User talk:Lindberg G Williams Jr

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I find useful

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 03:13, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

fractional calculus[edit]

It seems we have something in common :) I once thought up how one can find any complex power of the differential operator d/dx, when I was in 10th grade and hadn't heard of fractional calculus. I was quite surprised to find the field of fractional calculus.

Loom91 12:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Translator[edit]

No I do not use any trnslator.What happens is I often mess up proper grammer as I am not a native English speaker!! This happens especially if I am writing fast (Which I do often)!!You are welcome to edit any mistakes you find. Dwaipayanc

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Property, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estate (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) 11:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 23[edit]

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.

Greed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Power and Backfire

Property (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fabrication

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Efficiency (basketball) 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:

:<tt>[[Basketball statistics|(PTS + REB + AST + STL + BLK − FG missed − FT missed − TO))]] ÷ GM</tt>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Property, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Registrar (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) 12:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cube (film series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Torment (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) 11:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DABRELATED[edit]

Re: this edit; what about WP:DABRELATED are you finding vague? It seems quite straight forward and easy to understand to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not preclude the nature of the edits which I made, at least according to my understanding. How descriptive does something have to be? See? -- Lindberg 19:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. The page is "Use". Is that term (not related terms, but that specific term) being described in your target articles? No, no they are not - only related terms are described in your target links. -- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thank you. I have made some adjustments accordingly. If you or anybody takes issue with them, please make the appropriate edits or discuss the defect. -- Lindberg 20:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relative Fear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan West (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) 11:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits, WP:ITA[edit]

Hi! I notice that in some of the articles linked from List of ineffective cancer treatments you have been attributing statements about the promotion of treatments to the body that made them. While this may not matter much, there is perhaps a slight risk that it makes the statement seem as if it is just the opinion of the source, rather than something factual. The WP:ITA guidance applies because the promotion of ineffective cancer treatments is a fringe area: and as WP:ITA cautions: "be careful not to use in-text attribution carelessly to imply that only the named sources would agree".

You also removed the "see also" link to List of ineffective cancer treatments from the Venus flytrap article. Yet venus flytrap is used to make an ineffective cancer cure, and readers interested in this aspect should have a link so that they can discover more. As MOS:SEEALSO has it: "One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Because of that, I've put the see also link back.

If you want to discuss this further, I suggest posting to the Talk page of the relevant article, so we can get more eyes on these questions. Thanks - Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "While this may not matter much, there is perhaps a slight risk that it makes the statement seem as if it is just the opinion of the source, rather than something factual." That is unfortunate but there are ways to address it, namely multiple citations and from sources that can prove, justify or elaborate upon their claims about the very climate of marketing or propaganda. By the way, truth is one thing, whereas verifiability is another, and Wikipedia seems to be more concerned about the latter. As well, the extent to which people (whomever) make untrue, pseudoscientific, fringe-like claims about health-keeping or healing methods be common knowledge is debatable unless those claims or myths are extremely popular. You wrote, "I suggest posting to the Talk page of the relevant article, so we can get more eyes on these questions." Alright. I will probably soon mention it there. And I would certainly hope more eyes could be gotten on the matter. -- Lindberg 17:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose ideally we want verifiability (as WP requires) and truth. Fortunately, by using impeccable sources like the ACS and CRUK we can be confident on both counts. I don't think there's any dispute that these treatments are promoted as such is there? If there are sources that state otherwise, and so complicate this, we should of course take them into account ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Add) By the way, purely out of interest I did a "real world" test for Kombucha by Googling for "kombucha cancer cure" to see whether there was a belief "out there" that it's a cancer cure. You might want to do the same - prepare to be horrified! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am horrified, but I have to remember that the Web is being dealt with. It is amazing how loose people can be with their use of the word "cure." That sort of thing is not allowed in other media, and wherever it might not be diligently enforced, some kind of tort complaint is probable to arise. You wrote, "I don't think there's any dispute that these treatments are promoted is there?" Is dispute required? Maybe. However, we could simply focus on products as it were that have both the attentions of ACS and CRUK, or the attentions of multiple like-organizations. Again, their specialties are medicine, not the tracking of other people's marketing and propaganda. --Lindberg 17:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leopoldo Laborde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Troupe (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) 12:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your MoS edit[edit]

