User talk:Deacon Vorbis/Archive 2017

Nor

"Nor" no more requires a preceding "neither" than "or" requires a preceding "either". It is perfectly grammatical to write (something negative about something) nor (something else), implying that the same negative thing is true of the something else. "Or" is the wrong word in that context and carries other connotations that make it more ambiguous. If you used "or" in that context, it could plausibly mean that the negative thing is true of one of (something)+(something else), but not necessarily of both of them, which is not what is wanted. By being more specific and less ambiguous, "nor" is the better choice. This is especially true in mathematics articles, where preventing ambiguity is particularly important. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Um, no. For example, "I don't have a book nor a pencil" is totally wrong. You can say, "I don't have a book or a pencil", or you can say "I have neither a book nor a pencil", but the first is not correct. The link you provided doesn't apply to the way it's being used in Graph minor. See [1] (which it references) for even more detail, which also doesn't support what you're saying. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Note also from the referenced paper of Lovász:

"A graph G is embeddable in the plane if and only if it does not contain a subgraph homeomorphic to the complete graph $K_{5}$ or the complete bipartite graph $K_{3,3}$."

Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You are both overly pedantic and wrong. There are approximately 10,000 Google books hits for the exact phrase "does not have nor". (The actual phrase used here is harder to search for, but I doubt it is less frequent.) And the fact that someone else used a different phrase doesn't prove anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Comma abuse

See section "Comma abuse" (13.) in the grammar reference you cited in an edit summary for quotient rule. Rule 1 is for independent clauses. The two sequential steps in a simple mathematical procedure are not independent. The sentence in the quotient rule article is structurally the same as "we laid out our music and snacks and began to study" (two sequential steps in a simple procedure). Jrheller1 (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Flat Earth

Hi! Thanks for reverting the editor 2020. Please note that the text (and the choice of the quote) is also POV, but I cannot modify it. If you read both chapters 7 and 8 (very short) you will see that the author never says anything about flat earth. He is commenting some biblical sentence and giving its theological interpretation (it's God who causes the earth to stand ) Obviously he fails to state that the biblical text is not physically correct, but why do we expect him to have done so? His position is at most non-committal: he didn't "espouse" any theory. Pinea (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

List of formulae involving π

Hi Deacon

What problem with these formulae you have? They are correct.

Ralf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf.steiner (talk • contribs) 18:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

They may be correct, but as the note attached to my revert indicated, they're also unsourced, so we can't double check. Also, your mention of A013709 seemed to be completely unrelated. Also, please sign your messages with 4 tildes. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Exponential moving average

Hi Deacon,

I am lost why are you preventing me from correcting incorrect formula. The way it is written right now, the formula for S_t will not result in correct mean nor the same answer as if you are using any other formulas in the chapter.

Just take this set (100,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,...) vs (1,100,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,...)and compute EWMA using first formula and any others...

Vadim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutsyy (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Deacon user delete a lot without understanding what it is and without respecting the wikipedia rules as seen here. Also, the language on his page is not a respectable one. He should understand that he has to help, not get tangled. Mariusmta (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Citation requests

To Deacon.

Apparently, you reverted one of my edits on the basis that it was a malformed citation request, but if that was the case, couldn't you have fixed it, instead of just removing it (or fixing it, since you may very well be the creator of that section). Maybe it would be more constructive to show me how to properly request citations, instead of just removing them. Hdy5starz (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

See Template:cn for more info. I didn't fix it because I'm not actually sure what you were looking for -- a citation, a clarification, or did you just have a question? --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

My problem was that you didn't explain how you got the real numbers from the hyper rationals. By that, I mean how can the hyperrationals contain non-rational real numbers? It feels weird that you left out such an important detail on a page about constructing the reals. Also, it may just be me, but the hyperreal section seems to be the least informative. The other constructions (at least the Cauchy and Dedekind ones) gave me a better understanding of the reals, and what it means to be complete, but this section just seems to be there just for the sake of bringing hyperreals into the discussion, without bringing anything new and useful with it.Hdy5starz (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"He" or "him"

