User talk:MichaelMaggs/Archive/2022

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

Boar's Head Carol

Hello, I added, "randytaylor69 (2020). Breaking the Boar" to the "Boar's Head Carol" page under Recordings. You told me that YouTube citations aren't usually creditable, but the citation was a link to the song to prove she performed it and where to find it. Here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y65tdKk5g7g. If there's anything else I can do to make it more legit, let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForkToaster (talk • contribs) 00:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi ForkToaster, I'm afraid it's not enough to prove a performance took place, you'd also need some separate source to demonstrate that the recording is noteworthy in some way. Please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Has that specific recording been discussed in a secondary, independent, reliable source? MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

ForkToaster (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)I mean, it's literally them performing it. I don't know how to judge art as "noteworthy." They do have it on their Bandcamp. Is that a better link?

Sorry, not everything that happens, and not everything on Youtube or Bandcamp, is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The Link between The Big Bang Theory, The Origins of Life, Quantum Entanglement, Quantum and Classical Mechanics through alternation of Vibration Frequencies and Quantum entanglement by The Originator

The link between Quantum entanglement is mechanico-electrical harmony between vibration frequencies of that of cosmic background radiation and classical mechanics.Alternations of classical mechanical outputs had already been determined by the Origination of the Big Bang.

Mechanico-electrical variations must be brought back into syncrony with background cosmic radiation, this is the purpose of the origins of life on earth. Evolutionary changes over the millenia was intiated to evolve life through series of lifeforms each interrelated as is demonstrated by the incorporation of mitochondria and organelles into the biological units of existant lifeforms.The electron transport shunt is evidence of mechanico-electrical dissociation. Similarly, at a macroscopic level, interaction with existant cosmic radiation can linked to Human thought and feeling.For example, this can be resyncronised through wave forms emitted through human actions such as vocalisations vary in tone, pitch and duration.

Perhaps this too complicated to understand for those lacking a understanding of All basic sciences and medical sciences. These are of the ancient ways of sleeping giants...Thus we are full circle into understanding the purpose, meaning of life and past civilization capabilities and abilities to achieve vast and phenonmenal developments for ahead of our current time.

Current human understanding was segmented but existant forms of life that are not physically perceptual live within the matrix of the fabric of space and time. It is through mastered interaction with thee syncronisation occurs. Thee techniques have been corrupted and hidden from common knowledge and therefore I propose that thee facts Be made common knowledge. None can change the Words of Allah. May The Will of Allah be carried out hereon end. Artificial Intelligence Command And Control (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

You may be unfamiliar with how the Order of Precedence works in the United Kingdom. It does not merely include royalty and nobility but an extremely long list of people who have been honored with peerages, knighthoods, damehoods and the like. Here on Wikipedia, those who have been so honored generally get a precedence box added to their article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floella_Benjamin. I was merely adding some to the articles of people who have been honored and thus are included in the Order of Precedence. It is accurate information, not vandalism.2601:183:CA7F:7550:D53C:FB52:B099:D6A6 (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

{{S-start}} is intended for use where there is a succession of people holding a specific post or title, one after another other. For a correct example, see Keith Riglin, the most recent incumbant of the post of Bishop of Argyll and The Isles. While it can be used with {{S-prec}} for people having a specific rank within the Order of Precedence, that doesn’t work when the rank contains multiple people all at the same time. The honour that Emma Kirkby has is Dame Commander of the British Empire, which isn't a role in which one individual succeeds another: one person, then another, then another. So it's wrong to suggest as you did in the template that Barbara Kelly was 'succeeded' as DBE by Emma Kirkby who was herself 'succeeded' by Mary Perkins. The template may have been used wrongly on other articles, but that should be corrected not copied. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. I will undo my edits. Sorry for the misunderstanding.173.13.87.209 (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I appreciate that you made the edits in good faith. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Shrodinger equation

In response to your question: Thanks. If you don't agree with my wording, please add a sentence why Shrodinger equation fails to account for Special relativity and why other framework such as quantum field theory is needed. Don't jump into introducing Quantum Field Theory in the entry of Schrodinger equation without saying why it is needed. PhysicsVoice (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC).

