Please learn what a source of a property means. Please study what the first or a peer-reviewed source means. A souce of a certain property X of a given number N is not necessarily the first or a peer-reviewed souce of another property Y of N or another number M. Could you understand? Please cite the first or a peer-reviewed source at the precise location. Thank you. Also, read the site polocy to learn what can be a valid source. Do not refer to Numberpedia as a valid source.
p-adic 06:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Could you study what a source means instead of ignoring all mistakes?
p-adic 09:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I was asked to leave a message here, and I'm otherwise relatively busy, so I'll try to hopefuly keep this short. Some of the edits on the Extensible Illion System page were seen as unconstructive and reverted, especially the blanking edit. The main reason about this edit in particular is that the mainspace is intended to be more formal than blog posts and personal sites, so blanking a page to abandon a notation is discouraged. However, I personally don't like the tone of some of PBot's edits, such as this edit, which don't seem to be in a neutral point of view intended for the mainspace either. Another possible reason is the alleged changing of retrieval dates (although I didn't find the original edit), which are intended to be for archive purposes. C7X (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Most of this wiki uses MathJax to render formulae, however if you prefer native formulae then you can write a script on your common.js to replace all "\(" and "\)" with math tags C7X (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
No need. The reason I preferred math tags was just because I was worried that the Mathjax formulas would not render again, like last time. But now they're working fine, so I'll just switch to them. Nirvana Supermind (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The user P進大好きbot has reported about harassment, such as claiming that they have no contributions on googology. Also about the FGH page edits, you had blanked the page in this edit, but I didn't count it as vandalism because it was probably a mistake, and also you reverted the mistake later C7X (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct about the edit. Nirvana Supermind (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- There's been an edit war on the article for Pehan Notation, including removal of information in this edit. P進大好きbot has again asked me to remind you to avoid removing information and edit warring C7X (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- P進大好きbot is really starting to get on my nerves. You should stop listening to them, their edits are having a worse and worse tone as time progresses.
Edit: On the Pehan notation edit war, someone joined me called FundementalSeq and he seems to share the same view as me onP進大好きbot.
Nirvana Supermind (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- The same view? No way. He just has one opinion that the article should be cleaned up, and I also proposed some cleaning. The reason why I reverted is because we should hold a discussion before deciding the cleaning. I clarified the reasn and a suggestion. On the other hand, what you did is jus a vandalism. I asked you not to ignore the talk page, but you never listen. (In addition, two of your edits are just unconstructive, as you just removed the information that the known issue was solved and you replaced "has" by "have", which is a wrong grammer in the sentence.) Stop cheating.
- p-adic 07:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
P進大好きbot asked me to warn you again about some contributions, including this and this. I also dislike some of P進大好きbot's edits as well, for example trying to call people out on their mainspace categories. I've been asked to deal with this, however only to ban you in the case of any future irresponsible intent. C7X (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Your edit here has been reverted because it had no source or proof (and also was incorrect, for example [2,3] is also ill-defined). Seriously, please stop adding unsourced/removing sourced things from the mainspace. C7X (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Some edits on the page Schmittyillion are given as fake descriptions by p-adic, and they also conflict with the original revision of the page here. Although the description was changed, giving evidence for your interpretation C7X (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Update: P-adic is right about the implied multiplication. The error seems to happen in this edit, where x-1[3*10] is stated to be equal to x * (-1*[3*10]). However, as p-adic pointed out, x-1 refers to the unique y such that y+1=x, not x*-1=-x.
- As I wrote this message, I realized the problem with my original interpretation of Trakaplex's source: The "*" symbols, delimiting italics, didn't show up properly, and instead the number is given as "10^310^310... a googol minus 2 more times raised to the 4182001". So I also thought it said "310" C7X (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
You are repeating the following:
- Removing sourced correct descriptions in articles without any discussion by other contributors. (Violating Googology_Wiki:Policy#Vandalism and Googology Wiki:Policy#Edit War)
- Adding unsourced fake descriptions in articles without any proof. (Violating Googology Wiki:Policy#Citation)
- Moving articles without any discussion with other contributors. (Violating Googology Wiki:Policy#Edit War)
Why do you persist to violate policy? Seriously, think about the reason why we have policy. This community had a serious vandalism one or two years ago, which made many users left. After then, we are trying to maintain this community in many ways. Clarification of guidelines to follow is one of the examples. Why do you intentionally try to violate policy? Wikia is a place for people to colaborate, but not a place for personally enjoying to pollute contributions by others. If you continue it, then it simply decline your honour. Why don't you concentrate at your googological work instead of vandalism? If you did, then we would simply help you. Why do you want to halm others instead?
p-adic 01:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Stop removal without any discussion
You should not ignore rules any more. I explained it so many times.
p-adic 08:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a violation of the rules too. Wow... I must contact an admin privately to ban you.
Nirvana Supermind (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Stop repeating removal without any discussion
p-adic 09:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
If you (a user with no privileges) can warn someone, I can too. Nirvana Supermind (talk)
Stop repeating to use an obsolete format
Wait this a violation of the rules? Why cannot you have told me earlier? Sorry, I will revert back. Do not listen to p-adic, they're making you a puppet.
Nirvana Supermind (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
UPDATE: You blocked me? Yeah, I'm gonna get to the contact part... Nirvana Supermind (talk)
- > Why cannot you have told me earlier?
- This has been mentioned before, for example here and here. I don't want to ignore the possibility that this could have bene an honest mistake though, but I have to follow policy including https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Alphabet_notation?diff=312932&oldid=312930[ this] extra unwarned edit, also about math tags, in that case.
- > Do not listen to p-adic, they're making you a puppet.
- I made sure to check the rules and the edits in question myself
- > You blocked me?
- Three violations of policy is a block no less than 3 months, according to policy. C7X (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)