Hello Deacon Vorbis. By what measure is this formally correct? Back in the day, if I'd turned in an English paper with that wording, I'd have gotten it back with a big red circle around the offending pronoun. (Pinging User:Thunderbelch, who made what I consider a positive change on 26 January.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Then your teacher was misinformed. Here's a nice informal writeup about it. You can find many others saying pretty much the same thing with a little Googling. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what good Googling it would do except perhaps to unleash a flood of conflicting opinions, many of them irrelevant. As far as I can see, the essay you linked above offers no guidance on this situation because there's no possible ambiguity of meaning regardless of which pronoun is used. As I suggested in my edit summary, there's no right or wrong here, but there is a distinction between the formal and the informal. In conversation, and in most spoken contexts, I'd say "him" because it sounds natural. Formal writing benefits from a somewhat different approach, and I've striven for years apply such an approach to my editing here. It's not a big deal in this case, and I'm not going to make an issue of it, but I hope you'll at least consider what I'm saying. Incidentally, "my teacher" wasn't "misinformed". English (and other) professors have every right to demand the use of formal English in their students' assignments. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Add informations don't remove

If you really want to help wikipedia, please add informations don't remove — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariusmta (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Deacon Vorbis as another user has said, it is more constructive and beneficial for encyclopedia to add information to not delete. According to wikipedia rules, you have to say why you deleted the information that is very useful to many.

If for you kvraudio.com , which is the world's largest music site, is not a reliable source then you do not know what you are talking about! It seems to be a big misunderstanding of the waves on your part. Mariusmta (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

References

1. In accordance with wikipedia rules, you must post the reason when deleting a post or a part of it.

2. Do not delete the work of others because you do not understand it. You have big problems in understanding what waveforms are.

3. Do not blame and refer to wikipedia rules without evidence, only on your guesses.

4. Do not give you from the wikipedia team without being an administrator or other privileges, you are normal user us all Deacon+Vorbis confirmed user

5. Talk nice and be politeness "Waveform is a mess" is not a respectable one! Mariusmta (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've already stated why your edits were reverted multiple times, both in the edit summaries and on your own talk page. See WP:BRD for a way you can proceed. However, I think it unlikely that you'll find much support because, as I've already pointed out, your edits constitute original research and give undue weight to a fringe viewpoint.

And by the way, my note that "waveform is a mess" is a comment I made on my own user page on a to-do list of things to fix up. It has absolutely nothing to do with your edits there, but is a note to myself that the article quality needs some improvement. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, if you disagree and think this content should be kept, you should start a discussion at Talk:Waveform so that other editors can weigh in. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Flat Earth

I'm sorry, but you've reverted my edits, which were well supported by the reference. What is your problem?GliderMaven (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The reference given said nothing about the frequency of belief in a flat Earth among fundamentalist sects (which is somewhat vague anyway), nor about the frequency of fundamentalists among flat Earth believers. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Direction (geometry)

Hello. I see that you have successfully proposed Direction (geometry) for deletion. If the article looked something like this archive then I can understand why it was deleted. However, it leaves us with a problem.

About 60 articles link to that page, directly or via its redirect Direction (geometry, geography). They now link to Direction, a disambiguation page listing articles from pop albums to political parties. I suspect most of the links should lead to Relative direction or Cardinal direction but many of them are to do with absolute directions, not necessarily on the earth's surface. Do you have any suggestions for dealing with these orphaned wikilinks? Thanks, Certes (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I went ahead and changed both redirects to point to Relative direction, since that seems to be by far the more appropriate target. A few may have been better with Cardinal direction instead, but it's certainly no worse like this than sending someone to a disambiguation page. I'm hoping this should suffice. Let me know if you still think there are any problems with this. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That seems to be the nearest remaining topic to the deleted article, so it looks like a good destination for those links. Certes (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Flat earth

How was it already okay? How is that way in any way preferable? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

How was it not? Your edit summary of "fixing" the sentence was disingenuous because it wasn't in error. This would make more sense on the article's talk page anyway. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"wow that was clever"

No, it was factual. Whether or not you'd like to admit it an encyclopedia shouldn't legitimize magical thinking. My parents are both psychologists and I am going into school for political science. This is a major issue. People (mainly children) read these articles and see that it made it the 'article' & social justice warrior protected phase and that, in their mind, is a enough to legitimize the 'magical thinking'.

