User talk:Cesiumfrog

A tag has been placed on International Aikido Federation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cesiumfrog. Just to say that I replied to your month-old posting here. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One answer is here. Please let me know if this is not what you wanted. Greetings. Boute (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Since you are active in Japanese mythology, maybe you know what should be included in the Japanese creation myth article, i.e. when does 天地开辟 end? (also asked the same question here). bamse (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently (I think 3 Sept) made comments/suggestions on the page Help talk: page history, which I responded to there. I thought you might not be watching that page, so am cc'ng here:

"I notice you haven't had any response to your comment. At first, I thought you were having a little laugh at others' expense, but then something tickled my memory, and I eventually realized you have assessed rev hist in terms of Dirac quantum nomenclature: precisely accurate, but typically out-of-reach to the bulk of non-physicist, non-mathematician editors. Your suggestions would seem to merit a closer look, but I would suggest presenting them in a more suitable venue: maybe at the Village Pump, or the Help Desk, etc."

My quantum mechanics knowledge has almost faded out completely. I apologize for that.

I also want to say that your user page is the most informative I've run across. Thank you for your contribs. Ragityman (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The problem was that I originally misinterpreted the data in the page history tables. When I tried to figure out what (xxx bytes) means, it wasn't immediately obvious to me that it represented the total size of the article at a point in history, rather I initially assumed it was a measure of how much a particular contribution had changed the article. (I'm sure you can understand that in a way it would make sense and be highly relevent if each line of the history table tried to quantify its individual contribution in some way, whereas the total length of old versions of the article isn't such an obvious thing for everybody to want to know exactly down to the last byte.) And then, when I tried reading the key/legend of the table, I was further confounded, because when I scanned over "(cur) = difference from current version" I misinterpreted that statement to be confirming that the quantity in brackets, (xxx bytes), is indeed supposed to quantify the individual contribution (the differences between versions) rather than simply size up the article then as a whole. The use of the mathematical equality symbol (which in hindsight I recognise is simply used as a kind of shorthand) further reinforced my misinterpretation that "cur" in the statement "(cur)=.." was a placeholder (like the variable "x" often in math) for a numerical quantity. Now, it might be uncommon for people to repeat my specific mistakes, but tables of data are generally difficult to read anyway, so I figured it wouldn't hurt to point out some minor alterations of the table key that potentially improve readability. First, instead of "(cur)=..." it should be either "(cur|=..." or better just "cur=...", since the brackets add nothing to the explanation and do not correctly correspond to what appears in the table. Second, the "=" could be replaced with "gives"/"links", or the whole statement could be rewritten plainly "For the difference between a version and the current version, click cur." Thirdly, somewhere it should explicitly say if the (xxx bytes) refers to the total size of the article; it doesn't necessarily need to say so in the key above every such table, but at present I don't think it is documented anywhere in the entireity of WP despite there supposedly existing at least one page with the sole purpose of explaining such things. Anyway.. Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cesiumfrog. Question, is Koichi Tohei alive or dead because I cannot find an article, report, or whereabouts of his present day life. Even the website of Ki-Society or "the Ki-Society" did not wrote about his whereabouts . His latest public views were in 2001 and 2002 (before Saito's death), we don't know now if he is still alive or dead today. Aikido Philippines (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I know? A quick google suggests he has retreated to his home (which encompases his main dojo anyway) following a stroke, so I presume he's alive. FWIW, I don't think he belongs on the list of notable aikikai people, since he obviously chose to categorise himself as something else. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying sort out one earlier massive edit to BED article. undid one small edit by you. To get back to a state where WP can undo your massive edit.

Please do not make huge changes in one hit. This article is already seeing contentious editing.

Your comment "significant edit" is true (!) but that is not a reason for the changes. Comment should say why, not just state the obvious.

Several bits of what you changed seem fine (some not) but it is unmanageable if you do shotgun changes without giving any reasons.

If you feel several bits need changing do several edits so that any ensuing issues can be discussed and resolved.

