User talk:73.89.25.252

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 73.89.25.252. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Thanks, I've added some information under your Teahouse answer. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 73.89.25.252! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, MOS guidance on internal references such as "(see below)" in an article, beyond MOS:SELFREF, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you deleted some content that I added to this article at 04:23, 17 July 2020. You deleted it because you deemed my content not specifically notable. However per WP:NNC notability guidelines don't apply to individual content within articles. As such I reinstated this material. Please discuss on the article talk page if you have any concerns. Thank you. Dash77 (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dash77: thanks for the notice. I commented at the talk. Are you the D(W)Ash who won Putnam etc back in the day? 73.89.25.252 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am David Ash who did the Putnam many years ago. I replied to your comments. Hopefully others will comment as well and allow us to find consensus on the right path forward. Dash77 (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You've just reverted my change to the scientific notation article. I think it's worth familiarising yourself with wikipedia's WP:BRD policy. Users are encouraged to make bold changes, and then if these changes are reverted, a dicussion follows aiming to build consensus on changing the status quo of the article. It's definitely a peculiar policy, so lots of users aren't aware of it, but it really helps (even if it can be frustrating at times! Wikipedia doesn't care if article progress is slow or drawn out). In this instance, you made a WP:BOLD change by changing the definition of scientific notation, in line with terminology with which you were familiar. That's great. However, in this instance I have reverted to the pre-existing definition, and added an appropriate source supporting it. What happens now is that discussion on this topic (which definition should be included? should we mention both?) will happen on the talk page, rather than in comments on edits or reverts. That way, we avoid an infamous WP:EDITWAR. If you feel the definition should still be changed back, the section on the talk page discussing this is where you need to go - make a case there, and other editors may find your case convincing, whereupon the change will be implemented. Awoma (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the talk page discussion was already in progress prior to the edits, is still ongoing, and your edit pre-empted that process. As to my earlier edit, I went to the talk page first to seek opinions and form consensus, but it turned out to be irrelevant to that specific edit as there was a misrepresented source, and I "deactivated" the misrepresentation by writing things consistent with that source (and general usage). The larger discussion of how to structure things going forward was still in progress and should be allowed to run its course before making further modifications. In short, there is no need to go to stage "D", we were already there. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The case where a discussion already exists is more or less covered in WP:BRR, which tells us:

Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block. "

Technically, your edit was not a restoration of your own prior edit, but it did revert to what you were arguing for on the Talk page, without that discussion converging (as yet) to any kind of consensus. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this to the talk page. If you still think the article should be changed in some way, then make a case for the change there, and if editors agree, then that change can happen! I do think a consensus is possible on this, as the definition of scientific notation is hardly an issue of moral contention. Awoma (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop re-reverting to maintain your edit to the page. This constitutes edit warring. If you still believe in the change, you need to make a case for it in the talk page. It is quite possible that other editors will agree with you, but that won't happen if you don't even attempt to make a case and simply try to maintain the change through reverts! Awoma (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You invert the polarity of what has happened. I raised the issue for discussion on the talk page, that talk still ongoing. In the meantime, looking into the source for the text on the page, the source said the opposite of what was there and I corrected that (independent of talk page, and not constraining the ultimate outcome of the talk). This restored content that had been stable in the page from 2004 to the end of 2019, and that' was the default state of nature until you showed up. Your edit with the Italian source (which you misquoted and does not support the revision) was the "B" of a BRD, it got reverted, and you should get consensus on the talk page. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you still want to change the article, then write your proposal in the discussion, and provide sources supporting it. I am not at all opposed in principle to adding in your preferred terminology, but if that does happen it will be coming from a consensus on the talk page, supported by sources. It will not be achieved by making an edit and then continually reverting back to it. Please, make your case on the talk page. Awoma (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did a survey of dozens of sources, such as all the mathematics dictionaries, encylopedias and handbooks listed in LibGen, to check my impressions of which terms are and are not in use. Those impressions were correct, though it looks like there are some sources written by school teachers and the like (in the Anglosphere), below the level of WP:RS but possibly current in some educational circles, and maybe some variant usage in other languages, that work differently. I will add that information to the Talk page sometime and that should settle the issue.

