User talk:Malparti

You can contact me by leaving messages on that page (to do that, click on "New section").

Generation Time Talk Page Response

Hi Malparti, I replied to your response on the talk page of the Generation time article. I agree with all your points and I made a suggestion to possibly improve the article. Cheers, TROPtastic (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that again

Hi Astro-Tom-ical,
I've just come across this edit where you added non-breaking spaces everywhere in the LaTeX formulas. That makes the code harder to read (and, therefore, harder to maintain) and messes up the spacing. Please avoid doing this in the future. I am reverting the problematic parts of this specific edit, please consider doing the same thing for other similar edits you might have made.
Best, Malparti (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your destructive edits, thank you for warning me. I say that it was plain vandalism and have undone your reversion.

It seems to be disingenuous of you to sign off with "Best" after a malicious reversion, while also leaving a specious admonition that I should vandalize my own edits.

Inspection of your contributions shows that you are interested in statistics. In that case you should already be aware of how mathematical formulas and running text are separated with blank space: Every formula or symbol embedded in text should be separated from prose with small, but noticeable extra blank space. This includes English-language punctuation, such as periods, which indicate an end to a prose sentence which includes a formula at its finish. Likewise commas and semicolons. In statistics this is particularly important, since statistical notation includes subscripted dots, resembling periods, that indicate the sum over a subscript, e.g.

\ x_{\boldsymbol {.}}=\sum _{k=1}^{n}x_{k}\ ,\quad

where

\quad n\equiv \operatorname {\#} (x)\ .

Also, all language punctuation must be imbedded (with space) at the end the LaTex of any formula it follows, in order to ensure that a line break will not split the punctuation onto the following line.

Further, mathematics is font specific, so that $\ A,\mathrm {A} ,\mathbf {A} ,{\mathsf {A}},{\mathcal {A}},{\mathfrak {A}},\mathbb {A} \$ are all distinct symbols. That means that simply adding italics to the character k embedded in prose text produces the symbol k , which is rendered in the sans-serif font and hence the wrong symbol. The correct symbol is $k$ which appears in the formula (above). That is a error that you re-introduced. Don't do that.

It is common for people typesetting mathematics for papers to be unaware of these rules, since journals which can afford to edit articles to conform with house rules, concerning headers, footers, format of equation numbers, and reference numbers. (Publications of course try to enforce their house style on prospective authors, to whatever extent they can, but there is always typesetting, such as placement on the printed journal's pages, that an author cannot do.)

Also, I dismiss your complaint that the <math>\ at the beginning of a formula and \ ,</math> at its end makes it hard to read. You should be ashamed for making up such spurious excuses for your own bad editing.

So no, I will not change to editing math to please your reading of LaTex code. I will be redacting LaTex code to make the Wikipedia math articles look more like how math is typeset in professionally produced, math-savvy publications. The little bit of space added is part of communicating the meaning in LaTex, and something the default rendering does not do, and which Knuth specifically did not design into LaTex: It's up to the mathematician to put the meaningful spacing in; the rendering engine cannot and should not decide whether a final comma is a pause in speaking, or a tensor notation for a derivative on the final symbol. Astro-Tom-ical (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

→ My reply to this comment can be found on Astro-Tom-ical's talk page, assuming they have not deleted it (as was the case with my original comment). Malparti (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert in Functions (Mathematics)

There is a discussion in the talk page of that article already. It is explained there exactly what the edit accomplishes. Could you please revert your revert of the revert, until consensus is achieved in the talk page? The edit keeps close to both the previous version, and to primary sources like Halmos' Naive Set Theory and Apostol's Analysis. Thatwhichislearnt (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Specifically, in this section of the talk page Thatwhichislearnt (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Would you care to participate in the discussion, before arbitrarily reverting? Is there a mathematical concern that you think is fixed by the revert? There is one, in the version that you reverted to, though. The previous user reverted also without addressing it, and raised a concern that their previous version would also have, if the concern were founded. Thatwhichislearnt (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

→ My reply can be found on the talk page of the article. Malparti (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markov Chain URL removed

Hi -- I appreciate your attention to detail, however, I disagree with the removal of this link. First, it seems that other links in that list are in the same boat -- written by individuals and posted there, and they are not nearly as in-depth or complete as what I posted, here are examples from this Wiki article:

https://setosa.io/blog/2014/07/26/markov-chains/index.html "A visual explanation by Victor Powell"

https://web.archive.org/web/20200204031008/http://rarlindseysmash.com/posts/2009-11-21-making-sense-and-nonsense-of-markov-chains by "Lindsay Beida"

https://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/6.html (multiple names, this one is more in-depth, but very poorly organized).

Also, the youtube link at the top is clearly 'promotion' too, by your definition. Whatever standards are being applied here, they not being applied consistently. Second, the content of the other external links is not nearly as well organized or as pedagogical -- I encourage you to see for yourself, just click through a few of them, and then look at what I posted.

I think the link adds to the article in a meaningful and applied way, well beyond what is contained in any of the external links and in the article itself (though of course, the article has other goals and covers more breadth). It is intended, for those looking to go a level deeper and more applied/technical.

Also, honest question: What does "promotion" mean here? I'm not making a single penny for doing this, the tutorial only has value as an element of education, and I don't have a channel / stream / insta I'm pushing, nothing. It's just to help people learn, so it's disappointing to have sincere, good, clear effort on a complex topic removed for inconsistent reasons.

Tristansu (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tristansu,

I agree with what you say about most of the other links, I think many of them should be removed from the article. The reason why I removed the specific link that you added is because I happen to have seen your edit in my watch list — not because this link needed to go whereas the others deserved to stay.

(reply: Ok, and I see some have now been removed.) Tristansu (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the link that you added: I do not want to discuss the merits of the document itself, because this is somewhat irrelevant. However:

Dropbox links are not ideal for Wikipedia, because they are non-permanent (not to mention that they tend to look a bit fishy).

(reply: That was fixed btw in the last edit.) Tristansu (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markov chains on a finite state space are a pretty basic topic, and as a results there are tons and tons of excellent textbooks / lecture notes available on the topic at about every level — so I could not see what this specific document adds to article.

(reply: isn't the point of the 'external links' to provide links to such content (e.g. what I posted), which are sorely missing from this article?) Tristansu (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my use of the word "promotion", it was probably a bit excessive. My point was that, while linking to documents that you have written can be perfectly OK under certain circumstances (if there is no conflict of interest), in general this is frowned upon. So, unless the documents really adds something that was missing from the article and there is no easy to find alternative online, as a rule of thumb it is probably better to avoid linking to documents that you have written yourself.

(reply: re promotion: all external content is written by someone (ignoring current AI), and it is appropriate and professional, not to mention incurs a level of personal responsibility to the work, to put one's name on it, as is the case for all of the external links in this article. I still disagree, but do as you wish. While no hard feelings, this has been a disenfranchising discussion, that certainly reduces the likelihood that will contribute to Wikipedia in the future.) Tristansu (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that clarifies things and that there are no hard feelings.

Best, Malparti (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: don't forget to sign your messages with ~~~~