User talk:Peterl

Welcome!

Hello, Peterl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Performance Section of article ‘Green Threads’

Hello Peter,

I deleted the Performance section of Green threads. Since I created a talk and provided detailed explanations for my deletion, I’m not quite sure why you restated this section. As I've explained in my talk, Performance section contains various misquotes and its references are quite out of date yet the results are generalized.

Please let me know if I need to follow a specific process before modifying a section.

Regards --Balashx (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Balashx. This is a good summary, but it's in the wrong place. It should be on the talk page for Green Threads, so I'm copying it over there. Also, when you make a large edit like this (or in fact any edit), you MUST provide an edit summary. peterl (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


And Thank-you for copying my comments to the correct location and your instructions I will follow them from this point on.--Balashx (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion review of 'Outlook Redemption'

Hi Peter. I've moved it into your userspace at User:Peterl/Outlook Redemption so that you can work on it. Let me know when once you've established notability, and we'll see about moving it back to mainspace. Thanks,--cj | talk 01:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CJ. How do I show the usefulness of it to those that aren't familiar with the product? Google provides a million hits (not all relevant!) - do I use that as a starting point? peterl 01:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Peter. It's not really about showing the product's usefulness; rather, you need to assert why it is significant or notable. The article still fails to do this, and still reads primarily as a promotion. To establish notability, you need to find a reliable published source which comments on its significance - it might state, by way of example, that Redemption is the most used software of its kind, or maybe that it has received multiple awards, or anything else along these lines. Thanks, --cj | talk 09:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article at least now contains a slight assertion of notability, which would save it from speedy deletion. However, it would still be deleted via normal means because you have not provided reliable sources; indeed, the source for the assertion of notability does not even work. You may wish to look at WP:CITE as well.
I can restore the article if you wish, but I would also have to list it as an article for deletion.--cj | talk 16:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vista software compat

Hi. Saw that you added the software compat info to the Windows Vista article. However, I have some serious reservations regarding that info in the article. Could you please take a look at them here. --soum (0_o) 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will check it out and reply peterl 10:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did. --soum (0_o) 11:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible

In that article, is the expression "good faith" edit a redundancy? :) Wahkeenah 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aussies

Heh well its not really NPOV you know, well I assume your joking ;-) Ashkani 05:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay!!!! Ashkani 05:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Windows Vista (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced tag

Hi, I just noticed you dropped an unsourced tag on Paddlewheel Park. I was adding the sources and mistakenly saved the page before doing so. Glad someone out there's paying close attention though. So, if it's okay with you, I'll just remove that tag or you can pop by again and check that I added the proper sources. Thanks.CindyBo 04:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Cindy. peterl 04:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Tag

Hi, Could you explain why you've marked some of the articles created by User:Sumibot for deletion? I've added appropriate references in the articles created. --(Sumanth|Talk) 09:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that these articles are not about any person(you've added db-bio). These are Indian location articles.--(Sumanth|Talk) 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I marked them because of non-notability. There's no notability information as to why these articles are notable. Wikipedia is not just a list of things; things need to be notable to be included. peterl 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I couldn't quickly find the right non-notable template tag. db-bio was the first one that I saw. peterl 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the articles created by this bot are at the sub-district level in India. These things have already been discussed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Sumibot. Please do not hastily mark them for deletion. --(Sumanth|Talk) 10:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't know. Maybe have a link to that page. peterl 10:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please remove the tags? As per policy I cannot delete the tag as I am responsible for creation of these articles. Do you mean to say that we need to have a link to the discussion on article pages? I don't think that is required as the page itself cites the references. The bot user page also gives info about its tasks. I think that should suffice. The bot wouldn't be

approved without proper trial. --(Sumanth|Talk) 10:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the speedy deletion. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Cities and shops, "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." AecisBrievenbus 11:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected: I was going to decline the speedy, but Khukri (talk · contribs) beat me to it. AecisBrievenbus 11:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Buffet

