User talk:Decoy
Finally trimming it, at the turn of
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited QSK operation (full break-in), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CW.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cleanroom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Negative pressure.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Disambiguation link notification for January 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vegetarianism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nut and Lifestyle.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Lunar phase
You appear to have been around here long enough to know that it is disruptive to add opinion, speculation, "humour" and waffle, as you did at
- Yes, if done excessively. Which apparently I just did, since I'm being admonished. Accordingly, I'll tone it down in the future.
- However, a little bit of such drama or lightening of tone has also long been recognized as a part of the encyclopedic ideal. If done right, it leads to articles which are more readable and enjoyable. So I don't think an attempt at that is disruptive per se. Rather, a good faith attempt at some levity, word-play, properly marked speculation, or sometimes even some profanity, really can lift up an article.
- But only if done right. Then obviously I wasn't upto the task this time. I'll hope you didn't outright revert my work, but worked it into something better. Decoy (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- I removed "dark side of the moon" because (a) it was counterfactual nonsense and (b) because of that album, some people think that it really is a thing, so if we are going to have such a section, it should tell the truth. --talk) 22:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)]
- How is it nonsense? While the farther side of the moon literally isn't in shadow from the Sun, to be sure, certainly it's dark in the sense that because the Moon is tidally locked to Earth, we donΜΜ't ever see the other side of it from Earth. So that it's "dark" to direct observation, in analogy to where the term "Dark Ages" comes from: we don't have any direct knowledge of it, or had a lot of knowledge of it at all until we sent actual probes around the edge. (Which I mentioned in my update.) Because of this, to this day it remains a lesser known region of said body.
- Granted, I should have made a better job of explaining the phenomenon. Too much levity, too little hard physics, far too little mindfulness of the cultural context, should've wikilinked the relevant stuff, maybe should have given references. (We were taught all of this in highschool, so I thought it was common knowledge.)
- But physically speaking the so called "dark side" *is* indeed there. Just take a look at Tidal_locking; the first and most visible animation on the page depicts precisely where it comes from. Also, take a look at Libration; that's where my "slightly over" figure comes from. (Should've mentioned that one too.)
- Against that backdrop, I believe you ought not to have removed my update, but rather developed it further.
- In any case, if I'm to edit my comments back in, I'll do it rather differently. At the very least I really was in poor an ineffectual style, and linking/referencing. Thank you for pointing that out. Decoy (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I removed "dark side of the moon" because (a) it was counterfactual nonsense and (b) because of that album, some people think that it really is a thing, so if we are going to have such a section, it should tell the truth. --
- This really belongs at the talk page as a talk) 22:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)]
- This really belongs at the talk page as a
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review