User talk:ZergTwo

Contentious topics I will edit in the future

Welcome!

Hello, ZergTwo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started

Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset
How to: edit a page • upload an image

Getting Help

Policies and Guidelines

Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research
Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines
What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons

Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule
Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy
External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry
Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community

Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program
Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette
No personal attacks • Resolving disputes
Build consensus • Village pump
Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists
The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)

Things to do

Task Center • Be bold in editing
Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles
Join a WikiProject • Translating articles
Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism

Miscellaneous

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the two posts you deleted at Talk:Gulf of Mexico

I disagree with your reason. And the Administrator was right in saying no need for a new section. But you are new still so this is not any kind of warning. Nor is the alert below anymore than a standard alert I wish new editors got automatically if they edited in an related error, but as they don't... Doug Weller talk 09:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that administrators are reverting policies and guidelines violations because its message conflicts with their opinion. Also, it's an eyesore for those messages that do not contribute to the encyclopedia to be on the page. Since it does not affect the encyclopedic content of the article, I will not remove it again. ZergTwo (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the post you removed is supposed to be a WP:NOTFORUM violation as per your edit summary here. Can you explain, please? Bishonen | tålk 20:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see how a user expressing their opinion on the Gulf of Mexico dispute by comparing the dispute to the Falkland Islands conflict isn't a WP:NOTFORUM violation. ZergTwo (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piping

Re your edit here, please see the guidance at Wikipedia:Piped link#When not to use, which says, First of all, keep links as simple as possible:, and Unnecessary piping makes the wikitext harder to read. Your use of piping in that edit was unnecessary, and contrary to the guidance. Donald Albury 22:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this is not a mistake? I don't see why Hurricane Irma is appropriate while Hurricane Irma is not. ZergTwo (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I was seeing your edit as going in the opposite direction. I blame that on my childhood dyslexia. My apologies. Donald Albury 23:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It happens to the best of us. ZergTwo (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

Accuse me or anyone else of POV pushing again, like you did in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1283373826, without providing evidence for your accusations and you will find yourself the subject of a noticeboard discussion. Ps, you might want to have a read of WP:TPO, before you think about removing other people's comments from talk pages. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I accidentally reverted other edits. The intended targets were Special:Diff/1283355921 and Special:Diff/1283355921, but two other edits were caught in the crossfire. I should be mindful of how I edit when catching up on my watchlist. Apologies for the confusion. ZergTwo (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take more care in the future. If you're removing edits of an IP adress in the topic area, where they are not edit requests in the talk, the correct reason is WP:ARBECR. Putting edit summaries along the lines of 'revert POV pushing' is illadvised, regardless of who it is. TarnishedPath^talk 23:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for adding the Putin image to the Fascism article that you reverted

I apologize for adding the Putin image to the Fascism article that you reverted. You are right that there is not a consensus around it but I did see some sources in the article making the argument. However I thought that with the image of Juan Peron from Argentina in the history of fascism along with the text in the article that shows that his relationship with fascism is disputed that it was a similar situation as described with Putin. I am not certain though about the difference of the degrees of how significant the views are from scholarly sources of Peron being identified as fascist as opposed to the case with Putin. BlueberryA96 (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hi ZergTwo, thanks for reverting the vandalism on Eukaryote. In a case like that, a new user with a probably-blockable name and a deliberately-damaging silly edit, it's probably best to give an immediate warning, even if it's only the "editing test" one about trying things out in the sandbox. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translation is not simple wikipedia

You are wrong, what i stated was a redirect to simple Wikipedia page which allows simple and short way to read any wiki, translation feature is used to change the grammar sentence of the language that the article is originally written in. Please understand that what i am doing is giving them an extra opportunity to explore the article that best fit them, this does not violate any Wiki rules and is kind of better for those who are new in such complex Physics subjects such as SR. I will reinstate and i think you will not remove it again. Also you yourself is new in Wiki so please let administrator choose this kind of decisions. IHitmanI (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Interlanguage links, which serve the purpose of your edits. Your edits are also redundant, as the interlanguage links in both articles include the Simple English Wikipedia and is accessible by any reader. If an editor reverts an edit you have made, follow the advice at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The simplest approach is to seek consensus by starting a discussion on the article's talk page. Do not continue restoring your preferred article version if editors dispute it. Such behavior is considered edit warring and is a blockable offense. Also, administrators are not the only editors who can revert edits that do not follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Their user group does not grant them more experience than non-admins. ZergTwo (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I don’t know why you're acting like I committed a blockable offense. I didn’t vandalize anything, I didn’t push a personal agenda, and I didn’t disrupt Wikipedia. What I did was a good-faith edit — I am myself a student and meant to help students like me who struggle with topics like Special Relativity.

