11,329
pages

Leave a message here, if any of the enquiries needed. Remember, no vandalisms allowed. And also, please sign the talk page with four tildes "~~~~". Thank you for your cooperation.

## Question

I'm curious, do you have your own site or notation yet? Username5243 (talk) 13:45, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

I have my site, but it is still under construction, I will extend the -illions up to Tier 10. (Forgot to sign) ARsygo (talk) 13:47, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

Cool, let me know when it's done, to post the link Username5243 (talk) 13:48, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

Alright, and I will also make my own notation (or hierarchy) based on the chemical element symbols. ARsygo (talk) 13:49, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

## Grand gralgathor

I corrected the approximations in grand gralgathor, specifically the HAN and Hardy hierarchy approximations. You can continue adding approximations to other numbers if you want, we'll fix it if the approximation is wrong. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 14:16, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. I will add approx. in other notations. ARsygo (talk) 14:17, February 2, 2017 (UTC)Not to be confused with grand gralhathor.
ARsygo likes this. ARsygo (talk) 23:13, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

## Category replacement

My idea is using new classification, and throw away the old one. So new size-categories (e.g. Category:Iterated Cantor normal form level) should not be categorized into old ones. What's your opinion? {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 09:38, August 29, 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, yup, you should remove it. ARsygo (talk) 09:42, August 29, 2017 (UTC)

## Congrats

Congrats with your $$2^{2\uparrow^{TREE(3)}2}$$th birthday--Denis Maksudov (talk) 15:40, December 27, 2017 (UTC)

Yup, based on hyper-operator, $$2 ↑^{n} 2$$ where n is any integer from 1 to infinity, the result is always 4. ARsygo (talk) 15:44, December 27, 2017 (UTC)

## Re:Request for deletion

Sorry but I'm not an administrator or content moderator here. 07:04, December 31, 2017 (UTC)

## Approximations of unsourced numbers

Please refrain from adding approximations to numbers in Category:Joyce's unsourced numbers, as you did to Lexxijfa. --84.61.216.30 13:34, March 2, 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's warning worthy, since that isn't disruptive. It would be better to just leave a message that adding approximations for them would be a waste of time since they would be deleted soon. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 13:54, March 2, 2018 (UTC)

## Thousand separator

You have added thousand separators to numbers (≥1000) in approximation tables. Those numbers are not very long, so I don't think it necessary.

In some cases, adding thousand separators (commas) leads to ambiguity. e.g. adding thousand separators to {10,12345}, then we get {10,12,345}, which looks like a 3-entry linear array.

In other cases, adding thousand separators (commas) leads to misunderstanding of the notation. e.g. adding thousand separators to #*((12345))*10, then we get #*((12,345))*10, which implies that we may have 2 entries inside the (()), which is false in the Pound-Star Notation. It can be very misunderstanding if commas are permitted in a notation.

In some special cases, commas never appear as a part of the notation, such as hyper-E notation up to #{#{...#{#}#...}#}#, then we can use commas as thousand separators safely.

You can use other characters, such as space (you may use "\," in MathJax for a short space), as thousand separators if commas are confusing. {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 08:53, March 11, 2018 (UTC)

I know, I did this because another user added commas in approximations. ARsygo (talk) 13:36, March 11, 2018 (UTC)

## Lightspeed Slash Notation?

Have you ever heard of this notation that I came up with called "Lightspeed Slash Notation" or "LSSN"?

PlantStar/Alpineer 19:34, February 24, 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I've heard it. ARsygo (talk) 01:01, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
What is your opinion of it? PlantStar/Alpineer 18:05, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
It's good, but we don't have any Lightspeed Slash Notation articles yet. Let me create an article about your notation, which is based on Bird's array notation (if I'm not mistaken). ARsygo (talk) 09:02, February 28, 2019 (UTC)

It is based on that. Thanks! PlantStar/Alpineer 23:53, March 1, 2019 (UTC)

## Congratulations!

Congratulations on 4,444 edits! Edwin Shade 2 (talk) 16:19, November 9, 2019 (UTC)

## Request for help

can you and your friends help me on power of 2 wiki i cant do this by myself and i have asd, reason i created it bc the future of your genealogy to your descendants you know 2 parents 4 grandparents and large numbers based on it.Fleetave1 (talk) 20:57, April 4, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am... if I'm free. Can you give me a link? ARsygo (talk) 22:22, April 4, 2020 (UTC)

## help me

I'm new to this wiki. What are the rules for making a new article? BlueGoblin565 (talk) 12:41, April 6, 2020 (UTC)

Read the policy given, to avoid any low quality articles, and make sure it must have at least one external source. ARsygo (talk) 12:46, April 6, 2020 (UTC)

