Hi Farkle Griffen! I noticed your contributions to Sign language and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Law (mathematics), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the content, I wanted to thank you for the gracious tone of this response. With respect to the question "what is a variable/indeterminate, really?" I am in the same boat as your professors: I think that, if pressed, I could offer a coherent definition of a single concept, especially as it appears in ring theory/abstract algebra, that might be called "an indeterminate" but might also be called "a variable"; but this definition does not, I think, encompass all uses of those words, and doesn't really distinguish between them. D.Lazard is a person who I generally would trust about such things; but he is not a native English speaker and also often clarifies things by writing what he knows to be true without sourcing it carefully. I probably am not going to involve myself a whole lot more in the discussions, but certainly building up more good sources from as many mathematical perspectives as possible would be the ideal basis for moving forward. --JBL (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"D.Lazard is a person who I generally would trust about such things" :'D. You definitely should not. He didn't have the appropriate training when he was working (implementing other people's algorithms mainly) and even less now. ~2026-12778-52 (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zzzs. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hurricane Milton, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. _ZZ^Z'S 14:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1]

You might give Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking a read, in particular, the parts about the usefulness of links to readers. I seriously doubt readers reading Trump's caption are going to want more information about portraits of U.S. presidents in general. Would you? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no... It seems similar to links to things like "President of the United States". How often would someone come to an article about Donald Trump to learn what a U.S. president is? But I'm sure you would agree that link in the lead should stay.

So why is this one different?

Also, personally, I would click the link, yes. But I think I click more links than the average reader lol. Farkle Griffen (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm sure you would agree that link in the lead should stay. Not really, precisely because How often would someone come to an article about Donald Trump to learn what a U.S. president is?. But I'm willing to let it stay because it's been there for, like, forever and I would be promptly reverted if I boldly removed it. Then we'd go to talk and I'd lose that battle. I'm well aware of "political realities" in Wikipedia editing. But I think I click more links than the average reader lol. Well there ya go. If you're clicking that link, I'd venture you're one in about five thousand. Of course I can't "prove" that. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [2]

Reason for the removal of the nbsp? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just copy-pasted the whole paragraph. I guess the nbsp didn't get coppied with it. I'll fix that Farkle Griffen (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helps to check your diffs! Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you have a look, please, at user talk:Spitzak#template:char and dark mode, to see if the solution proposed there works for you? Tyvm. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Equality (mathematics) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Remsense -- Remsense (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of mathematical objects has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRITERIA. Indeed, a mathematical object is anything that can be introduced with the phrase "let x be ...", this list is intended to content the list of objects of study in mathematics and the list of tools introduced for these studies.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. D.Lazard (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Equality (mathematics) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Equality (mathematics) for comments about the article, and Talk:Equality (mathematics)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Remsense -- Remsense (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense, I'm not sure what to nominate it for. Did you have a favorite fact from the article? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one that I found from the basic properties section that I think might be a good candidate: that while the basic notions of equality have always existed, it took until 1889 for them to be explicitly stated by Giuseppe Peano. [don't forget to include a citation for the hook] Gramix13 (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Equality (mathematics), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the symbol for equality in mathematics was not used for 61 years after its introduction, and was later popularized by Isaac Newton? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Equality (mathematics). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Equality (mathematics)), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. D.Lazard (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  asilvering (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, you're probably right for this decision. But I'm still a bit confused. What exactly do I do in this situation?

This isn't the first time I've dealt with this user. But the situation usually goes:

• I attempt to make a new edit, usually a couple of paragraphs.
• The whole edit is reverted for (1) a minor issue like an error phrasing, or (2) with a vague phrase like "not an improvement" or "several issues".
• (Case 1) I re-add my edit fixing the error mentioned or (Case 2) ask for clarification on the talk page, and I'm given a short list of minor issues with what I wrote, so I attempt to fix my last edit
• Repeat steps 2-3 until:
• I ask "Can you please just explain all your issues with my version so I can fix it?"
• I'm given the response "It would take too much time to explain all of my issues with your version."

(See the extremely long discussions: Talk:Variable (mathematics), Talk:Set (mathematics), Talk:Indeterminate (variable), and their histories for examples)

My attitude is not like this with any other editor, and I've found every other editor extremely easy to deal with in comparison. It's gotten so wholly frustrating dealing with them that I've just stopped engaging with them. Until now, they usually stop before either of us appeals to a block, and that's the only way I've found to deal with them.

It's not like I can just "avoid them". Both of us are primarily math-topic editors, and they seem to survey an extremely large number of articles (checking their edit history) such that they're usually there to revert my edit, no matter which page I go to. It's not just me either; at one point, a user left editing math articles entirely, primarily due to frustrating encounters with them. This is just one that made it clear why. I've seen several other newcomers go through the same thing with them before they stop editing entirely.