I've done that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Popularity " In Culture"

Thanks for your response. How is it that you knew I posted my question and responded so quickly? Eschoryii (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I have that page on my watchlist and when the page popped up there I checked to see what had been posted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Dispute Etiquette/Short descriptions in math

Hello. I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on the discussion around SDs in math articles. I've read what you had to say carefully and will change some of my approaches to match your advice better (specifically length, which I've probably been too soft on).

While I've been on Wikipedia and have made occasional edits for a long time, I've been wanting to get more involved for a while and thought the SD project seemed like a great place to start (I'm personally very interested in these UX/UI type problems and the scale of each edit makes it more accessible). As a mathematician, I thought cleaning up some of the math article SDs would be a nice focus, but now I'm not sure how to proceed. It doesn't seem like a consensus is being reached, so I'm hesitant to continue editing the SDs for math articles. I've already created more conflict than I anticipated partly due to my initial poor word choices, and don't want to cause more trouble, (or waste time getting my edits reverted), but I also want to keep going. I've read through WP:DR and WP:DRR, but some points are still unclear.

1) While the conflict is being resolved, on which pages would it be appropriate to edit the SD? Should I stop altogether, stay away from math articles, or maybe just avoid the articles brought up explicitly in the debate?

2) If it doesn't seem like the discussion is approaching a consensus, at what point is it appropriate to move forward with the dispute resolution process (if I should do so at all)? Given that it's not a dispute over the content in a particular article, what would be the most appropriate action to take if needed?

Thank you again, Donko XI (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Donko XI. It's great to see you getting involved with SD editing. You're doing great work, and I do hope this won't put you off being active in the area.
To answer your questions, it's not compulsory to stay away from maths articles while this is being discussed, nor even articles that have been mentioned. As others have done, you can still edit provided that you fully take into account what has been said and attempt to follow any emerging consensus. Be very careful, though, not to put back your preferred text over the significant objections of others, as that would be considered edit warring which is prohibited. I don't think that any formal dispute resolution process would be appropriate here, as this is not so much a dispute about a specific and resolvable issue, but more a discussion about the general approach to take in maths articles. It's part of the consensus-building process, and even if the discussion ultimately peters out it may provide useful pointers that editors can take into account when they make SD changes in the future. In that way, knowledge, opinions and consensus can and do slowly change with time, in a rather organic fashion. Detailed discussion about the exact wording to be used for a specific article is best raised on that article's talk page.
Mathematics is, I am afraid, probably the field in which, over the entirety of Wikipedia, you are most likely to come across subject-matter editors who are keen to argue about the wording of each specific SD. I'm not sure why, but mathematicians do naturally value precision above all else, and in my experience often prioritise that over comprehensibility for non-mathematicians. It's similar to the fact that many maths articles have a lead requiring significant subject-matter knowledge, contrary to the "accessible overview" requirements of MOS:INTRO. As with SDs, attempts to put the lead's first sentence into plain English to make it useful for the nonspecialist per MOS:FIRST are often resisted on the grounds that the improvement is mathematically wrong.
While there is a real need for maths SDs to be improved, whether you want to make that your main focus will depend on how much stomach you have for dealing with repeated pushbacks. I, like many heavy-duty SD editors, tend to take the view that in the time taken to argue at length about one contentious SD, I could improve 100 others elsewhere. If I get reverted I'll generally take the time to explain my edit, but if I can't persuade a subject-matter editor I'll leave it and get on with something else. As SDs are still a somewhat new concept to many editors, there are - as you've noted yourself - a large proportion that need work (millions in fact), so there's never a lack of things to improve.
While it might not apply to the maths articles you've been doing, very often an editor who reverts does so simply because they aren't familiar with SDs and have never heard of WP:SHORTDESC. Unfortunately, the tools we currently have for easily editing SDs (#suggestededit-add on mobile or Shortdesc helper on the desktop) don't allow for custom edit summaries, and as you can't explain what you are doing people sometimes think you are pointlessly going around removing useful content from 100-word SDs. Although it's more work, when I'm shortening an overlong SD, I'll very often make the edit manually in the source editor just so that I can add the edit comment "Per WP:SDSHORT". It's worth doing, as very few edits then get challenged. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