Thx. Climatedragon (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, someone has reverted this again so I'll leave your edit and make changes from there. Most of what you have done is very good and objective. Many thanks for a serious contribution. Climatedragon (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are still interested in bananas please review the calculation section you added. It is definitely WP:OR and some are objecting in talk page. (see latest changes on discussion page)

Despite that fact that I think your value is nearer the truth than the "classic" BED, I do see several issues. My money is on delete unless there is something correctly sourced.

BTW you could possibly cite yourself as "expert" but I would invite you to be a lot more rigorous if you do that. (beta energy is not = max energy, gamma is not all absorbed. retention time of K in body,etc ...) rgds Climatedragon (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse your nuanced comment here. In the context your diff creates, please review Fukushima Nuclear Accident Log, March 2011. Should the words "nuclear accident log" be lower-case? --Tenmei (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You changed the current Shusaku number article into a redirect. Perhaps you missed the box at its top, saying that the article's subject to a current wp:AfD discussion? That being so, the article can't be made a redirect until consensus is duly reached. I've therefore reinstated the article for now. Please see the boxes at the top of the article. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If sources exist, prove it. I already searched and found nothing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 12:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given what I could from the top of my head. As for the greater contributions I can make when I have time, it is of little consequence to me whether you delete the article in the interim. (PS: re. your search, suggest beginning with the source lists of non-English versions of the article.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can't source the top of your head. The article has to have books, articles, whatever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you begin with the source lists of non-English versions of the article. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cesium, I noticed your work on the Leonard R. Brand article. It is appreciated. Nice to be part of a team. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I noticed the information about the chipmunks has been reduced to one sentence. Is it your thinking that one sentence should be enough? Or, are you thinking more should be added if properly sourced. Thanks for the work you are doing. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I had recently found information which indicated that Brand actually did his PhD dissertation on the chipmunk calls. There are citations which quote from Brand (1970). One of those citations adds, Ph.D. dissertation. I have been looking for a clear documentation. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I am suggesting that we consider the fact that Brand is probably not a notable academic just a good scientist. However, he is a notable person who happens to be a good scientist. The notability requirements call for the person to be interesting and/ or unusual.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cesium: I have set up a user subpage to do my work. This allows me some peace while I gather source material etc. Feel free, at any time to borrow stuff I am finding. You don't have to use the material, either. I have been watching your edits and can see what you are trying to do. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have put a suggested outline on the talk page of that subpage. I have no burden that it be adopted, but I favor it myself. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cesium, good to see your work on the article. As a team, we have different skills which we bring to the effort. I have set my sights to develop the paragraphs dealing with science. I envision a brief paragraph for each scientific subject Brand has studied: This includes Cactus Mice, California Chipmunks, Turtle fossils and taphonomy, and the Whales of Peru. The salamander study has received considerable attention in comparison. Thanks for your help. Let's continue to share ideas. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cesium, I have added a few more citations. My prose is not the best. Feel free to edit my work to make it better. Thanks DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looked over your edits. Improvements appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your opinion of the discussions at Talk:Leonard R. Brand, archiving currently active discussions is not acceptable. In your edit summary you said "Please be ... direct to the topic of improving the article, as this is not a chat forum", which is true, but does not justify removing discussion which is about editing the article, even if there was also other content which was treating the page as a forum. You also said "Please be civil. Please be concise", which is certainly good advice, but the fact that you think others have been less civil or less concise than you would have preferred does not mean that you have the right unilaterally to decide that those people's comments should be removed, much less that you have the right to also remove the comments of other editors who have been concise and civil. Generally speaking talk page archiving should be reserved for old discussions that have ceased to be current. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding archiving. It is easier to review ideas if they aren't archived too soon. I understand that the article archive date is now set for 45 days rather than 15 days. That gives us more time to do easy reviews. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback. I wouldn't consider myself to be an "expert" on this subject. Heck, I'm not even a theorist, and half of my knowledge on this subject comes from the Wikipedia article itself. As far as rjpetti's 1986 paper is concerned, it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. While it may smell like a conflict of interest, I don't feel qualified to dismiss it. Teply (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Egg (biology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ova (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) 10:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contour (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) 10:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Enoplosus pygopterus fossil.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not a bot, you could have resolved this yourself by reading the description.Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it highly proceedurally-irregular that more than a week after the AfD was closed it was reverted to a different result without any notice (amounting to a speedy deletion), not to mention that less than two thirds was ruled to be a consensus. I think a fresh AfD would have been more appropriate, because of the substantial work and research put into article since the original close, which could easily have given rise to much clearer arguments than was possible before the original close. You did not acknowlege that sources had been found directly refuting a large fraction of the specific arguments that had been put forward as a basis for deletion, and under the circumstances I would have at least expected temporary preservation in the incubator. I also fail to understand why you found reconfirmation of votes worthy of positive comment (since I don't see how future AfDs will benefit from your obliging all sides to keep redundantly and persistently reiterating their positions). So this is me courteously asking you to take another look at whether deletion is appropriate at this moment given the process? Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. What happened was I went to AfD to close some old discussions. This AfD was listed as the oldest one, so I put a {{closing}} notice on it and began to close it in the normal way. As part of my closing process I read the article and the article talkpage, and checked the article history; as I did that I became aware that it had been previously closed, and that the closer had then undone their close as they felt they were unable to commit to writing a closing rationale for their "no consensus" decision. Like yourself, I did then pause to consider the implications of that, and felt that in essence the closer had returned the AfD to the pool, and it was as if that close had not happened. If I hadn't checked the talkpage and the article history, I would not have been aware of the previous close. The circumstances are, however, interesting, and it would be appropriate to test if the procedure was acceptable by taking it to DRV, and I would support that. The article had changed since the AfD, and the discussion had not covered those changes, which included information from the New Scientist article. In the circumstances a relisting for seven days might have been more appropriate, and it would have been more helpful if the original closer had done that. By the time I became aware of it, I had already spent over an hour on the review, and I think that would have influenced my decision to continue and finish the close. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Homo trellis.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Homo trellis.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your userpage with interest, I just wanted to add lactose tolerance to your list, see here and sickle cell anaemia (and similar conditions) here - if you were already aware of these, please just ignore. Mikenorton (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I see you have a constructive userpage too.