The AGVN's reviews are good enough to have a link on Wikipedia, this one is no exception. I'm going to go make dinner now, I'll add the link back later tonight. Duhman0009 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. See not-notable link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Angry_video_game_nerd) peterl 20:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop of Raphoe

Hi, I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on this article. The formatting's a bit of a mess, but I can't see what's particularly confusing about the article to the point that we don't know where it contextually fits in the grand scheme of encyclopedic knowledge. Johnleemk | Talk 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"brian d foy" is never capitalized

I undid your edit. You need to read closer before making changes like that. --Randal L. Schwartz 00:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see the sed talk page, it uses copyrighted material without aknowledgement. consider the edit done by this user: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.198.226.118 he was spamming on irc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.124.141.250 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy hints

1. Any assertion of notability prevents a speedy A7--if you think the notability is inadequate, use PROD or AfD. 2. Only the types of things listed in WP:CSD can be speedied. Films and other fiction are not among them. Reason is, they take moret than one or two people to judge fairly. DGG (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Chill

I am adding the website right now for notabillity. What do you mean it sounds like a hoax? Any tips to improve it? I just found it on the requested articale list so I made it.--Natasha (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will try to reword some sentences Natasha (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cells in spreadsheet article

Because cells can have numerous meanings including jails and biological cells, it should have quotes around the word in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.121.73 (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sarsanda

A tag has been placed on Sarsanda requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spreadsheet Features - first occurence of features - WYSIWYG etc

I don't think you are aware of the "WORKS RECORDS SYSTEM" in use at ICI in 1974 - which was a mainframe based WYSIWYG, interactive spreadsheet with automatic recalculation, most, if not all ,of the features listed - and a lot more besides including named cells, remote data cells, separation of Input/Output and formulae. It also had automatic backup, aged values and a whole lot more.

see

That is why I corrected the article to include the PC qualifier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdakin3420 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then this information should go in the spreadsheet page, not here.

peterl (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It, and a lot more was in the Spreadsheet Page but was removed because of "no original research" etc (Wikipedia rules) - even though it was not research and, I suspect, because of the vested interests of certain parties in maintaining the status quo. There is still an external link to the ICI history but the History section of Spreadsheets has brushed it under the carpet under various "time sharing" products tagKdakin3420 (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimers disease

You reverted here, but I don't understand why. Are you saying the cite says that drugs actually delay the disease, not just the symptoms?LeadSongDog (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand why. Please help us to understand.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The linked abstract at [2] clearly says 'Cholinesterase inhibitors have shown modest efficacy in terms of ... stabilization for periods generally ranging from 6 to 12 months.'. So yes, there is evidence that some of the drugs do actually delay the progression of the disease (by 'stabilising' the changes). This is a long, long way from curing, avoiding, stopping or even completely halting the disease. Also note that it's hard with AD to make a clear distinction between the 'disease' and the 'symptoms'. peterl (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose its a question of how optimistic the reader is. The statements "Cholinesterase inhibitors have shown modest efficacy in terms of symptomatic improvement and stabilization for periods generally ranging from 6 to 12 months. There are additional data that have emerged, which suggest longer-term benefits." say to the pessimistic reader that: (a) symptoms are improved and stabilized for some months; and (b) any benefit beyond that time is as yet unconfirmed. LeadSongDog (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the appearance of the senile plaques be an indication of the progress of the disease vs. the progress of the symptoms?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C++

Thank you! The addition you made to C++ is much appreciated! --Yamla (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

db-empty

Please don't add db-empty tags to articles with several sentences and a relevant EL, such as William Charles Bonaparte-Wyse. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pippy

