Googology Wiki
Advertisement
Googology Wiki

DO NOT REMOVE correct and sourced innformation

@the creator

STOP removing correct and sourced information. Also, stop adding unsourced information, e.g. the growth rate and the restriction of the rules. If you want to remove something wrong, explain the incorrectness at the talk page. STOP REMOVING correct and sourced information.

p-adic 23:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@the creator

I will revert all the dishonest removement ignoring the talk page. Explain why we should remove the correct and sourced information.

p-adic 00:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: I note that your website cannot be a source of the growth rate. It can just be a source of the intended growth rate. For example, even if you write "The growth rate is ω^2 in FGH" in the "source", it does not directly imply that the growth rate is ω^2 in FGH. Remember that your website is not peer-reviewed, and hence is unreliable. Your website can be a source of the information like "Who created the system", "how strong the system is intended to be", and so on. Indeed, your analysis is incorrect, because you insisted that the growth rate was ω^2 in FGH although it was ill-defined.

Anyway, I told you to learn what a source means. Do you understand that you are adding unsourced information now? Also, I repeat to say "DO NOT REMOVE correct and sourced information. JUST ADD new information." If you have any good reason to remove correct and sourced information, then explain it at the talk page. How many times should I tell this?

p-adic 01:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@the creator

STOP REMOVING it. If you just add new information, why on earth will the number of letters be reduced? You silently removed the original rules without putting reasons. USE THE TALK PAGE. Seriously, stop ignoring all the issues in such a dishonest way.

p-adic 03:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@p進大好きbot

I not removing your information. I have added your explanation of the ill-definedness of the old notation, so I am not removing the content. And even if I didn't, I still clearly state the full history of the notation, including retrieved citations and how the rulesets diffwr. I just remove the part that says the current notation is ill defined. Why? The problem with negative numbers in 1[0,0] is non existent. According to the prioritization, rule 3 comes first, making it ill defined 1[1,-1], but if and only if that is well-defined. Otherwise, it goes to the next applicable rile, the zero trailing one, making it well defined 1[0]=0[0]=1000. If you find an expression such that my priority system does not handle it, then I will say it is ill defined. Additionally, the 1015 is a copy-pasting error, from when I copy an exponent to the number, that I fixed anyways in the next revision. It was ALYWAYS meant to be 1015 and that is clearly visible in the blog.So, your information is correct, but the notation is not ill-defined. And this means it reaches the said growth rate, so my revision of the article has no issues. INirvana Supermind (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@p進大好きbot

Also why you call yourself the admin p-adic, when you are pbot? And last time I checked, you are not an admin. Are you just their alt? 04:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

> I not removing your information.
My information? I am talking about the information of your notation, which I added. For example, saying "I am not removing" is dishonest, because you actually removed the rule for the original definition and the retrieving date of the definition.
If you think that it is better to remove the original description in the article, you should explain the reason first. Even if you added a history, it does not change the fact that you removed what is written. I asked you so many times, while you arrogantly ignored it and removed the correct description. (More awfully, you named the link to the original non-current source as "current". Why are you removing the link to the latest source?) If you sincerely listened to others and explain why you want to replace the original description, then the issue would be soon solved. Why do you always ignore the talk page?
> The problem with negative numbers in 1[0,0] is non existent.
> According to the prioritization, rule 3 comes first, making it ill defined 1[1,-1], but if and only if that is well-defined.
Do you know what a circular logic means? In order to make a notation well-defined, you should not mention the well-definedness of the notation in the definition of the notation.
Also, the description was not in the definition first. Could you tell me which version of the source includes the description? If you insist that it is not an issue from the beginning, stop telling a lie.
Since you are removing the retrieving date of the source (or awfully mentioning the oldest version as "current"), it is meaningless to state that it is sourced.
> And this means it reaches the said growth rate,
No. "This" does not directly "mean" that it reaches the growth rate, even if it actually reaches the growth rate, Do you understand that your website cannot be the source of the growth rate? (Anyway, put this issue aside until the other issue will be soulved. Since you are removing the retrieving date and naming the original source as "current", it is awfully non-sense to argue on the current definition.)
> Also why you call yourself the admin p-adic, when you are pbot?
I am not understanding what you meant. When did I call myself the admin p-adic?
p-adic 05:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Response to your message

(I can finally create talk page without manual editing now)

@p進大好きbot > My information? I am talking about the information of your notation, which I added. For example, saying "I am not removing" is dishonest, because you actually removed the rule for the original definition and the retrieving date of the definition.

I know it is the information of my notation, I'm just referring to the information you added. I did not remove retrieval date of the original definition, it's still there. If you mean the currrent definition, that doesn't need a retrieval date, the date is just "now" since the page could be updated anytime. Additionally, the original rules were identical to the ones shown, aside from the [] case, so I thought it didn't need to be added back. Also, I told you 1015 is a typo. Change it to 10^15, that is intended and is what is displayed in the blog.

> Do you know what a circular logic means? In order to make a notation well-defined, you should not mention the well-definedness of the notation in the definition of the notation.

I meant the expression must have nonnegative integers.

> No. "This" does not directly "mean" that it reaches the growth rate, even if it actually reaches the growth rate, Do you understand that your website cannot be the source of the growth rate? (Anyway, put this issue aside until the other issue will be soulved. Since you are removing the retrieving date and naming the original source as "current", it is awfully non-sense to argue on the current definition.)

We don't even need a source from the growth rate, It is mathematically inferred from the fact that 0[b] > f2(b), 0[b,0,1] > f3(b), 1[b] > fw(b), etc. that w^2 is a growth rate. I just used the blog because you mentioned a source, and it is the only thing that mentions it. And I do not understand what you mean about the original source and current source being swapped, if it is a typo in the source editor name attribute, then that's internal so it does not matter.

> I am not understanding what you meant. When did I call myself the admin p-adic?