You talk about interlanguage links — but let me explain:

SIMPLE WIKIPEDIA IS NOT JUST A LANGUAGE VERSION. It's a completely separate edition of Wikipedia, designed to explain topics in very simple English for students, non-native speakers, and beginners. Most users don’t even know Simple Wiki exists unless someone explicitly shows them. That’s what I was trying to do. And explain me- What about the students who want to learn SR in English not their native language?

And yes — I am slight frustrated. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but not to using it, its more than years. You could’ve explained things like a decent editor. Instead, you chose to act like some gatekeeping nerd throwing policy quotes as if I’ve harmed the ecosystem. That's not collaborative. That’s off-putting.

You’re not an admin. You’ve been here for just 4 months. Acting like some authority while threatening new editors isn't helpful. Admins may not have more power officially, but they do often have more experience and discretion, which you clearly didn’t use here.

I will raise this on the article’s talk page and other consensus forums. I’m not going to let a well-intended edit get shut down by someone who can’t see the value of accessibility.

Wikipedia should welcome helpful changes — not frustrate the editors trying to make it better. IHitmanI (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple English Wikipedia can be accessed using the interlanguage link. All aspects of your edit are present in the interlanguage link. I suggest you read this how-to guide about it (again) to better understand why I reverted your edits. I did not say you would be blocked for that edit. I said not to restore your preferred article version in an editor dispute because that is blockable. Again, administrators are not the only editors who can revert edits that do not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and warn others. I'm not deliberately asserting more authority than you. I'm explaining why I reverted your edits and how you should deal with it. Since you started a discussion on the article's talk page, I will continue the discussion there. ZergTwo (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bond count and adjacency matrices for unbranched linear and monocyclic alkanes

Hi @ZergTwo, my contribution was minimal in the Alkane article. I placed results that are well known for chemists and mathematicians (graph theory) alike and that can be derived by anyone using standard math. It’s something analogous to derive general formulas for balancing certain kind of chemical reactions. A source is not really needed as anyone can work it out with pencil and paper to generalize these results or derive them. Specifically, in alkanes, the number of C–C bonds is given by n - 1 + r, where n is the number of carbon atoms and r is the number of rings. The number of C–H bonds is then 2n + 2 - 2r, giving a total bond count of 3n + 1 - r. This result is a combination of using the general global formula for alkanes (including cycloalkanes) and the hydrogen deficiency index.

It is also well known that, for a homologous series of unbranched linear alkanes, the topology and/or connectivity of carbon atoms in the molecules (hydrogen-suppressed skeletal formulas) can be described by an adjacency matrix. Numbering the carbon atoms from left to right (or vice versa), the adjacency matrix for linear alkanes can be written as:

$A_{ij}={\begin{cases}0,&i=j\\1,&|i-j|=1\\0,&|i-j|>1\end{cases}}$

It's easy to verify that the determinant of this matrix alternates its values between -1, 0 and 1 for successive members of the series following the pattern of adding a -CH2- (methylene) group. For example, for propane the matrix is [0 1 0; 1 0 1; 0 1 0] and for butane [0 1 0 0; 1 0 1 0; 0 1 0 1; 0 0 1 0], and so on… You can verify the pattern and the formula provided by using this website (https://visualgo.net/en/graphds). The arguments are similar in the case of the monocyclic cycloalkane analogs:

$A_{i,j}={\begin{cases}0,&\ i=j\\1,&\ |i-j|=1{\text{ or }}(i,j)=(1,n){\text{ or }}(i,j)=(n,1)\\0,&\ |i-j|>1{\text{ and }}(i,j)\neq (1,n){\text{ and }}(i,j)\neq (n,1)\end{cases}}$

where 𝑛 is the number of carbon atoms (order of the matrix). The determinant in this case alternates between 2, 0, 2, and -4 for successive members of the series. Thank you for your feedback. Peace & love. Eduartea (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]