User talk:Nbarth/Archive 2018

No criming listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect No criming. Since you had some involvement with the No criming redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Many thanks, WPCW (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; replied there! —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion, and for all your contributions around this topic! —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Haplography?

Just came across your edit of Full stop done 2008 April 13 at 07:25, and I would tend to disagree. As it says in the Haplography entry, it is an erroneous change in copied text, not an intentional change, leaving out a duplicate character.

What do you say? WesT (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You're referring to this change, correct? Thanks, I've fixed it!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely! Thanks. WesT (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...Just went to look at the page, and I found that only FIVE minutes after your edit, your italics were removed. I really liked the emphasis on the UNintentional as it is exactly that, but apparently SMcCandlish didn't. He quoted Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS, but after reading that section, I don't see how it applies in this case. Not News seems to discuss content, not style, though that is what he says in his edit summary. Just thought you'd like to know. WesT (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Westley! I won’t bother disputing it, but good to know.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia is not written in news style." See also MOS:TONE, MOS:ITALICS, and WP:NPOV. We do not go around brow-beating readers with emotive emphasis. See also MOS:ABBR on not doing example the same kind of font tweaking to browbeat readers with the meaning of an acronym (i.e., we do not write "NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration)". In short, please do not treat our readers as if they were both stupid and half-blind.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SMcCandlish!

My reading is that emphasizing unintentional (more narrowly, un-) is in accord with MOS:EMPHASIS, specifically the

Emphasis may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence, when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers, or to stress a contrast:

Gellner accepts that knowledge must be knowledge of something.

Specifically, in the sentence in question:

This is an intentional omission, and thus not haplography, which is unintentional omission of a duplicate.

the term haplography is technical and unfamiliar, and thus it is acceptable to italicize “unintentional” “to stress a contrast”.

I see nothing at MOS:NOITALIC or MOS:BADEMPHASIS that forbids italicizing affixes, though there are no such examples at MOS:ITALICS.

Regardless, I'll leave it as it is, and take care in future; thanks again!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

My prediction that exactly the segment "to stress a contrast" is being misinterpreted to mean "to stress any contrast any time I think it looks cool" is why I opened a thread about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. That's not at all what was intended; it's meant to be interpreted in light of the rest of the passage, especially "when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers". There is no person competent to read English Wikipedia who can't already understand and see the difference between "intentional" and "unintentional". Whether haplogoraphy is a familiar term or not is irrelevant; unintentional is not unfamiliar, nor is the prefix un-.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hard sigmoid

You've been around long enough not to cite WP:USERG content. Toddst1 (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow?

Could you explain what edit is wrong, and why?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Both Quora and Stackoverflow are WP:USERG. Toddst1 (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You mean the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_sigmoid&oldid=857807768

...from which you'd already removed the other refs in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_sigmoid&oldid=857807947

...hence my puzzlement.

Sorry about that; I was just restoring some old content that had been blanked and didn't check it carefully. I've cleaned it up more now.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Initial context setting

Please note this edit. One should tell the lay reader at the outset that mathematics is what it's about. Sometimes the title of the article or other things about the context make that clear, but "idempotent analysis" does not. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, good point; even on technical articles, "this is math" is helpful.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)