In your signature, or the text right before this post (send a screenshot if you see something else in the signature).


Nirvana Supermind (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

> If you mean the currrent definition, that doesn't need a retrieval date, the date is just "now" since the page could be updated anytime.
WRONG. Since you always change the source, the link without retrieval date is meaningless. Also, it conflicts your statement that you did not remove information. You are just cheating to hide the actual history.
Hello? How many times should I ask you to learn what a source is? In your mind, you can change the source at any time if you want? Do you really understand nothing about the retrieval date? For example, if I point out error on the current source, will you say "No, you are wrong, because I updated the source after you pointed out it"? How meaningless it is. Actually, this is what you are doing. Could you answer my question "which version of the source includes the description?" above? Please do not ignore it.


> Change it to 10^15, that is intended and is what is displayed in the blog.
It is ok. The reason why I reverted your edit is simply because you arrogantly remove correct information by ignoring all suggestions. If you simply correct your mistake without removing correct information, I will not revert it.


> Additionally, the original rules were identical to the ones shown, aside from the [] case, so I thought it didn't need to be added back.
Even if you think so, you should not ignore all suggestion to explain it at the talk page. If we have two valid options due to personal preferences, then there is no reason why we should change. At least, there is no reason why you regard your preference as the greatest preference which should be followed by anyone else and allows you from ignoring all suggestions at the talk page.


> I meant the expression must have nonnegative integers.
There is no written explanation of the meanings. You can say anything even if you meant a circular logic. Since the written rule was actually a circular logic, it is unreasonable to believe you, who frequently ignore others' suggestion and errors pointed by others. Remember what you did. You ignored the suggestion to explain your opinion at the talk page. How could we believe? Anyway, even if we believe or not, we just refer to the written description in the source.


> We don't even need a source from the growth rate, It is mathematically inferred from the fact that 0[b] > f2(b), 0[b,0,1] > f3(b), 1[b] > fw(b), etc. that w^2 is a growth rate.
Wow, how meaningless to say "it is mathematically inferred" without showing the proof. Actually, you wrote that the grpowth rate is ω^2 even when the notation was ill-defined. Can we say "We don't need a source because it is mathematically inferred" then?
If your website or you were so reliable, your expectation would be a source. However, as you know, you and your website frequently give wrong information. How can we believe your ststements without proof? Also, it is an issue to be dealt with only after you fix the definition. Since you intend to remove the retrieval date, it is non-sense.


> In your signature, or the text right before this post (send a screenshot if you see something else in the signature).
If I am correct, the signature is just "p-adic" but not "the admin p-adic". Where does the word "the admin" come from?
p-adic 09:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@the creator

STOP IGNORING THE ISSUE HERE.

p-adic 09:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Response

I will keep EVERYTHING, just stop claiming the notation is still ill-defined. I will keep your original rules, everything, except for that the notation is STILL ill-defined, because there is a precedence and new rule that handles every single case you describe. And the 1015 is a typo, no "doubtulfness" that is 1015. Nirvana Supermind (talk)

> your original rules
Huh? I have never added my original rules. I just kept your original rules.
I note that I will revert your edit if you remove the description of the past rules or the retrieval date of sources in order to hide the history, as you repeated so many times by saying "I did not remove anything".
> And the 1015 is a typo, no "doubtulfness" that is 1015.
I do not understand why you are continuing to state it. I reflected your intension in the article, and hence there is no remaining typo of 1015 made by you. Did I do something wrong?
p-adic 01:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Now you added a wrong description. As is clarified in the article, the version retrieved on 15/10/2020 is ill-defined. Also, you removed the descrition of the reason why it is ill-defined. Therefore I reverted it.
p-adic 01:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

STOP ADDING FAKE INFORMATION. I pointed out the issue on the version retrieved on 15/10/2020. Do not cheat by changing the description of how to solve multiple rules. Also, do not ignore the three questions above:

> If I am correct, the signature is just "p-adic" but not "the admin p-adic". Where does the word "the admin" come from?

> Could you answer my question "which version of the source includes the description?" above? Please do not ignore it.

> I reflected your intension in the article, and hence there is no remaining typo of 1015 made by you. Did I do something wrong?

p-adic 14:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


STOP REMOVING the correct and sourced information on the version retrieved on 15/10/2020. I will revert all dishonest removement.

p-adic 00:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Response 2

Let me make my point clear. There is no need to make the history of this notation clear (i.e. the supposed "correct and sourced information" you have), since old parts of the notation do not matter unless they are required for the new part. There is not one mention of the words retrieval or history in this section of the rules. According to the policy,

the first revision of the article save the old definition and growth rate is good enough, since my website is a non-pier reviewed "first source" in the rules, and the page here contains no information aside from the growth that a pier-reviewed source is needed for. Each time a source is updated, you update the article, which may mean removing old information. This is the very simple system used by all articles on the wiki. So I really should just remove ALL of your information and my information on the old notation, and the source for it. The current notation is sufficient for the rules. Nirvana Supermind (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

There should be the precise history, because you intensionally changed the definition after errors are pointed out by others and hid the fact of the ill-definedness of the past versions as if you yourself completely had noticed the issue. It is dishonest, isn't it? Since the definitions will change so many times even after others will point out errors, your website cannot be a reproducible source. One solution is to clarify the retrieval date. Have you learned what a source means? If you can freely change the information in your website by removing all the informaation of retrieval date, it is really meaningless to rely the article on the information from your website. The policy refers to the usual meaning of a source, and the reproducibility is actually required.
Also, you are continuing to intentionally writing wrong informations. (When the ill-definedness is pointed out, you silently removed the description and updated the source. Although the issue remains in the version, you removed the issue and insisted new priority order as if it were written in the version.) Since you are awfully cheating by dishonestly making fake articles, we should not remove the facts in order to make your attitude clear.
p-adic 02:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
EDIT: Why are you ignoring the three questions above? Huh, the answer is obvious. You cannot answer them, because answers to those questions can be the evidence of your cheatings.
p-adic 02:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Response 3