Hey Peter, if you don't like it that way, could you rephrase it instead of deleting the whole thing? I believe Pippy does belong with this article. Where else would you put it? Sure, I guess it can also have its own page, but even if it doesn't, Pippy has to be mentioned. What other grown-up programming language is massively (500.000+ and counting) distributed to school-kids worldwide? so, how would you phrase it if you don't like mine? or would you think something like that does not deserve a mention? yamaplos 17:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talk • contribs)

Let's work together by consensus on Joyce Meyer

Please see Talk:Joyce Meyer#Elimination of "Criticism" section. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Cusworth

Hi Peterl, I've declined this speedy deletion as 'winning media awards' I take as an assertion of importance. ϢereSpielChequers 05:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kade

How dare you claim my article is a "blatant and obvious hoax". I put links to everything confirming everything I wrote was factually correct. Why don't you type "arthur kade" into Google and see over 25,000 hits from several national and international media outlets. 100% very notable. Arthurkade (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note

I have removed the speedy deletion notice you placed the article I created, Adam London, as he is notable for inclusion as a first-class cricketer.

I realize his stats are yet to update on his external link, but they will do so in time to back up his notability. Bobo. 11:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I have indeed found out that he is in fact not yet notable, for reasons I was previously unaware. I removed the hang-on tag that I had previously placed on the page. Bobo. 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Ammonium Sulfamate 99.5%,3600 tons output.

Hello Peterl, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Ammonium Sulfamate 99.5%,3600 tons output.) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! NW (Talk) 02:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Google Variations

Hello Peterl, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Google Variations - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguously promotional. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 04:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Foreign Bodies (SJ Lakes book)

Hello Peterl, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Foreign Bodies (SJ Lakes book) - a page you tagged - because: Doesn't apply to books. Let the PROD run. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  15:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deletion of Urethral Gauge

Inserted contents of Urethral Gauge Daniel David Ryan (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, I'm not quite sure why you have pasted the contents of this contested page onto my page. By reviewing your talk page, I note that you have attempted to create this page many times, and in every case it has been deleted. Please note that blatant advertising is not allowed in Wikipedia, and will be removed. Thanks peterl (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Holly Halston

Hello Peterl. I am just letting you know that I deleted Holly Halston, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  19:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the template, your tagging as A7 was fine, but I always think that deleting as recreated from an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Halston) is slightly stronger as it were. Hard for you to know that it was previously deleted though, so don't worry about it! GedUK  19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ged UK. peterl (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Peterl. You have new messages at Shimeru's talk page.
Message added 02:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

VIASPACE

Hi, the Viaspace article has been trimmed down by various contributers over the weeks. Can the speedy deletion tag be removed from the article at this time. The article is no where near spam territory at this time. CleanFuture (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A7

IMHO A7 should not apply to Basil Bessonoff because it does claim the subject to be notable, even though it is unreferenced. Please try PROD instead. Cheers Kayau Voting IS evil 04:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spyder

Regarding your edit, I thought the guidelines in MOS:DAB are very clear. Only one blue link per line, regardless of how useful the information is. The explanation should also be concise. Am I missing something here? Is this some exception I was not aware of? --Muhandes (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry, but I believe the other line you added is also against MOS:DAB. MOS:DABRL lists when a redlink should be used: "when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link", the article here would be IDLE (Python), except IDLE (Python) is very unlikely to include it as a red links, since it is an alternative to it, so it would only include it as a blue link due to notability. The only ways I see to include Spyder (Programming) in Spyder are either to create an article on it, or, if it is not notable enough for an article, write a section about it in another article, and do a section redirect. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Exsite Webware (software)