## Regiments

Hi. Although I do not know well about the regiment projects in this wiki, people decided to put numbers defined by a single notation/naming system in a single article for "regiments", didn't it? (I have no opinion on this project, but your removement of redirects to articles for regiments conflicts the decision, doesn't it? I am sorry if it is irrelevant to the project.)

p-adic 04:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I actually removed selected redirects to regiments so that I can add approximations in other notations and etymologies, as adding approximations to numbers in regiments articles can slow down the browser. (eg. I removed a redirect on Gargantuulthra-triennexitris to Gugolthra regiment), this was happened when I opened Tethratope regiment, it takes forever for MathJax to render the approximations of that numbers. ARsygo (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I see. Then maybe it is better to keep some log of the reason of the removement, because others will get confused, as I did.
For example, at the talk page of the regiment article.
p-adic 05:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

## About the user

Please check this talk page. I announced Giggolstack that we will revert any of the edits without checking the validity, because the user intentionally ignores any of our suggestions. It is wast of time to check the validity among all edits. So, please revert the user's edit even before you check the validity. We should not waste more time than a vandalist. Thank you.

p-adic 07:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll do it later, as I'm currently busy for now, sorry about that. ARsygo (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Please never mind it now. I just wrote this in order not to have you waste time.
p-adic 07:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

## Proposal related to you

I made an important proposal in the talk page of Googology Wiki:Policy. In the proposal, I am trying to make a rule of viting for an admin. If you do not mind, I would like to ask members voting on whether you will be an admin or not, if the rule will be valid. Is it ok for you? Or do you want somebody else to be a candidate?

p-adic 06:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, as I really needed to become an admin so that I can control some of the vandalisms actually. I just need to read the policy, and I'll get ready for that. ARsygo (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I think that the rules most frequently referred to are the rule for citations (forbidding unsourced contents) and the rule for vandalism (forbidding unconstructive edits and harassments). Please do not be too afraid, as even if you made some mistakes, then other members will tell you.
p-adic 06:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, please note that sometimes I made a mistake, but I'll try not to give up. I only need some of the members' opinions on me as a (soon-to-be) admin. ARsygo (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Now nobody disagreed to add a new rule on voting. So I proposed to hold a voting. It will be held one week later.
p-adic 08:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, I don't care of they are accepting my admin request or not. I'll just wait for the follow-up to the vote soon. ARsygo (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

## Thank you for the deletion

Thank you for deleting my wrong comment following my request!

p-adic 04:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

## Congrats

Congratulations on becoming a sysop, hopefully some of the candidates for deletion can be dealt with faster now... DRC 00:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Sure, I hope that some of the pages or files which are candidates for deletion, can be dealt easily. ARsygo (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

👋 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williy luk (talkcontribs)

Hey there! ARsygo (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

## About the blocking of Ytosk

• I wrote an article about the blocking of Ytosk. I hope you will consider this.
• Hexirp (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

## Question

How to be a admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williy luk (talkcontribs)

read the policy given, as there are a lot of rules to deal with, to avoid any unconstructive edits/vandalisms, and then, active for multple years contributing to this site. And also, please check this page for more info on admins. ARsygo (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Williy luk, maybe try not deleting your warnings without discussion and we'll entertain the idea :) DRC 01:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
First of all, you can contribute to this community without admin right. If you try to contribute to this community using your normal userright, then there might be a day when you will be an admin of this community. So, what is needed now is to unerstand what to do with normal user right. For example, following policy, listening to other users, putting signature, behaving in a polite manner, managing human relation between other users, helping beginners and children, and so on. They are not difficult, and hence are good start points. We support your contribution! (By the way, if you want to be an admin of other communities, you can simply start a new wiki. Then you will be the admin of the new community. I guess that you are not intending this direction.)
p-adic 01:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I remember seeing a similar user whose name was "Williy the numberblocks". Although the account never contributed, does this warrant for a punishment? DRC 03:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
If the user uses the alternative account during the block span, then the alternative account will be perhaps blocked.
p-adic 04:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

## Situation with Williy luk

Williy luk has admitted to being 10 years old, can you block them? DRC 04:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

How do you know that? ARsygo (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
After their name, it says "AKA a 10 years old dum cid". They also have 3 warnings, and will probably use another account to evade the block. DRC 04:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Done block. ARsygo (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Since the blocked user harassed admins after the block, it might better to forbid to edit the talk page and/or expand the block span.
p-adic 10:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll disable the talk page access, as the user anytime harassed some users in the user's talk page. ARsygo (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

## Renaming

I am sorry to ask you involved, but C7X refused to rename the harassment page. Could you rename it as "Googology Wiki:Cloudy's claim" or "Googology Wiki:Cloudy-C7X claim" as I proposed here? Instead, I try to change the situation in order to avoid the abuse of "No firm rules" rule forever. Thank you.

