User talk:Cattenion

September 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Game theory have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Game theory was changed by Cattenion (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.859081 on 2025-09-01T15:15:31+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small, sequential minor edits

Thanks for your wikilinks! If you're adding a lot to the same section of an article it's easier on the page history if you make them all in one go, rather than sequentially. You can use the "Preview" button if you want to check how they'll look before proceeding.

It's also worth leaving a simple WP:EDITSUMMARY so that other editors can easily see what you're changing. Belbury (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avoids edit conflicts & less stressful having to find the location continuously - the save function gives a small rest: for the eyes and for thought Cattenion (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image at Algorithm

The image at that article was a diagram showing the Euclidean algorithm. That image was fine, though the text in it was hard to read (and widely spaced).

I had replaced it with my own version, containing the same text, except without the weird letter spacing. Yet for some reason you undid that edit. Could I ask why is that? Thank you in advance. БудетЛучше (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algorithm&oldid=1310596457

s zero

yes

(t)he value of r

error: t isn't shown Cattenion (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

true. i’ll fix the image to fit it. thank you! БудетЛучше (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Zefr (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a peer-review process is thought better for everyone - this would need a review of the edit - an edit summary as trusted doesn't include the possibility of article error - like a judge giving a verdict without looking at the evidence - I thought not putting in a summary would force editors to have to review the edit - this is a guarantee of resolution of any problem in the reality of the article - but also by looking at the article again it restimulates any interested editor (those who are watching) to maybe make another improvement - everytime looking at the summary as the only input isn't reliable - summary not article input is repeat summary learning which could be thought as irrelevant to the reality of any important subject; is my defence - I think you'll insist again on "good editing" - but your "unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying" is erroneous I think. Cattenion (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. See WP:EDITCON which states "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues must be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus" -- it is a matter of building consensus for the edit -- and by WP:FIES: "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it." Zefr (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cattenion! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Seercat3160 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Hi Cattenion! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Vulture and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Edits of citations or references should also not be marked as minor. Thanks. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 20:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kartika Purnima, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Festival of lights. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Whole food. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Don't delete WP:MEDRS sources for your preference of diet books on this topic. You'd need convincing consensus from talk page discussion, which you are unlikely to get. Zefr (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to change the title of a page by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Whole food. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Whole food, you may be blocked from editing. Please take a break and allow other editors to contribute without your non-WP:CON disruptions. Zefr (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply a cruel and insensitive threatening editor - "If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus" - I made the choice trying to make an improvement - and once! not continue your behaviour in my direction is simply a type of harrasment -what exactly is the need of consensus from adding:

• A history of the relevant word
• A link to "wholemeal"
• To delete "minimally processed" from Mediterranean diet because: this is obvious if the condition: it is a wholefood diet it isn't necessary to mention it is minimally processed

These are constructive changes so it is you who is being disruptive not me

The only other change I made eas to move a sentence to a new subheading "Benefits of wholefood based diets" and created and linked "cardiovascular" - I think this isn't a problem and you shouldn't have a problem with it either. What is your actual problem!!!