Hello Peterl. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Exsite Webware (software), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peterl: There are 128 other Content management Systems listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_source_content_management_systems but I don't see how Exsite Webware (software) is substantially different encyclopedically from any of the others, especially with respect to "notability". They're mostly just industrial-type CMS systems used to keep websites sorted and running. Can you help me to understand what it is about Exsite Webware (software) in particular that you find unacceptable? Santamoly (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Santamoly. Looking at Plone (software) and Drupal in particular (ones I know about), they both assert their notability:
  • 'High-profile public sector users include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Brazilian Government, United Nations, City of Bern (Switzerland), New South Wales Government (Australia), and European Environment Agency.'
  • 'It is used as a back-end system for at least 1.5% of all websites worldwide'
The references you have supplied are self-referential. You need independent third-party references to the notability.
It also need a cleanup of weasel words 'any number of websites' (any number? 1 billion? 2.5?) 'high performance' (what performance?) etc. The article reads like an ad.
Thanks. peterl (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Speedy Deletion, one comment above by Salvio said that "indication of importance" is not a requirement for software. Therefore the article ought not be deleted for lack of any "indication of importance" (Criterion A7).
No, lack of "indication of importance" is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Review General notability guidelines for whether the topic is notable. The article may still be deleted if it's not notable.
I'm guessing that, once past this hurdle, the article must now establish "notability". Am I correct? Is there an escalating chain of tests that each article must pass regarding "importance", "notability", etc? I'll do my best to muster evidence for each threshold, but I'm not sure how to prepare for each succeeding test. It will take me some time to establish, for example, the limit to the maximum 'number of websites' that can be hosted by one instance of Exsite since no limit has been discovered yet, and the limit changes in step with technology.
This phraseeology may be viewed by some as 'weasel words', and makes the article seem like an advertisement. You don't need to find this out to establish the software's notability.
What is your relationship to the software? Are you one of the developers?
Also, if Exsite Webware is being used by a large institution, does that alone establish notability, or do you require that the institution itself publish an acknowledgement that they are using the software?
Well, you do need a reliable, third-party report of it. But just because a website is using some software doesn't automatically make that software notable.
If a web page says "Powered by Exsite Webware", does that qualify as a secondary source?
Possibly. If it's independent and reliable.
There are pages and pages of Google results that attest to the widespread use of Exsite Webware. Are Google results evidence of notability?
No. There are more than 4 million hits for the phrase 'hypnotizing fleas; that doesn't make it notable.
While I am working on fixing the quality issues, are you working on deleting the article?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I don't delete articles - according to the template 'Unsourced material may be challenged and removed'. Any editor can list an article that doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion rules.
Please let me know so that I can know how to focus my time on this challenging issue. Santamoly (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
peterl (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am not a developer of this package, although I have used the open-source download version, so I'm somewhat familiar with it. With regard to your criticism that my commentary on Exsite Webware was "self-referential": you noted that two CMS systems (Plone & Drupal) "assert their notability" by listing their world-wide base of Grade-A users. Would a similar approach to cataloging the notability of Exsite Webware be acceptable to you? Or is it NOT acceptable as being "self-referential"? I'm not sure I understand the difference. Would it be necessary to list names of users in greater detail (more detail than in your Drupal example)? And does that establish software notability sufficient to fend off deletion?
Are you also suggesting that one can use Google hits as a measure of notability, if the hits are true third-party sources? What would be the Google-hits threshold for claiming notability? "Exsite Webare" generates 100,000+ Google hits, which is less than "George W Bush". This clearly shows that Exsite Webware is less notable than George W Bush. But does that also mean that Exsite Webware should be deleted for insufficient notability? As you can see, I'm trying to ensure a reasonable start-up article without having everything promptly flushed for lack of notability. Thanks. Santamoly (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability, independent and reliable for answers to your questions. peterl (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. I have been all through these sections, and don't see any big problems. It appears to me that you are focused on deleting the article even though it's in reasonable condition for a starter article. What I'm looking for is some inkling of understanding as to why you are pressing the notability issue so aggressively for Exsite Webware (software), when it clearly isn't enforced as you see it for most of the other 130 articles on Content Management Software, eg: Alfresco (software) or Pier (software). Further, you cited Plone when discussing "self-referential" content, but the Plone page is almost entirely self-referential. Can you please explain your views on these matters? It will help me to understand exactly how an offending article appears to you. I'm still in the dark on this, and could use some help seeing it your way. I'm OK with the Wikipedia terms; it's how YOU see it that's puzzling me. Thanks. Santamoly (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Usonigbe