p-adic 05:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

To me, I'll just wait for the others to confirm it, as I don't have enough proof to judge the case. If nobody disagrees, I'll move to that page without leaving a redirect. ARsygo (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. It might be better for you to directly ask someone, who is not involved in this topic in order to be fair, because people who can immediately judge the situation is perhaps already involved.
p-adic 05:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. For suggestions, I would prefer "Googology Wiki:Cloudy's claim". 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 08:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I added more details on the log, as a reply to your comment there.
p-adic 09:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, actually what I don't like is that Cloudy proposed and C7X posted. C7X needs not to be so helpful to this kind of accusation. If Cloudy wanted to accuse someone, he should have written his opinion in his blog post and discuss it there first. After that, if there is a consensus in for accusing someone, it can be put in the mainspace or somewhere if needed. The accusation was discussed in the closed discord space, and suddenly posted in the mainspace of this community. That is why I do not like discussing something related to the community administration in other place than here. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 09:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree with it. In addition, I do not appreciate Cloudy's inappropriate use of "No firm rules" rule in this way.
p-adic 09:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Now, how about renaming it? Since the title looks like saying that we can freely blame me on off-topic contexts in the main space, a user started to blame me that I should not even point out mathematical errors due to the trial to recover "fun" of googology permitting mathematical errors. Since it is a main space article including the biased title, I need to cost my time to deal with the incorrect statement.

Also, please check the argument here. I proposed to block and punish Cloudy due to this incident making this community worse, tone-policing without sufficient consideration, and abuse of "No firm rules" rule. Also, I am proposing to remove or revise "No firm rules" rule in order to abuse it. Thank you.

p-adic 00:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me check the rules again, as ignoring all rules will violate the policy anyway, and gets nothing but worse. So, I think, I'll just wait for C7X to ask about it. ARsygo (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
p-adic 03:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, couple of days have been passed. I guess that C7X does not want to deal with this topic, because then Cloudy might feel bad against C7X. Could you rename the article and remove or revise "No firm rules" rule?
p-adic 11:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

## Report

A blocked user vandalised several user pages:

1. User_talk:Kepler-1229b (The description of "rule" in the warning refers to something which is irrelevant to the policy, and hence the waarning looks invalid.)
2. User_talk:AldebaranGCW (Just death threatening.)

Please remove them. (Especially I cannot remove the warning template.) Thank you.

p-adic 06:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. ARsygo (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
p-adic 00:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

## Remove IRC link

As I wrote in Googology_Wiki_talk:IRC, 3 links to IRC in the top page can be deleted, and no one disagreed so far. As the top page is protected, I ask you to delete them. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 10:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me check the talk page of it first. IRC is no longer active on this wiki, right? ARsygo (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
That's right. I checked #googology channel again and no one was there. People are using discord for chatting. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 13:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
In addition, we are proposing to delete Googology Wiki:Discord and remove links to discord, because currently the discord community is inappropriate, as you know.
p-adic 14:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

## Warning removal

Hey ARsygo, could you remove my warning so people don't get confused? Lilypad Conduct 03:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the warning considered void? ARsygo (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
LightLightsLarLabLiblas is talking about User talk:LightLightsLarLabLiblas#Warning, which was accidentally put by User:Hexirp. According to Hexirp, the warning was just a mistake, as is written right after the warning. (But perhaps Hexirp forgot to ask admins to remove the warning.)
p-adic 03:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

## Move Wikia.css to Common.css

Please move MediaWiki:Wikia.css to MediaWiki:Common.css. See the reason. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 03:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If Person A chases Person B around and attacks them again and again on different threads, how is this anything but harrassment?

I'm talking downright personal attacks here. Not "correcting mistakes" or "pointing errors". Just wild attacks that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread in question, which are repeated again and again and again on every new thread I start.

Why are okay with this?

What possible "additional evidence" you might want to procure before you decide whether to put a stop to this or not?

I'm genuinely asking, and would appreciate a direct reponse. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

