Critiques

Mass reverts

If you are going to do mass reverts, could you please not do it one-by-one when there are many edits to a page? Go to the article history and revert to the previous version when possible, to save me (and everyone else who edits math articles) from having our entire watchlist filled by this. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the adjustment in your workflow. (BTW: I once did something similar to what you're doing now and it caused some annoyance to other people. Hopefully your experience will be better.) --JBL (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are vastly superior to deprecated inline TeX, which travels poorly across a variety of platforms. Remember you are not editing for your platform only.... Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I've been making idiosyncratic arguments, then feel free to be specific. I only make rebutting arguments to the effect that converting away from MathML + Latex isn't an obvious accessibility win, which was an argument that User:Hellacioussatyr has been trying to make. MathML + Latex has the broadest support of all with the most fallback options (WP: Rendering Math). And outside of Wikipedia, not only is MathML the official and dominant standard for markup, but so is Latex the common language for math encoding.

There's also just the simple fact that Hellacioussatyr has not been stopping by the Talk pages first, and has been going on a massive facelift spree across math articles. SirMeowMeow (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inline LaTeX is certainly not deprecated; where would you pick up that bizarre idea? —JBL (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've evidently missed the raging debates of MathML versus math templates, which as the owner of this page makes clear, is not something best reignited here! In the past, various platforms and browser implementations resulted in the nasty "ransom letter" look, replete with the afflicted complaining the majority was making WP unusable for them. While this is all but gone, Chrome implementations of MathML eating up signs are ubiquitous, (check talk on Pauli matrices) leading to hit-or-miss attempts to re-edit and thereby corrupt the code. In future, this would be fixed, but there is still no consensus to remove or supplant math templates. My sense is to let sleeping dogs lie. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so in other words you just made up the idea that inline LaTeX is deprecated.
The actual consensus position on how to render mathematics in Wikipedia is represented by MOS:FORMULA. I agree re: sleeping dogs; the edits SirMeowMeow has reverted also violated that maxim. Probably "block anyone who changes math formatting just for the sake of changing math formatting" would solve the problem, but I don't think it's a viable option, either. --JBL (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had any interest in blockings and individuals, and certainly this last spate. I am simply reminding the interlocutors of a basic fact on the ground, ubiquitous in technical editing here. I may have failed to keep up with developments, and used the present as opposed to the past, but, no, I did not "make up" the idea! You really wish to breach a stalemate? I have been behind it, and supportive of editors considerate of other platforms, but I am not going to get caught up in parochial, and impermanent, arguments of this form. MOS:FORMULA walked away from the problem. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two threads of our conversation; with respect to You really wish to breach a stalemate?, I do not think that you have read my comments very carefully at all. With respect to the other thread, you appear to have invented from whole cloth the idea that inline LaTeX has ever been "deprecated" (syn: obsolete; superceded); apparently you just meant that you personally don't like it. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am decoupling; last statement: I meant that, for quite a while, given the facts on the ground, a large number of editors I respect, and myself, have been opting, in unison, for not excluding sundry platform readers. This is not the place and format for settling the issue, but I did read your statements and I do know where you are coming from. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it sufficient to argue that converting away from MathML + Latex isn't a clear accessibility win, since Cuzkatzimhut has taken on the position that in the inline context this has been deprecated (!) and that templates are just vastly superior (!). Which is similar enough to Hellacioussatyr's position.

You said not merely to think about my own platform, but you haven't made your position obvious at all. You have not made it obvious that math templates are vastly superior for accessibility. Making the case that there's a case for math templates is not the same thing as defending your extraordinary position that one is vastly superior to another. Note that these are all arguments made originally in rebuttal to the attempt to build consensus that <math> is bad for accessibility.

I have made my arguments available but your response to dismiss them. The conversation you reference from Pauli Matrices has fewer than a handful of lines.

SirMeowMeow (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Comments

Questions

Archive

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Diestel moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Reinhard Diestel, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Reinhard Diestel article was a translation from the German Wikipedia. To what degree are translations allowed to depart from each other? SirMeowMeow (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Reinhard Diestel

Hello, SirMeowMeow. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Reinhard Diestel, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Reinhard Diestel

Hello, SirMeowMeow. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Reinhard Diestel".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]