Jump to content

User talk:0xF8E8: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1: Line 1:


{{archives}} Hi
{{archives}}


== Rollback granted ==
== Rollback granted ==

Revision as of 01:31, 21 October 2016

Rollback granted

Hi 0xF8E8. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! MusikAnimal talk 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>Hello, there!

Hello 0xF8E8, thanks for fixing that mispelled word problem that occurred earlier today. I was pretty tired, so I probably shouldn't have trusted my word at the time. Anyways, thanks for fixing that. Have a nice day.

Sincerely, Infopage100 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought of it myself, but I received a mathematical proof that this holds true, so I assumed that that fact that the method worked was reliable. If you want me to post the proof so you can look through it and test its legitimacy, just ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:C003:260:C50E:FC49:8635:BE3C (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't accept original research (that is, discoveries by you or your group of friends that haven't been published in reliable sources). Regardless, your method is not particularly efficient and the ideas behind it are already implemented in several more widely studied algorithms. Someone asked a question which proposes your exact algorithm on a math forum in 1999; the response explains more about that type of algorithm. —0xF8E8 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read before you revert.

If you had actually checked the diff on my "unexplained content removal", you'd have seen that I fixed an atrocious grammatical error. Don't just drive-by revert.74.70.146.1 (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@74.70.146.1: Please consider trying to explain your reasoning in edit summaries, as it's otherwise difficult to discern the reasons for an edit. You mysteriously removed the previous lead and replaced it with an unsourced "generally friendly" not supported by the body, which is quite a bit more than fixing a grammar error. Regardless, there's no grammar error I can see; there is a potential awkwardness in the phrasing of "diplomatic and other relations", but no serious issues. Can you try and explain that a bit further? —0xF8E8 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Israel–Palau relations are diplomatic and other relations between the State of Israel and the Republic of Palau." is not a complete sentence, which means that it is a grammatical error. Your new version is acceptable though. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@74.70.146.1: I appreciate the effort to improve it, but I think you may be overthinking this a bit. My guess is you're parsing it as "Israel-Palau relations are diplomatic." followed by "other relations between the State of Israel and the Republic of Palau", when "diplomatic and other relations" is actually supposed to be working as a compound there. Is that correct? The sentence is probably a little bit confusing; numerous "X-Y relations" pages use a similar construct, so I might go ahead and rephrase them. —0xF8E8 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donnold Trump listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Donnold Trump. Since you had some involvement with the Donnold Trump redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]