User talk:LWG
WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.
Draft:Voiceless velar alveolar sibilant affricate
[edit]Óki! (Hello!) i noticed you added some of the sources, and fixed grammar, etc. Nitsíniiyi’taki(Thank you) for improving the article. ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Electrical Injury
[edit]If you would like to learn more about electrical injury, I can provide you the contacts for both research centers in North America. I can also point you to other advocates like Sarah Price Hancock.
Yes I am using LLM however I am an expert in electrical injury, and a global advocate. So please respect the knowledge base. If you would like to re-vert reach out to me directly. I have had not contact, and your reverts are unwarranted. Johnknollpec (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Edit: Controversy over cantors theory
[edit]per your edit of the neutrality note on 'controversy over cantors theory', I'm one of the editors trying to put antiset-theory-infinity content into Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a problem, the editors interpret the 'all points of view' rule without changing it, that the editors of Wikipedia corporate point of view is allowed but not contrary, so an article with contrary content is accused of not being balanced but NOT articles with only one point of view. For example set theory and creation vs evolution. On the talk pages they obviously interpret all points of view as anything OPPOSING their points of view must be opposed, and in the same article, but entire articles supporting their view are ok. The rule is also miswritten assuming any topic such as creation evolution or set theory is in only one article. The article in question thus should have all the antiset-theory-infinity content in it and none elsewhere and no other content in it. But they take advantage of the way the rule is written to claim that particular article on set theory only should be 'balnced' meaning invalidate all of its antiset-theory content. That's how they did the creation evolution articles, avoiding much popular creationist and intelligent design material since they don't know how to include opposing material, and edit locking the pages and their talk pages to silence the creationists. Per my edits on set theory they use any rule as absolute and misinterpret them to delete my material, despite the 'ignore all rules' rule, and sometimes just delete or whatever without reason. Once I put my email in a fellow antiset-theorist's personal talk pages and it was deleted and he was permanently banned as an editor, for merely being an antiset-theorest. And the second talk page for controversy over cantor's theory is problematic since Wikipedia software is not set up for one article having two talk pages. So me and two other editors fixed that. The pro set theory editors undid the fix and edit blocked the page. And the page is almost impossible for those who should be involved in it to find or know about. The purpose of it is for all set theory debate be there only. Victor Kosko (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Victor, I'm not entirely familiar with the controversy here, but what you are describing sounds like a WP:POVFORK, where supporters of a minority view want to have a sub-article that only presents their side of the argument. That's not something we do on Wikipedia - if you want to have a space where only your viewpoint is presented you should publish that kind of material somewhere else, not Wikipedia. I understand that can be frustrating - there are some topics where I myself am actually an expert and am very confident that the mainstream sources are wrong, but I understand that on Wikipedia we have to be honest with our readers about what the reliable sources actually say, so I have to wait for the sources to catch up before I try to put that information into Wikipedia. -- LWG talk 21:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- You completely misunderstand what I said. I did not create the article 'controversy over cantor's theory' not it's 2nd talk page, others did. And you did remove a note complaining about unbalanced. A Wikipedia rule is 'all points of view' which is the purpose of that article. The purpose of the note you removed is that any pro set theory article can supposedly violate that view, but obeying that rule by means of a strictly anti set theory article supposedly violates that view by not criticizing it. Likewise the creation evolution pages. And as I said many of the edits violate Wikipedia policy. Victor Kosko (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- What changes are you proposing be made to that 'controversy over cantor's theory' article? -- LWG talk 00:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. If you read the entire edit hystory of the article and my entire edit hystory you'd realize no anti set theorest, such as the original creator of the article, can add anti set theory content. Same with creationism and intelligent desighn. The problem is that if you editors want Wikipedia policy to be only your corporate point of view be in wikipedia and opposing points of view be 'balanced' in the sense of solidly criticized, then change your rule thus. But if not, then EACH set theory article violates your rule. For example Wikipedia states for ordinal infinity 1+infinity provably = the same infinity, that is adding an element to the beginning of an infinite never ending sorted list. But infinity+1≠the same infinity, that is...
- Adding an element to the END of a NEVERENDING list. But doesn't explain how the set theory community comes to that conclusion.
- Ok, so how do they? Since it can't be proven true, that proves it false, that is proves ≠.
- Obviously easily refutable.
- Obviously Wikipedia should change their 'all points of view' policy to not apply to each Article, but to each Subject.
- You should communicate with Dave the originator of the controversy... article about your preceding question Victor Kosko (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- What changes are you proposing be made to that 'controversy over cantor's theory' article? -- LWG talk 00:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- You completely misunderstand what I said. I did not create the article 'controversy over cantor's theory' not it's 2nd talk page, others did. And you did remove a note complaining about unbalanced. A Wikipedia rule is 'all points of view' which is the purpose of that article. The purpose of the note you removed is that any pro set theory article can supposedly violate that view, but obeying that rule by means of a strictly anti set theory article supposedly violates that view by not criticizing it. Likewise the creation evolution pages. And as I said many of the edits violate Wikipedia policy. Victor Kosko (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #230 is out: How to write better error messages
[edit]There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!
In this issue, we share an essay on how to write better error messages, on improving which we focused in the last months.
Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!
Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)