Hello Peterl, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Usonigbe, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to towns. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Super Belief

Hello Peterl, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Super Belief, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Apples & Ampalaya

Hello Peterl. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Apples & Ampalaya to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question: A7 does not apply to books, and this is not so promotional as to qualify for G11. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Stanley Ka Dabba

Hello Peterl, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stanley Ka Dabba, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to movies. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam

You may wish to review the editor in question's edit history (and keep in mind that Sheridan Voysey does not currently merit an article) before deciding if the link has merit. It's inclusion appears to have the purpose of promoting the interviewer, rather than illuminating the topic of the interviewee. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yes I see. I was only viewing that one article in isolation - you have pointed out that rather overly prolific external linking. It does appear to be self-promotion ('SMV' may be initials - and the birth year? may be right). The video interview on Young is quite balanced and has information not elsewhere covered. I saw you've taken out other of SMV's edits, which I do agree on - such as the Nick V. transcript which was blatantly a push for SV's book. I'm inclined to leave the WPY interview there on its own merits. Any other observations? peterl (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're happy to vouch for the utility of this particular link knowing the context, then I'm happy to accept your judgement -- ELs really aren't worth spending too much time over. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Peterl! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed speedy deletion on Monster Pinball

Please note that WP:CSD#A7 does not apply to software, ever. It can be used for people, individual animals, organizations (including companies), and web content, but nothing else. I ended up deleting the article anyway under G11 as a purely promotional article, but please, do take care with your speedy deletion tagging. Looking up at your talk page, I see all sorts of concerns that you are tagging things improperly. Note that the criteria are very strict--they may only be used for the exact things listed in the criteria--all other subjects must go through another deletion process. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed that you're tagging pages too fast. You should never tag a page under A7 within only a few minutes of its creation. Many editors like to start an article, and then make successive edits to improve it. WP:NPP recommends no less than 15 minutes, but, to be honest, I never tag anything under A7 in less than a few hours (only things like copyright violations or personal attacks need to go faster). Tagging too rapidly strongly discourages new users, at least some of whom may be contributing in good faith. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Peterl! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Patch Tuesday

Hello Peter, I was wondering if you could please explain your rationale to me regarding the citation replaced in Patch Tuesday. While the citation that I placed did not explicitly mention "Patch Tuesday" (it is a formal Microsoft publication, one could hardly expect them to use an unofficial name) it did provide a reference to the statement that the second Tuesday of the month is when Microsoft security patches are released on. The CNet citation you provided, while referencing that the term "Patch Tuesday" is used, didn't really seem to provide other information relevant to the article. No other page cited backs up the statement that it is specifically the second Tuesday of each month when the MS security patches are released, ref 5 states MS will have "a monthly patch release schedule"; the only page that references this is not cited in the text but under 'references'. Could the MS publication not remain as a supporting citation? Thanks for your time. HMman (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've added it back in with an explanation. Interesting how MS rarely refer to it as 'Patch Tuesday'; I did dig up one ref, so added that in too. Thanks. peterl (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for hearing me out. The additional citation you placed had a typo in it (http://http://blogs...), rendering it useless, so I fixed it. HMman (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyes@wikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Security Now, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juice (software) (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) 11:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While not secondary sources, both studies are high quality. Many other references on the AD page are primary. peterl (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that named external links are not permitted in the body of the article. All external links must be in the notes, references, further reading, or external links section. See WP:EL for details. Yworo (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

360cities

Hi, I responded to you on my talk page —rybec 00:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Snapshot (file format) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Snapshot (file format) 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/Snapshot (file format) 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. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SQL

Why would you remove the W3Schools link on SQL stating its not authorititive? How is it not? And then you add the deleted O'Reilly link that's not even a link .. just a quote from a page that 'apparently exists'! That's even worse. And how does SQL not stand for Structured Query Language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detjo (talk • contribs) 21:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acronis True Image license

Hello, Peterl

I just saw your edit of licensing terms (Edit summary: "Don't know when it got marked shareware - it's not") in Acronis True Image article. For the life of me, I cannot possibly imagine why you think it isn't shareware; in fact, I'd be glad to hear what you have to say.

As a precaution, I checked its website ([3]) as well as Softpedia ([4],[5]), FileHippo ([6]) and Download.com ([7]): They all concur that a limited free trial version of this product is available, which makes it a shareware. Just for the reference, a shareware or trialware is a computer program made to public free of charge, although some limitations (such as licensing terms, period of use or feature set available) may apply. This is exactly the case with Acronis True Image.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But I don't think 'shareware' or (in this case more correctly) 'trialware' is the *license*. According to Software_license, "The hallmark of proprietary software licenses is that the software publisher grants the use of one or more copies of software under the end-user license agreement (EULA), but ownership of those copies remains with the software publisher (hence use of the term "proprietary")." which is clearly the *license* of ATI. From my view, the distribution method is shareware/trialware (although in reality, I can't imagine many people using it for a trial and then not buying it. Why would you need a back up for only a month?). I don't even think shareware should be listed as a license - it's actually got very little to do with the license. 11:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There are three problems with your discussion.
  1. What you just quoted is generalized. In other words, it is correct but not correct enough. It is analogous to changing the description of Albert Einstein from Scientist to Human because a biology book describes human as a bipedal creature in possession of two eyes and two ears. Well, a scientist meets all the mentioned criteria but with the additional conditions of having studied and worked in the field of science. Shareware is a commercial proprietary software, but one that grants additional rights and demands additional responsibilities, including the right to use free of charge for a limited period of time with limited features. The main objection with changing "Shareware" to "Commercial proprietary" is the same as changing "Scientist" to "Human": Generalized information are of little value.
  2. If it requires a change in the license agreement, then it is a form of software license. That said, why do you think distribution channel does not concern license agreement? On the contrary, it is one of the primary concerns of an EULA. Try it now: Check several license agreements on your computer. You will find that most proprietary EULAs prohibit redistribution, sale, lease, rent, transfer or other forms of redistribution while GPL and BSD specifically mention that doing so is allowed.
  3. You quoted software license article in attempt to deny that "shareware" is a software license type. However, the article itself has explicitly included "shareware" in its diagram as an example of a software licensing scheme (a subcategory of "Proprietary").
In the meantime, consensus is our way of work in Wikipedia. Trialware and shareware are specified as license types of many different programs in numerous different articles. This shows that there is broad consensus in favor of regarding "shareware" a license type. (See WP:EDITCONCENSUS) Before you mention it, yes, consensus can change, but one should first change the consensus before editing against it.
Best rgards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie

Hi Peterl, I am just explaining my edits on Aussie. The article is for the word Aussie. As you know the word replaces Australia and Australian, not an Australian. Where an is used, it remains either way, eg: I am going to Australia = I am going to Aussie. He is Australian = He is Aussie. Dave is an Australian icon = Dave is an Aussie icon. cheers, FlatOut

Wolbachnia

Was already discussed in the research section of the article. Still being studied and not being actively used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BracketBot! My bad. Fixed. peterl (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Cave sign.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Peterl. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Reference Errors on 7 November

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Timing belt (camshaft)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Timing belt (camshaft), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C family languages

FYI, re the Python article and "C family" languages Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of C-family programming languages

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Julia langauge

About you deleting "even". Thanks! I put the word in, it may have been a mistake, even at the time. At least now, I'm ok with it gone. I however was thinking if you deleted for the wrong reasons based on your edit summary "Many languages support web site creation".