The page should be redirected to 'Magical Thinking' and 'Delusion'

You clearly don't have any ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSuperEditor123 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Correcting usage 3 of #Hyphens not to contradict usage 1

Thanks for your false nastygram. What don't you understand about my added clarification wording?

See the talk page here: [2]

2600:100E:B149:8DAB:F80C:D7D2:437F:F3BC (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

How do you figure it's so "unhelpful"?

If you don't think "Never use a hyphen in a proper name" contradicts the instruction to use hyphens in personal names that already have them, which ARE proper names, then why don't you go back yourself up at the talk page that I linked you to just above this, instead of just coldly summarizing with "unhelpful"?

2600:100E:B149:8DAB:F80C:D7D2:437F:F3BC (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I interpret the 'unhelpful' to mean that you not bothering to await a consensus is unhelpful. You are just irritating editors. Leave it to pan out properly, rather than throwing your weight around like this. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 16:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow

Coming to your talk page makes me amazed that there is an editor even more hated than me! I understand what you are doing, even if they don't. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 16:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Does the invocation sholok of Isha Upnishad talk about infinity?". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 September 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Does the invocation sholok of Isha Upnishad talk about infinity?, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Math - extraneous spacing - How do these get here?

In reply to your comment in the Help:Displaying a formula, 23 June 2017 edit description I'd like to explain, that the MediaWiki software evolves, also in the the <math> tag handling. Some time ago the SVG was not yet supported by popular Web browsers (see the Scalable Vector Graphics#SVG on the web section for more details), and even PNG handling was considered quite expensive, both in caching rendered images in Wikipedia servers and in transporting them to the clients (web browsers) via narrow-band net connections.

So in those 'old days' ;) MediaWiki used to render simple math expressions with a text in HTML, excessively using sub- and superscripts and quite sophisticated tables for multi-level fractions, matrices etc. Those algorithms were usually producing reasonable output, but its final appearance was depending on specific browser's abilities. For those users who didn't like the results, especially with more sophisticated equations, MediaWiki offered special options in User Preferences' Math section to choose output mode: 'HTML if very simple or else PNG' and 'HTML if possible or else PNG'. The former covered what we might call 'mathematical one-liners' – simple expressions with no large integrals or radicals, no multi-level fractions, etc. while the latter which was default, forced HTML layout whenever possible. The exceptions were mainly lacking special characters (like - IIRC - arc symbols, Hebrew letters, dotted arrows) or big or complicated symbols (say, matrices' braces or fraction-degree radicals). Another option was 'always PNG'.

The spacing characters \, and/or \! you considered 'extraneous' were added as a means of invoking 'or else PNG' clause. The (hyper)text layout was unable to render the negative space, so this sequence was used by editors to force graphical rendering of math expressions despite users' settings. You can find more explanation in the 'Forced PNG rendering' section of old versions of the help page, e.g. this one from June 2007 (of course, due to the default graphical output used nowadays, you won't see any difference between a and a\, and a\,\! anymore). Some notes or examples can be found in ancient talks, e.g. at Help talk:Displaying a formula/Archive 1#Png rendering of math mode or Help talk:Displaying a formula/Archive 1#Why doesn't this one work?.

