User talk:Onemillionthtree

Welcome!

Hi Onemillionthtree! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and the 1947 flying disc 'craze'

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! I just wanted to explain why the word 'craze' is appropriate and consistent with a Neutral Point of View. In this case, UFO believers and skeptics and historians ALL use the same name. If it had been up to me, I might have called it a "flap" or a 'wave' or something, but the reliable sources use "craze" for '47. Per WP:COMMON, I'm supposed to use the most common name, not substitute my own language. Feoffer (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the welcome! In Rhodes UFO photographs you returned the Arnold drawing which I had previously deleted - which I now have added a link and the relevant dates into which I think is helpful to compare with the dates of the Rhodes date - the year does help as the reader could think someone forgot to add the year - seeing the year simply confirms the information without needing to presume to almost 100% certainty that the day and month corresponds to the year 1947 - which is obvious it should but knowing it does does confirm this - for those who are doubt prone - and UFO as a subject matter I think does tend towards irrational doubt - the uncertainty involved. After I made the edits I noticed: the Background - it isn't the background of the Rhodes images and is actually information on Arnold and "1947 craze" - shouldn't this be changed? The tone of the passage seems to imply that the craze produced the images - but this isn't possible: in any situation - if an extraterrestrial craft existed in the air and Rhodes was present to take the images the fact of the so-called craze would make no difference to Rhodes's decision - to capture the image of something extraordinary. Onemillionthtree (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted

@Stepho-wrs: I am sorry ! Onemillionthtree (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - this is how we all learn. Stepho talk 05:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Betsy Arakawa 1980s.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Betsy Arakawa 1980s.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a copyright violation and has no credible claim of fair use or permission. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Khiikiat (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flying saucer

Hey, a lot of people worked hard to make this a good article. Could you have some respect and not edit war about silly things like linking and redundant wording? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just think not everyone would know what a saucer is. For those who know it is obvious: for people who don't they accept the term "flying saucer" as being the photograph - the mystery of both is mixed together and they don't necessary ever question what the saucer word actually means. Onemillionthtree (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Page loading time"

Hi! I saw your recent edits and edit summaries. I'm pretty sure that edits like this have no effect on the page loading time for readers, since the edit makes no difference to the resulting HTML that is transmitted to their browsers. If you are concerned about wasting the time of Wikipedia editors, then, again, I think the edits don't help, as these changes pop up on people's watchlists, and make it more difficult for editors to follow the history of the page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. I checked the rendered HTML before and after these edits to Help:Creating a bot and there was no difference. Anomie ⚔ 13:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does reducing the bytes of the document not increase processing speed? In a sample from this: Simon E Spero Analysis of HTTP Performance problems www.w3.org @ "HTTP Illustrated" "This page is 1668 bytes long" indicates bytes is the determination - @"Very nice, but what does it all mean": "Another important metric is the bandwidth of the connection. This is a measure of how many bits per second our connection can carry." this would indicate that reducing the bits decreases bandwidth load. Understanding latency developer.mozilla.org: "the HTML includes requests for multiple CSS, scripts, and media files. The greater the number and size of these requests, the greater the impact of high latency". In my imagining (this is to say I don't know exactly how the server scans the data for retrieval): if a server scans a page with gaps the motion is from the 1st byte to the last byte in sequence: like a sensor which receives the imprint at each position- although the whitespace has no textual element the scan would need to pass through the byte of the space to reach the last datum in the stored document. Onemillionthtree (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT ⇒ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Page_loading_time

Category:Maintenance task(s) bots has been nominated for discussion

Category:Maintenance task(s) bots has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Potala Palace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language. 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) 19:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Talk page bots has been nominated for deletion

Category:Talk page bots has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Remsense ‥ 论 06:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile etymology

