Russ Woodroofe
Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
| This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
edit Welcome message from Chris Troutman, 20 September 2019 | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Storer (American mathematician) has been accepted
edit
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.
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.
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bkissin (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Signing warnings
editHi, I noticed that you issued a COI warning to User talk:Astrine2000 the other day but didn't sign with ~~~~. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. If you use wp:twinkle to issue warnings the signature will be added for you. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- ScrubbedFalcon: doh! I hadn't even noticed. I'm generally careful to leave it, and must've just been editing too quickly. Thanks for letting me know! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
The redirect Fellow of the Amerian Mathematical Society has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 16 § Fellow of the Amerian Mathematical Society until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
On Jan Peter Toennies's Page
editHello, Russ Woodroofe. Thank you for a warm welcome to the Wikipedia!
I'd like to ask for a re-review of Jan Peter Toennies's page "conflict of interest / close connection" warning message. From what I can tell, the text appears to be neutral and I'm not affiliated or connected to the subject of this page in any way. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC) Astrine2000 (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Astrine2000, can you tell me how you came to take such an interest in Toennies' wikipedia biography? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
DYK for Thomas Storer (American mathematician)
editOn 26 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Storer (American mathematician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Navajo American mathematician Thomas Storer invented one of the standard notations for compactly and precisely describing string figures? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Storer (American mathematician). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Storer (American mathematician)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.
BRD is not a policy
editHello Russ Woodroofe,
when you deal with disputed content, please don't refer to BRD as if it was a policy justifying reverts. Disputed content can be removed and needs to stay removed until a consensus is found; actual policy sections mandating this are WP:BLPRESTORE, WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. There is no special protection for "stable" revisions; consensus formed through editing alone ends in the moment there is a dispute (cf. Wikipedia:Consensus § Through editing). Without talk page consensus, it would be inappropriate to restore disputed material just because it had been in the article for a long time. So in the case of the article about John Petrucci, policy was on your side, but that has nothing to do with the "BRD" essay. Forcibly restoring stable revisions just because they're stable is an action limited to administrators when protecting pages (WP:PREFER) and not something justified by any other policy.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: yes, my edit summaries weren't completely ideal. I think I was basically doing things for the right reasons, but UNDUE (which I did refer to the first time around) and ONUS are better things to refer to. The BRD essay does at least have the advantage that it directs a user to engage at the talk page in a pretty clear way. I probably wouldn't have reverted at all, and certainly not a second time (even after the delay) without the policy-based talk page consensus. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
- All good, I'm not concerned about the removal; I was just nitpicking at the edit summary. To me personally, it would have been an enforcement of BLPRESTORE and exempt through WP:3RRNO #7 even if you had made ten reverts there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2026 (UTC)