To Nirvana Supermind
Stop converting the mathjax into math tags. You should not persist your personal preference.
p-adic 23:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. You're changing the section order in order to solve the ""fake description""... which actually does none of what you want, aside from making the old information more important (the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Googology Wiki wants). So it a loose-loose situation for you, you don't solve any fake descriptions, you're bloating the page with unneccessary ranting, and you're doing the opposite of Googology Wiki's intended purpose of "the newest in googology".
And not only that, the fake description you mentioned is a description of the section header like "All information here only applies to the current version of the notation, which is given after the issues on the original definition were pointed out.", which is true, as I have a source which shows the current definition.
You also reverted my edit under the reasoning "Reverting fake removements of related descriptions. ". This once again makes no sense, because those "related descriptions" are now outdated. For instance, you say "Since the creator tends to change either one of the original definition or the intended value, it is not special for a notation by the creator.", which is outdated because in the CURRENT DEFINITION, the examples match up.
- As I said, "all information information here only applies to the old version of the notation." is fake, because there are several common informations such as the issue. I hope that you will understand your fake before editting articles by ignoring others.
- p-adic 00:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I will change it to "several informations". However, it was not a fake information, just a mistake.
- I clarified the reason, and you ignored it. Therefore it is meaningless to state that it was not a fake. You should read explanations by others carefully, before you ignore everything.
- p-adic 01:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Stop unconstructive edits
Nirvana Supermind. I clarified that you should not remove sourced and correct contents without any discussion.
p-adic 09:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I will remove (unless a serious disagreement) "The creator got blocked... other articles on notations by the creator." since it seems to be a callout on the mainspace C7X (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- OK. I thought that it is better for readers to know what is happening in order not to waste time, i.e. in order to fully understand the incorrectness of the original statements in both of the article and other articles. If you feel that it is unnecessary, please remove the explanation.
- p-adic 02:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- p-adic 02:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)