However, your frequently expressed position is that this is a question of adding more content to the page, retaining the part about "order of magnitude", as though the addition were some proposal seeking your blessing and the retention of the current material taken for granted. In fact the primary issue before the talk page is whether to subtract the claim that the exponent is called OoM. Certainly the claim is false as a statement that it's the standard term. But the proportion of usage of that term in WP:RS is so thin that it would be POV-pushing to create the impression in the article that it's mainstream. Also, it looks to me like a lot of Internet articles that use this term do so on the a(usually uncited) authority of Wikipedia, so the misleading information is being seeded into the popular discourse as WP:CIRCULAR sourcing. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia, changes do require support from the editorial community. The status quo of each article is indeed maintained if there is not strong support to change it. Awoma (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither on Wikipedia nor any other "community" is it useful to repeat the same statement 50 times without taking any apparent notice of what was said. The status quo is what was there for 15 years, sourced to the Yadin book on floating point, that n is called "exponent". It was changed one day in December 2019, not because anything was wrong with it, but because an editor noticed the article was a target of redirect from "characteristic", a word that did not appear in the page. So he changed "exponent" to "characteristic", then fixed the redirect and changed characteristic to OOM. So the redirect was no longer relevant and new text going against the source was left in the article until I noticed all this and fixed the glitch, restoring the status quo in which text and source aligned. Your edits upset this and are the deviation from status quo that need to be justified or reverted. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo is not how the page has looked throughout history, but how it is currently established to look. This is maintained, unless there is sufficient editorial support for its change. If you want to change the article, be that to material from 2019, or completely new material, then you need to establish editorial consensus for this. There's really nothing more to it. Awoma (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is well established that WP:SKYISBLUE edits, such as removing vandalism or correcting edits that introduced obvious or blatant errors, are not the B stage of BRD that have to be justified with the prior revision seen as a "status quo". The only novelties in this case are that it took a year to discover the error by someone (me) checking the source, and that you are WP:SEALIONing endlessly about it here and on the talk page without addressing specific problems. You appear to have deliberately misrepresented (lied about) the contents of the Italian book to that end. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the exponent in scientific notation the "order of magnitude" is not a "blatant error." If you want to change this you need to produce a source supporting your change. I'm sorry to see the sealioning accusation. This is not my intention at all, but I know it can feel very exhausting. In this case, I am repeatedly asking for good sources because you haven't yet produced any, and this is what wikipedia articles rely on. If you are getting tired of this, then I really would implore you to consider the clear path out which I laid down - State the change you want to make, support your proposed change, and leave the matter there. If other editors agree, then the change will happen, if they don't then it won't. Either way, you've done all that you could do, and not wasted your time with approaches which are guaranteed not to work. Awoma (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The blatant error whose correction was WP:SKYISBLUE was to state something in the article that is in contradiction to the cited source. I kept the source and corrected the article to match the (correct) statement in the source, and in so doing restored what had been 15-year stable content in the article until the blatant error changed it. No B, no BRD. Just making the minimalist fix to objective errors.

Your subsequent edits, now reverted by another editor (a consensus of sorts) were the B of BRD, got reverted, and need justification since the sourcing is somewhere between weak and "pretend". If the Italian book justifies the edit why can't you directly quote the section about scientific notation on page 30 so everyone can see what it says? Or explain the authoritativeness of a math book written by a math SAT tutor who has probably not had much use of scientific notation in his life. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Philosophical_razor, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Headbomb: see the talk page of the article. There were no sources for the parts of the previous version that I edited, and disputes about the correctness of that version on the talk page. The article is problematic and in the meantime my edits bring it closer, and rather obviously so, to reality. Lack of sourcing is not an excuse to keep even-less-sourceable, contested, undefended, and somewhat misleading content in place. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is your opinion. We require source-based arguments. There were tons of sources in the article, and I added another two. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were and are now no sources (in the Wikipedia-allowed sense) in the article supporting any of the recent edits to the lead. Is there a single document anywhere, independent of Wikipedia, that defines "philosophical razor", is about the subject of philosophical razors, or lists accepted instances of philosophical razors (beyond Occam of course)? If there is, it is certainly not cited in the article!

