→Squarefree: I wanted to write "defs", a shortcut for "definitions", as "refs" is a shortcut for "references". Autocorrect seemingly changed that to "refs" while saving. I then changed the letter r back to d as I had typed. This reflects my typing at the time, and what I intend/ intended to express. I find your revert not acceptable. |
Deacon Vorbis (talk | contribs) →Squarefree: oh, it was yours...responding to something stale and pointless; rm |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
[[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC) |
[[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
If there are 2 definitions, non-squarefree would be best. |
|||
It is also easily understandable and needs no lookup. |
|||
[[User:LMSchmitt|LMSchmitt]] 09:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Painting reversion == |
== Painting reversion == |
Revision as of 23:03, 22 September 2020
Overwrote your reversion
I was finishing an edit of the natural logarithm article when you reverted it. In as much as I have a math Ph.D., and have retired from 20 years as an applied mathematician, I feel reasonably comfortable that you are quite mistaken: None of my changes were "wrong", although a few (such as converting from <sub> ... to {{sub|) may well not strictly be necessary, they were where I was editing formulae anyway; the {{nowrap| template for excessively large numbers of codes is arguably an improvement in readability of the wikification of the presented text.
Since I overrode your reversion, you might want to go back and do it again, or instead, skim through the article by actually looking at the results instead of the changes page, before you decide to go ahead.107.242.121.22 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
I had my doubts about linking "scientific" to the science article in the flat earth article and did so reluctantly. If you cared to waste a moment looking at my relatively scant editing history, you would see that one of the things I regularly do is eliminate annoying links to subjects of common knowledge. As I suggested in my edit summary, I would normally never think of linking to "science" or "fact" and would, like you in this case, normally delete such links. So I don't have a problem with scientific > science's being unlinked (especially since the words aren't identical, though that perhaps shouldn't matter), but part of me would still like to see a link to "fact" in this particular case. You are quite right that it gives no actual aid to the average reader, and to tell the truth it was added with a somewhat humorous intent. I was a bit surprised to find an article on "fact", but seeing that it existed I felt that the flat-earth article was among the most appropriate imaginable to link to it, if any WP article was to do so. A kind of a dig, you know. You probably see what I mean, but if you still object to a link to "fact", I'm not going to make a federal case out of it.
Especially since I have a favor to ask of you. Sometime not too long ago I saw someone called Deborah Tavares on YouTube recommending that people read a document titled "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars". I found and read the document (best Internet copy at https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml), but could make no sense of its technicalities and knew no one who could advise me in their regard. I have just now found a seemingly plausible explanation of the genesis of the document at https://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Letters_from_the_Author_of_Silent_Weapons_for_Quiet_Wars.html, though it remains somewhat mysterious and I still haven't received any confirmation of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of its diagrams. If I can entice you into having a look at it, could you please enlighten me to some degree on this? Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- The first half of this should really be on the talk page, but if you really think it should be linked, then go ahead and reinstate it; I won't object further. As for the second half, about all I can say is: ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wut?
Squarefree
I'm OK about the revert in Squarefree. Is there a term for non-squarefree integers? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I found this:
- http://oeis.org/wiki/Squarefull_numbers
- squarefull: every prime factor is at least squared
- http://oeis.org/wiki/Squareful_numbers
- Squareful: not squarefree
Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Painting reversion
Hi, how are you. Just wanted to check with you. The painting of madhava is based on original research, era etc...it was commissioned as there has been since demand. Also there is a request for an image on the talk page etc... This image also conforms to the wikipedia licence.
If you have any queries we could discuss in the talk section. Thanks Imagetoimageless (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Imagetoimageless:
"The painting of madhava is based on original research, era etc."
