- Okay, but only about Googology. Have anything in mind? Hat Guy II (talk) 21:15, September 24, 2018 (UTC)
Attention Googowogy Wiki >w<
Youw wiki is undew seige and pawts of it wiww be deweted and wepwaced with this message thuswy. Wesistance is futiwe. This is nyot to fuwfiww a pewsonyaw vendetta ow to seek my own amusement, it is so that you may weawn to bettew up this pwace - ow ewse thewe shaww be nyothing to bettew up.
I expect you to begin by deweting aww bwog posts of an unyowiginyaw nyatuwe and moving them to the usew’s usewpages. Nyext, you wiww give this wiki a bannyew gwaphic and change the backgwound to a mowe appeawing pattewn.
Untiw you do this thewe wiww be a siege of 125 accounts, aftew which if you have stiww nyot compwied - fuwthew measuwes wiww be taken. You have a choice, make the wight onye.
^^ awwww, isn't he swo cuteee! talk) 19:46, October 9, 2018 (UTC)(
I hope I'm not too late for you FC0 contest "thingy". Here's my entry: https://googology.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:QuasarBooster/FC0_greedy_lists QuasarBooster (talk) 05:31, December 21, 2018 (UTC)
You deleted the mark for a candidate for deletion in this page without any arguments on the reason to delete it. As I wrote in the reason, the problem is not just that the OCF is unspecified, but that it might not exist. We need to be responsible for the description "Michael Rathjen's ordinal collapsing function \(\psi\) is used here" in the article, and hence please write your opinion on why it is better to keep the article in the talk page. Thanks.
p-adic 03:48, June 14, 2019 (UTC)
Again why did you revert the edit without arguing or solving the existsing problem? The problem is not that the OCF is unspecified or ill-defined. Marking it as an uspecified or ill-defined OCF is worse, because it can cause the confusion that Rathjen had created an ill-defined OCF. It is not responsible. Even if you add description on the policy page, it does not effect the fact that the article might contain a wrong information abount Rathjen.
p-adic 23:43, June 14, 2019 (UTC)
Please stop making an article just by copying your blog post which obviously contains errors. If you could not understand problems which has already been pointed out, then carefully study the topic before just ignoring problems. "Introduction" containing errors is just harmful.
p-adic 12:57, August 9, 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, I will fix it later, and study BMS more, I also put that there so people could point out mistakes. --ubersketch📞 14:55, August 9, 2019 (UTC)
- Although it might not be an acceptable fact, it is good time to notice that many statements and definitions which you believe to be correct are wrong, since you have experienced that almost all blog contents contain serious mistakes. You might not even understand what are wrong, but I would like to honestly tell you that you actually misunderstand many stuffs. I hesitate to say this, but you seem to be writing explanations of difficult things which you just learned in a few days without suffient understandings. Then someday, people will give up to point out errors, because it is not helpful. It does not mean that your manuscripts contain no mistakes. Actually, I am nearly on the way to give up to correct your errors. If you want to help beginners, it is bad for you to write a fake "introduction" based on such insufficient knowledge or experience. I advice you to learn carefully again what you regard as "elementary" for you. Then you will be a better googologists who can teach beginners well, because you have good ability to try to study new things. I am sorry for telling you not so happy suggestion, but I strongly believe that it is a better choice for you. Thank you.
- p-adic 22:24, August 9, 2019 (UTC)