User talk:Deacon Vorbis

Semi-retired

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Archives

I have many things to say

Why do you take directs to me when it comes to requesting redirects or editing pages? I tried to request some actual good requests, and you're just like "Nah, fuck that. That looks like vandalism or some shit." Sure I did other mistakes on things, but you keep focusing on me the most. You're not my mentor. Why are you doing this? Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregory Khachatrian: The requests I declined weren't good requests; they were juvenile, and worse than that, they were ambiguous. Redirects are there to help people find information; these weren't plausibly going to do that. If you don't like my declines, then make the damn redirects yourself, but as I said, be prepared for them being taken to WP:RFD, because if they're of the quality you've been requesting, they will get taken there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But why are you taking directs to me the most? This is not how I wanted to start my New Year! Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "taking directs to you" means; that's not idiomatic English. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who's focusing on me the most. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a string of questionable redirect requests from you, so I've taken a brief look at your recent contribs, and reverted some stuff that was inappropriate, much of it on the juvenile side. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Deacon Vorbis!

Happy New Year!

Deacon Vorbis,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 07:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 07:09, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About your recent reversion of my edit for the article "Infimum and supremum" on 2026-01-20

Hi.

I noticed your recent reversion of my edit for the article "Infimum and supremum" on 2026-01-20 where you disagreed that sup {...} and inf {...} are not necessarily explained in the section "Formal definition", mostly because of the presence of sup S (S as a set) in the article. However, this expression like sup S or Inf S is firstly mentioned in the section "Infima and suprema of real numbers" that is lower than the formal definition section.

I think the section describing the definition is where such expressions (sup S and Inf S) shall be mentioned first because how to express mathematical concepts should also be a part of the definition.

Thus, could you edit this article so that typical mathematical expressions for suprema and infima shall be explained in the section "Formal definition"? Or I will gladly add it again if you agree. Goodphy (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on the article talk page, not mine, but I'll say that I don't think anything like what it sounds like you're suggesting should be in the article. It's clear that the two are the same thing, one with the set represented by a letter, and one with a set notated differently. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't fully recognize your prospective, but I will leave the article as it is now because I can't persuade you further. There would be future visiting on this article "Infimum and supremum", re-arising this suggestion, but not now. Goodphy (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category 2

Category 2 is readily understood by most students. Not a good example in the Category theory article? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterEasthope: Disputes about article content belong on article talk pages, not user. I also see that you asked about this at the Teahouse, and were advised against using your own work as a source (see WP:RS), but did so anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]