. Please see WP:NOR, which details Wikipedia's policy prohibiting original research. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)- Thanks for that. I think this scenario is exempt if attributable. Imagetoimageless (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- I realise I have come under your attention since I had discussed in the talk section in calculus. However I point out that I did not revert your change :) Imagetoimageless (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi,Could we discuss it here or in the talk page of madhava. I see that you have reverted it again. The painting is attributable. Thus it doesn't remit revertion Imagetoimageless (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Imagetoimageless: Please indent your replies; see Help:Talk for more info. I had continued discussion on the article talk page already, which is where this should be taking place anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Note
Do you really need a template explaining what edit warring is? GMGtalk 17:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @GreenMeansGo: Do you really need to restore personal attacks? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Am I? Because from what I can tell, the only thing I'm reverting is you closing a thread after you got in an edit war because you don't seem to very well understand fair use, and at least appear to think that links to YouTube are presumed suspect. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the bits I'm failing to understand. GMGtalk 17:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @GreenMeansGo: In case it's not clear from the article history, all I was doing was removing copyright-violating external links per WP:COPYVIOEL until I started getting personal attacks for my trouble. Your egging on isn't helpful. And no, check the history more carefully; Guy posted one, which I removed, then Roxy posted another (not the one that's already there), that I removed. Postingn recordings of a performance IS a copyright vio. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the second link to the low quality concert recording is probably copyvio and shouldn't be linked to. You don't seem to have started the edit war over that bit; you seem to have started the edit war over the video of the performance by the The 8-Bit Big Band, performed by the The 8-Bit Big Band, recorded by the The 8-Bit Big Band, and posted on YouTube by the The 8-Bit Big Band.
- We are permitted to post links to content creators making transformative works under a claim of fair use. Every third news story we use as a source incorporates content under fair use.
- Regardless, it is wholly inappropriate to attempt to close a thread in which you are actively engaged in an edit war. GMGtalk 17:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @GreenMeansGo: No, I made absolutely no effort to remove the 8-Bit Band performance. Check the history again. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @GreenMeansGo: In case it's not clear from the article history, all I was doing was removing copyright-violating external links per WP:COPYVIOEL until I started getting personal attacks for my trouble. Your egging on isn't helpful. And no, check the history more carefully; Guy posted one, which I removed, then Roxy posted another (not the one that's already there), that I removed. Postingn recordings of a performance IS a copyright vio. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Am I? Because from what I can tell, the only thing I'm reverting is you closing a thread after you got in an edit war because you don't seem to very well understand fair use, and at least appear to think that links to YouTube are presumed suspect. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the bits I'm failing to understand. GMGtalk 17:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Montgomery, Alabama buildings AfD
As a heads up, I reinstated Lightburst's comment there, a) so I could reply it to it, and b) because personally I think it reflects far more poorly on him and the ARS squad than it does on you (and c) because it's not really kosher to remove other people's comments). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: I appreciate the explanation, but to explain back, I've just gotten so tired of the attacks lately (this is sort of a camel back-breaking straw, too), especially after what should have just been a completely mundane !vote. I'm going to bed; thanks for the note at least. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I totally get it. I'm also frustrated with the ARS squad and the recent drama (I read the recent ANI without commenting, so I know the background). I'm sorry if I added to the weight of the straw with that revert. Ultimately I wanted it to be publicly visible so other commenters could see the kind of rhetoric they're breaking out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Truce
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Peace_dove.svg/100px-Peace_dove.svg.png)
User:Lightburst) has given you a dove - Lets call a truce. I do not want either of us to be embroiled in an edit war - nor do I want confrontation. I will not comment directly on your contributions and I will go strike my comment now.
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
- eek, I see you refactored my comments again. 5 times? How does this end? One of us will likely be blocked. I want to ask you to revert yourself there please. Lightburst (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone can read the collapsed discussion, none of which has anything to do with the merits of my deletion rationale. It's disruptive to the discussion as a whole, and to the sub-discussion about my !vote. If you want to engage in meta-discussion of the AfD itself, the talk page is the proper place for that, not under someone's !vote. I'm tired of the personal attacks. I'm tired of not being able to make a simple mundane !vote at an AfD without my reason for being there called into question. If you think my pattern of appearance at AfDs is problematic, take it up at ANI, not under my !vote. WP:IAR applies here, 3RR be damned. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
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. Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thegameshowlad
What edits were you referring to as having been reverted in your templated message to Thegameshowlad? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: I wasn't; the stock warning message includes that text apparently, even if it's not appropriate. In this case, the edits were all adding one space, which is disruptive generally, but not worth reverting. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Deacon Vorbis, can you give me the page that this was on? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: It was a whole series in a short span: starting at Prostitution in Uzbekistan (!) at 15:32 today up to Simon Mayo at 15:40 (see their contribs for the intervening pages...there might have been more of those, but I wasn't looking in great detail). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Deacon Vorbis, thanks. Only went ahead and issued the block I was in the process of gathering information for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: It was a whole series in a short span: starting at Prostitution in Uzbekistan (!) at 15:32 today up to Simon Mayo at 15:40 (see their contribs for the intervening pages...there might have been more of those, but I wasn't looking in great detail). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Deacon Vorbis, can you give me the page that this was on? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Impersonation
Hello. I wanted to let you know that I blocked User:Deacon Vorbes for impersonation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: Thanks for the heads-up...I've never gotten an impersonator before; such a special occasion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Happy to help. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I had...
