Jump to content

User talk:Nerd271

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Nerd271, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Nerd271, good luck, and have fun. — Newslinger talk 11:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd271, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Nerd271! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hyperbolic substitution[edit]

Your reversion message of "this version works just fine" to my edit to the hyerbolic substitution section was rather... unhelpful. My initial interpretation was "don't you dare touch this sacrosanct text". After some time licking my wounds from that initial burn (I'm new to editing Wikipedia), I've stepped back and decided that I was reading too much into the rejection, so let's open up a small discussion to hash out which of my changes are deemed acceptable.

My initial "be bold!" attempt at a rewrite combined several different tweaks. Since the content of my version was just as good as the original, I must conclude that the objection was to its style. The most glaring difference in style was my use of a horizontal layout for equation chains, and I suspect that it was this that triggered a "no!" reaction to your sense of aesthetics, and you didn't look any further for any redeeming features of my rewrite.

So, dropping that reformatting change (which I feel is a minor issue that I'm fine with letting go of), here are the changes I was making:

  1. Add links to pages documenting the identities being invoked. While the linked pages do not themselves give any better direct insight as to where these identities come from, presumably they reference proper sources. (I have not followed the sources on those pages yet, though I plan to do so as time permits.)
  2. Add a small bit of text emphasizing that this is but one example of the use of hyperbolic substitution; this is left implicit in the original, and I feel it could be misleading to someone reading this this section in isolation (e.g., after following a link).
  3. Make small adjustments to the equation chains used: break things up so that in each step is only one of: substitution of identity, algebra, and calculus.
  4. Rather than stating the identities used an introduction followed by a wall of equations, introduce the identities as prose in the place they are about to be used. It was while trying to make this flow well that I shifted to using the horizontal equation chain format. I'd have to experiment a bit more to see if I can make this work right with vertically stacked equations (my initial attempts came off as too clunky, before I went horizontal), or if I need to abandon the idea altogether.
  5. As far as demonstrating hyperbolic substitution goes, the sinh^{-1} result is a good stopping point. I'm not clear on why continuing on to the ln-form derivation is desirable (if I were writing the section from scratch I wouldn't bother mentioning it), but I presume that someone finds it helpful. However, I want to break it out as an addendum to the main derivation, not show it as "the" conclusion.

So, rather than getting into an edit war, I wanted to run this all by you to see if there is anything in this list that is an automatic "no" for you. Engeer (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a sentence that is not a quote with an ellipsis is a red flag. Adding more explanations is helpful, unless you are belaboring the point. Here, we are already showing pretty much all the steps. But also remember that filling in the details is, or should be, left as an exercise to the reader. So I am fine with cutting some steps out. Also see this section of my talk page for a sample of how to add in-line notes.
As for the inverse hyperbolic sine function, I honestly prefer the explicit expression involving the natural logarithm, which, in my personal experience, is more commonly used.
Remember that as a Wikipedia editor, you have your own sandbox. Play with it if you are unsure how the code is going to turn out. Good luck! Nerd271 (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's something strangely satisfying[edit]

seeing someone else restore an article to your version, isn't there? Maybe it's just me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was dismayed, disappointed, and confused when I saw the article deleted. But I was too tired to do much and I planned to try to convince that moderator to reconsider. The problem, I thought, was to avoid raising suspicions of me being a sock puppet. But since enough people have persuaded him of the value of the page, however unready for main space, there was nothing for me to do. For the record, it was a group effort, like pretty much everything else on Wikipedia. Each new version does not necessarily erase the old. Nerd271 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Wait a minute! Was that supposed to be a criticism? I don't get it. I was just trying to be nice. Nerd271 (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was just my thought when I saw your "thanks" for [1]. If I notice someone reverting to "my version" somewhere, I take it to mean they thought my version wasn't crap. Or at least less crappy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede and Introduction[edit]