I think I know what you mean.., but do be sure, can you explain..? comp.arch (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi comp.arch. I just thought the sentence reads more cleanly without it. I was aiming for "parallel structure" in the three items in the list.
peterl (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what I read into the edit summary, you can use Julia with other languages (true, I put in the info on other languages), and because they are good for the web you can use Julia for the web (also true, but doesn't rule out using Julia on its own for web use). Are you only interested in the article or the language, e.g. actually using it?
I noticed another edit, in an article, "move" vs. "copy" (seemed just a minor edit at first until I looked into, I'm not sure it belongs there but I would have to check out.. not sure I care to much). I then noticed it was also you, but I wasn't previously familiar with you name :) comp.arch (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Python & Genie

Thanks for this edit, with the ref. The editor who added Genie has been adding many languages to many articles, as influenced by or influencing, without any references. Kudos for you for getting a reference. TJRC (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. HalcyonHaylon (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page semi-protected. "Concerns" section remains. "Please be aware that properly-sourced material is not removed from articles simply because it is critical. In some cases, the criticism may be justified, or may reflect the opinions of many people familiar with the matter."
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:HalcyonHaylon_reported_by_User:Peterl_.28Result:_Semiprotected.29
peterl (talk)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Macrium Reflect (August 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of websites and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Still not close enough to suggest accepting for notability; what would help is to add all additional amounts of reviews.
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.
SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Peterl. 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]

Django Resource

Hi Peterl.

Would you please state the reason why you removed the link I added to the Djagno Wiki page ? The resource is really good. I kindly suggest you to take a look at it. As an experienced Django developer, I would like to tell you that it is one of the through and updated resource would I have found. If you still doubt me, please look at it before making any decision. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasray11 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your page. peterl (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peterl, Instead of discussing things solely through edit summaries, I figured we could start the discussion here. The unnecessary External Links I'm removing from the EL sections generally do not meet WP:EL. ELs should be kept to a minimum. Usually no more than an Official Website is needed. Additionally, we aren't a linkfarm/directory to editors, filters or converters. If we have a link to the Official Website, then we don't need a link to the their their help docs on the same sites. We also don't need links to their github/sourceforge sites when those links exist within the official site. If you continue the conversation here or elsewhere (article Talks, my Talk, Wikipedia_talk:External_links, WP:ELN, etc.), please ping me as a courtesy. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. ELs should be kept to a minimum. ELs are not a link farm. But ELs are not just for the official site. No where on WP:EL is that stated. It does say:
"External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article".
and
"Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."
I disagree with the removal of some of the links, so will add back ones that I believe should belong there. If they violate WP:EL, then clear notification of exactly which point they violate would be helpful (noting that WP:EL is a guideline not a rule).
peterl (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Peter. Thanks for continuing the conversation. I see that you made your case at Help Desk and had another Editor and an Administrator tell you the pruning of external links from these articles and similar edits was cool. Yet, you've apparently decided to go against consensus there and Wikipedia's consensus with External Links (see WP:EL) and started adding back unnecessary external links. So, let's talk a bit more about how Wikipedia handles External Links, Guidelines, notifying other editors of conversations and who has the burden of justifying the addition of external links.
You've mentioned WP:EL is 'a guideline, not a rule'. You are right. "Policies are standards that all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts." (See ( Policies and guidelines for more information on the the differences, including the supplemental essay Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays). The specific context here is External Links. What you see at WP:EL is the consensus at Wikipedia about how we treat links that lead outside of Wikipedia. There are two avenues for joining in a conversation about how we treat external links at Wikipedia_talk:External_links and the EL noticeboard.
In your Help Desk request, another editor was kind enough to notify me you started a discussion involving me there. I asked, in my first comment, for the courtesy of letting me know when you've continued a conversation, but I failed to tell you *how* you could do that! My preferred way for letting someone know (pinging them) about a conversation is to use {{u|Stesmo}} in your comment. That should put a little notification in my Alerts (e.g. "Maproom mentioned you on Wikipedia:Help desk in "Editor making mass changes to EL sections""...). There are other ways, including leaving a message on someone's talk page that there is a conversation awaiting them elsewhere, but I'm not as familiar with them.
Back to the External Links... Per WP:EL, the burden lies on the editor wishing to add External Links to the EL section to justify why it should be there. I'll remove external links that I don't believe meet the WP:EL bar, and if you still feel strongly that there are ELs that just have to be added back, please either take it to the article's Talk page or WP:ELN with how the research at the link adds to the encyclopedic understanding of that particular article's subject and how that information couldn't be incorporated into the article and the link used as a cite. After consensus is gained at the Talk page, you can add them to the article. Again, notify me with {{u|Stesmo}} when you do start these conversations, as I'd like to join in the conversation.
Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Echidna