... my doubts, so thanks for this . - DVdm (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @DVdm: Heh, no problem! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring
I do deletion sorting all the time. There are errors which are easily corrected. But you are edit warring the matter. You previously edit warred several other times over these trivial issues. The OP originally put these in an unrelated AfD and i corrected the error. If you continue reverting this I will report you to the edit warring board. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Lightburst: There were two AFDs open on the same article at the same time; keeping both in the list was helpful for figuring out exactly what was going on. While you may have removed one bit of oddness, it didn't fix the underlying issue. I've closed the second AFD and left the first one open; AnomieBOT will remove the second from the delsort page shortly. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- I believe that you closed the wrong one. Have a look - it is a 2nd nomination so the one you closed should remain open. Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- The second nomination wasn't in the AFD log and was opened in error. It's now closed while the original remains open. All should be fine now. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Link for "view AfD: on that particular AfD nomination does not work. But this snafu has taken enough of our time. Lightburst (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- The headers had gotten clobbered, which I've also fixed. Purge the page and it should transclude the most recent version. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Right, in the future it is much more collegial to approach an editor without reverting. Closing the duplicate was the right move. And none of this is worth wasting a morning or risking an edit war. My best to you. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- The headers had gotten clobbered, which I've also fixed. Purge the page and it should transclude the most recent version. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Link for "view AfD: on that particular AfD nomination does not work. But this snafu has taken enough of our time. Lightburst (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- The second nomination wasn't in the AFD log and was opened in error. It's now closed while the original remains open. All should be fine now. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- I believe that you closed the wrong one. Have a look - it is a 2nd nomination so the one you closed should remain open. Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Cyberattack on Miami Dade Public Schools
I removed your tag. Please see the article's talk page. Lechonero (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- You didn't bother to respond to my comment on the article's talk page and you're determined to use tags rather than to discuss the notability of the article. It looks like you want an edit war. I will report you to the appropriate admin board if you continue like this. Lechonero (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Lechonero: Following established procedures for article deletion isn't edit warring. Since I think the article isn't notable, I nominated at AfD, which is the correct next step after a declined PROD. Notability certainly can be discussed on an article's talk page, but it isn't required. When there's disagreement over notability, AfD is ultimately the place where it gets hashed out. You're free to make your case for inclusion there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Radic ideas
Hey,
I saw on your user page that you're looking into a way to render nested radicals better in text. I thought I might take a crack at it because I've never written a template before and it seemed like a fun challenge.
{{math|{{radic2|2}}}}
becomes Template:Radic2 (behaves identically to Template:Radic){{math|{{radic2|size=1|3+{{radic2|5}}}}}}
becomes Template:Radic2 (demo of size parameter){{radic2|size=3|3+{{radic2|5|4}}|4}}
becomes Template:Radic2 (can increment size by 3 to permit superscripts in nested radicals)
You can check it out at Template:Radic2. When size is not specified, its output is exactly the same as Template:Radic. Its main limitation is that it doesn't work in IE8 or below (though neither does Template:Radic).