I am not "cheating". If the notation is ill-defined, I update it. I don't add information saying an old version of the notation is ill-defined and THEN update it. Past versions do not need to be shown as ill-defined, unless they are required directly to understand the PRESENT versions. You know, fandom made a history page for a reason. Not only it can confuse readers to have the full history with different definedness, and it can make the current notation look ill-defined, but also it is completely fine to not put that """""correct and sourced"""" information there according to the wiki policy, so there is no need. I told you, I am not "dishonestly" removing. Also what is a talk about modulus? This is another ASCII error, <sup> get removed when copypasting. Nirvana Supermind (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Response to questions

> If I am correct, the signature is just "p-adic" but not "the admin p-adic". Where does the word "the admin" come from?

Nowhere, but p-adic is an admin on this wiki, and you not.

>p-adic is an admin on this wiki, and you not.
P-adic is p-bot. Clearly you don't know what a link is. Click p-adic, and it reverts to p-bot, an admin, on the wiki. LuckyLuxius (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

> Could you answer my question "which version of the source includes the description?" above? Please do not ignore it.


The current one, at october 27.


> I reflected your intension in the article, and hence there is no remaining typo of 1015 made by you. Did I do something wrong?

No, but in next revision you bring up a new "creator insists 10 modulus", which means I made another typo? Nirvana Supermind (taIk) 19:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

> I am not "cheating".
Yes, you are.
  1. When I pointed out errors of your notations, you insisted that your notations were well-defined, and updated the definitions as if they were corrected from the beginning.
  2. You changed the description in the article without adding a new retrieval date as if you had already corrected the decription at the past retrieval date.
  3. You repeated to say that you removed nothing, although you removed what you do not like so many times.
Not only it can confuse readers to have the full history with different definedness, and it can make the current notation look ill-defined, but also it is completely fine to not put that """""correct and sourced"""" information there according to the wiki policy, so there is no need.
You are wrong. If it is confusing, then it is simply due to your cheating.
> I told you, I am not "dishonestly" removing.
You dishonestly removed many edit, and added fake descriptions.
> Nowhere, but p-adic is an admin on this wiki, and you not.
Give a link to the user page of the admin. Otherwise, you are cheating again.
> The current one, at october 27.
Another cheating, because you insisted it before yesterday. You added the definition with a citation to the old version. I pointed out that the version does not include such a description several times, but you ignored it and repeated to add the same description. It means that you intentionally cheated.
> No, but in next revision you bring up a new "creator insists 10 modulus", which means I made another typo?
Another cheating, because you blamed me as if I kept the typo by ignoring your statement. Also, I kept 1010 because I clarified that the result was doubtful but you dishonestly removed the description several times.
p-adic 22:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Response 4

You cannot accuse me of saying the notation is well-defined from the beginning: I never said that. All I do is remove the information about a past version of the notation, which is not incorrect. It is not hiding anything. If a notation was ill-defined and it's fixed, NOBODY needs to know that it was ill-defined earlier. If someone is so eager, then why do you think the history page for articles exist? A part of the rules MENTIONS this the wiki is about the newest googology. Additionally, I keep on telling you, NONE of this is against the wiki policy, but you ignore. As a matter of fact, there are far more extreme examples than this one:

https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Jonah%E2%80%99s_Number

The page above was created by the user XYZeed, and his source is a google doc. But did someone come candidatedelete the page and say the source is not valid? NO. Why? It's not against the rules. Any personal website, blog, or page can be used as the "first source" for trivial things (like the definition of a notation or number). You only need the pier-reviewed source for things that have to be proved or confirmed (like the growth rate, and a guaranteed lower bound of TREE(3). The first revision of my article is an exception in that includes a growth rate, but I removed it now. EVERY single part of this is not cheating. You may like adding the full history of an article, but I don't, and it's not against the rules. ANYTHING not against the rules can be done on this site. So, I should be able to revert this article.

Nirvana Supermind (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Answer questions. Also, a history page is just a history page for an article, but not a histofy page for a cheating notation.

p-adic 08:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Response 5

< Also, a history page is just a history page for an article, but not a histofy page for a cheating notation.

My notation is not against the rules, so it is not cheating. There is just one problem, an error where I nentioned that an old version is ill-defined, but a peer reviewed source is required . This was a mistake, and it will be fixed soon since I didn't know of this at the time.

And you cannot highlight this text in a reply, cut out the factual explanation , and just insist it is cheating. For once, actually read my previous response, and show the parts that are wrong first before saying that. By the way, the "new information helpful for readers" you add is everything I said EXCEPT for the clear, factual explanation of how it is not violating the policy so it cant be cheating. YOU are the one hiding it.

There is also this section of your revision of the article: < If there are two or more distinct rules to apply to a single expression, the upper rule will be applied if it is well-defined, otherwise the lower rule." However, refering to the well-definedness itself in order to make a notation well-defined just causes a circular logic.

I meant that the expression can be solved further. For instance, 1[-1] cannot be solved, so it is an ill-defined expression. If it is not clear enough, I will update in the blog. So at least be honest, the notation ISN'T ill-defined notation.

Anyways, back to the questions:

< Yes, you are.

You go on to explain how the Response 3 is wrong. But I already explain your wrongness in Response 4, cleary hihghligting sections of the policy.

< You dishonestly removed many edit, and added fake descriptions.

How are my descriptions faked? They are new versions of the notation.

< Give a link to the user page of the admin. Otherwise, you are cheating again.