I get what you are saying. You might want to rewrite it so subsequent paragraphs do not start with the same word. Too many articles on here look like a fourth grade book report as opposed to an encyclopedia article. Cheers.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Done. peterl (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trabb Pardo–Knuth algorithm

I've checked pylint, and your change results in more warnings. Besides, in my version, the warnings are about naming convention and docstring only. --Ricvelozo (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said pylint, I meant PEP8:
"Always use a def statement instead of an assignment statement that binds a lambda expression directly to an identifier.
Yes:
def f(x): return 2*x
No:
f = lambda x: 2*x
Yes, pylint does issue some warnings, but I don't think we need comments or docstrings in this.
peterl (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK with that. And what about the conditionals? Expressions are more concise and pythonic. --Ricvelozo (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Expressions are more concise, but whether that makes them more pythonic is debateable. PEP 308 makes it plain that "The motivating use (of the conditional expression) case was the prevalence of error-prone attempts to achieve the same effect using "and" and "or". Which is not the issue here. This technique did have to be used in places like a lambda, where an "if" statement is not allowed. Again, this is not the issue here.
A similar issue can be considered with Perl's trailing-if. If one considers the important part of the print here, it's that y gets printed. But that is hidden at the end of the print, and is not obvious at all.
While this particular use case is not covered in PEP 8, one could quote PEP 20's "Readability counts" as a reason to stick with the clearer (although more wordy) original code.
Importantly, inline conditionals can cause all sorts of problems with coverage tests. See [8]
peterl (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numberphile people

Sorry that I completely disagree with you about Matt Parker being "prominent". But...

If you want to fight a battle worth winning, figure out why some WP editors are implacably opposed to a page for James Grime of Numberphile. The page was very well written (by other people) and posted several times and it always gets deleted. This is an anomaly. He is the only "prominent" (on Numberphile) person who does not have a WP page. I tried to restore his page myself. It was deleted once again.

Not only did they delete the page–for the fifth time–they also removed all copies of the page from the archive (it existed until recently). They also combed through Wikipedia and carefully removed all red links to James Grime. --Toploftical (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pycon for syntax highlighting

NumPy is not a language on its own, it is a library for Python. "pycon" means Python console and is used when syntax highlighting code that is run in the ipython console as opposed to source code in a file, so you see the ">>>" means text inputted in the ipython console. -- Frap (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I hadn't seen "pycon" used before. Thanks. Where would I find a list of languages supported by wikipedia syntax highlighting? peterl (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but some information is available on the extension page. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SyntaxHighlight#Supported_languages -- Frap (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RDRAND, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PRNG. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tools for static code analysis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Impact analysis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --180.251.152.116 (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm - which page? peterl (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited QuantLib, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you're quite right DPL bot. Fixed. peterl (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peterl

it says "python is garbage-collected". I know it is a technical term, but it is not usual to say something is garbage-collected.Kiatdd (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Brewster has been accepted

Richard Brewster, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Rusalkii: peterl (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]