To be clear, I am not trying to appeal my block or defend my actions. I understand I was edit-warring when I should have made more of an effort to move to the talk page. I just... don't know what to do. I'm just hoping for some advice or sympathy, and maybe a place to rant. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ooof, that's tough. Well, in any individual situation where edit warring looks like it's likely to occur, what I would do instead after the first revert to my edit is go to the talk page, start a post, and tag them in it. If they don't respond there in a reasonable amount of time relative to how often they edit, I'd reinstate my edit (with an edit summary referring to the talk page), and if they reverted again, I would again post on the talk page, again tagging them, and, if ignored again, yet again reinstate my edit with an obvious edit summary. There's only so much you can do with someone who outright refuses to go to the talk page. You're very unlikely to be blocked by an admin responding to an edit warring complaint if you're explaining your edits on the talk page and the other editor is ignoring you.

As for this situation in specific, frankly, I was surprised to see this was only their second block, given that they reported you for edit-warring when they were the one who unambiguously went over WP:3RR. My advice for now would be to try what I suggested above and see where it gets you. It might be an indefinite block on that editor, or maybe you'll end up finally managing to make some kind of breakthrough with them. If you try it and find that they basically just stonewall you on the talk page, you can go to WP:3O to request the help of another editor to break the deadlock. Eventually, if all else fails, there's WP:ANI. Hopefully you can get somewhere with them and avoid that one. -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion: you say I attempt to make a new edit, usually a couple of paragraphs. Try making smaller edits, so that if there's one little thing the editor disagrees with, they can revert that and not all of your changes at once. In general, it's very helpful if you keep all your edits in the same "genre" together - so if you're fixing grammar, just fix grammar. If you're going to add something new, add it a paragraph or concept at a time. That sort of thing. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, How long is long enough before I attempt to re-add my edit? I only usually revert back immediately so that a threat of 3RR holds some weight, since it requires the reverts to be in (or around) a 24 hour period. Can 3RR be reported if the incedent takes place over several days?

And I have tried smaller edits. There's been cases where I've made 10-20 edits over several days, and all of them were reverted for the sins of one or two. And here's a case where they wanted to revert nearly a year's worth of edits by a user working on Algebra—which is now a featured article, thanks to that user. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can report edit warring whether it's a 3RR violation or not. 3RR is just the "bright line" rule, not a criterion that needs fulfilling in order to declare something an edit war. As for Algebra... sheesh. Keep it in your back pocket for if you end up needing to take the whole thing to ANI, I suppose. -- asilvering (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me talk, and I really do appreciate your advice. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and good luck. I know how frustrating this kind of thing is to deal with. It's frustrating for admins to watch, too. But outside of CTOPs we're not really empowered to step into a content dispute unless there's a really obvious conduct issue involved or an ANI thread with community consensus for some action or another. So your best offense is a good defense - keep your own behaviour as unimpeachable as possible and it's easier for a responding admin to say "obvious conduct issue" and take a unilateral action. And even if they don't do the same for you, and you truly believe the other guy is out to annoy you personally, it does usually help to treat everyone as a valued collaborator whose opinion you sincerely appreciate. Not always fun. But better than getting nowhere, or getting blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will say I've had a similar experience recently in Kernel (algebra) where they marked a section as using the wrong definitions, then I tried to explain to them in the talk page where I got the definitions of algebraic structures from and clarified how they differed from a variety that they thought I was defining, but it didn't seem to me like they engaged with the sources I brought up to defend my perspective of the definitions. I also never got a response back after asking for what specific book they meant from Birkoff that would use the standard definitons of the subject area. I never followed up since I haven't had the motivation lately to go back to the article and finish up what I was doing, but I do have plans to resume that conversation. Gramix13 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to send the article for Cardinality to GA? I would suggest it, it seems to be a well written and comprehensive article. ALittleClass (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ALittleClass, I am planning to submit it, I've just been busy unfortunately. I need to finish adding in-line citations to the later sections, then it should be ready. I appreciate the complement btw; there's not enough of that on Wikipedia. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your change in the antiderivative's initial description might suggest that f must be continuous for an antiderivative to exist, which is not true in general. Example

The fundamental theorem of calculus says that "if f is continuous, then it has an antiderivative", not the other way around.

I suggest starting a Wiki Talk before changing crucial definitions. ~2025-31209-36 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Farkle Griffen. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Substitution".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Farkle Griffen. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:History of set theory, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]