I cannot seem to find a user page, but I know for certain that they were on "Meet the Admins" section of the old legacy community portal. If I can find an archive of it, I will send it to you,


< Another cheating, because you blamed me as if I kept the typo by ignoring your statement. Also, I kept 1010 because I clarified that the result was doubtful but you dishonestly removed the description several times.


I still don't understand. How is it doubtful? Did I also do something wrong? Nirvana Supermind (talk)


> My notation is not against the rules, so it is not cheating.

I clarified that you cheated by telling lies. Several lies are related to the rules, and several lies are related to common senses.

For example, there is no precise definition (in the site policy) of terminologies in common knowledge such as "rule", "violation", "source", and so on. Therefore it is meaningless to point out that there is no written restriction that the citation of a source should include sufficient data which distinguish it from other sources. Therefore I told you to study what a source means, while you have never even checked the meaning of a source.


> There is just one problem, an error where I nentioned that an old version is ill-defined, but a peer reviewed source is required .

What do you mean?


> And you cannot highlight this text in a reply, cut out the factual explanation , and just insist it is cheating.

I just logically explained how you cheated. You told many lies: You said that you removed nothing, while you actually removed many informations as if there had not been those information. Anyway, how you cheated is written in the article with precise sources. Check it by yourself.


> For once, actually read my previous response, and show the parts that are wrong first before saying that.

I wrote "Answer questions" because you dishonestly ignored questions.


> By the way, the "new information helpful for readers" you add is everything I said EXCEPT for the clear, factual explanation of how it is not violating the policy so it cant be cheating. YOU are the one hiding it.

You are wrong. The policy is based on common sense of statdard terminology such as a source. How meaningless to insist that there is no restriction that the citation of a source requires a sufficient information to distinguish it from other sources.

Also, there is no rule that you can freely remove whatever you want. For example, if you removed all contents from the article of TREE without reasons, then we will revert it. It is the same. You removed the most important feature of your notation, and hence I reverted it.


> I meant that the expression can be solved further. For instance, 1[-1] cannot be solved, so it is an ill-defined expression. If it is not clear enough, I will update in the blog. So at least be honest, the notation ISN'T ill-defined notation.

You meant? It is meaningless. A logical interpretation works only when the original description logically makes sense. SInce the original description includes a circular logic, any interpretation is meaningless. You just noticed the invalidity of the original description because I told you so, and then you changed the "meaning". This is also a cheating. Or don't you know what a circular logic means?


> You go on to explain how the Response 3 is wrong. But I already explain your wrongness in Response 4, cleary hihghligting sections of the policy.

You are intentionally based on a wrong assumption that the terminology of a "source" is whatever you insist to be a source, and I explained that it is wrong so many times. Therefore it answers nothing. You can read how wrong your terminology of a source is in the article. Read it.

Also, I wrote "You repeated to say that you removed nothing, although you removed what you do not like so many times.", but you intentionally ignored it in Response 4. Why? It is simple. You are aware of your cheat by yourself.


> How are my descriptions faked? They are new versions of the notation.

  1. You added fake analysis.
  2. You wrote wrong a retrieval date.
  3. You wrote that it is well-defined.


> I cannot seem to find a user page, but I know for certain that they were on "Meet the Admins" section of the old legacy community portal. If I can find an archive of it, I will send it to you,

"I know for certain"? Who believes your claim that I used the signature of an admin, even though you have no evidence, or you cannot clarify the name of the admin? This is also your cheat. How could you blame me under a fake susipicion?


> I still don't understand. How is it doubtful? Did I also do something wrong?

  1. You blamed as if I kept the typo of 1015 by ignoring your statement. I asked you "Did I do something wrong?" Then you ignored it first without any apology. When I asked again, you changed the statement without any apology by saying "No, but in next revision you bring up a new "creator insists 10 modulus", which means I made another typo?"
  2. 1010 should be 1010, and hence I wrote that it is doubtful. However, you removed the doubt several times as if 1010 were correct.

Those two are your cheats.

p-adic 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Response 6

<Those two are your cheats.


What this means? If you still think I cheatnig, 'READ RESPONSE 4. READ IT. READ IT. I keep on telling you.

Edit: There is another part of the response I missed.

  1. You blamed as if I kept the typo of 1015 by ignoring your statement. I asked you "Did I do something wrong?" Then you ignored it first without any apology. When I asked again, you changed the statement without any apology by saying "No, but in next revision you bring up a new "creator insists 10 modulus", which means I made another typo?"
  2. 1010 should be 1010, and hence I wrote that it is doubtful. However, you removed the doubt several times as if 1010 were correct.

Fine, but you insert the doubt at 103*... instead, which is a correct answer. I will just revert the example to that of the first revision so that everything can be taken care of normally. Nirvana Supermind (talk)

> What this means? If you still think I cheatnig, 'READ RESPONSE 4. READ IT. READ IT. I keep on telling you.

I read it, and I answered it in the sentence "You are intentionally based on a wrong assumption...", although you ignored it. When I give you the reasons why you are a cheater, you tend to ignore it. How dishonest.


> Fine,

Not fine. You blamed me under a fake claim again and again. Also, you still blame me under another fake claim that I used a signature for an existing admin. When will yo ustop cheating?


> but you insert the doubt at 103*... instead, which is a correct answer.