So, Since there are so many listed obvious sources of your rude and insulting attitude, you are atrying to hide them by asking here. But it has no effect, because ARsygo actually check both sources. Wow, you have no source on your fakes, while all of my claims on your rude and insulting attitude are sourced!
Also, you are chasing me so many times with rude and insulting words. So, according to you, you are enjoying personal attacks to me. Please be more matured, and just state what you can give sources.
p-adic 22:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
As P進大好きbot mentions before... I'll check the validity of it, as Rayo's number is uncomputable at this point, but also, it says that it's ill-defined based on some of the interpretations, and also, please check what formal logic that makes a beginner a common mistake for those of them who want to create a large number that is not a salad number, nor is a naive extension, so,
have you take a look at Large Number Garden Number, and how is it defined? (The largest well defined googolism, as BIG FOOT is ill-defined) And also, I don't want the attacks here to last, so I hope that you should understand the mistakes. Is it ok right now? (I'm sorry for the late reply) ARsygo (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Plain'N'Simple
As ARsygo clearly explains, it is awful to label that others cannot invent a new number larger than Rayo's number, especially when you do not understand the precise definition. It is just an insulting to others. Since you know that I invented many uncomputable beyond Rayo's number, it is a specific persomal attack. You should apologise your harassment first.
Next, your claims on me are fakes. You insisted that you are referring to philosophy and I did not understand it. But, as I explained with an obvious source, I have asked several times the possibility that you are referring to philosophy rather than mathematically correct notions. Then you clearly denied them, and clarified that you are referring to mathematically correct notions. Moreover, you insisted that I should not consider that possibility. In that case, your statement that you were referring to philosophy and I did not understand is just a fake. In addition, you insisted that I did not pay effort to understand you. But according to this incident, it is clear that I cost time to understand the possibility that you are talking about philosophy, while you really did not listen to me and started harassments.
I can list sources of your rude attitude here, if ARsygo allows. You should be matured, stop harassments, and sincerely apologise ALL of your rude attitudes. Since this is not the first time, admins will judge you.
@ARsygo
I have many sources of Plain'N'Simple's harassments. He frequently personally attacks me when I point out his errors, like saying "You should pay more time", "You are not paying effort to understand others", and so on even after my patient trial to explain his errors for almost one year. Even now, he insisted again that I did not pay effort to understand him. Please judge him. If the thread looks too long, then I can correct the sources also here. Thank you!
p-adic 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@ARsygo
I'll be happy to do my best to cool things down. And if you list specific mistakes that you think I need to correct, I'll be happy to look into it seriously.
Is that sufficient? And if I keep my word and you see that I'm serious, will you tell P-bot to calm down too?
Here is the most surreal thing about this situation: I can tell you with 100% confidence, that if P-bot and I sat down and talked about things calmly for 5 minutes, this misunderstanding would resolve itself. And then we will all laugh at how stupid the current situation is, and how we've had this huge fight over absolutely nothing. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@Plain'N'Simple
To me, there are some mistakes that are needed to be understood via the common mistakes blog post. But, I can't list them until I checked the mistake of it. ARsygo (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand. You're saying I've made mistakes, and you don't know what those mistakes are? If so, how do you know that they are mistakes? Plain'N'Simple (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Oops, now I know it, via common failures blog post, the mistakes are:
1. Incomplete Original Logic
2. Intuitive Definability
3. Intuitive Truth Predicate

Does the lists make it clear? ARsygo (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No, unless you refer to a specific statement of mine which made these errors.
There is a subtle complexity here which you are not aware of, and which will become crystal clear once we concentrate on one specific example. Doesn't matter which example. The important thing is to have something concrete to talk about. You'll understand why, once we do. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@ARsygo

Please check this comment. He is trying to finish his issue without apologising for ALL of what he did, including the harassment by the rude labeling that I cannot create a number larger than Rayo's number.

He is intentionally suspending the apology, as if I also did something wrong. I asked him to clarify the evidence of his claim on what I have done, but as you see, he only give unsourced fake like "This all started in a year-old discussion, where I was talking about philosophical things like "the nature mathematical truth" and P-bot, some how, misunderstood non-exact statements in english to mean (wrong) statements in mathematics. ", which I have already disproved by showing that it is a made-up rant.

So, if his next action does not include the apology to each of his bad attitudes, please judge him. I do not hope him to waste my and your time by his ignoring the actual issues. Also, persuading him on mathematics is not effective, as I tried to do so for one year. The result was that he started to insist that I should spend more time and that I have never spent time to listen to him. It is quite unfair that we should spend more time to have him judged. One year is sufficient, right? Moreover, I have already told that he is not ready for this topic, and explicitly told what textbook he should read before persisting the elementary errors. (I note that it is well-known that formal logic is so difficult that intuitive understanding can be quite harmful. So, unless he studies basic foundation in a precise manner, he will continue to yield so many errors. Therefore it is unreasonable to list his errors again and again. At least, I have listed his recent errors here, but there are so many similar errors. We are not his private teachers, and hence he should not ask us to spend more time.) So, what he needs is not to make you teach his failures, but to study in a step-by-step way if he honestly wants to improve himself.

