InedibleHulk (talk | contribs) →What's your deal?: new section |
Deacon Vorbis (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
This is twice now I've tried to step away from a toxic Wikipedia situation you don't understand, and twice now you've deleted my attempt to escape without an edit summary. Do you hate me for some reason? Or is this just a coincidence? [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 00:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC) |
This is twice now I've tried to step away from a toxic Wikipedia situation you don't understand, and twice now you've deleted my attempt to escape without an edit summary. Do you hate me for some reason? Or is this just a coincidence? [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] ([[User talk:InedibleHulk|talk]]) 00:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
:{{re|InedibleHulk}} No, I don't hate you, but I do find you insufferably annoying. But that's not why I reverted you at [[WP:FTN]]. I reverted you at [[WP:FTN]] because you were being [[WP:DE|disruptive]] and posting weird, personal shit that didn't belong there. Knock it off. –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 00:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:44, 18 February 2020
E
The circularity exists between the definition of E and the definition of natural logarithm. Have you considered this? --ilgiz (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ilgiz: This is completely out of the blue. What are you talking about? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- He does have a good point. e (mathematical constant) starts with The number e is a mathematical constant that is the base of the natural logarithm, while Natural logarithm starts with The natural logarithm of a number is its logarithm to the base of the mathematical constant e. I wonder how this should be fixed? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Jpgordon As a maths guy, let me voice out my opinions. For most high school pupils, the number e and the natural logarithm is defined just as circularly as in Wikipedia. However, e and the natural logarithm can also be defined through other means, e.g. infinote series and properties. For instance, the exponentiation function ex can be defined as the unique function whose value at 0 is 1, and whose derivative is equal to itself. This in fact is how e and the natural log is rigorously defined in a real analysis course. However, how to start an article is a matter of prose writing not maths, and given my ideas I'll prefer to let you sort it out. For now I feel that the current heading works fine. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 04:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- He does have a good point. e (mathematical constant) starts with The number e is a mathematical constant that is the base of the natural logarithm, while Natural logarithm starts with The natural logarithm of a number is its logarithm to the base of the mathematical constant e. I wonder how this should be fixed? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Untitled re Tenghilan
Which one is the issue of an article about Tenghilan? Best wishes NikoUms — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikoUMS (talk • contribs) 04:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- @NikoUms: The English in the article is really really bad, and it needs a thorough copy edit. Leave the tag there so that someone who works on copy editing might eventually get to it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
ok, bro thanks. At least we learn and provide simple information to the community especially in Sabah.. Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikoUMS (talk • contribs) 06:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
3rr on ref desk
really?
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)- @Jpgordon: For what it's worth, I ended messing about with it by simply unclosing what I had closed in the first place so it wouldn't just be a duplicate post. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Deacon Vorbis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Deacon Vorbis". The reason given for Deacon Vorbis's block is: "Violation of the three-revert rule".
Accept reason:
- (Autoblock length was set longer than the block itself, which has expired already). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
P... vs child sex offender
One of the users who disagreed with me on my talk, is now in agreement with me. Are you going to stop vandalising Wikipedia now? 151.229.26.18 (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- While I do agree with you, you must accept that everyone have different opinions. Vandalism refers to deliberate bad-faith edits, and his ideas are just trying to improve Wikipedia. Please assume good faith to other editors. Thank you. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 04:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Deacon Vorbis well, I suppose it's okay for that anonymous user's edits to stand, right? Given the existence of reliable sources, thise edits shouldn't be reverted. If you don't object, I'll undo your reverts. Okay? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 04:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- @The Lord of Math: I certainly do object. Wholesale changes like this are inappropriate. These sources do not justify them. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Deacon Vorbis well, I suppose it's okay for that anonymous user's edits to stand, right? Given the existence of reliable sources, thise edits shouldn't be reverted. If you don't object, I'll undo your reverts. Okay? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 04:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education
So if it is answered, where is the answer? --Red King (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Red King: Look again. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Reversion of edits
Hi,
I noticed your recent reversion of my edits at CW complex and cable knitting. I'm part of the Typo Team, and currently fixing typos in the letter C with missing spaces. Omitting spaces is often a problem at parentheses, and that's why they're flagged for the Typo Team. Additionally, things like "(co)homology" and "stitch(es)" are simply not English words. For CW complex, "cohomology" without the parentheses should be used, as in the wikilink portion. If there is a need to indicate both words, then "X or Y" should be used for clarity. I urge you to reconsider your reversions.