As you accurately guessed, any edit to the primary manual of style --like any edit to a massively transcluded template-- is de facto controversial because of the number of pages it effects. More focused MoS's may not require the same care, but for the main one, always discuss first. --erachima talk 01:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What erachima said. --Rs chen 7754 01:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A concurrence? -- Lindberg 01:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That is sound reasoning, but rather tactical. What is the worst that could happen? -- Lindberg 01:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration is the aim. Also, the reason for the SineBot posts above is that a signature must have a link, see WP:SIGLINK. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion is a rather serious and caustic way to repair an edit. However, if it is standard operating procedure, one does what one has to do. -- Lindberg 01:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The worst that could happen is that there's an existing consensus for another standard elsewhere, but nobody there notices your change for several months, by which point we have two different local standards that have become entrenched, and then it comes up at WP:FAR or some similar process and brings it to a screeching, grinding halt. In short, while the normal standard is "Be Bold" it's better to be cautious when it comes to changes with global impact.
As for being reverted, it's called Bold, Revert, Discuss for a reason and you shouldn't take offense at it. --erachima talk 02:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you, erachima. -- Lindberg 21:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signature-wise, your code should be something like [[User:Lindberg G Williams Jr|Lindberg]] <small>[[User talk:Lindberg G Williams Jr|talk]]</small>. --erachima talk 02:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're still not signing your posts. Please could you add a signature when you post on talk pages. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Office of War Information, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George E. Taylor (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) 20:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cube (film series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Torment (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) 09:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redlink categories[edit]

Please do not add un-created categories to articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As pursuant to? --Lindberg 09:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:CAT: "An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist." Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "People made notable by their deaths" is bound to be a controversial one, and should be discussed before being created. The same goes for some of the articles you've added it to, which seem inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Everything is controversial.) Inappropriate? Which ones? --Lindberg 10:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(No, it's not.) Please go to Wikipedia talk:Categorization and discuss your desired new category there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not here? --Lindberg 10:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Because there are more people there than here, and the people there know more about the subject. Go there, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of notability as it functions and has functioned since the dawn of man? Or death? --Lindberg 10:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

O, categorization. While there may be some people with experience, there are quite likely zero experts available on the matter, as Wikipedia:Categorization and related pages are not in depth (requiring "expansion") despite containing multiple items. --Lindberg 10:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Lindberg G Williams Jr. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 18:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gangster Disciples may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"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:

= [[People Nation]], [[Almighty Black P. Stone Nation | Black P.Stones]], [[Crips]]]
gangpreventionservices.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.gangpreventionservices.org/BGD.asp |title=> Black Gangster Disciples |publisher=Gang Prevention Services |date= |accessdate=2011-02-10}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roman numerals[edit]

Hi,

I've removed the two changes you made to World War I and World War II, as I think they would tend to confuse readers - I think it's fair to say that as many people will speak "World War I" as "world war one" as would read it as "first world war", and that both forms are valid. Roman numerals doesn't appear to discuss this sort of use in any detail, as far as I can tell. Emphasising pronunciation also gives the impression that writing "First World War" is incorrect, which certainly isn't the case!

Thanks, & hope this explains the removal. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps consult Wikipedia's Teahouse or the community behind Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Although, I'm sure that anything to be proposed will be seen as "instruction creep." --Lindberg 20:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:People made notable by their deaths[edit]

Category:People made notable by their deaths, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Forest (2016 Thai film) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Forest (2016 Thai film) 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/The Forest (2016 Thai film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

|| Orbit Wharf 04:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]