p-adic 12:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that P-bot commented the mistakes in the blog post (with highlighting'), so please, please apologise to the user, before it gets worse, as we don't want the community to be deserted (means less page views). ARsygo (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
ARsygo, I agree with every item on P-bot's list. I am not trying to argue for some alternative crackpot version of mathematics.
And yes, I apologize for doing a lousy job of explaining myself and blaming P-bot for not understanding something which I've poorly explained. I also admit to making some actual errors due to overconfidence, which I've since then corrected.
Is that sufficient? Plain'N'Simple (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
> I apologize for doing a lousy job of explaining myself and blaming P-bot for not understanding something which I've poorly explained.
Good progress. Actually best in your attitudes in these days as far as I know. But unfortunately, you apologised only for one issue, mainly related to the issue 2 in the list, while you admitted that all the issues are correct. Why don't you apologise for the other issues? Admitting the issues is obviosly insufficient, When a thief stole money, then is it sufficient for the thief to admit the fact of the stealing? No way. The thief should return the money. Similarly, if you harassed others, it is insufficient for you to admit the fact of the harassments. You should apologise for all the harassments. Could you understand it this time? In order to avoid the repetition, what you need is to introspect what you did, instead of just admitting what you did.
p-adic 14:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I note that I have already listed his mathematical mistakes here. So, his requirement for you to list mathematical errors is really unreasonable, and is wasting your precious time. For example, he persisted that he was correct for his mistake 13 (Either NBG+Con(NBG) or NBG+Neg(Con(NBG)) are inconsistent), and hence created a blog post here. I guessed that he was still misunderstanding the statement of Godel's theorem, and politely commented so here with a possible way to understand the failure. Then he closed the comment by saying "I'll just ask somewhere else.", and insisted "Instead, I got the usual garbage of "you conflate X with Con(X)" which had absolutely nothing to do with my error." even though the actual mistake was the confusing of the statement of Godel's theorem, as I first pointed out.
So, please strictly judge if his next first action is not actual apology to ALL of his bad attitudes. Otherwise, it is really waste of time.
p-adic 12:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
To Plain'N'Simple, it is sufficient, so far, and also, is there any other mistakes that needs to be apologised? ARsygo (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand why he apologised only for the issue 2 even though I listed nine issues and he admitted that the issues are correct...
p-adic 14:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
ARsygo, I'm not willing to pretend that this is a one-sided issue where only I need to apologize. There's plenty of blame to be laid on both sides.
I've given the first olive branch. I've stopped being confrontational. I apologized for some things. I've done all of this unconditionally, even though P-bot remains hostile and continues to claim that I'm liar and that 100% of the blame is mine.
So I'm sorry, this is the best I can do at this point. Now the ball is in P-bot's court.
I will also point out that so far, I wasn't even given the chance to explain myself mathematically. Yes, this is relevant. Part of the reason that things got so heated, is the presisting assumption that I don't understand really basic things, like the difference between Con(X) [a statement about the existence of an integer that is the Goedel encoding of the proof "0=1" in X] and "X is consistent" [a statement about theory X].
As you can see, I do understand the difference between the two things. If either you or P-bot want to question me further on this, I have no objection. If you want an explanation of why I would say the opposite in a certain context, I'll be happy to explain. And this time, I'll be extra careful to make myself clear.
Since:
1. We are all interested in googology and in mathematics.
2. These quirks of formal set theory are amazingly interesting.
This will - no doubt - be far more pleasant than what we are doing right now. I also think that it will be far more effective in making amends then any apology ritual, but I guess there's no harm in doing both simulatneously. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
One more thing: Having such a discussion would also have the advantage of clarifying any actual misconceptions I might have, and as an added bonus everybody could learn something from it. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
> ARsygo, I'm not willing to pretend that this is a one-sided issue where only I need to apologize. There's plenty of blame to be laid on both sides.
Huh? I asked you to precisely cite what sentence you blamed me for several times. First, you insisted a fake "This all started in a year-old discussion, where I was talking about philosophical things like "the nature mathematical truth" and P-bot, some how, misunderstood non-exact statements in english to mean (wrong) statements in mathematics. ", which I have already disproved, and hence I do not have to apologise for it. Even worse, you should apologise for the insulting fake. Next, you just ignored the request. Then what do I have to apologise? As I have clarified, I cannot apologise for what I have never done. Stop insisting as if I also do something wrong, unless you cite a precise sentence.
> I've given the first olive branch. I've stopped being confrontational. I apologized for some things.
As I clarified, you have not apologised ALL of your rude attitudes. You have apologised only the issue 2 in the nine issues. There are more issues, but I kindly restricted to nine issues. Why should we allow you even when you are unreasonably refusing the apology?
> I've done all of this unconditionally, even though P-bot remains hostile and continues to claim that I'm liar and that 100% of the blame is mine.
Here, you told another lie. I clarified that I want to know the precise sentence which you are blaming for, and you have never done it. I clarified that I cannot apologise for what I do not know. If you picked up one existing sentence, then I would justify it or apologise it. However, you refused it and start labeling that I continue to claim that 100% of the blame is yours. Stop insisting that I am also inappropriate, unless you specify the precise sentence.
@ARsygo
How many times should I ask him to apologise for ALL of the rude attitudes, and should I be harassed by the claim for what he is refusing to specify? I am asking him to cite the exact sentence which I inappropriately wrote, but he does not listen to it. Even then, he insists that I should apologise for it. It is impossible, because I am not an esper. Now he is still continuing to force me to "understand what he is not explaining", as he always did. Well, as he always does this under the assumption that I am always doing something wrong, could you please point out that he should apologise for ALL, and should cite a specific senetence for what he is blaming? He sometimes listens to others when they say something essentially the same as my claim. So, I hope that he can listen to you. Also, this is really wasting our time. If he continues to this inappropriate attitudes, please make him stop.
p-adic 22:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@P-bot
You continue to call my attempts to explain myself "fake" and accuse me of being a liar. What's even the point of me trying to explain anything if you label it "fake" anyway?
@ARSygo
P-bot is correct that this is a waste of time.
Neither P-bot or myself are on trial here for "general bad attitudes". Whatever personal issues we might have with one another, is something that we may or may not resolve on our own. But it is completely irrelevant to the reason I've come to you (which is the topic of this thread).
My complaint was (and is) that P-bot is "warning" people (mostly beginners) that I'm "misleading" them with my "misconceptions", and refuses to put these claims of his to any kind of test.
What I'm asking here is for a chance to set things straight and prove that his claims about me are wrong. Given the fierceness of P-bot's "warnings" and their frequency, I don't think this is an unreasonable request. I'm open to suggestions as to how to do this exactly, but this needs to be resolved. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@ARsygo