By the way, my current thinking is that this content can be addressed with the main human evolution article.

Everybody always asks, are humans still evolving and what are they evolving into? The sickle cell especially needs adding to the "recent and current" section of the article for that reason; we can point to genotype ratio statistics and quantitatively prove that the species is under natural selective pressure even still today (contrary to the meme that we've elevated ourselves entirely above evolutionary forces). Maybe there's also an interesting link to be made to camel blood cells, which I hear have a comparable form perhaps for another reason.

As for what I'd collected on causes of evolution, I think it is best to integrate those topics (including lactose) into the "changes" section which now exists in (and improves IMO) the article. (Although need to be careful about attributing causation, knowing a little more now about side effects and neutral processes. It's kind of like avoiding the mistake of implicitly presuming the observed course of history was uniquely inevitable, whilever the analysis is necessarily coarse-grained.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mytilenian Debate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Demos (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) 10:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am editing again The Portable Atheist. Could you please check what I am doing? Thank you, Tat Sat (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Test (biology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shell (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) 11:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My edit to vitalism was not pointy, I genuinely think that it is an accurate description of the situation. As I said on the AAH talk page, vitalism was simply a flat-out wrong theory; noting this statement of fact in the caption does not cast aspersions on Pasteur as a scientist, he was simply backing the wrong scientific hypothesis. Similarly, I would include an image on the plum pudding model page (picked 'cause your user page indicates an interest in physics).

If you genuinely think these edits worsen both pages, I wouldn't mind taking them to the NPOVN for clarification. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Cesiumfrog, what a nice surprise! Thanks so much for your new, very nice, short article about the pelagic nudibranch! And thanks for including the automatic taxobox too!

I've noticed your edits on pages relating to Gastropods; perhaps you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Gastropods? If you would like more information, please visit the project page or the project talk page.