Your two added sources do not, of course, say that principles of parsimony can be and are called philosophical razors or styled as "X's Razor". They say that the image or metaphor of Occam's razor has philosophers as razor-wielders or philosophy itself being a razor. This has nothing to do with whether principles of a particular type fit the mold of a "philosophical razor" and that being an accepted term.

The lack of corroboration that "philosophical razors" is a thing, and not an internet adage or an obvious manner of speaking, means that as long as there is an article on it, the content of the lead will boil down to whose POV is being pushed at a particular date. It makes more sense to move it to a section of the Occam's razor article, a list, or something other than an article that SYNTHes a questionable concept into existence. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please specify what comment you consider an attack on another user. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same one GW objected to. The "leftist" business is also a broad accusation of bad faith. Please consider a less aggressive approach to discussion with other editors. You should also be aware of the discretionary sanctions restrictions associated with articles on politics in the United States. Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one GW objected to neither named nor targeted GW or anyone else (it referenced "people", the abstract totality of wiki-users), and it said nothing negative about those rhetorical "people". Leftist was used to describe CNN, not Wikipedia editors. What I wrote conjoining left and Wikipedia was several levels milder than that and does not, as far as I can tell, carry any implication of bad faith.

It is true, though I did not say it, that current politics articles attract many activists whose goal is to skew the content, and Wikipedia's demographics being what they are, left soldiers outnumber right soldiers by a huge amount. What we are seeing play out on the Gab talkpage, and I have seen on many similar pages about the right, is that people who seek to balance the intentional and unintentional bias a bit, are attacked for bad faith, with terms like "whitewash" being thrown around freely to describe their efforts. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72h for trolling. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you from editing Talk:Gab (social network) because your participation there became disruptive. If you want to discuss general reliability of CNN you are welcome to do it at appropriate venues such as WP:RSN.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not particularly discussed CNN's reliability. I have discussed, given that CNN (the source for some disputed text in the article) was deemed RS for "news", what can and cannot be pulled from CNN into the article, in the context of other conversation. The topic is pretty specific to the article. Please give examples of what you consider "trolling" or "disruptive". 73.89.25.252 (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, your reply here is clear trolling. You know perfectly what I am talking about but prefer you do not. You have got sufficient feedback on your activity at the talk page of the article, please take it onboard.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is nuts. I am actually not aware of how anything by me in that discussion qualifies for any definition of "trolling" (e.g., deliberate disruption, bad faith, reply for the sake of reply, etc). So I ask you what you meant, and the answer is you claiming to read my mind and a catch-22 (I already know the answer, you say, so asking how it was trolling is further proof I was trolling!). None of the feedback you refer to used concepts relevant to "trolling" --- this seems to be your own conception. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, post an unblock request then and see what other administrators could say.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for an explanation of the block, not for a removal of the block. A 72 hour exclusion from one page is a rather minor thing and I do not concern myself with that, but I do take an interest in the accusation of trolling. No other admins are needed to help you explain what you meant. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain it. I believe that you perfectly know the answer to your own question and you are just trolling.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Trolley problem seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use article talk pages for general discussion unrelated to improving the encyclopedia, as you did at WP:FTN, you may be blocked from editing. —PaleoNeonate – 10:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I was logged in. As I think you inferred, I am the fellow the last commenter replied to. The thread, in my view, and apparently that of the continuing commenters (none have complained about the thread continuing as far as I remember, other than my own suggestion to have separate discussion of some questions that arose) is on topic for FTN and after a number of digressions finally hit some actionable points generalizable to other articles. Likewise, I strongly disagree that talk page discussions have been "unrelated" to improvements. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]