As you see, he always refuses to specify the precise sentence which is written by me. It is really inappropriate, because it avoids precise discussion. Also, he is insisting that his statements are not fakes, while I disproved them. It is also unreasonable.

Summary:

1. He harassed many users, and he is agreeing with the fact.
2. He refuses to apologise for ALL of the harassment due to the reason "I'm not willing to pretend that this is a one-sided issue where only I need to apologize". It is quite unreasonable, because he is the only one person who has been given a specific issue to apologise. If nobody else has ever been requested to aplogise for a precise citation of what he or she wrote, then he or she cannot apologise for it.
3. He insisted that I did something bad, and requested you to judge me without showing evidences.
4. I clearly asked him to cite the precise sentences several times.
5. The only sentence which he picked up was an obvious fake, as I showed.
6. He has never apologised to blaming me for the fake and requesting you to judge me by the fakes. It is quite unreasonable, because people should be responsible for both their intentional or unintentional fakes.
7. He is now insisting that I should not point out the fakes. It is quite unreasonable. If I should not clarify that his claims are fakes, then should I apologise for what I have never done? Why?

Quite illogical. What I am doing is clarifying that his statements are fakes by showing evideces, while he has never shown correct citation.

What he is doing is essentially the suspension of discussion by equiponderating him, who harassed others and spread fakes, and me, who is one of the victims and is trying to disprove his fakes. We do not need the shift of goalpost any more. Please judge him, as his immatured refusing of apology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by P進大好きbot (talkcontribs)

To me, does the warning template make sense to prevent the situation from getting worse? Because, I think I don't have time to solve the problem as I'm currently busy as well... ARsygo (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
It is OK for me, because he has more than three harassments. But this returns to the topic proposed Googology Wiki talk:Policy#Blanking user talk page, which has not been solved. Could you revise the rule of the warning template so that the wimultaneous warnings for three violations to a single obvious rule (e.g. harassment) before the first warning? The restriction that we should not warn a user for two or more violation is given to avoid the case where the user does not know the rule. But obvious rules on vandalism and harassment should be exceptions. After you revised it, then I can put the template.
p-adic 02:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@ARsygo, if you don't time the to deal with this, why didn't you say so? Could have us saved a lot of trouble.
And I don't see how I am "harassing" anybody just by refusing to continue this madness. The situation has gone completely out of hand, which is precisely why I'm bowing out of it.
As for the idea that I deserve some kind of warning: You are the admin. I am at your mercy. I would like to point out that I haven't violated any FANDOM rules and that a heated two-sided discussion does not constitute "harassment". I would also like to point out that I did everything I could to de-escalate the situation (within reason). But I will respect your decision, whatever it is. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Good to know that you even cannot understand your rude insulting such as:
1. The offensive calling-out: "a person who is this toxic and judgemental"
2. The offensive rant: "Instead, I got the usual garbage of "you conflate X with Con(X)" which had absolutely nothing to do with my error."
3. The fake labeling: "Yes. You have spent so much time explaining, the you haven't any time left to listen."
4. The fake labeling: "You stop listening, you start making wild assumptions about what the other person is thinking."
5. The insult based on the fake labelings above: "It's rude, it's condescending, and worst of all: It's a complete waste of time, because no actual discussion is taking place."
6. The offensive rant: "So now you say that you don't want to do that anymore? Good! Then stop! Nobody likes it when you do that. And stop borrowing this toxic baggage of yours from thread to thread, alright?"
7. The offensive rant: " "(and to the others: if P-bot doesn't stop, I'll still do my best not to play along. It's pointless, unpleasant, and unfair to everybody)""
This explains why you always harass others. You just do not know what you should not say. It makes sense.
p-adic 12:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