Best regards,
CiaPan (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

lowercase personal names

Hi, I'm new to editing so any feedback is appreciated. You recently reverted my edit of scott crow's name back to Scott Crow on the Antifa (United States)‎ article. I'm part of what I'd imagine to be a large group of people who find styling your name in lowercase to be ridiculously pretentious. That being said, while I would probably use proper capitalization myself, I feel like an encyclopedia should reflect the person's choice to change their capitalization. I took a look at the manual of style; in the section for proper names I note that it states "Exceptions are made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable third party sources." In this case I had a difficult time tracking down reliable third party sources so I can't see changing it back, but if it was properly sourced would their be a case for using lowercase per the style guide? I note that the title for the article k.d. lang is lowercase. Anyway, I don't feel it's a huge issue but trying to track down an answer got me interested. Thanks for any input. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting redirects

[3] AfD is only for deletion discussions. The redirect is fine per WP:ATD-R. If you have extra sources to prove the topic's independent notability, I had already started a discussion on its talk page. But if you don't, please undo your edit. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 15:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:, WP:ATD-R doesn't apply since the topic is suitable; whether or not it's sufficiently notable for an article is a separate issue. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

...which is why I opened a talk page discussion where you did not participate. Re: [4] AfD is for deletion discussions only—please do not insist on opening a discussion there unless you are advocating deletion. If you have sources, now's past the time to produce them (on the talk page). czar 14:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

NGC4993

Regarding your recent deletions on this page: Kindly look up this LIGO communication and do constructive editing, rather than simply deleting highly relevant updates from LIGO regarding this article's contents. https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.062002 Mandot (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKE comment

For the record, I have reservations about the so-called "policy" of WP:NOTBROKE. One can easily argue that one wastes as much time "enforcing" WP:NOTBROKE as another does fixing wikilinks that others consider to be "not broken". Feel free to discuss the matter if you wish (or not). Cheers! Bumm13 (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose, but like much else here, people eventually learn. An important part is using redirects for a variety of listed reasons. It isn't just the work, but the usefulness of redirects. Gah4 (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKE

In a recent edit: [5]] your summary says WP:NOTBROKE but it seems exactly opposite. NOTBROKE says to keep redirects, instead of pipes, for a whole list of reasons. Gah4 (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI dispute resolution

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bumm13 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKE policy discussion

Feel free to check out the link at Wikipedia talk:Piped link where you'll see that I've tried (and mildly succeeded) in generating discussion about the "policy" that you claim I "violated" earlier today. Note the date of May 2013: I didn't bring this issue up just to upset you or other similarly minded editors. I also don't expect you or any other editor here to be "psychic"; rather, I just want editors to be respectful and responsible. I'll admit that some of my words about your editing experience earlier were off-base and for that, I apologize. Bumm13 (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(Comment by uninvolved editor) Deacon, I am seeing this by accident right now. Since it reminds me of an old incident leading to the thread (mentioned by Bumm13) above and two others, I thought I'd make you aware of them:

• User_talk:Matthiaspaul#Reversion_of_my_edits_to_SuperDrive_article
• Wikipedia_talk:Redirect/Archive_2013#Restoring_links_to_redirects

It is very sad to see that Bumm13 hasn't changed his bad attitude in all those years and is continuously (and even frequently) editing against WP:NOTBROKEN up to the present, thereby clearly ignoring a community consensus that exists for more than a decade. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this edit. I have been wanting to pull the trigger on this for months. But sometimes it is hard to be bold and just remove content. It is nice to see someone do exactly what you have been thinking about. High five!  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi, I won't make a drama out of this on the RfA page but Boing! said Zebedee's and my comments were not attacking anyone. My post served to illustrate another rationale I had not used, and why, and it was in the comments section. We are far from alone in opposing that RfA and have unavoidably monitored the user's work for a great many years. Even his nominator has all but withdrawn his support. I would suggest, as friendly as possible, avoiding turning such comments into a drama, including your inappropriate edit summary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I never said your comments were attacking; I said they were inappropriate. A statement like

"Incidentally, that particular desysop probably wouldn't have caused a ripple, but the news was Tweeted during Gardner's valedictory at a packed Wikimania lecture theatre, in which she was thanking him for his work. The ripples of supressed [sic] comment were audible."

serves no purpose other than to gossip and try to (inappropriately) influence people for the future. I would suggest, as friendly as possible, sticking to the matter at hand in future RfAs. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNCIVIL

I'm going to be less friendly this time - I don't like your snark. Your embellishments were to deliberately fan the flames because you supported the candidate without doing proper research. I wouldn't have come here were it not for your history of being less than cordial in your collaboration on Wikipedia. People who live in glass houses should come down from their high horses. When you've voted on over 300 RfA, then you can throw your weight around, but with me you've chosen the wrong person. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

About equation on Residue's theorem page

Hi Deacon,

Thanks for editing Residue's theorem page. Maybe I'm missing something, but the integral on the first Example shouldn't be calculated as following?