Really? It is possible that I made some mistake. Please put a link to the difference page which indecates that I did it.

p-adic 05:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up this article

CatIsFluffy has asked me to clean up this article (less aggressive language/mainspace callouts, focusing more on the notation and less on intention, etc.) I will complete this project shortly, leaving citations in comments for the purpose of archivism, but no more listing shortcomings of Nirvana on the mainspace, regardless of the ill-definedness, from incidents months ago C7X (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the clean up, but I really dislike users to decide outside this wiki something on this wiki. Could you revert the change, and open the full argument? After then, please redo the clean up.
Seriously, I am asking you not to hide arguments. Please ask CatIsFluffy not to do it anymore. Even if there is not so important argument, we cannot judge it without checking it. This is not the first time for me to explain the importance to decide or propose something on this wiki within this wiki. Please imagine how we think when everything is decided at discord or anywhere closed to other users. FANDOM provides this wiki for all users, but not for special users active somewhere else.
p-adic 16:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
> I really dislike users to decide outside this wiki something on this wiki
I asked CIF for permission for the cleanup, and to my knowledge Username5243 agreed as well. My interpretation is that agreement given by an admin outside of the wiki is still agreement. And although CIF isn't an admin, a prominent user has still directly told me to clean up this article.
> FANDOM provides this wiki for all users, but not for special users active somewhere else.
True, however I never even mentioned this on the googology server, I only asked the users themselves, and despite this, this was from a conversation with other prominent users on this wiki where I asked for permission. The point of the conversation wasn't to ask GWiki users about their opinion, it was solely to contact CIF and Username. About opinions on whether this article should be cleaned up or not that were posted on this wiki, I only remember those from the period of more frequent discussion months ago.
> Seriously, I am asking you not to hide arguments.
Edit: My original understanding of your comment was ambiguous or wrong, here are two possibilities:
  1. If you were referring to the discussion on cleaning up the article, Username5243 has claimed that no user on this wiki would disagree with my judgement of my edit. As I'm the one who made the edit, I can't take a side on this particular claim
  2. If you were referring to the statements in the article about Nirvana's behavior that I removed, the point of cleaning up this article was that the mainspace shouldn't be the place for this. It is true that Nirvana made lots of false claims and removed valuable data from this article (such as retrieval dates), but there's a line between "full arguments" and essentially denouncing a person on the mainspace. Username5243 agreed, this article may appear to be a historical timeline of the notation, but the language itself is quite passive-aggressive and not appropriate for a mainspace article. C7X (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I meant 1. You should not decide anything in discord. Even if your choice is agreed by other admins and is reasonable, it is really illegal to exclude other members outside in this wiki from the discussion. My point is not the validity of the resulting removal, but the attitude to set closed discussion in discord. Even if the discussion is good, other members excluded from the argument cannot judge it.
It is a serious problem, which violates FANDOM's guideline to require us to have equivalent right to decide directions of this wiki, and I do not know why you still do it even after I asked you not to decide something on thi wiki outside this wiki. If it is intentionally done by Username, then it is more awful, because Username tends to ignore my opinion. If he is intentionally excluding members in this wiki, it is abuse of admin right.
p-adic 23:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I have created a page Googology_Wiki:Discussion for general contact, which I will move if there is a better location, and will probably leave the Discord soon (trolls are joining it as well, so I'm better off out of it). I apologize for any issues caused by decisions on platforms other than wiki. About earlier today, I sort of see asking for permission about an action on the wiki a decision about the wiki, was the problem that others didn't have input or that others couldn't see? (Probably the latter, the conversation was only between a few people) C7X (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I will check it. The problem is that the decision is done only among a few members. Since you know that Username is quite inactive and is frequently offensive to me, and since you know that I am an active user who tried so hard in order to stop the vandalism, it is not a good choice.
As you saw, Username reverted my recovery before understanding points. Could you revert it again? We should not create a bad example of a decision outside this wiki. So just after we shared discussions, please clean up it again. This is necessary, because if we allow it this time, then they will do the same next time.
Anyway, this is not the problem only related to this article. We should not exclude active members from dicisions. Do you agree with it?
p-adic 01:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


Some points:

1. The Discord is just as opent o any user to join as this wiki is. As far as I'm aware the conditions for being able to create a Discord account are literally the same as those for being able to join Fandom.

2. You said you didn't mind the edit. Does it really matter how it was decided if you think the change was positive? Are we to require some sort of "approval" for every change?

3. Your edits to the page are effectively personal attacks on the user that made this notation. I'm not opposed to explaining why this notation is ill-defined. In fact, on the mainspace, this is something that should definitely be done. However, the way you did it it looks like you are attacking the user who made this, and several of these lines were bolded. The mainspace of the wiki is not the ppropriate place for such attacks. The page can explain the history of the notation and why it's ill-defined, but doesn't need to disect edit-by-edit what the user did with passive-aggressive language throughout. So, as admin, the cleanpus WILL stay, for now at least. If someone wants to make an actual argument for why the cleanup edits are bad, go ahead.