Cattenion (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And what do suppose I try and understand about "take a break and allow other editors to contribute" since there is a 16 hours + non editing 04:17 - 20:51 - I would hope to have some beneficial input from you but again I have to try and understand something which you assert in my direction which doesn't represent reality on closer investigation. There isn't any reason in indicating to me a problem if the reality of the problem isn't the thing which you think it is - how I'm stopping you making any edits to the article? go ahead and make your change -s am I continuously editing ? - no - so where is the reality in your problem? ask yourself that. Cattenion (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By "take a break", I mean you could go to some other area of the 7 million English articles on Wikipedia for a week or two, and edit there. You behavior has become disruptive, and you are not collaborating in a constructive way. Further disruption will get you reported to admin for review. Zefr (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Whole food, you may be blocked from editing. Zefr (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hey, why is this a higher-level warning? I don't see any previous warnings for inappropriate talk use. Seems excessive. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 02:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this problem - but I think perhaps it could be stress which causes any errors - it is a human characteristic to make a human error - infallibility is difficult - I think Zefr was somewhat harsh but: I forget this problem now and hopefully will return to a more collaborative environment sometime in the future. I did look through Zefr's contribution list and find alot of reversions and criticism which supported my frustrated notion Zefr was only being overly-critical but also then found some contributory changes - and Zefr states / does have a PhD so I then put aside the quandries of frustration. Anyone would hope someone (like Zefr) could exhibit the desired consideration and caring attitude to others but in reality it is not possible in life is not like that and perhaps the harshness of life is inescapable for us all (like children we hope for niceness and easiness - but thinking in a real way we know now this isn't possible in this world (*with violence and bad behaviours - a type of moral darkness) and universe (which does contain alot of unsupportive dark spaces and unhabitable planets). Although a little consideration is good and I wish Zefr would think more of my position than Zefr's own - the most important thing is solving the problem of the article which time could be used to help us all here and all the species: Whole foods is an essenetial health subject which could help give us all more health longevity and power while we are all here on Earth living. Cattenion (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ. Okay. Did not expect an entire analysis. And you bring it back to Whole Foods. Impressive. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 03:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Intragroup conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disagreement.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Verify

Regarding this edit summary, please note that the open access is not a requirement for wikipedia sources. Also note that the Wikipedia Library provides access to the source you complained about. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources" indicates the source doesn't qualify as verifiable as I can't "check that the facts" as it isn't possible to view the source Cattenion (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to read the policy. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Johnjbarton (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to non-article pages in article space

Hello,

I noticed you introduced links to Sanger's "nine theses" userspace essay to his biography article. Please note that links to pages outside the article namespace should be avoided in articles.

Thank you,

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace, including draft articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (and even in that case with care – see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid)." Cattenion (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. A good example of this "except in articles about Wikipedia itself" exception would be that a search term like "Five pillars of Wikipedia" takes you to the article titled Wikipedia, which has a link to the Wikipedia policy. Other examples include Wikipedia administrators having a link to Wikipedia:Administrators, or Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) having a link to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. The non-article-space links are sparingly used, very directly about the topic, are found in articles directly about Wikipedia itself, and link to the Wikipedia space.

Larry Sanger's biography page is less directly about Wikipedia. It's about Larry Sanger. We don't really do things like "[...] stating: "Admins and those with significant authority in the system [...]" linking mid-quote to a Userspace essay (this is an example of easter egg link), especially not when neither of the sources cited (Larry's personal blog post & the article mentioning it) were about or even mentioned his "theses." He wrote that quote about the Heritage Foundation before he ever wrote the theses, after all. I hope this explanation makes sense.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. — Newslinger talk 17:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also be aware of the following contentious topic, which you have recently participated in: living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles (WP:CT/BLP). Thank you. — Newslinger talk 17:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

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) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Day

