Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:51, 28 April 2021

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

2017, Jan 2018–Nov 2018, Nov 2018–Mar 2019, Apr 2019–Jul 2019, Jul 2019–Jun 2020, Jul 2020–Feb 2021

Wikibreak

I'm really tired, and I don't have time to work on content, which is generally what has made me optimistic about contributing. I've finished off a last few things, and even that was a struggle. I don't know when I'll be back. I might need a short break, or a long one. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Good luck. I hope you will be back soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC).

Thanks. I'm not optimistic — my last round of checking in on things was a discouraging experience — but who knows what the future will bring? XOR'easter (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you go. Take your time, relax, get better. Tercer (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you've been doing great work, I thank you and hope to see more of your contributions in the future. A the same time, I'm sure your other projects are worth it, enjoy your time off, —PaleoNeonate – 09:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You know that I appreciate everything you do here! (I completely hear you on tired, OTOH.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ditto and ditto! --JBL (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Briefly popping back in for the evening to help with a cleanup job, since as much as Misplaced Pages bothers me, Wolfspam bothers me more. XOR'easter (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

When I advertised to WPM, I thought, "Gosh it's too bad XOR'easter's taking a break, they've been really good at similar things in the past". And lo, this morning my watchlist shows my prayer was answered! :) --JBL (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to know that I was in your thoughts! I think I have done most of what I'd be useful for in that regard, so I will probably disappear again after today. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Wolfspam cleanup

Thanks for your work on cleaning up Wolfspam. However, in at least one case, I find your edits over-aggressive. In this edit, you removed material about Grassmann's contribution to the axiomatization of arithmetic, which was footnoted to NKS. I certainly agree with your edit summary that "NKS is a poor source for any historical claim" (though sadly we have many equally poor sources in many articles), but you didn't notice that that paragraph was a rewrite of a previously existing paragraph. Floridada provided a poor source when there was no source before, so they arguably were moving in the right direction. That doesn't seem like a good reason to remove the content.

It would have been more constructive to restore the old text and ideally to add a source. It turns out that finding a good source was not hard, and I used it to add a better version of that paragraph. As for "text is placed disjointedly", the paragraph is in the chronologically correct sequence, even if the wording could be improved.

May I ask that you be a bit more careful and look for good older versions, and for better sources, rather than just removing material that is footnoted to a Wolfram source? --Macrakis (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, which I do take to heart. My own take, which may be highly idiosyncratic, is that a poor source can be worse than no source, since it may point future improvement efforts in the wrong direction. Poor text compounds the issue, I find, as it can lead to wasting time with small modifications when what is needed is a wholesale rewrite. In other cases, like context-free language , I have refrained from removing the material since while the source was poor the text seemed fine, and it looked like the source could simply be swapped out for a better one. (The books I happened to have on hand when I was evaluating that example had less on that topic than I had hoped, so I haven't done anything with it yet.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but in this case, the new source and the new text were pretty recent (and easy to find). I'd have thought reverting to the previously existing text would be better than deleting, even if you didn't have the time to find a better source. Maybe I spend too much time review article histories.... --Macrakis (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I award you this Barnstar for your work getting Quantum Mechanics to Good Article status. Well done. Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Million Award for Quantum mechanics

Thanks for improving this vital article!

Reidgreg, much appreciated! XOR'easter (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, —PaleoNeonate – 18:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Quantum mechanics

On 13 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Quantum mechanics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the principles of quantum mechanics have been demonstrated to hold for complex molecules with thousands of atoms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Quantum mechanics. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Quantum mechanics), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC).

Thank you! XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Refactoring

• Special:Diff/1017634346

See Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#Removal of personal attacks. It's Kafkaesque to tell people that they shouldn't make personal attacks, and when they've refactored them themselves, put them back in again. Uncle G (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I debated internally about the right course of action there, since I could see arguments for both ways (as the policy page says, there is no official policy). Eventually I decided that hiding the evidence of one's misdeeds is the kind of behavior we should have limited tolerance for. Per the "removing uncivil comments" section of the Civility policy, rewriting oneself is Usually only a good idea if you think better of it before anyone objected to it. If someone has already reacted, you should acknowledge the change in a quick comment after the changed text, for instance, Comment removed by author. Their first comment was a specific personal attack, which they later changed to a generalized ad hominem that still counts as a PA. Then they removed their comment altogether, which is probably a good enough outcome. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Warp Drive Source

Okay, I've given up at guessing, what exactly do you want for a third party source for the Warp Drive peer reviewed paper by Erik Lentz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.195.17 (talk • contribs)

How about in-depth discussion in other peer-reviewed scientific papers not from predatory publishers? In other words, the same standard we apply for all scientific subjects: at a bare minimum, an indication of the kind of attention that can't easily be bought with flashy subject matter and a good PR team. And preferably, some sign of lasting or sustained interest, suggesting that it hasn't sunk into obscurity after the glitz had passed. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: So what like a published review article that talks about it? Would that be sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.195.17 (talk • contribs)

That would be a good start, yes. But it's an uphill task to argue that any new bit of theorizing is worth including in an article that's mostly about the idea's use in fiction. XOR'easter (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up the Dumbing of Age entries

Admittedly, the descriptions I had written before were from my inferences from the official website mostly (mainly the cast list), so I'm not at all surprised that there are errors, to be honest. So thanks for doing that. I haven't read the comic yet, but I will try to sometime in the future. I'd also think the Dumbing of Age page should probably be fixed with those new descriptions too. Some additional sources for Dina, Carla Rutten, and Booster Sanchez would be nice. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to dig up some specific strips when I get the chance. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for that. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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-1992 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 Misplaced Pages'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.

Template:Z33 Politrukki (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)