Username5243 (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

> 1.
I do not think so. It requires non-discord members additional tasks to check other web sites.
> 2
Right, you should not decide anything on this wiki outside this wiki, because this essentially excludes active users in this wiki who are not active users of discord. Why do you seriously believe that discord members can freely decide anything by excluding active users in this wiki?
It is really problematic, as discord users currently propose changes on this wiki without sharing opinions. So, this is not the first time. If we allow this time, then they will continue to do so. Since I clarified that we should not do so, the ignorance is awful.
> 3
Although I disagree that it is a personal attack, I agree with the clean up. What I clarified is that you have never asked opinions HERE. Since you have a clear opinion, you should share your opinion instead of deciding anything n this wiki in discord. Seriously, you should stop it. Do you understand? I clarify that I am not saying that I disagree with the clean up. What I disagree with is that validity of the decision in discord. It is really dishonest to exclude active users in this wiki. Why do you think that active users can be excluded in decisions? What you did is obviously abuse of admin right, and is really dishonest because you are not even active here.
p-adic 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
> and is really dishonest because you are not even active here.
Username5243 is quite active on Discord and has been keeping up with the googology community relatively often, despite not having edited for months. However, the main point here is the following:
> Why do you seriously believe that discord members can freely decide anything by excluding active users in this wiki? ... discord users currently propose changes on this wiki without sharing opinions.
> Why do you think that active users can be excluded in decisions?
> What I clarified is that you have never asked opinions HERE.
It is true that I never did ask for opinions here, which I should have done before changing the article. But another part of the issue is not just changes made using only approval from Discord users, but changes made without any approval at all. The reworking of this article (especially the header) into a history of the failures of Nirvana was done entirely by one user without approval from any others. Even if a large change by a single user (not this edit in particular, but any edit by anyone without approval) is claimed by the user to be helpful for readers, it would have been just as easy for a Discord user to claim that a Discord-approved edit was helpful. As to show that this other issue isn't me shifting the blame from my own error, I believe that a large edit with no approval at all is less democratic and more exclusive than an edit that was approved by even one Discord user.
I'm not trying to make the false point that the opinions of Wiki-only users don't matter, bias against them by not communicating here has been an error I've made. And on the topic of this, I have started a thread here if any wiki users want to discuss the future of this page. But the point I'm trying to make is that Discord itself isn't the entirety of the problem of unapproved edits. C7X (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
> Username5243 is quite active on Discord and has been keeping up with the googology community relatively often, despite not having edited for months.
It might be true, but I am talking about the activity in this wiki. Please see what he did. He ignored opinions, and reverted my change without discussion, even though the problem has been clearly pointed out. We should not be dishonest against each other. Well, please revert Username's edit. Otherwise, we cannot go into the discussion of the clean up. I promise that I will not prevent the clean up after the discussion. So it is a fair proposal, isn't it? What I care is the attitude for an admin (especially Username this time) to decide anything without completing discussion. We should not allow admins to abuse admin right. So, since you are also an admin, please revert it, and ask Username to stop the inappropriate attitude.
> The reworking of this article (especially the header) into a history of the failures of Nirvana was done entirely by one user without approval from any others.
You are talking about distinct situations. What I did is adding a new information based on sources, while what you did is REMOVING written information without discussion with contributors. We do not need to ask others whether I can create a new article or not. We do not need to ask others whether I can add a new source or not. We do not need to ask others whether I can add an article to a category or not. On the other hand, when we drastically remove written contents, we need discussion. Or do you believe that we can freely drastically remove contents from articles without discussion?
> But the point I'm trying to make is that Discord itself isn't the entirety of the problem of unapproved edits.
If you want to ask my opinion on my own edit, you can do so in this wiki, However, if I want to ask an opinion on the decision made in discord, how can I do? As you see, CatIsFully and Username are inactive here. Even worse, Username does not listen to me. When we decide something at discord, the situation will continue. Therefore I strongly request not to continue to do it. Also, please revert Username's inappropriate edit.
p-adic 02:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If you agree with an edit why are you making such a big fuss about it? This seems fraknly absurd to me. If you think a change is positive, why does it matter how it was done?

And what are your limits to things needing approval? If a troll starts showing up and doing obviously dumb stuff on the wiki, and someone on the Discord pings me to tell me there's a troll and I should block them, it sounds by your logic that there would need to be discussion on it because it would involve, I quote, "drastically removing written contents" even if that content is plainly trolling.

Also, I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with an actual argument why the pre-cleanup revisions should stay. ;)

Username5243 (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

> If you agree with an edit why are you making such a big fuss about it?
Huh? How many times should I explain? Or are you just trying to ignore any replies and repeat to say "If you agree with it, why am I inappropriate?"
> And what are your limits to things needing approval?
For example, even if you insist again "There should not be copyright!" as you illegally did, you cannot decide to personally use this wiki to violate copyright. Seriously, please never abuse admin right again.
p-adic 12:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, how lovely, you didn't answer my question about whether removing content made by trolls needs approval. Again, since you seem to think removing content needs approval, I was asking if this applies to stuff made by trolls.

And, please, if you think C7X and I are abusing admin powers, please do report us to Fandom staff, they clearly know their own rules far better than either of us do. :)

