is abusive; You don't really need a source since it's so easily verifiable. you should use WP:IRS for something that is non-obvious. It doesn't apply in this case. Dhrm77 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"remove the link for that publisher. But if you look at the paper, it's fine"

This is not a matter of where the link points. It's a matter of where the paper comes from. It is inevitably and irreparably tainted, and we cannot cite unless this specific paper is endorsed by independent reliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Planet

I *think* I have finally come up with a satisfactory way to list alternate terms for Rogue Planet, but I would appreciate your review. If you are fine with it, just remove this remark.
EubieDrew (talk) ~ 05:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that no matter what, this long list is subject to feel awkward. What you did is good, I can't think of a better way. Dhrm77 (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

43 (number) addition removed

Too bad, and a little unkind, that you (within minutes) removed my very first contribution to the 43 (number) page.

My contribution was done with good intentions. It was my very first edit of a page.

Your comment stated that my addition is not verifiable. Let me explain a bit.

I wondered recently, which number is the smallest number that is not in the Bible. So I googled, but found no good results. Then I spent hours to (very carefully) determine the number I was looking for. Anyone can check, since all Bible texts are available on the internet. It took me some hours to determine, as I used multiple spelling, Hebrew and Greek texts and even the LXX (Septuagint).

There probably are a lot of people that might want to know this number as much as I did. I think it should be on Wikipedia. That it cannot be verified is not true, although it might be difficult to find elsewhere on the internet. Well, that seems a good reason to include it on Wikipedia.

Please cancel your removal. 320L (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First it is not removed. I just moved it in the proper place. And I added a ^{[citation needed]} tag, because every addition needs to be sourced. see ^{[original research?]}. Now, you might want to reach out to some Christian publication and have your findings published. Then it can be included in Wikipedia. Dhrm77 (talk)

Gliese 12

This article originally had a red link to stellar activity. MarioProtIV changed the link to star activity which indeed isn't relevant to the subject, so that link was removed. I restored the original red link. In my opinion a red link is suitable here, since this is a notable topic that's missing its own article (see also this topic on my talk page). Linking to the existing brief mention in the chromosphere article is okay too I guess. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't look at the history far enough back. Dhrm77 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note for anyone seeing this later: Stellar activity is now a blue link since I've created a redirect ("with possibilities") to Stellar magnetic field#Surface activity, which seems to have the most coverage of the topic currently, though it doesn't mention effects on exoplanet detection. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good for now. By the way, I just added Gliese 12b to the List of potentially habitable exoplanets, since its ESI is pretty high. You might want to verify what I did. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't include it, its stellar flux is a bit too high to be in the habitable zone and if it has an atmosphere it likely resembles Venus; though I see the Dholakia et al. paper mentions this, and considers it an optimistic potentially habitable planet based on the hypothesis that Venus was once habitable. It could be included based on that, Gliese 625 b is a similar case. There's not really clear criteria for that list... SevenSpheres (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]