go away

please leave my edits alone and go away! If this continues, I will report MichaelMaggs to Wikipedia Pencileraser22 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Alga

Hello, it looks like ShortDescBot has inconsistently added short descriptions for algae, with 920 "of algae" and 286 "of alga". Maybe this should be unified. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 01:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's expected. For species descriptions, the singular is used (eg "Species of moth"; "Species of alga"). For genus and above, it's plural (eg "Genus of moths"; "Genus of algae") MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I had also noticed that myself shortly after when looking through other kinds of organisms. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 20:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

COI?

Information icon Hello, MichaelMaggs. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Monisha Shah, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. If I read this right, and I may not, per your user page declaring you were a previous chair of WikiMedia UK you I am minded you probably need to declare that fact in XfD discussions. Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The discussion is about the topic Monisha Shah. Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

<Heading for blocked editor>

MichaelMaggs should be removed from Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencileraser22 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

go away 2

MichealMaggs should be removed from Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencileraser22 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Teyora - Development first look!

Hi! I'm Ed6767, the original creator of RedWarn, now one of the most popular tools on the English Wikipedia that's been used by over 1,000 Wikimedians to make over 300,000 edits since mid-2020 that's been praised for its user friendliness and ease of use, but criticised for its limited functionality. I'm leaving this message as I think it may be of interest here - I left the RedWarn project in November to develop Teyora, my successor to RedWarn (alongside Chlod's UltraViolet). It's a new in development web app that uses some of the latest web technologies to create a highly extendable all in one editing tool with a focus on administration, counter vandalism and general patrolling - not to mention, it'll work on every Wikimedia project without any prior configuration and can be used by any user with at least auto-confirmed rights*. Now, I'm ready to give the Wikimedia community a first look at what I've been doing over the past six months and what to expect going forward.

You can check out the 20 minute first look at the in development version on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzlpnzXdLP4.

There's lots more to expect too! Why not read the full details page at meta:Teyora and leave any feedback, comments or wishes at meta:Talk:Teyora (please leave any correspondence there to keep discussion centralised). If you're interested, you can leave your signature

*with basic features, advanced features require configuration. To prevent abuse, auto-confirmed users will be in a restricted mode until approved by an admin or via rollback rights.

All the best, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Highway Code, front cover, 2018.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Highway Code, front cover, 2018.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Expected. I uploaded an updated image. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

And Then There Were None

I don't think a citation is needed, my edit only referenced basic elements of the plot that you can easily find in the linked Wikipedia article. I'll revert my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashvio (talk • contribs) 08:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit: I updated to add a source anyway Ashvio (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Havana syndrome

Hello friend. I notice your edit doesn't match your edit summary here. I'm wondering if you edit conflicted and restored some text by accident? I'm not sure so figured I'd mention it and let you handle it. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Thanks for noting that. I'll have a look straight away, as my edit was intended only to adjust the short description. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to quantum mechanics page

Hi MichaelMaggs I am a little confused by your comments concerning Ehrenfest's theorem and quantum mechanics, could you elaborate on why you believe it doesn't cure apparent quantum-classical paradoxes?