How it works
|
---|
|
Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ovinus Real: Holy cripes, that's amazing (and a little scary). Honestly, I had kind of forgotten all about this, but I'll definitely check it out. Thanks for the note! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect rv
re your Quaternion edits: incorrect behaviour. "not feasible" for trivial edits is nonsense. Ignoring error fixing: inacceptable (& you obviously had to admit yourself). Please do not repeat in the future. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Reversion is not "incorrect behavior"...it's a fine thing to do when someone disagrees with a bold change. The next step is usually to discuss. Blindly throwing in a
1=
on every use of{{math}}
isn't the way to fix a single error. It reduces readability of the markup, and it didn't even address the underlying issue in this case. Please don't do this. And if you really feel like there's some overwhelming reason why it needs to be done, please bring it up at WT:WPM, where others can weigh in. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)- Revision by itself is not. However, revision, esp with the "readability" excuse you mention is useless. There is no requirement to discuss such a change beforehand. (To be clear: there is not a single problem using
1=
in a template, especially when it is this error-sensitive as {{math}}). Thereby re-introducing an error is inacceptible, unforgiveable and, of course, incorrect. Also, you could reply & rethink to the fact that you did not consider there was an error involved. -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC) - Again, making edits that do not change the rendered page, such as this one, are not appreciated. -DePiep (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Revision by itself is not. However, revision, esp with the "readability" excuse you mention is useless. There is no requirement to discuss such a change beforehand. (To be clear: there is not a single problem using
5upp0rt/Opp053/N3u7r81
Regading the now-closed discussion "Shouting !votes" [1], the "creative" responses like OpPose and 0PP05E got me thinking: A spoof RFC to run 24 hours on April 1st would be fun. [April Fools!] RFC: Relax !voting so responses other than "Support"/"Oppose"/"Neutral" should be allowed.
I'm not sure where the centralized planning happens for April Fools pranks, but Wikipedia:Rules for Fools and the discussions it links to are probably good places to look to find other editors to collaborate with. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Davidwr: I mean, you're free to do as you wish with respect to this, but I'd want no part of it. My proposal was serious, and although people found creative ways to oppose, I think the point was well-taken by all, even people who don't like instruction creep. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Locking discussion of history section for 0.999...
Now that is totally unreasonable. Don't let your personal animosity with me be an excuse for this. A history section is perfectly appropriate to an encyclopedia. Your fear of one is what belongs elsewhere. --Algr (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Algr: I have no animosity toward you. However, talk pages aren't there for people to just ask generic questions and endlessly debate stuff. If you wanted to say you think the article should include more history, that's fine, but there was no progress being made toward that or sources provided that could be used. Given your history with that page that could only be described as misguided at best, and trolling at worst, it's clear that the discussion was serving no useful further purpose. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Locking the discussion tells other contributors that the suggestion of a history section is unacceptable. I did the best I could with a reference to some useful info, and was hoping that someone would read this and point me to better references online. If you don't ask the question, no one will know that an answer is needed. --Algr (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring (2)
You are not allowed to move or erase comments at AfD. You are engaged in an edit war at the SocialCred AfD. You will be reported if you do not revert. Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Lightburst: You're also not allowed to make personal attacks. I'm sick and fucking tired of this shit – I'm sick and fucking tired of the personal potshots for good faith, civil participation at AfDs. You can make your point about the sources without resorting to the WP:ASPERSIONS. They have absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Report me? Fine, but beware the boomerang. I'm →← this close from seeking an AfD TBAN. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
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. Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Your reversions on Complex Numbers
The article on C used/refers to a definition involving an indeterminate i and polynomial addition and multiplication. For many many people, that is too abstract. I made 3 efforts that should have made this simpler.
A) introduction of a detailed Definition 1 where C is simply IR^2 a familiar set from school.
B) as consequence of A), i=(0,1) becomes a real point in the plane. It is essential for understanding C that i=(0,1) is understood. This should be mentioned in the caption of that first diagram in the article. "i" should not be understood as some "indeterminate". "i" is the 2nd canonical base vector. I cannot accept your revert.
C) In the introduction, C is discussed as being "real". That C equals a concrete set is a compelling argument and easily understandable in regard to this philosophical question whether C is real. I don't understand your revert. Please, explain.
LMSchmitt 21:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- @LMSchmitt: I've again undone your changes. However, please raise any concerns at the article's talk page, not mine. This gives other people watching the article the opportunity to weigh in. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer. However, I note that you do not answer my question which I find unacceptable. I would be willing to copy and continue this dialogue on the respective talk page. However, in my opinion, your non-dialogue (content-wise) is unacceptable.
- LMSchmitt 19:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Zoonosis. Prometheus.gave.man.fire@outlook.com.
My name is David Relkin. Thank you for your comments on the above captioned subject. I use that screen name for contributions to certain websites. My direct email is David@Relkinlaw.com. I did not intend my contribution to be advertising. It was simply my jump off. I found that test and used it as but one potential addition to the page. I intended to add others. Prometheus.gave.man.fire (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)