Thanks for making clear the difference between lede and introduction in your addition to Talk:Project 2025: Difference between revisions. It appears many editors are unaware of it. Mcljlm (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm: Thank you for reaching out. I am glad I am not alone in being frustrated with the confusion. Nerd271 (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that the MOS doesn't help: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Mcljlm (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Baby boomers) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers If you could take a moment to look at the history of the page, you can see what I was one of those people protecting it. In fact, Dimadick reverted this person before for adding unsourced information. Nerd271 (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the page history. Removal of unsourced information is not an exception to 3RR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers I'm not sure if letting unsourced information stand is conducive to the mission of Wikipedia. Please reconsider. Also, this IP has been dishonest about restoring something somebody else put in when it was the same IP all along. I was only trying to protect the page. That's all. Nerd271 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our mission is strongly aligned against unsourced information, but we've decided (in non-BLP settings) that removing it is not so urgent that it justifies the disruption of edit warring. I've pblocked the IP for edit warring; if you think a more severe sanction is needed, I'd have to see more diff evidence. FYI, I'm keeping an eye on this discussion and you don't need to ping me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no! I am not requesting more severe sanctions against the IP. I am merely requesting that you reconsider your block on me, someone trying to keep everything on-mission and accurate with respect to reliable sources. I was only protecting the status quo because it is better than the alternative. Looking further into the history of this page, and the other ones like it (Millennials, Generation Z, and Generation Alpha, say) you might find similar types of vandalism or addition of unsourced information. I am a frequent contributor to all the aforementioned pages. We keep seeing the same thing again and again. Nerd271 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be clear that I'm not judging your motivations, and I believe your intention was to protect the project. If you see blatant vandalism, by all means revert away. For good-faith edits, even ones that are not accompanied by sources, you should not breach 3RR. I considered the pblock before implementing it, and I've reconsidered it since. It's unlikely that I'll change my mind. Please follow the instructions in the block notice if you'd like review by an uninvolved admin. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Nerd271 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please take a moment to look at the history of the page Baby boomers, you will likely realize what I was one of those people protecting it. I was only protecting the status quo because it was better than the alternative. Our mission is against the addition of information without citations to reliable sources. Looking further into the history of this page, and the other ones like it (Millennials, Generation Z, and Generation Alpha, say) you might find similar types of vandalism or addition of unsourced information. I am a frequent contributor to all the aforementioned pages. We keep seeing the same thing again and again. I reverted that IP not out of malice but in order to protect the project. Nerd271 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please take a moment to look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_boomers&action=history the history of the page Baby boomers], you will likely realize what I was one of those people protecting it. I was only protecting the ''status quo'' because it was better than the alternative. Our mission is against the addition of information without citations to reliable sources. Looking further into the history of this page, and the other ones like it ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennials&diff=1226151557&oldid=1226150522 Millennials], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Z&diff=1211874451&oldid=1211808463 Generation Z], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Alpha&diff=1222517283&oldid=1222501550 Generation Alpha], say) you might find similar types of vandalism or addition of unsourced information. I am a frequent contributor to all the aforementioned pages. We keep seeing the same thing again and again. I reverted that IP not out of malice but in order to protect the project. [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]] ([[User talk:Nerd271#top|talk]]) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please take a moment to look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_boomers&action=history the history of the page Baby boomers], you will likely realize what I was one of those people protecting it. I was only protecting the ''status quo'' because it was better than the alternative. Our mission is against the addition of information without citations to reliable sources. Looking further into the history of this page, and the other ones like it ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennials&diff=1226151557&oldid=1226150522 Millennials], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Z&diff=1211874451&oldid=1211808463 Generation Z], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Alpha&diff=1222517283&oldid=1222501550 Generation Alpha], say) you might find similar types of vandalism or addition of unsourced information. I am a frequent contributor to all the aforementioned pages. We keep seeing the same thing again and again. I reverted that IP not out of malice but in order to protect the project. [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]] ([[User talk:Nerd271#top|talk]]) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please take a moment to look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_boomers&action=history the history of the page Baby boomers], you will likely realize what I was one of those people protecting it. I was only protecting the ''status quo'' because it was better than the alternative. Our mission is against the addition of information without citations to reliable sources. Looking further into the history of this page, and the other ones like it ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennials&diff=1226151557&oldid=1226150522 Millennials], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Z&diff=1211874451&oldid=1211808463 Generation Z], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Alpha&diff=1222517283&oldid=1222501550 Generation Alpha], say) you might find similar types of vandalism or addition of unsourced information. I am a frequent contributor to all the aforementioned pages. We keep seeing the same thing again and again. I reverted that IP not out of malice but in order to protect the project. [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]] ([[User talk:Nerd271#top|talk]]) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nerd271&oldid=1227594443"