Jdbtwo

"The dubious template is valid and should not be removed. Please do not insert unsourced weasel words and perform edits to advanced you own opinion."

I removed the dubious template because the way in which I rewrote the sentence made it no longer dubious. I used the "weasel word" "perhaps" owing to the uncertainty among modern academia as to the authenticity to the claim that India, China, and Egypt independently developed writing systems, as reflected, e.g., in the article History of writing. Furthermore, I have no opinion on the matter and therefore will not be accused of advancing it. I simply determined it to be more appropriate to show that nobody is actually sure whether Egypt, India, and China truly did develop their own writing systems by use of the word "perhaps" than to retain a dubious template and a (potentially) outright fallacious claim: that Mesoamerica is "among the five known places in the world where writing has developed independently", when, in fact, there may have been only two, as Wikipedia itself relates elsewhere.

I suppose a better fix would be to remove the dubious template, which is intended to be placed after sourced claims that nonetheless remain dubious, and replace it with a citation needed template at the end of the sentence, which in fact I shall now do. Dylanvt (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:CCC compressed image of Lena ( standard test image ) w- colors quantized to 15 bits.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) 17:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:CCC compressed image of Lena ( standard test image ).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) 17:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I added a brief remark yesterday to the section Talk:Mandelbrot set#Splitting the Article. You removed my remark about 10 hours later, without explanation, in an edit with the summary (Thanks...). Okay, you may have it, it's not worth arguing about. I'm just a little curious about your reason. Eleuther (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think there has been some misunderstanding. I have no memory of removing any remarks in the talk page, and I would **never** do that because it's very rude. The only thing I did yesterday was reply to your remark with a thank you :) Perhaps there's been some technical glitch or perhaps I removed something by mistake while I was editing the talk page with my reply to your remark? As far as I can tell, your remark to which I replied is still there. Believe me that if this was some kind of mistake on my part, I never meant to insult anyone. It seems likely to me that perhaps there has been some technical problem, perhaps with a bot -- I'm not sure. Again, **I have no memory** of removing any remarks and I would never do that in the first place :) I looked at the talk page history and couldn't find any evidence of anything being removed. Perhaps you can tell me what exactly was removed?

Regards, Jdbtwo (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, if you look at a list of your contributions, there is a [diff] button to the left of each edit, which you can click to see the exact change you made with that edit. It's clear from that button that you removed my remark as part of your "Thanks..." edit. The most plausible scenario is that you opened an editor on the entire talk page and kept it open for 12 hours or so, then used it to add your Thanks remark. That would wipe out any changes made to the rest of the page by other editors during that period. (I initially thought that the editor would give you an "edit conflict" warning in this case, but after some research and experimentation, it seems that the editor is not really that smart. It only seems to report edit conflicts if they occur within a line.) Eleuther (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

PS, I've removed the comments you added to my talk page, on the principle that discussions should be continued on the page where they were initiated. Please add the comments back here in chronological sequence if you think they're needed. Eleuther (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'll add back the comments here --

Hello :) I replied to your question on my talk page about why a remark in the Mandelbrot set article's talk page was removed. I assure you that I have no memory of removing any remarks, and I wouldn't do that in the first place as it would be rude :) See my talk page reply here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jdbtwo#Removal_of_remark . Regards, Jdbtwo (talk)
— User:Jdbtwo 17:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, looking more closely, I can see that when I replied with a thank you to your remark on the bottom of the talk page, the Mandelbrot set history page has a "-18" associated with my edit, and, it does appear that your remark was removed, but not by me, at least not intentionally. Feel free to revert the edit and/or put your remark back. I'm not sure exactly what happened :/ Regards, Jdbtwo (talk)
— User:Jdbtwo 17:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

One can see from the Mandelbrot set talk page history that your remark was indeed removed, but why, how and by whom, I don't know. See here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mandelbrot_set&type=revision&diff=940463147&oldid=940389460&diffmode=source -- ":Note added in retrospect. Nobody responded to this proposal at the time, however the split was eventually performed, a few weeks later. Eleuther (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)" Regards, Jdbtwo (talk)
— User:Jdbtwo 17:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, looking at the diff in question, here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mandelbrot_set&type=revision&diff=940463147&oldid=940389460&diffmode=source , it looks like I removed the remark, even though I didn't -- strange. I might have left the edit window open accidentally as you said -- I tend to have dozens of tabs open in my browser and I might have accidentally left the source editor open. Sorry for any inconvenience. Regards, Jdbtwo (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Per Wikipedia:Drafts#Preparing drafts, drafts should not be added to any article categories. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip, but you should have told me first on my talk page and I would have made the edits myself. I've since reverted your edits and then re-applied them with my account. Jdbtwo (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Jdbtwo

Thank you for creating Plotting algorithms for the Mandelbrot set.

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Most of the text is from the Mandelbrot set. In edit summary, I would add the attribution per policy.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creep^Talk 10:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Scope creep: I'm not quite sure what you're asking. XOR'easter (talk · contribs) created the Plotting algorithms for the Mandelbrot set page and I added all the initial content. Most of the text in the Plotting algorithms for the Mandelbrot set article is not from the current Mandelbrot set article. However, it is derived from the text that was there before the plotting algorithms page was broken out and the text was moved to that page. Right now, the plotting algorithms section of the main Mandelbrot set article only contains a brief summary and a link to the main article, which is the plotting algorithms article. I'm not sure how to go about changing the initial edit summary on the plotting algorithms page, if that's what you mean. Jdbtwo (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The original edit summary states, Cut-out unwieldy "Computer drawings" section of main Mandelbrot set article, and modified it with cleanup and merging certain sections. I am not sure what beyond that has to be said. To be on the safe side, I've added the {{split article}} banner to the Talk pages of both articles, which will hopefully make the history clear. XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you :) Jdbtwo (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I did an earwig test on it, and came up with a heavy report, but checked the source page, top url, cc'd from Mandelbrot set page on WP, so its kind of a loop, I'll need to have a look in the morning, fresh eyes. Forget it, I think loop. Wrong gig.scope_creep^Talk 22:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply