User talk:Maddata

Notational inconsistency introduced in Markov decision processes

Hello, I noticed you made a change on 20 November 2018 to Markov Decision Processes (which I have documented on the talk page of that article). You changed the notation. Your notation is fine, but is different to the one used consistently on the page. So I'm proposing to change it back to the notation used on the page. (The alternative would be to move everything else on the page to your notation, but I don't see any advantage in that. The existing notation is fine.) 85.211.24.141 (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Maddata, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Corporate donations. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 04:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Hi Maddata, I saw the couple of reverts at Critical Race Theory, with the most recent undo of your edit citing WP:BRD. I encourage you to read it, as it's relatively standard practice here. Your goal now should be to build consensus for your changes at the talk page, where I see you've already started the discussion. I wouldn't recommend reverting again, as that may be seen as edit warring. I am also about to post a discretionary sanctions notice below and I just want to clarify that this is not a sign that you have done anything wrong. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thank you, I was really unsure if I was supposed to (or allowed to) undo the revert of my revision. I did look at the guidelines for edit warring, but I felt that the user who reverted me should have opened a discussion first. I'm not sure if that's true. Was I correct to revert the revert and then open an issue on the talk page? Should the user who reverted me have opened an issue first to allow me to explain myself? I'll read the two WP articles you linked me now. Thanks again. Maddata (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Best practice for BRD is not to revert the initial reversion. I might still do it if the first revert is completely unexplained. In most cases, the onus is on the editor making the bold change (you) to start a discussion.

Honestly, for a newish user, engaging with the sources, using an edit summary, and engaging in talk page discussion are all great signs. I don't have an opinion yet on your edit (and when I do I'll bring it up at the talk page), but I hope you stick around! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert - American politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]