$\int _{\mathrm {arc} }{\frac {1}{a^{2}-1}}\,dz=\int _{0}^{\pi }{\frac {1}{a^{2}-1}}\,aie^{i\theta }d\theta =\int _{0}^{\pi }{\frac {a}{a^{2}-1}}d(e^{i\theta })={\frac {a}{a^{2}-1}}(e^{i\pi }-e^{i0})={\frac {2a}{1-a^{2}}}.$

Best regards, Saung Tadashi (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Saung Tadashi: I was looking a little too quickly. Essentially, the problem was that the estimate should have had $|dz|$ instead of just $dz.$ I don't know if that would necessarily make as much sense, so I just cleaned it up showing it as a normal ML estimate as best as I could. Hopefully it's less confusing (and more correct) now. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it is more clear now! :) Saung Tadashi (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Indian mathematicians

[6] @MBlaze Lightning: was only reverted sock puppet edits and the article itself is not focused on Pakistan, so having a Pakistan WikiProject banner is irrelevant. Capitals00 (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hounding

This is "your only warning; if you make biased remarks and continue to engage in WP:HOUNDING on the talk page of User:Boundarylayer along with by extension, defending the demonstrably farcical talk-page-conduct of 2 editors who have a curious tag-team editing style across multiple articles, 2 editors who are also refusing to acknowledge that WP:RSMED medical references supersede WP:RS tabloid references. An issue that you should be aware is a fundamental corner-stone of this encyclopedia. If you continue to act as their hound dog, or if you continue to remove references penned by environmental professor Barry Brook Ph.D, as you did here, after you took a dislike to Boundarylayer and began to hound him. You may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cease from further biased actions. Thank you.

Lack of sense in notations?

Hi, Deacon! Concerning the new content formulae added at Gibbs-Duhem equation and removed by you, which of them you consider the most nonsensical and in what way? What do you think it would be necessary in order that they become with a clear sense? Thanks.--82.137.10.186 (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Is perhaps/somehow the following formula using \mathfrak:

$({\mathfrak {d}}{\frac {G}{\frac {1-x_{2}}{{\mathfrak {d}}x_{2}}}})_{\frac {x_{1}}{x_{3}}}={\frac {\bar {G_{2}}}{(1-x_{2})^{2}}}$

the most nonsensical/unusual notation?--82.137.9.114 (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk page of article

Hi, again! You have again reverted my edits at the previously mentioned page! You explanation of re-reversion is lacking sufficient details to be useful to address your objection of non-sensicalness in order to make necessary adjustements!

PLEase Use the TAlk PAGE of the Article and make suggestions for adjustements INSTEAD of reversion! Thanks!--82.137.13.123 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Partial derivative examples of use in math-based sciences

Hi, again! How do you think of these non-trivial aspects of the use of partial derivatives in the context of math-based sciences aka applied mathematics like this one connected to the Gibbs-Duhem equation recently discussed to be included at Partial derivative (and also the expression math-based sciences to be reintroduced there after reversion). Please respond at talk:Partial derivative. Thanks!--82.137.15.34 (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Related WikiProjects

Hi! You should try also other related WikiProjects like WP:WikiProject Physical Chemistry and WP:PHY to post some RFC from there also re Gibbs-Duhem equation.--82.137.11.191 (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Alteration of old comments?