I reverted your edit to Day. You've confused rotation with respect to the Sun with rotation with respect to distant stars. They are not the same. This is discussed at Earth's rotation. -- Srleffler (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I had already read the part "stellar day sidereal day" - if you notice the quote: "the sidereal day is shorter than the stellar day" - the word "day" is used in both contexts. The sentence part (which was my version) "relative to a full rotation of the Earth with respect to the Sun which is 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds approximately" doesn't include the necessary information to make the differenc apparent so though is erroneous in the context of the sentence structure. Cattenion (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should mention the fact "day" is applicable as both time periods - since it is the reality (as greater day 24 hours lesser day 23 56 4 - less people use - think of as a day). Cattenion (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do have two names for these concepts. The 24-hour one is a day. The shorter one is a sidereal day.--Srleffler (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - but no: Day is solar day Cattenion (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Day is in common parlance day without the solar as only astronomers have the discretion of sidereal or solar. In the future when people colonize wherever (Mars) everyday parlance Martian day is everyday in ... v.estimated 1000 (max) years - time-period for longterm/permanent camps/habitations on Mars. Recognizing solar isn't all prepares humanity for the adaption / culture shock. Although Day is very closely bonded semantically to 24hours since astronomy day is 23 hours 56 4 secs and the possibility of Martian day personally for a group of people - day doesn't strictly mean 24 and is simply when the sun is at the same place - on any planet - stating day is 24 hours is an error in that regard. In a more extended future if people live past Mars (where I don't know - too cold / toxic / radiation - no moons to live on perhaps) - the amount of light is insufficient for daylight to be a significant experience to think the Sun is as important as a measure / determination. Cattenion (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually NASA missions to Mars measure time in sols, which are martian solar days (24 hours, 39 minutes, 35 seconds). When there is a rover active on Mars the mission team live on Mars time. --Srleffler (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Budai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hazelnut. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't show 58% Cattenion (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Polyphenol, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Please pay attention that the year of publication for sources should be within a few years. Try to get your edit right before inserting then reversing yourself. Zefr (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Cattenion (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity

@Paul August: You deleted the section again...I would think it intuitively obvious that "larger than any natural number" isn't true - which I thought the section demonstrated - I thought it not necessary to provide sources as the proof is included in the argument - it's a philosophical argument. Is obvious because if the largest possible natural number is n then infinity isn't n+1 - which I could have written instead. Cattenion (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC) I mean "l t a n n" someone wrote that and thought it was true - so I wasn't sure if it was true or not - the section was my proof to myself or anyone else ltann isn't true - having the section exist allows for someone to provide a contrary argument - or support.Cattenion (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cattenion. I'm glad that you've decided to discuss this here (rather than reverting again), so thanks! Our article does not say that infinity is larger than any natural number, where are you getting that quote from? In any case, considered as a number infinity is larger than any natural number. You seem to think that this is false, and your argument, which seems to be: if the largest possible natural number is n then infinity isn't n+1, does not prove it false. Paul August ☎ 16:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this version I deleted 23:05, 11 Dec Cattenion (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument I made is in Talk, n + 1 is not the reason I gave for the article change - it is an adjunct argument. Considered as a number infinity is larger than any natural number / infinity is larger than any natural number - My argument was: if in the reality of the universe and the infintely distant universe - larger than is like a motion in a direction not a singular position. Larger than any number is a continuum of motion to larger - so accepting that always larger than is dynamic not static the scale of motion must be that the motion is sufficient that the number as a position is unobservable / invisible. From the 1st consideration larger than makes a continuous +1 state i.e. a motion - but infinity is not any of the positions in the motion there is no knowable singular position in the larger +1 motion to place infinity at. So the two statements I made: larger than is a motion - infinity is unobservable / invisible ("invisible" is wrong actually)