All very best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your insightful comment [3]. You are entirely correct in your observations, and I've taken a crack at remedying the unfortunate situation here. If you've got some other sources to improve the article, it would be a service to the encyclopedia. Thanks in advance. Fladrif (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you have been mentioned in a discussion at Talk:Tenjin Shinyō-ryū -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought over what you said carefully, and decided I agreed with you so I reduced the article to a dab page, but then another editor came along who disagreed and reverted the change. Just figured I would let you know. Invertzoo (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate all the hard work you put into fixing up the re-jiggered article! We will get it into good shape one way or the other! Invertzoo (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(So this is how communication is done on Wikipedia - you teach by example.)

Regarding your comment to me on this area, the initial work is from behavioral sources: Co-evolution of humans and canids In a nutshell, some of the finest of human behaviors are not exhibited in ape populations, but they are exhibited in wolf populations. Also, our group-hunting techniques using relay and side-attack. (Our hunting companion on the Eurasian steppe may have taught us many things that assisted our survival in that environment at a critical time.)

I sourced another article through asking the author for a copy, as it is no longer available in print: 2002. Taçon, P.S.C. and C. Pardoe, Dogs make us human. Nature Australia 27(4):52-61 Good, recent academic articles are almost non-existent, but a Google search will show there is continued interest through snippets and quotes, so it is a matter of sifting through all the chaff to find some good seed.

Perhaps I might make an initial start by creating a small section under the Origin of the Domestic Dog, to invite interest from others and see where it goes?

Regards, William of Aragon (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pupdate- Origin of the domestic dog#Human-dog coevolution Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted/edited a number of his/her edits. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I became aware that there was inconsistency between different coral-related articles relating to the families Faviidae and Mussidae. Having found that WoRMS states that Faviidae is unacceptable and is now considered synonymous with Mussidae, I took it upon myself to go through articles changing "Faviidae" to "Mussidae".

One of these articles is Brain coral, where you have criticized my action. I am not responsible for this rather poor and completely unreferenced article that I have never edited before. I don't know where the list of genera comes from nor whether brain corals are exclusively in any particular family, but I did think that the use of an unacceptable family name was inappropriate. If you are an expert on the subject, why don't you rewrite the article, replacing the present verbage with a few accurate sentences instead of accusing me of "naively replacing "Faviidae" with "Mussidae" in the text, resulting in paragraphs of nonsense"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, I think you overlooked the technical meaning of "synonym" in WoRMS, which is different from the colloquial meaning of "synonym". It doesn't mean that the group of animals which were previously named "Faviidae" is the same group of animals that are now called "Mussidae". Instead, it only means the definition "family containing the genus favia" is now identical to "family containing the genus Mussa". (And besides, since "Faviidae" has no accepted new meaning, its traditional meaning is still understood in coral taxonomy.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

This is a truly wonderful photo. But I'm sure that it is a Pocilloporidae (e.g. something closely related to Stylophora pistillata) and not Echinopora fruticulosa. Hectonichus, do you (or anyone else acquainted with Milan Natural History Museum) have any comment? Cesiumfrog (talk) 03

I can only confirm you that the specimen was labelled Echinopora fruticulosa. Just yell me how manage the problem. Ciao. Hectonichus.

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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In May 2009 you put a 'clarify' request in the 'astrophysics...' section of Gravitational waves, but gave no indication of precisely what you thought was unclear about the sentence. At the time your request was discussed in two sections of the article's Talk page by two other editors (both of them indefinitely banned a few years later), but neither of them attempted to clarify the article's text. We now need to clean up the article in the expectation that the apparent detection of gravitational waves will be announced on Thursday - it is already being discussed at In The News/Candidates. So it just might be helpful if we could please have some clarification from you as to what you want clarified. But if that's too much hassle, sorry for bothering you. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example ‘with quotes’ and “double quotes” and many’s apostrophes’

Escaped apostrophe ‘

Double escaped slash ‘\’

Not just punctuation ‘\x’

But ‘\’ hey and look ‘ and ‘\x’.

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]