Regards,
Ira
Ira Leviton (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
revert
your revert and explanation do not make too much logic[1] in the future please discuss on talk page prior to such reverts, would rather not take this to ANI as you have been blocked in the past[2], thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ozzie10aaaa: The explanation was that the infoboxes are pointless; please stop adding them. I'm under no obligation to start something on the talk page first; indeed, WP:BRD suggests that discussion happen after a revert. These infoboxes add nothing to these articles and shouldn't be there. If you disagree, please start a discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ozzie10aaaa: Normally I'm in favor of keeping discussion at article talk pages, but since this spans so many, this is as good a place as any. Anyway, to go into a bit more detail, I'm concerned with seeing infoboxes added to articles en masse and without considering the usefulness of them like this. If an article has sufficient information to summarize in an infobox, then great, but an infobox with one entry, especially one which can generally be gleaned from the first sentence, is generally pointless. I'm generally supportive of infoboxes overall, but they need to actually have sufficient info to box before they should be added. And just on a side note, starting off with threats over simple reverts is usually not the way to go. And on second thought, if you want to gauge consensus for such skimpy infoboxes, maybe WT:MED would be a good place to start (since these are all medical infoboxes). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Reply to: refusal to edit "Google Chrome" from January 28, 2020.
I think that the reason for rejecting my request (WP: NOR) is incorrect. I asked to add the following sentence: There is a condition in the Google Chrome license that allows Google to "remotely disable or remove any" "extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies" "from user systems in its sole discretion." I will show that it is based on reliable sources: The part of sentence "There is a condition in the Google Chrome license that allows Google to" refers to the source at the address I provided in the link (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html). There is a section number 20.3 with the following content: "20.3 From time to time, Google may discover an extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. Google Chrome will periodically download a list of such extensions from Google's servers. You agree that Google may remotely disable or remove any such extension from user systems in its sole discretion. " Members of the sentence: "remotely disable or remove any" and "from user systems in its sole discretion." they come from the last sentence of the quoted fragment of Google license. These members are separated by a fragment that defines what "such extension" is. This fragment ("extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies") also comes from the quoted fragment number 20.3, only from the previous sentence (more precisely: from the first sentence from the fragment of license number 20.3). The link (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html) is credible. It is used in the same context in which I am asking you to use it now, e.g. on the Polish Wikipedia page about Google Chrome (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#cite_ref-eula_38-0). In addition, this link was used as a link to the Google Chrome license also in the following cases on Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navegador_web#cite_ref-2 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cent_Browser#cite_ref-cluf_9-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.75 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Personal analysis of a primary source (the Chrome EULA) is exactly what "original research" refers to. For something to be added, it would have to be discussed by a reliable, secondary source. And even then, that's no guarantee that it would remain in the article (although it may). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I thank you for explaining why you rejected my previous edit request. In that case, please include under the phrase: >> The following year Google reported a "75% drop in customer support help requests for uninstalling unwanted extensions" which led them to expand this restriction to all Windows and Mac users. << in the article about Google Chrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome) the following sentence: >> The Google Chrome license has the following statement: "20.3 From time to time, Google may discover an extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. Google Chrome will periodically download a list of such extensions from Google's servers. You agree that Google may remotely disable or remove any such extension from user systems in its sole discretion." << This is an unchanged quote (without interpretation) from Chrome EULA (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html) with an introductory sentence that only states the source of the quote. If my introductory sentence were a problem again, please help me how to put this Google Chrome license fragment (original source) in this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.75 (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.135 (talk)
Planck law
Hello, please correct the simplified form of Planck's distribution (introduce factor ni^3 in the formula with x). Please consider revising to account for Wien distribution, and to introduce Planck distribution as a standard distribution page similar to the one of the apparently similar Maxwell distribution, Boltzmann distribution, Poisson distribution. --79.26.57.107 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Wrong signature
You signed my name on another user's edit. --Nessie (📥) 15:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I did... Facepalm –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
nCov revert
why did you revert a 'grammar fix' on the virus article?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ozzie10aaaa: Because it was the
won'twrong way around (that was a tablet keyboard issue). I'm guessing you got confused between the request and the current state of the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)- your right, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
What's your deal?
This is twice now I've tried to step away from a toxic Wikipedia situation you don't understand, and twice now you've deleted my attempt to escape without an edit summary. Do you hate me for some reason? Or is this just a coincidence? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: No, I don't hate you, but I do find you insufferably annoying. But that's not why I reverted you at WP:FTN. I reverted you at WP:FTN because you were being disruptive and posting weird, personal shit that didn't belong there. Knock it off. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)