m
Tag: Source edit
Line 18: Line 18:
 
: 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.
 
: 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.
 
: [[User:p進大好きbot|p-adic]] 00:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 
: [[User:p進大好きbot|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.
  +
  +
[[User:Nirvana Supermind|Nirvana Supermind]] ([[User talk:Nirvana Supermind|talk]]) 00:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:32, 14 January 2021

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)

To p-adic

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 This once again makes no sense, because those "related descriptions" are now outdated.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one of the original definition or the intended value, it is not special for a notation by the creator.", which is outdated because in the CURRENT DEFINITION, the examples match up.


Nirvana Supermind (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

Nirvana Supermind (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.