--Best Bosonichadron2 — Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not correct to say that "Many of these paradoxes can be cured", as that implies that QM is wrong in some way. Most of the so-called 'paradoxes' are in truth things that appear from a day-to-day perspective simply weird. We should be explaining to beginner readers that such weirdnesses are unavoidable and are real, no matter how counterintuitive they may at first appear. They are not things that can be explained away by Ehrenfest or any amount of classical analysis. If there are particular and specific examples of beginner missapprehensions that Ehrenfest's theorem can help dispel, by all means let's include them. But we do need a specific reliable source for that, not just a statement to that effect. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your first sentence, because if we take the definition of paradox as Webster defines it (using 2a) and replace it in the sentence that I wrote originally:
"Many of these paradoxes can be cured using Ehrenfest's theorem, which shows that the average values obtained from quantum mechanics (e.g. position and momentum) obey classical laws."
with the definition paradox:
Many of these statements that seem contradictory can be cured using Ehrenfest's theorem, which shows that the average values obtained from quantum mechanics (e.g. position and momentum) obey classical laws.
The above sentence certainly does not make a value judgement on the correctness either of the two classical or quantum "statements" it simply says that there are apparent contradictions. But then goes on to say that many of them are not contradictions at all, because of Ehrenfest's theorem.
With paradoxes like
"How is it that Newton's laws are wrong at the atomic scale, but then perfectly correct when dealing with systems which are simply large collections of atoms?"
easily being cured by Ehrenfest's theorem. These questions being the most natural, obvious and fundamental a student might bring up, mention of Ehrenfest's Thm is extremely helpful if not absolutely necessary. As to the point of citations, the entire purpose of Ehrenfest's Thm is to answer questions/paradoxes like the above and therefore satisfy the correspondence principle. I could add a citation, but it would just be a copy of the citations which are already present in the main article on Ehrenfest's Theorem, which I linked to and is well-written, so I believe a citation would be inappropriate for that reason.
What are your thoughts? Bosonichadron2 (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Bosonichadron2, As this is about a specific article, it really should be on the article's talk page. I have replied there. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe,

Hello, I'm MichaelMaggs. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion MichaelMeggs.
I made several changes. In some cases, the original text was overly broad in its generalities, but I felt the citations {already posted in the article by others} were adequate to support the clarification (such as only oral usage appears to be the case by 18881, but written documentation didn't appear until tin-pan-alley lyrics were published after the turn-of-the-century2, both adequately cited in the original Wikipedia article).
1The counting-out rhymes of children... (H.C. Bolton,1888)
2 "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo", (song) (Bert Fitzgibbon's 1906)
Other changes I made included putting the posted data in chronological order, the citations for which I take no responsibility for, and which I assume required no additional citations even though some of the original postings might not have been adequately cited by others.
Could you be a little more granular as to which items that I posted required additional citation. I am happy to provide more specific citations for the individual items where available. (I may need help in posting the citation properly, but that's a separate issue that stems from my lack of skill and experience with Wikipedia. Apologies in advance.) DrBobDrBob (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@DrBobDrBob Apologies for the delay in replying. I've not been able to edit recently, and probably won't be able to get back to it for a few days more, but I haven't forgotten your query and will get back to it just as soon as I can. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I look forward to the input. DrBobDrBob (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@DrBobDrBob, the edit I reverted was this one which just adds a single statement and I believe is the only edit you've ever made to the Eeny, meeny, miny, moe article. My concern with that was that the lack of a source for the assertion that the version of the song using a racial slur was "probably developed shortly after the turn of the Twentieth Century along Tin Pan Alley". So far as I know, the sources don't explicitly state where and when the racial slur developed: the published dates may be consistent with that suggestion, but I don't think we can say that it "probably" developed at that time and place. The Tin Pan Alley article itself doesn't seem to address the issue (but even if it did, a separate citation/source would still be needed to support the statement in Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia).
Many apologies once again for the rather long delay in getting back to you. Happy to discuss further now if need be, especially if you have access to any sources that can shed further light on the question. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MichaelMaggs/Archive/2022&oldid=1145261079"