Continuing the argument to provide different argument details not made at Talk: There is no-way to know what infinity is as if it boundless=has no boundaries then has no dimensions. Infinity cannot be both larger than any natural number and boundless at the same time. From the perspective of Earth stating is larger than surely seems true because - in distance away from Earth infinity is always more distant. But this idea doesn't include any explanation of the reality of how it is possible infinity exists. Secondarily - although it seems true to state - infinity is larger than any number, science cannot prove the largeness - there will never in any timescale or permutation / different possible future reality of the species be a way to prove how large infinity is - so it impossible to state by observation "larger than" is true - it is simply a convicing argument from an Earthly perspective. Since it is unprovable then firstly it could be a trick of thought to think it true, a conceit or an eristic conviction. When any human thiinks of the universe - expansion and the dimensions then the distances of Earth extend outward and the result is the idea of infinity - like an imaginary line extending from Earth outward it continues forever. But infinity defies explanation in physics so although mathematics seem to provide a physical statement - largeness - it isn't provable in the methods of science of physics of which largeness is a subject of - in the sense it is a description of something physical. Cattenion (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Earth and in observation of the universe it is possible to prove something anything is larger than some other thing but it is completely impossible to prove by the same methods of observation the infinite universe is larger than some other thing becuse there isn't any other thing that is a distinct defined entity to compare it with - there is only the idea that is larger than a smaller number in a continuum motion towards largeness. So it's meaningless to state it is larger than in a universe where smaller larger have names ascribed to them (for example the largest structure observed in the universe _______(has an astronomical name). Cattenion (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to n + 1. If a computer is tasked with computing unceasingly incresingly larger numbers - if at any time a display of the current number processed is made - infinity isn't that number + 1 (which is larger). The moment the computer displays the number infinity is at an accelerated motion from that number to unobservable - not an unobservable number simply an unobservable state - if at a minute time instant before the universe ends and the computer is still running and a display is made - that completely unimaginably large number - infinity would again be unobservable at an accelerated distance from that number (if the number is the distnce from Earth). Is only the same as stating uncountable - so then cannot ever be shown practically to be larger in the whole future of the universe and lifespan of the human species. Cattenion (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think simply: you and others would state "larger than" but I would state "is unknowable therefore cannot be larger than" Cattenion (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone draws a straight line on a page on the table they are looking at and extends the line outward through the universe - if a computer then is tasked to create an ordinal - the smallest is perhaps a sub-stomic particle (I don't know) that smallest measurement of length is in the line - as the line extends out it creates ordinals of larger - infinity is never at the other end of the line - i.e. infinity never connects to the line (or it would be a number + 1 = infinity). Instead of thinking - infinity is at the other end of the line (which proves it is the larger) instead thinking it can never be connected to the line - proves it has no largeness Cattenion (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC) Always at the end of the line there is a number which is the larger number but infinity is never connected to the number Cattenion (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC) ----- Another way to imagine - if we're looking at a vertical line on a page - and the line is the end of a horizontal line moving rightwards through the universe - to the left of the vertical line the numbers are increasing to the right of the line is towards infinity - there aren't any numbers on the right of the line, or, any number on the right of the vertical line is smply added to all the numbers on the left of the line. Infinity is on the right of thr line - but travelling forever rightways all the numbers always accumulate on the left of the line. Cattenion (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we just state the minimal distance (ignoring decimations) is "1" and also the current furthest distance moved or travelled from Earth (the largest distance - of an imaginary line or ship in motion) is: 1. The front of a ship in motion is: 1. In front of the ship is 0 because the ship hasn't arrived at that position. If the motion of the ship in it's trajectory ignoring necessary navigations in the universe is inevitable=certain every 0="1"=:1. Infinity in the direction of motion is in the direction of 0=1. Except if the ship were to travel at the fastest speed possible in all possible realities of the future forever / until the end of the universe the amount of progress the ship would make, change, compared to a point to point travel, towards infinity, is zero. So for any distance out forever all 0's=1, except for infinity, the 0=0. Infact the amount of difference travelling at lightspeed (if lightspeed is the fastest) in the direction of infinity forever/the end of the universe makes with regards to change in proximacy to infinity is the same as if something or someone is completely motionless, both zero. So if the difference is zero in both situations - in the context of motionless = not towards infinity, if there isn't any attempt to make a measurement towards infinity - i.e. any increasing length is a type of motion in a direction from zero (let's say "A") to the distance measured, a number (let's say "B") - if no measurement is made the amount of difference is A - at any time whether in motion towards or still. Cattenion (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't allow original research on Wikipedia for good reason. This type of speculative argument is never going to be any use here. All anyone will care about here is whether or not the text in the article is supported by reliable sources. One editor's philosophical opinion on the nature of infinity is simply not relevant to our mission. --Srleffler (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Friedmann equations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Petersburg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preview – Consolidate – Summarize

Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 14:29, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Foreign Intelligence Service (Romania), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oversight.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cattenion reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 2026

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (2026 United States strikes in Venezuela) for a period of 2 weeks 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 think 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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay Cattenion (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]