Username5243 (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

> Oh, how lovely, you didn't answer my question about whether removing content made by trolls needs approval.
Hmm...? I clearly answered that it suffices to follow FANDOM's rule. What is unclear for you? We can ask admins to quickly block trolls and quickly remove spams. Why not? We have such a rule, and this does not violate Terms of Use. Or are you just kidding?
> Again, since you seem to think removing content needs approval, I was asking if this applies to stuff made by trolls.
Sure. If a troll made a stuff which should not be removed, then it is good to keep. Why not? Of course, if trolls made so many stuffs, then we have an explicit rule to simultaneously remove all.
> And, please, if you think C7X and I are abusing admin powers, please do report us to Fandom staff, they clearly know their own rules far better than either of us do. :)
Unlike you, C7X is not abusing admin right, and has never forced others to violate copyright. It is ok for me to report you, but am not willing to do so as I clarified. (One because I and other members are not willing to lose you. Two because I am not willing to cost time to such an unproducible action. Three because even if you will be banned, it is irrelevant to the current topic that we should not decide anything outside this wiki.) But if you still want to exclude other members, then I will consider it. If I just wanted to report you, then I would have done so before talking to you.
p-adic 13:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
> What I did is adding a new information based on sources, while what you did is REMOVING written information without discussion with contributors
> Or do you believe that we can freely drastically remove contents from articles without discussion?
I certainly do not seriously believe this. My recommendation here isn't that users should be able to removing random contents without discussion , but that adding information, even if it's based on sources and evidence, should be discussed as well as removing info. Even sourced and proven content can have many negative relations to the page in question:
  • Irrelevancy
  • Changing focus of the page (for example, rewriting the article into a timeline of mistakes without prior discussion)
  • Misleading info (for example, Nirvana later said that this system was close enough to Bower's illions to be considered relevant, while this article claimed otherwise based on one edit)
  • Etc.
The point being, mistakes were made in the past and recently on both sides. Neither adding nor removing should be done without discussion, and this is my mistake as well, as I made this cleanup without discussion on the wiki. But I would even venture as far as saying that adding contents could require more discussion beforehand in this case in order to save time, since if it isn't originally deemed to be negative and removed, then it could take a long time to remove (for example, often pages on this wiki have gone unedited for stretches of months or years).
I suppose it could be possible to reiterate the claim "We do not need to ask others whether I can add a new source or not.", etc. However, by this method, any change can be made to an article without discussion, no matter how drastic, by changing the article in small increments. This is exactly what happened to this article - the oldest revisions of this article are completely alien compared to the newer ones. It could be considered a drastic change, yet because it was gradual, it was able to be done without discussion. (The individual revisions I have linked earlier are only individual parts of the transformation, such as changing the header, so they aren't counterexamples)
Not only this, but some of changes made during this transformation were arguably different from changes as innocent as "adding a source", for example this (e.g. the "simple and elementary" that I addressed in the cleanup and on Discussion), and this revision. They could be considered "adding content", but then again so is most of the edits on the wiki. Overall, I would say that discussion is important even for long-term drastic transformations of article, whether adding or removing content. C7X (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
> but that adding information, even if it's based on sources and evidence, should be discussed as well as removing info.
Of course, I agree with it, as long as we add it to the Policy and Guideline under "restrictions". (I mean, forbidding adding much information is ok, but the rule should be applicable only to Irrelevancy, Changing focus, Misleading info, and so on.)
> The point being, mistakes were made in the past and recently on both sides. Neither adding nor removing should be done without discussion, and this is my mistake as well, as I made this cleanup without discussion on the wiki.
It is ok for me, but my point remains unsolved. Why don't you revert Username's inappropriate edit? He is intentionally trying to ignore the fact that we need discussion when we drastically remove contents. I clarified so many times that I agree with the cleanup, and hence the only one person who is violating the current policy is Username. Since you agree that both sides have equally made mistakes, you should revert Username's edit, because otherwise you are essentially keeping your "mistake" to drastically removing contents before discussion.
More awfully, Username is insisting that it is no problem to continue to exclude active users from decisions, because discord is open for them. As I clarified, setting an external website as a place for decision is not appropriate, as it requires active users in this wikito spend more time and inactive users in this wiki who is active in the place has more likely to work confortably.
> It could be considered a drastic change, yet because it was gradual, it was able to be done without discussion. (The individual revisions I have linked earlier are only individual parts of the transformation, such as changing the header, so they aren't counterexamples)
I would like to remember that even when I added small informations, I tied to write the proposal in the talk page first. But the result was that the vandalist just ignored it. If you think that I did it without any persuading at the talk page, then it is wrong. For example, I clarified that I would add the information of the vandalism if the vandalist continued the destruction. But nobody disagreed, i.e. the vandalist just ignored it and continued the destruction. What should I have done, if proposing at the talk page is insufficient?
> (e.g. the "simple and elementary" that I addressed in the cleanup and on Discussion)
I do not understand why "simple and elementary" is bad. You wrote (the extra description "it's easy to avoid this person's failure" seems condescending), but it is a really helpful point, isn't it? We should not be ashamed on making mathematical mistakes, and it is quite important how to elementarily solve the issue. I am emphasising the simpleness, because even if I repeat to state this solution, people tend to feel case classification fearful. I do not mind if you remove it, but I mind it if you think that emphasising the simpleness is somehow harmful.
> Overall, I would say that discussion is important even for long-term drastic transformations of article, whether adding or removing content.
It is ok as long as we add it to the policy (after proposing it at the talk page of the policy). My point is just that it is really inappropriate to allow only Username to be free from the policy. Seriously, please revert his edit, and ask him to stop ignoring all honest discussions.
p-adic 23:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


@C7X

Why do you keep silent whenever I point out the inappropriateness of the attitude of Username? If you think that I am wrong, then please share your opinion. Unlike Username, who tends to kid instead of seriously read opinions, you are so honest and reliable that we can sincerely discuss how to make this community better. However, if you think that I am correct but want to keep silence in order not make Username unfriendly (as he tends to offend others who do not agree with him), it is not a constructive attitude, because Username will lose an opportunity to learn his failure. If we really hope Username to become more matured, we should not keep silent.

Therefore I repeat to ask you the same question: Do you think that Username's attitude to exclude active members in decisions appropriate? If no, please revert his edit instead of me, and ask him not to do so. I am asking you in order to make this community better, and to make myself understand if I made some mistake. (I am clarifying that I agree with the clean up, and I agree with the validity of a new rule to hold a discussion when we drastically add contents. So it is unfair to keep silent on the main point, which I am asking so many times.) Thank you.