Hi, again! What alterations of old comments are talking about on Gibbs-Duhem talk page? I haven't altered the structure of comments at all as you imply, I've just added some descriptive section titles to improve readibility of the talk page. Please don't make unsubstantiated allegations again!--82.137.9.233 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Chicken or the egg

Absolutely unhelpful edit [7]

• explanation from Sorensen is removed
• incorrect references about Aristotle by François Fénelon
• illustrations to "Which came first: the chicken or the egg? The egg – laid by a bird that was not a chicken" just removed

What exactly is WP:OR in my edits? D1gggg (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: please stop your edits and answer each point here D1gggg (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You were reverted. Twice. Seek consensus on the article's talk page if you wish to proceed per WP:BRD. But in short, your edits were full of bad layout. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: you have to explain removals of Sorensen explanation twice.

All sources were presented by me?.. D1gggg (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: D1gggg (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: please answer each point here D1gggg (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia automatic reminder

Hi Deacon, I didn't get to respond to your Teahouse question about automatic reminders before it got archived. I just so happened to come across the Template:Alarm clock template today. It may be what you are looking for. --Mrpalermo (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

thx ...

... for this. I had overlooked their first edit. - DVdm (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I figured, no biggie . –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Deacon Vorbis. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove my reply ?

I was asked (and alerted) to give a reply, which you reverted. Why ? (About PI, I have no knowledge who didn't sign) Boeing720 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: I was only trying to revert the pi nonsense; I got your comment about light accidentally because it was in the wrong place with the wrong indentation level. I've restored that comment with I think the appropriate indent. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your re-revision of Variance

Your re-revision is still wrong, and its wrong for the same reason as before. And it is of course a starting of an edit-war.

You claim that the introduction should be as general as possible. Right. But: expectation value only refers to inductive statistics. I guess you misunderstood the relation between expectation value and mean. These terms are not synonymous: expectation may be called 'mean', but not vice versa. So I suggest the following:

"..., variance is the mean of the squared deviation of a random variable or attribute respectively from its mean. ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl24042017 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

On the uniform convergence page

Why did you remove my edit? The distance function is a two-argument function. Wham Bam Rock II (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have been confused. My original edit actually added the space and fixed the distance function notation to use a comma. By reverting it, you removed the space and replaced the commas with a minus sign. Wham Bam Rock II (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wham Bam Rock II: Wow, I don't know how I read that backwards; sorry about that. I've put it back. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Five-suit poker probabilities

Check your denominator. You wanted 65C7, didn't you? -- ToE 23:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh duh, right...thanks! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPO

According to WP:TPO, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." The exceptions listed to this rule do not include indecision, so I think you should be aware that in the future altering other editors' talk page comments may have negative consequences, especially if you reason for doing so is, "I'm not sure." Hyacinth (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hyacinth: WP:IAR. You were cluttering up a talk page with copies of someone else's comments. If you really felt like changing them to <math>...</math> mode, ok I guess, but why bother? Those were 10+ year old comments (of others) that weren't even applicable to the current article anymore. You were misusing the article's talk page and I reverted you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not delete the ten year old comments which are not applicable? Why would one wish to avoid "cluttering" up a talk page? What makes you think I made copies of someone else's comments? How can one misuse an article talk page? Hyacinth (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Stealth

What is stealthy about making a non-minor edit to an article with an edit history? Hyacinth (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hyacinth: You reverted my change from \dots -> \cdots (which is a minor technical LaTeX fix) in the middle of adding (pointless) See Alsos without saying as much. There was no reason to undo it at all, not to mention to try to hide it within one of your own edits. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

What was my goal in reverting you? Hyacinth (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hyacinth: How the fuck should I know? You're the one who did it. You tell me. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

What does my supposed reversion have to do with k? Hyacinth (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to continue discussing, that's fine. But if all you want to do is ask WP:POINTy, rhetorical questions, then just go away. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know my intentions or how my action has any connection to you, then assuming that it was an attempt to hide something from you may seem a little self centered. Hyacinth (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that my edit to WP:IAR had anything to do with you may also seem self-centered, and edit stalking is considered disruptive. Hyacinth (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hyacinth: Right, because I suppose it was mere coincidence that your tantrum edits at WP:IAR came just an hour after I brought it up here. So yeah, inferring that it had something to do with me isn't even remotely self-centered. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If I was being stealthy, so what? Hyacinth (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARYNO. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:IAR. Hyacinth (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)