Anita5192

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Climax (narrative)

Thank you for your recent talk message about my edits to Climax (narrative). I agree with you that my changes would have been improved by summaries. In fact, on review of WP:ES, it seems that it was contrary to policy of me to omit a summary for my first edit. However, the policy clearly also states, "Editors should not revert an otherwise good edit because of a missing or confusing edit summary; good editors may simply have forgotten..." The policy goes on to state that reversion without review is understandable (if still improper) for unsummarized "substantial" edits, but my edits were not substantial under the provided definition.

Since I'm going to revert your reverts, I should explain the reasoning for my original edits:

• Although "Emergency Self-Destruct" is a more "realistic" text for a (fictional) self-destruct button to bear, the text "Destroy Building" clarifies and heightens, by means of ironic and unrealistic repetition ("destroying a... facility... [by] pushing a red button which reads "Destroy Facility"), the narrated anticlimax.
• In contrast, the use of the word "destroying" in the following clause violates the otherwise-prevailing English convention against word repetition, and its replacement, "demolishing" is more consistent with the intended mundane, urban planning tone.

Because my second edit removed a misplaced comma, it did not need a summary under policy, though I understand that I should have provided one there too.

Finally, while I understand that your message to my talk page was likely automated, it would be more polite for it to explicitly call out the reversion. On its surface, your message appears to be merely offering me constructive feedback on my edit, while in actuality it is an administrative notice justifying a reversal.

I've been editing Wikipedia lately without logging in, mostly due to laziness. Since my edits seem to be treated quite differently without my credential, I'll try to avoid being logged out in the future. Unfortunately, logging in to reverse this edit would have the effect of publicly associating my IP address with my account, which is undesirable. 74.101.159.213 (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition to not explaining the reason for your edits, your edits were trivial changes of wording that did not improve the article.—Anita5192 (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A question about a link

Hello, Anita. In this edit you linked to the article Zero. Why was that? It looks to me very much like overlinking, as I would think it easily falls into the category "Everyday words understood by most readers in context", and I don't see anything in the linked article which anyone is likely to need to look up in order to understand the text from which you linked. JBW (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I reverted two unexplained edits by an IP. Since the lead describes a basic element, i, of the imaginary numbers, I think it is appropriate in this case to describe a related, basic element of the real numbers.—Anita5192 (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I see what you mean, but it doesn't seem to me relevant enough to justify the link. Nevertheless, I'll leave it as it is for now. On a different matter, you say that you "reverted two unexplained edits by an IP". The fact that the editing was done by an IP editor should be totally irrelevant, and as for "unexplained", your editing was equally unexplained. JBW (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

HELP!

Anita, I need your help very much. I have a draft, Fabien Vienne, i have many problems at references. some peoples give me some references, but idk how to do it. Please help. The references links in here [1]. Bera678 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

For help, please read the links in the latest post on your talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This time why?

I give reference I explain my modification and you erased it for no reason even you can see that the version of Spanish have it look https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorial#Soluci%C3%B3n_n%C3%BAmero_negativo_factorial

Arrobaman (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You should discuss this on the article's talk page, where another editor has already replied.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Period after exclamation point

Hi Anita, I just noticed this revert. Of course I agree that a period after an exclamation point is incorrect, but the '!' character in the factorial expression n! is not a punctuation mark here. All authors that I know of, write the period in sentences that end with such an expression. See for instance

• Joseph K. Blitzstein; Jessica Hwang (2014). Introduction to Probability (illustrated ed.). CRC Press. p. 225. ISBN 978-1-4987-5976-2. Extract of page 225.
• Piero Olla (2014). An Introduction to Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics (illustrated ed.). Springer. p. 51. ISBN 978-3-319-06188-7. Extract of page 51

I can show a gazillion of such examples if you like . So I have undone your revert. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to show me examples. I'll take your word for it. Aside from the mathematics and grammar, I also thought "n!." looked awkward.—Anita5192 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It was a good excuse to generate a few citations with my home-written (in AutoHotkey) automatic formatter that generates a proper citation when I have a book page open in Google Books Search. I just love doing that, and it still works . - DVdm (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove indentation? Unnecessary spaces are not always redundant.

Hi Anita, thanks for your continued maintenance of Moore–Penrose_inverse. In Special:Diff/1193373705 you removed unnecessary spaces. I agree that trailing spaces are bad, so thank you for removing those.

However, I see a lot of value in leading spaces used for indentation. While they are unnecessary for the MediaWiki parser, they are not redundant for us human editors. They clarify the structure and make it easier to parse multi-line expressions, making it easier to maintain articles. Imagine having to maintain computer program source code where all indentation was removed.

For similar reasons, I also see some value in spaces inside of XML tags and sometimes parentheses. They simply make it easier to see the math and ignore the markup.

What do you think? RainerBlome (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the spaces I removed did not make the source text any more readable.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Commutator

We expect that the article Commutator will provide a cogent definition for the term within the next three years. 98.115.164.53 (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The Commutator article already has cogent definitions for the term. As it is a fairly advanced mathematical concept, most readers may not understand much beyond the simple definitions.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Polynomial degree

Dear Anita!

Is this the place to write a message? I am not an expert on Wikipedia. But I'm a mathematician, and modulus is usually denoted by m, while for a degree of a polynomial you can use d, n, k usually in modular arithmetic. As m and n were both used in the previous line, that's why I went with d, but feel free to change it to k if you prefer that. 193.224.79.242 (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Not just in physics

Science is not boxes, it is a set of overlapping Venn diagrams. For instance, mechanical engineers would disagree with limiting gravity to physics. There are way too many articles that start with "In XYZ" that imply "XYZ and nothing but XYZ" Ldm1954 (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a good explanation of why my edit was reverted

You removed my recent edit to the pigeonhole principle wiki page, and the reasons given why are not exactly satisfactory, so I have been left somewhat confused.

You said:

"This is not a good example. In hashing, n is typically far greater than m, each bin is expected to contain many items, and full bins spill over into the next bin. Also, single quotation marks should be double."

Ignoring "Single quotation marks should be double" for a second as I assume you're right on that, I don't understand why this is not a good example of the principle.

Surely we are not trying to argue that this is not an example of it at all? Taking that as an assumption, it's not clear why any of the other things you listed make it a bad example.

1. Is the principle restricted to cases where n > m but also n ≈ m? That doesn't seem to be the case.

2. Does the principle hold that each bin is not expected to contain many items? I don't think so.

3. Do bins not spill over when full with regards to the principle? Again, no.

So why is it a bad example? Seems like quite a good, practical example to me. Far more practical than talking about the number of hairs on the heads of Londoners, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMcCarthy17 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to reinsert it, go ahead, but use double quotations marks.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

revert error?

Um, did you intend to revert my report to AIV or am I missing something? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! I thought I was removing a post from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism put there by a vandal, but I see now that that post was already removed and I deleted your post instead. I just put your post back.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)