User talk:XOR'easter/2018b19a
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:XOR'easter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you for your wonderful participation in discussing MacCullagh ellipsoid
Cocorrector (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Chembox assistance
Howdy! Based on some of the templates you have recently edited, I'm hoping you might be interested in helping me out with a project. I'm working on building a {{Infobox}} based replacement for {{Chembox}}. I have a working proof of concept at {{Infobox chemical}}. Looking for some expert opinions and feedback. If you have any interest, please let me know. Feel free to disregard this message. :-) (P.S. Happy thanksgiving if you are in the USA!) --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Just FYI, since you were involved/helpful last year: now that ALCO is listed in MathSciNet and zbMath, and after a brief discussion here, I have restored it to article status (from a redirect). --JBL (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The beauty of the roots
The link that you have provided in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry of roots of real polynomials is now in Geometrical properties of polynomial roots#External links. This article was previously titled Properties of polynomial roots, but I have renamed it for being more specific. The article still require being editing a lot for reaching class C. D.Lazard (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. XOR'easter (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
RfC
In the mathematical RfC, you say "If the infobox is just repeating data given in the prose, well, people can read that." - No, the point is that some readers can't, - vision-impaired, not so good in English etc. - these readers profit from a parameter/value pair. An infobox should typically NOT contain data not present and sourced in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is a good point, but it doesn't avoid the concern that parameter/value pairs oversimplify the subject to the point of being misleading (and thus we would be putting people who use screen readers at an additional disadvantage!). XOR'easter (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bimetric gravity; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Danski454 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Danski454: I'm not the one at fault here. An anonymous IP-jumping editor has been trying to own the page bimetric gravity, so much so that an AfD had to decide whether the article could be salvaged from their promotionalism. I requested community input from WikiProject Physics, but the anon IP kept pushing their edits before a discussion could even begin. XOR'easter (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- While I do not have experience in the dispute, you have reverted the page four times today. This is a violation of WP:3RR, as the policy does not care if you are right, edit warring is disruptive. While it does have some exemptions, removing poorly sourced information from non-biographies is not one of them. --Danski454 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I recognize that edit warring is disruptive, and I do not wish to exacerbate the situation, so I have taken the matter to the appropriate noticeboard. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- While I do not have experience in the dispute, you have reverted the page four times today. This is a violation of WP:3RR, as the policy does not care if you are right, edit warring is disruptive. While it does have some exemptions, removing poorly sourced information from non-biographies is not one of them. --Danski454 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DlohCierekim 22:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: I have already been warned, while I was in the process of taking the matter to the appropriate noticeboard in order to report the IP-hopping anon who is attempting to own the page bimetric gravity by unilaterally overriding a consensus established at AfD. I have made no further edits to the article itself since the warning posted just above yours, and I have been explaining myself in the best faith possible at Talk:Bimetric gravity, despite the anon editor's insistence that I am not willing to discuss (which then escalated into personal attacks). XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I noticed that you protected Bimetric gravity. I believe this was the correct course of action; thank you. I suggested putting some level of protection on it back in January after the AfD concluded, but nobody bothered then. Given that the anon IP-hopping editor (who appears to resent me personally) came back months later, a few days of page protection might not be enough. I would suggest at least six months of semi-protection. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
IP
See WP:DENY. That usually works well enough after they tired about talking in a vacuum. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: Thanks. Yeah, I figure that's the best thing to do now. I'm now roughly as bored as everyone else is by all this, though for a while I vaguely expected they might indirectly point to something interesting. Other than reminding me about the "protons are really black holes" guy, that didn't happen, more's the pity. For what it's worth, I suspect that the IP-hopping enthusiast is a Petit fan, not the man himself. There's too much junk in the "sources" he offers (like dust-jacket blurbs and a crackpot website), which suggests "president of the fan club" to me. XOR'easter (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)