## Report

A new user is insisting that he or she is the blocked user User:Muhammad Bukhari Noor. It means that the user is an alternative account of a blocked user...

p-adic 13:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, User:UnnamedFish has gotten three warnings.

p-adic 13:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Both of the actions are done. ARsygo (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. (And I feel sorry that you are so busy in this community in these days...)
p-adic 13:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Another user is clarifying that he or she is an alternative account of the blocked user here. Perhaps it is kind of a vandal who is glad to have attention from others, and hence I think that it is good to silently block alternative accounts without informing each time to the user.

p-adic 12:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

So, can I just block the user without waiting the others to post the evidence that is a spam? ARsygo (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Right. For the blocking, the user himself or herself is insisting that he or she is a spam, i.e. an alternative account of the blocked user. (On the other hand, for the deletion of a blog post, we should be careful, I think. Since the two users can imediately show evidences if they are correct, I think that we can wait.)
p-adic 13:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Another new user who is insisting to be an alternative account of a blocked user.
p-adic 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Because of that, I will enable autoblock of the IP. ARsygo (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I see. (I do not know whether it is effective or not, though.) Well, I noticed that writing a blog post and comments during the blocking using an alternative account itself is invalid. Therefore we can safely delete it before waiting the evidence of the two users, I think.
p-adic 15:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Alright, now, I already autoblocked the IP to avoid any new accounts from being created. Tomorrow, I'll check the content of it ARsygo (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Following your proposal, I added to the user's talk page the warning templates. Please check them. In order to make the discussion clearer for you and future users, I added related data with precise citations. Thank you very much for dealing with this tiresome incident. I hope that this community will be much better.

p-adic 14:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I check it tomorrow? because I'm actually tired, and need to rest. ARsygo (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Sure!
p-adic 15:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

## Reason for blocking

P's behavior is basically identical to that listed in the Wikipedia page WP:SANCTIONGAME. P's comments were clearly quite pragmatically offensive to Psi, given Psi's explanations and responses. Then, eight warnings on Psi's page after claiming P had followed them around the wiki, hadn't let things go, etc., and all over some mathematical errors and Psi falsely claiming to fix things after a year? Also through private contact, Psi said that they were afraid of using this wiki due to recent events. I have had no choice but to stop this behavior, as I strongly believe it's gaming the system. C7X (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, what is the meaning of "sanction game"? Never heard of it before. ARsygo (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia's internal articles have abbreviations that redirect to them (sometimes almost nonsensical, like "WP:BEANS" being a real article), the phrase "sanctiongame" doesn't mean anything. It redirects to the "Sanctions" section on "Gaming the rules". C7X (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I see. Anyway, I just read the how-to guide for bureaucrats, and you can actually promote me to become a bureaucrat, before your account gets deleted. I'm gonna stay in this wiki until I achieved 10,000 edits. ARsygo (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
You've been a responsible user and the only active admin, so I will. C7X (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for promoting me to become a bureaucrat. ARsygo (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

## P-bot's warnings from my talk page

Why is P-bot even allowed to give warnings regarding a dispute that he is part of? Plain'N'Simple (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know what is going on right now, as I think I started to have a headache thinking of what's happening to this wiki, it should be solved in a normal and professional way. ARsygo (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this should be solved in a normal and professional way. Not with shouting, demands for apologies, and spamming my talk page with warnings that no admin bothered to check. The last one is a very serious abuse of power, and is the sole reason that Pbot was blocked.

Please remove these warnings. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm removing them myself. They are illegal and I do not recognize their authority. Let's get this wiki back on track. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just fell asleep a while ago, I hope that you can alert if any of the users vandalised our wiki. ARsygo (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Nope. All is calm. Oh, and don't worry about this wiki dying. People are just abit shell-shocked after the last couple of days. Give it a bit of time, and the wiki will recover. We've had far far worse situations in the past, and we survived.
By the way, if you want to talk, I'll be happy to. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

## About pbot blocking around

For my future study, can I ask some questions? This is not intended to persuade your and C7X's decision, just in curiosity. If you don't want to answer or tired, you can ignore this or answer this when you are ready.

1. It seems that C7X thought Psi's comment that ​"the OP also won't be able to Create a number larger than Rayo in the forseeable future" and other comments pointed out by pbot as insults or harassments were not insults or harassments actually. Can I hear your thoughts about this?
1. According to pbot's log, you didn't strongly deny about pbot putting the warnings, that was judged as the reason for blocking pbot. If the situation were slightly different - the person were permitted (strongly agreed (so this is not your case)) from another for taking actions, and result in blocking the person, is there any responsibility for another who permitted the person for taking actions?

