User talk:Solomon7968

This is Solomon7968's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

		The Special Barnstar
		For your cooperation, for the way you conduct yourself, for your readiness to put in that extra bit jojo@nthony (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tachs, thanks! Much appreciated! Solomon7968 16:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be going around main articles removing low Erdos numbers as non-relevant trivia and then demanding that we source each occurrence as relevant. However, we already do by linking to the Erdos Number wikipedia page, just look under its impact section to see that it is important to the math community. I am not going to get into an edit war with you by reverting your changes again, but I think you should take some time to familiarize yourself with the math community before going on this particular clean up. Good luck --DFRussia (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DFRussia At least one active math editor (and admin) David Eppstein agrees with my edits. Since it involves many articles I propose you open a new discussion at WT:MATH. I am already familiar with the page(s) you mentioned. Solomon7968 12:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon7968 has recently renewed his campaign to remove all mention of Erdős numbers from lots of articles. Many people consider the Erdos number to be significant. I urge Solomon7968 to slow down, at least until there is more discussion of this sweeping change. Taking him at his word, I have opened a discussion of the issue at WT:MATH. I would like to see what other editors think about this.--Toploftical (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Solomon, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 02:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

The article Mortimer Spiegelman Award has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG with no sources and lots of redlinks.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

The Guardian 100 best novels

added links pointing to Ulysses, Scoop, Kim, Kidnapped, Emma, Babbitt, Joy in the Morning, The Maltese Falcon, The Sign of Four, Vanity Fair, Peter Carey, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Sybil, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and Tom Jones

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the list from the article. Lists of this type that make value judgements are subject to copyright, and cannot be reproduced here. If creativity has gone into producing a list by selecting which facts are included or in which order they are listed, then reproducing the list may constitute a copyright violation. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, The addition was in accordance with well established previous articles. See The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time, Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century, The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time each of which is basically a list of 100 books. What about them? Solomon7968 05:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be hosting those lists either. See also Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, and The Greatest Canadian (which like many other list articles shows only the top ten). I am going to restore it for now as I am going on holiday for a week and will investigate further when I get back. I'll let you know what I find out. — Diannaa (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please format as we do a list--one item per line. Paragraph format is good for most articles, but not for lists. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG This list follows the example of a earlier similar ICM speakers list. If you mean putting those in a sortable table format then I disagree of its usefulness as it basically mounts to adding a lot of useless wikicode. The list is already one item per line in its wikicode format. I suggest if you have further concerns you post in the article talk page where others (such as David Eppstein) can contribute. I apologize for editing your post but please use the preview button more often. Solomon7968 09:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't wikicode, which can be as long as necessary to get the right appearance. The problem is the readability of the display. If there is another list done in the same pattern I shall format it according to our normal standards also. A run-on single paragraph is unreadable for more than 4 or 5 items, and we always use some sort of a list or table--my own preference is a plain list- unless there is some real reason it needs to be sortable. I did hope you'd see this yourself and fix it yourself. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incurable disease should not redirect to terminal illness. A terminal illness is a disease that you're dying from – and dying soon, not decades from now. It's not merely a disease that's permanent. As the article says, "Terminal illness is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient within a short period of time". It's not enough to be incurable; it must also be killing you.

Type 1 diabetes is "incurable", but not "terminal". All genetic disorders are "incurable", but most aren't "terminal". Herpes is "incurable" but almost never kills anyone. Therefore, redirecting "incurable disease" to "terminal illness" is factually wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mortimer Spiegelman Award 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/Mortimer Spiegelman Award until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Suitable Boy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Jones. 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) 09:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago ...

learning
... you were recipient no. 664 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and five --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and six --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexander Barvinok 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/Alexander Barvinok until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. XXN, 15:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/17/the-100-best-novels-written-in-english-the-full-list, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, This was discussed earlier (with Diannaa) in this talk page, see #The Guardian 100 best novels. Solomon7968 16:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but it doesn't seem like the issue was resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection with the article getting deleted but that means we should also get rid of similar articles. You added the template to the Crime Novels article but not to the Le Monde article. I propose you do it, it seems a waste of time to continue with this "investigation". Solomon7968 01:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of removing the list and perhaps leave the article. Also, which Le Monde article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion above, Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century. Solomon7968 12:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diseases of poverty in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the page Satyendra Nath Bose you have reverted my change from "independent" to "sovereign." If you can please explain the nature of dependence the country had, I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

Shantnup (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantnup It is pointless to complain about an edit which occurred 2 years ago, use the talk page instead so that other interested editors can join in. For starters we don't use "Bharat" (a non English term) in the English wiki as I mentioned then in the edit summary. "Independent" vs "sovereign" was only tangentially related to the reversion. Solomon7968 04:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barun K. De 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/Barun K. De until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Rathfelder (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems to have gone wrong there, this is just word salad... --Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was intentional as I lack an (semi-)automatic tool to complete the wiki linking of the article. I did notified David Eppstein (he completed my wiki linking in List of Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery) minutes after creating the article as I believe at least one of the series would interest him. You do a lot of Journal editing here, don't you; why don't you also try improving this article. FWIW I just started another CUP article which may interest you. Solomon7968 16:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]