I've noticed you've gone a bit crazy with the Etymology section of the Crocodile page. Instead of making so many small edits (I count 133 edits so far), might I suggest you work in your sandbox first. Then when you feel you are done with your own draft, you can make a single significant edit to the crocodile page. Also, take a read through: Wikipedia:No original research - to make sure you aren't conducting your own original research on the etymology of the word "crocodile". Cougroyalty (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely something I could have done - since there are errors that I made in there - "you've gone a bit crazy" isn't very easy to agree with - I'm not professionally qualified to know if I'm crazy. In the future prob. would be a better choice to form a version then add it - but I think it could cause a problem of response - like resistance to the change - which I experienced - there were some reversions - I've finished the edits except for a problem which I couldn't resolve with reference 31. which occurred from 13:56, 17 April 2025 as I summarized at 19:19, 17 April 2025. Other than that period of time 13:56 17 April - 19:19 17 April: 5 hours 23 minutes in which the article showed something which could be found as erroneous I haven't made any significant errors - which obvs. would be something which is factually not true - there are "err. (mine)" in the summaries which show though those aren't factual errors (as I recall) I will have to verify this fact I suppose - but it isn't something I would persist with - if I found I was making repeat factual error inclusions I would have ceased to make changes and remedied my personal situation. It is a bit tense making so many changes. The problem would be - if the article is erroneous and I don't make changes that is just another form of loss of knowledge than if I make changes then make errors which I then correct. If it takes perhaps the same time to make changes sandbox the unchanged article errors would exist for all that time - my own self-error correction response time is less than those previous editors who didn't review then correct their errors. "Wikipedia:No original research" - it isn't possible that I'm seeking to show: original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. My own efforts are the only reward - no-one is paid so the realization of the reality by discovering the reality is the reward I gain - the only way I could make such a change is by personal failure which happened at ref 31. as I indic. which 19:19, 17 April 2025 "1st source was ask.ai is attr." (attributed the error to ask.ai) which I failed to verify. "20:26, 17 April 2025" "corr. (err. mine) "originates in Anatolia" → developed from Grecian origination" as an example of error wasn't a false statement. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 23:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review my edits next session to determine the exactness of the errors - it would be less stressful to not be live everytime. Making 1 edit which is very different making many little concludes very diff. All diff. editors make changes - all those editors make changes - the probability of my needing to not make many changes depends on my proneness to errors - to maintain stability of versions - to ensure there isn't any art. failure input - at every edit is possible - like an organism that evolves - every edit keeping the animal alive isn't very difficult - all someone needs to do is use one source successfully. After that another one - is only like steps up a pyramid I suppose. I'll review my edits 18th prob. then write a response here. The ety. part of the article is okay without the need to add resolution of ref. 31 - which is - it isn't false currently - it lacks information from 31 - conflict resolution of that sourcing. With regards to if the complete ety. is solved I don't know. This source as indic. by one of the sources as a work on the "etymology of the word crocodile" by ref. 14 - klasicnenauke.rs I think: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=GARC%C3%8DA+TEIJEIRO+1975&btnG= .Is in Spanish I didn't translate using google traductor - would have to rely on one source if it has all the information. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 23:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Cougroyalty I could send you a message for review if I make changes this would be good - like "peer-review" (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 23:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could revert all my work then review but this would cause introduction of the previous errors - so I don't know what the solution is. I suppose it could be construed as a type of brunt force attack or spamming to make all the edits without a peer-review to know. If you look at my summary 10:51, 16 April 2025 - 11:37, 16 April 2025 there was a blatant error I detected input - it is disappointing to find errors - is a problem that exists. It would be good to review my work. There isn't any auto-program in place to fix edits to sources - like a verification bot which secures correctness. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 23:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There really should be a review team in place - an article could look well made but like I found 10:51, 16 April 2025 - 11:37, 16 April 2025 an error - could be just a trick / good appearance without the truth underneath. A real review process would make wikipedia stronger. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 23:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathematical oncology has been accepted

Mathematical oncology, 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.

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!

CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Hi Onemillionthtree! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Bon courage (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit did you notice? (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 00:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Medicinal uses of fungi. Bon courage (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:14, 22 April 2025 error - will redetermine exactly in the future thanks (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 00:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

prob./maybe going to do more simple things for a while like only linking - look around and learn a few things I suppose - without the risk of error will be better for us both. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 00:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Onemillionthtree! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Where to find answer, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orders of magnitude (temperature), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Onemillionthtree moved page Stable marriage problem to Stable matching problem

you're supposed to propose a move and then we can argue about it. yes, everything is difficult on wikipedia. this is clearly a contentious move, so i'm surprised it hasn't been discussed yet.

also, in general, it is very difficult to understand your edit summary abbreviations. please try to write full words. if it's easier to look at the page diff than to puzzle out the meaning of the abbreviations, then it would have been better to write nothing in the summary. you can just say "add ref" instead of the entire DOI or whatever. 135.180.49.239 (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Orders of magnitude (temperature), you may be blocked from editing. Tercer (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how - reviewing the sources to verify for yourself if I made the correct choice or not should be a problem - instead of putting the notice here - you could have used the time to look at the sources which would have been a more productive / constructive use of time for the improvement of the article - if you would now proceed to review the sources - this would be appreciated - instead of repeatedly removing sources then not making any effort to re-add sourced information. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 19:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the validity of the recognition of the problem - surely working together is a fine and worthwhile maxim dictum to hold for all our benefits - who knwos why war is the subject though I would think - since we are currently in civilization not a war zone the very fact of defining the problem as war escalates something which could be solved within the boundaries of the existing reality - ie. civilization without recourse to the necessitaties of weaponization and killing. I suppose you don't agree. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 19:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan on contributing to Wikipedia, please refrain from posting these irrelevant comments. This is not a discussion forum. Also, this is a WP:personal attack. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see "public servant" is a statement not an attack. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 20:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think now? (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 20:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Revert to last good version before User:Onemillionthtree started damaging the page." - is simply to state from the very first edit I damaged the article. You think this is a valid observation? (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 20:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reasonable action when the end result after your edits looked like this. It's unreasonable to expect other editors to sift through such a large number of incomprehensible edit summaries to find anything worthwhile. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you think your indication is meant to bring realization to my understanding: "edits looked like this". I see the page. I see the editors criticisms. You think re-adding false information is a better situation than improving the organisation and wording of true information. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 20:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring, as this is a specific term here. Being correct is not a justified reason to edit war, and none of your interlocutors were engaging in obvious vandalism as Wikipedia defines it. Sesquilinear (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Being correct is not a justified reason to edit war" - that is a policy statement. We all know the power and influence of policy. Who wouldn't think the correct should die in your reality? (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 20:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The unfortunate blocked=dead who made the mistake of thinking they were in civilization - they didn't understand although they were sitting at home in a civilized war-free country - war was ensuing per wikipedia policy. I think this - no war occured obviously since no war war formally declared instead some brutish criminal organisation applies some pseudo formed law to control people for the sake of a criminal activity - I think this because: war has not ensued - no declaration - the only other violence possible is crime - but I sit at home in no illegal situation with no crime occuring - so where do you suppose I make the observation of your so-called war? Your organisation describes something by violent terms that is what I think. You make violence when none was occuring - I sit waiting for civilized process to occur you instead threaten me like violence is the situation (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 20:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one has been given the right / been empowered in your organisation to state war is occuring. You and your colleagues are the assailants - it is you and your political associates who assault me with your violent policy. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 20:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The notice was a courtesy to you; erasing it won't make it go away. The admins will discuss your case there. Tercer (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm aware of that fact. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 20:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, feel free to erase my messages here then, in you user page you can do as you please. Tercer (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the outcome of the pseudo-war which you your colleagues and anyone who thinks edit-warring exists conforms with - is blocked indefinately. I sit here in civilization - it is you and anyone like you who observes war. I'm not in a war. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 21:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proceed to your moral imperative "blocked indefinately" - would it be possible to stop such a group of people? (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 21:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As if you and your associates are reasonable people. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 21:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean - you have that power to make people vanish - even though they were correct. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 21:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what good is - vanishing people - just like killing them - but without the mess - or guilt - since is possible to completely enforce the policy - although no such war. (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 21:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this - the time it takes to police my situation you preferred to looking at the article and making the wrong factors vanish instead. Really I think this - given the choice of civilization or war you prefer the latter - making me vanish - so I don't have any problem in knowing what the problem is of the type of people who work towards vanishing people instead of article content which is false and a problem (the latter is civilization I thought to mention). (𒌋*𓆏)𓆭 20:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Orders of magnitude (temperature). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]