Thank you. Kanrokoti (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

## Wiki Logo and stuff

Here is a list of all things destroyed by Fandom:

• The website lost its double arrow logo.
• The website lost its old googology logo here.
• The website lost its 000,000,000 background.

Would you please repair these things? Zongshu Wu 02:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll check and update the logo back, but I don't know how to regain the ",000,000,000" background as I don't see the option to upload that. ARsygo (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

This is the last week that you can do this. At least try. There should be some option in the wiki design pages to upload a background (the ,000). Look on the tutorials on Community Central or something if you can't find it. I have uploaded the old background here: Zongshu Wu 07:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there any link to the tutorial page? I need to do it ASAP. ARsygo (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Special:ThemeDesigner Just go here Zongshu Wu 07:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Um, the background looks twice as large as normal, perhaps you used File:Background.png instead of File:Background.jpeg? Also, plz change the googology logo to the black version, this one is pretty hard to see: [1]

Zongshu Wu 14:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me fix it tomorrow, I guess I'll try to change the logo to black, but the dark mode doesn't look right at all. So, with the current logo, it looks right when in dark mode, actually, it makes more sense than making it black. I'll do it tomorrow once I get back up. ARsygo (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

## Contact request

So many articles recently created by User:Trakaplex such as Kenvexintovo- include red links, which violate Googology Wiki:Policy#Links, and unsourced descriptions of unsourced numbers, which violate Googology Wiki:Policy#Citations. I asked the user twice to fix the errors, but the user is continuing to create new articles with the same issue. Perhaps somewhy my comments are not automatically notified to the user. Could you ask the user to remove red links and unsourced descrptions, and stop to create new articles including them instead of me? Thank you.

p-adic 12:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess, when the user talk page is notified, it will have a notification on the bottom right, but since the Wiki migrated to UCP, it's no longer shown. So, my best chance is to notify the user, and let the user fix the template, as the template is still broken, actually. ARsygo (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, did the notification appear the bottom right? I did not know that. Anyway, thank you!
p-adic 13:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Trakaplex continues to add unsourced descriptions of unsourced numbers. Perhaps it is good to remove all of them by the admin tool, so that the user notice the violation.

p-adic 22:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the unsourced description refers to this article? ARsygo (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Right, I meant the article. It contains an unsourced description on an unsourced number "duovigintiducentillion", and other articles by the user contain such information, too. (I notified the user not to add such informatin, but the user does not check it.) If we allow to add unsourced descriptions of unsourced numbers, then we need to allow a vandal to add unsourced descriptions "This number is smaller than GreatestNumberInTheWorldillion" on an unsourced number "GreatestNumberInTheWorldillion" to existing articles.
p-adic 23:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

## Another contact request

I have explained to User:MultiSoul that we should not add unsourced contents, but you can see that the user is repeating to add unsourced contents. Could you notify the policy to the user instead of me, because my comments are perhaps not notified? Also, it might be good to ask you to revert the user's edits, because admins can easily do so by an administration tool. Thank you.

p-adic 05:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I notified to the user, already. And also, the administration tool is basically admin dashboard, right? ARsygo (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Uh, I meant an administration tool supported in FANDOM. If you have never instralled this tool, I recomend you to instrall it because it drastically helps you to maintain articles. For example, you can revert all edits by a single user in a period by pushing one button. It is helpful when you deal with destructions by a vandal or accidental mistakes by a new user.
p-adic 06:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I see, thank you for it. I applied it to my common.js script, and it worked, by having a quick tools button. I'll just wait and see if the user replied a message, but, if doesn't, I'll just use my quick tool instead. (Note: personal JavaScript must be turned on in order to work) ARsygo (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

## Contact request

A new user User:B0123S6a made an unconstructive removal based on a personal preference. Could you kindly tell the user not to do this? Thank you.

p-adic 23:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I'll just leave a message to the user. Thank you for noticing. ARsygo (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
EDIT: I note that the user removed an existing explanation, but did not add an unsourced content. Sorry for the ambiguity.
p-adic 02:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
So, can I remove the description on the talk page or keep it? ARsygo (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that it is better to replace the advice not to add unsourced contents by an advice not to remove an existing explanation. (Sometimes people remove helpful explanations because they do not like or do not understand those, but allowing it causes an edit war.)
p-adic 02:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

## Contact request

User:Fenzzz is repeating to construct unsourced articles. Could you explain that the user should stop it? I suspect that there are several users who do not understand suggestions by others than admins...

p-adic 02:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, it seems that the user got 3 warnings as well. Can I block the user? ARsygo (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not putting warning templates, and hence the warning rule is not directly applicable. So, it depends on whether you think that the user can be considered to be block by community decision.
p-adic 05:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)