p-adic 02:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

> but it is a really helpful point, isn't it?
> I mind it if you think that emphasising the simpleness is somehow harmful.
It's certainly OK to emphasize the sinplicity of a case classification, unless the context says otherwise. Regardless of whether the case classification is simple or not, it's quite condescending to state that a solution is "simple and elementary" directly after a list of the creator's errors. It's very hard to logically explain the tone of writing, so I can't explain in any more detail about why this is without referencing concepts like "condescending langauge".
> people tend to feel case classification fearful.
This is irrelevant to my reason, what was relevant was the context around the quote.
> if you think that I am correct but want to keep silence in order not make Username unfriendly
> Do you think that Username's attitude to exclude active members in decisions appropriate?
About Username's attitude, I think that the situation is mixed. "Does it really matter how it was decided if you think the change was positive?" is a bit problematic, e.g. everything seems well in a dictatorship as long as the decisions are those that you agree with. Information about copyright violation by Username isn't relevant here, unless it's being used as proof that Username ignores rules, in which case I must ignore rules because I have violated copyright (although not to the extent of Username's previous actions IIRC)
But before you think I completely disagree Username or anything similar, I am still of the position that some of Username's points are right. I'm not opposed to explaining why the notation is ill-defined either, but as I wrote in my edit, there's many other factors there. Also, "the mainspace of the wiki is not the appropriate place for such attacks."
> you should revert Username's edit, because otherwise you are essentially keeping your "mistake" to drastically removing contents before discussion.
I see. So overall the current courses of action seem to be the following:
  1. I revert Username's edit, and the community decides to leave the cleanup reverted.
  2. I don't revert Username's edit, and the community decides to leave the cleanup reverted.
  3. I revert Username's edit, and the community decides to proceed with the cleanup.
  4. I don't revert Username's edit, and the community decides to leave the article cleaned up.
For the sake of decision on the wiki, I am tending towards 1 or 3. I seriously doubt that after discussion any path other than 3 will be taken, and the dilemma becomes how to keep offensive content off of the mainspace for as much time as possible. (The authoritarian answer to this would be 4). I have posted a message on the Discord in order to bring attention to the operation (this isn't closing off wiki users since it's not the only route to discussion, this is in order to bring attention to the discussion). C7X (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
One more thing, there must be discussion on the Discussion page. This is an important and recent event, and active users shouldn't ignore the discussion, causing offensive content to stay on the mainspace for longer.
> so I can't explain in any more detail about why this is without referencing concepts like "condescending langauge".
As I said, your choice is ok for me. Also, it is ok that when you make some mistake and I explain an alternative method, then I will not clarify the simplicity or the difficulty because you seem to care about it. (In my opinion, it is better to explain the difficulty in order to let you judge whether it is a reasonable choice or not.)
> Information about copyright violation by Username isn't relevant here, unless it's being used as proof that Username ignores rules, in which case I must ignore rules because I have violated copyright (although not to the extent of Username's previous actions IIRC)
To clarify, the exact problem which I claimed is that Username forced us to keep illegal contents. It is relatively ok if Username personally violates copyright and will cause troubles by himself, but not ok to allow him to ignore our will to respect copyright. You might not remember, but Username and Cloudy have philosophy to exclude the notion of copyright from the world, according to them. It is ok to have the personal belief in their mind, but it is not ok to force others to follow the illegal mind abusing admin right. So this is irrelevant to whether you personally have ever violated some right or not, because it is not related to admin right. Does this make sense?
> But before you think I completely disagree Username or anything similar, I am still of the position that some of Username's points are right. I'm not opposed to explaining why the notation is ill-defined either, but as I wrote in my edit, there's many other factors there. Also, "the mainspace of the wiki is not the appropriate place for such attacks."
I clarified again and again that I agree that it is good to clean up, and also that the main space is not the place for attacks. (I clarified that I do not think that my edits are not(EDIT: typo) attacks, and we can discuss whether they are bad or not.)
> the dilemma becomes how to keep offensive content off of the mainspace for as much time as possible.
Hmm...? Is there a problem? We can just discuss it in a case-by-case way, isn't it? You might be caring about the possibility that someone, including me, might disagree with the decision that a content is offensive, but I do not think that they disagree with the removal, if we share opinions. Namely, even we they disagree that the content is offensive, they agree the removal as long as there are people who reasonably insist that they look offensive. Why not? We can share opinions through discussions, as we have done. (That is why I really dislike the way Username abuse the admin right. What we need is discussion, but not forcing or mounting.)
> One more thing, there must be discussion on the Discussion page. This is an important and recent event, and active users shouldn't ignore the discussion, causing offensive content to stay on the mainspace for longer.
Sure. If you do not have opinions for what I wrote above, please say so. Then I move to the discussion page.
p-adic 05:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
> I will not clarify the simplicity or the difficulty because you seem to care about it.
It's OK to clarify the simplicity of a case classification in general, and I would recommend clarifying this on other pages if it shows how simple creating a correct classification is. But in the context that it was in (not the classification itself, but all sections before this in the article), made the explicit clarification seem unfavorable. The inverse of this is, if the general tone of the article is improved, by context the specification can be allowed, since it will no longer carry any extra unwritten implication toward the creator.
> I do not think that my edits are not attacks
I am confused, did you think about the "simple and elementary" edit was an attack or not? (In the case of "partial attack", do you consider this unfavorable wording given the context?)
> Then I move to the discussion page.
OK C7X (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
> tone
If it is a matter of tone, then it is ok for me. I am not a native speaker, and hence do not know how it mentally sounds. (In Japanese, we have many useful phrases called teineigo which directly indicate polite tones, and hence we do not have to care about tone in many settings. I do not know how people care about tone in English.)
> I am confused
Oops, it is a typo. I meant that I do not think that my edits are attacks. Even if we add "simple and elementary", it is not an attack, in my intention. But if you insist that it can be a bad tone in English, then I believe your statement. From the beginning, I agreed with your proposal to remove it, because I thought that you felt something bad in the phrase "simple and elementary". By the way, would it be ok for you if I had used "excellent", "well-known", or "technical" instead of "simple and elementary"? (I am just curious when a positive phrase on an alternative strategy will be reagarded as an attack.)
p-adic 13:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
> I am just curious when a positive phrase on an alternative strategy will be reagarded as an attack.
I apologize, for it's very hard to describe English semantics.
Ranking these four phrases by how appropriate the tone is, I would say "technical" is most neutral (but it might not convey simplicity if that's your intention), then "excellent", then "well-known", then "simple and elementary". "Excellent" might be the best option if your intention is conveying simplicity C7X (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Since we (mathematicians) tend to prefer to use "simple" and "elementary" instead of "excellent" when we positively estimate the smartness of our own strategies, I keep in mind that those positive words can cause negative attacks. On the other hand, "technical" is frequently used for the bad meaning in my opinion, as we introduce our own strategy as a technical one if it is not so natural and beautiful. We tend to prefer natural, simple, and elementary solutions rather than technical solutions, although both can be excellent.
p-adic 03:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
OK C7X (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement