Hello, Cedar101, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.
* The curly brackets enclose the function and the semicolon separates statements (meaning the [[function (programming)|function]] could have been written on a single line: <source
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to OttoQL may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
mit NAME: AGE>20 # '''with''': selection
' by ''AGE'' or ''WEIGHT''. The following two conditions select in both lists: ''mit NAME, AGE: AGE>20'' resp. ''mit AGE>20''.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Associative array may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Broadcast Markup Language has been nominated for deletion by a user who is involved in trying to delet the BeerXML article and is now trawling Wikipedia for other articles to delete because they are losing that debate and feel that if other XML derived standards are deleted it might help them win the argument they are losing. Please challenge its deletion if you feel this is an unnacceptable. Regards Devils In Skirts! (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hello world program examples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Accumulator. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The Motorola 6800 microprocessor is an 8-bit microprocessor while the Motorola 68000 is a 16/32 bit microprocessor. While some of the instructions are the same most are different. When you add source lang="68000devpac" less than half the instructions show up in color. I have removed the change. - SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big data, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks. Unfortunately no expansions or explanations are given. I guess that many of them only mean something to those who know about that language. But it does explain why people have been altering the previously-valid lang=html4strict and lang=html5 to lang=html. It's also justification to fix up several of Technical 13 (talk·contribs)'s edits where they insisted on using lang=BibTex for wiki markup (e.g. here), which (three times) I asked them not to. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there info written up on any help page on Wikipedia about using <source> versus <pre> versus <code>, etc.? If not, could you all add something to one of the relevant help pages? --Timeshifter (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had seen this before reverting (even though I might have reverted anyway). Basically, my concern is that I see no change, having tested it on two devices; one with a 1600px screen and the other with an 800px screen. Also, according to mw:Extension:SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi, "moin" is not implemented yet.
Anyway, if you think my revert was unjustified, I am all ears. (I assure you, you will not have edit warring problems with me.)
Thanks Redrose64. I noticed Cedar101 making changes on help pages, and so I googled it and found lang=wikitext listed as OK somewhere. Nice to have a pair of shortcuts. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for updating the Matrix splitting article. I created the page a few years ago, but that was before I knew how to use NumBlk and EquationRef, so I kludged it. Since then, I have gone back and cleaned up some of my work, but I evidently missed that article. Happy editing! — Anita5192 (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In such a case (I, l case), it makes sense to use <math> or the templates. In any case, it is considered disruptive to change the format without establishing the consensus to do so. Before undergoing any format change, please justify why such a change is needed. -- Taku (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support @TakuyaMurata:. You are going through articles introducing changes in the formatting that are undesirable and very questionable under Wikipedia:Math#TeX_vs_HTML. I have undone some of your edits, but there are too many for me to undo them all.
I ask you to get a consensus of editors to support your changes before making any further such edits to Wikipedia. 86.181.148.81 (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add another comment. Longstanding practice allows for articles to use HTML/wikicode formatting for math -- it is completely acceptable. Unless there is a specific consensus that a particular article should change, the style that has already been established should be preserved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having the quality of a printed book is an excellent goal, but it is not a Wikipedia priority. Other issues, such as HTML rendering in general, prevent it from happening any time soon. Stability of formatting is important to many people, however. It is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia to use HTML/wikicode to format math (like this: C = 2πr). Many editors prefer that method for short formulas, because it helps the mathematics font match the text font, which is more like what would be found in printed books. Please don't make wholesale changes from one format to the other solely for the sake of change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why the mathematics font match the text font? On the contrary, the mathematical equations in most technical printed books have been set up using seperately mathematical fonts. In HTML, We have MathML stardard. All modern web browsers support it. The equations by MathML is a part of HTML5 semantic markup. -- Cedar101 (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are making changes to the way Wikipedia displays mathematics. Many of those changes are opposed by some editors. You do not have a right to impose your opinions on Wikipedia. If you believe that the changes you have been making are for the better, it is up to you to convince other editors: e.g. by getting the relevant Wikipedia policies changed. There is a procedure for this.
If you continue to make opposed edits, without first establishing a consensus, I will report you to the Wikipedia administrators. It is very likely that you will be temporarily banned. If you continue, you may be permanently banned.
For myself, I like some of your edits and dislike others. But I do not get to impose my opinions any more than you, or indeed any individual editor. Your most-recent edit, to Cobweb plot, looks to be improper; I have reverted it.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Name mangling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorphism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
There's still a problem splitting the sample assembly listting in Assembly language - the line numbers and (more importantly) the oblect code still don't line up with the corresponding source lines. This shows up both on my iPad and on a PC with Firefox. Perhaps you can force some blank lines into the object code (nbsp) to force alignment? Peter Flass (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my all desktop systems(IE with PC and Safari, Chrome and Firefox with Mac), the source codes are aliged rightly. Anyway, I replaced the code text to the image. -- Cedar101 (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Subtyping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contravariance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flagship compiler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pascal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I reverted your edit changing the Hello World example to be printed using lang=factor. Factor isn't quite forth, and there's no point in changing one of several examples in the article to use that highlighting. I suspect if you change all the examples in the article, you'll eventually run into the syntactical differences between forth and factor, so it's better to not try to use that. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you've still got an issue about syntax highlighting? Why? We're not using it, so it's not broken. When we used it, it was broken. - Denimadept (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it took you so much effort to use shows the highlighting module isn't worth using. I'm impressed you forced it to work anyway, but I think it was a lot of effort for no purpose. - Denimadept (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed your edits and have a remark. Many of them are using obsolete markup that shoul not be used, such as "valign" in tables. I'd like to ask you to stop using such (old HTML) markup and use style attributes instead. Also, for editability, please leave the formatting (such as in Wikipedia:LaTeX symbols) on multiple lines instead of using a single line; it makes manual editing much easier. Thank you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}10:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out before, please do not randomly convert the way math is formatted in articles. The standard way to format mathematics on Wikipedia is with the <math> tag and with HTML/wikicode formatting. The {{math}} and {{mvar}} templates are neither required nor even suggested as improvements, and there is no general goal of converting articles to use them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions differ, and there is no set standard for simple inline math, for which {{math}} is intended. There is nothing wrong in making content wihting one page consistent. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}11:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Making a page consistent within the usage it already has is fine. Of course, if a page does not include any uses of {{mvar}} or {{math}}, then there is no reason to add these templates in an effort to make it consistent - consistency is easy to achieve by editing without using these templates. The general spirit of Wikipedia is that, if there is no standard that applies to all articles, then editors should respect the style that is already used in each article, rather than making edits solely to change articles to their desired optional style. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally dont like the font selection for the formulas that were inserted for BaSO4. More generally, my opinion doesnt count, but the community's views do count. So I encourage you to check at Talk:Chemistry about fonts for such an emblematic aspect of our articles. Also, we typically avoid indicating states in equations. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I introduced <ce> tag in the new features of Mediawiki. It uses the TeX's mhchem package that formats chemical equations automatically. -- Cedar101 (talk)
I reverted that line to the original format. A couple of comments:
I don't have any particular preference for one format over another, but the guiding principle of Wikipedia is consistency. If you are going to be changing the format of how chemical equations are being presented, you should do the entire article not just select a random line and change that line (which I complained to you about earlier when you were doing programming languages). The usage should be consistent in an entire article.
Which leads to a second point, this is something that should probably be discussed at Talk:Chemistry before you start making wholesale changes across Wikipedia.
Discussing a major project like this at Talk:Chemistry will save you a lot of effort if eventually enough people get irritated and simply wholesale revert every edit you ever made. That latter situation is unusual, but I've seen it happen when a conflict erupted and resolution was against the large-scale changes made by an editor. So now that you've had multiple people feed back to you that you're making mistakes, it's time you start getting to the "D" of WP:BRD. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chemiluminescence may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[[aequorin]], found in certain jellyfish, which produces blue light in the presence of calcium). It can be used in molecular biology to assess calcium levels in cells. What these biological
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chemiluminescence may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
[[aequorin]], found in certain jellyfish, which produces blue light in the presence of calcium). It can be used in molecular biology to assess calcium levels in cells. What these biological
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Per the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry discussion, there are many substantial concerns with use of <ce>, either at all, or at least where there is not an existing problem to be solved. You are not helping to gain support for your idea by ignoring those who have voiced legitimate-sounding concerns with it.DMacks (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My screenshot from mobile Safari 9.3 Which are the disappeared examples? I can see the all examples (See my screenshot.). Try "MathML with SVG or PNG fallback" renderer that can be selected in the user preferences; -- Cedar101 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have a reference for the "recovering ..." section [1] of the "odds ratio"page? Thanks very much for any guidance you can provide. ODa23 (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out here back in January - please don't add templates such as math, tmath, mvar, etc. to articles that don't use them. The ordinary style of formatting mathematics is perfectly acceptable, and preferred by many editors. If you think that for some reason a particular article needs to change, get consensus on the talk page first - but keep in mind that the templated version is not objectively an improvement, it's just an optional style used by a minority of math articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Semi-membership - it does not seem that much more copyediting is needed. Italic "HTML" formatting is a valid way to format mathematics, per WP:MOSMATH section 7.2. There is no reason to change the article to use the tmath template. Please don't go to existing articles and convert them wholesale from one style of math formatting to another. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Synthesis Iodobenzene.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cedar101. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You know you don't have consensus for these widespread changes, and this symbol specifically was raised months ago as not being an improvement.DMacks (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cedar101, thanks for introducing <source lang=ragel inline> in the Regular expression article. It looks quite nice - except for the first image caption, when rendered on my tablet (Android 4.1): for some reason, a linebreak is inseted between '[A-' and 'Z]'. It is the same problem in desktop view and in mobile view. Maybe you have an idea how to fix this? On my laptop (Ubuntu 17 / firefox), it looks ok. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cedar101, thank you for improving the article on Formal Concept Analysis. However, I am unhappy with the replacement of the "crosses" by check marks in the example context. There is nothing wrong with the check mark symbol for this purpose, except that it is quite uncommon in the field. The vast majority of all publications use the \times symbol for representing incidence. --Bernhard Ganter (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
“
An x mark (also known as a cross, x, ex, exmark or into mark) is a mark (x, ×, X, ✕, ☓, ✖, ✗, ✘, etc.) used to indicate the concept of negation (for example "no, this has not been verified" or "no, I don't agree") as well as an indicator (for example in election ballot papers or in x marks the spot). Its opposite is often considered to be the check mark or tick (or the O mark used in Japan, Korea and Taiwan).
Exact sequence is not a chemical article, and I doubt that you will find a consensus for using this in math. It is your opinion that \Bbb is obsolete, which does not correspond to history (\Bbb is an abbreviation that has been introduced a long time after \mathbb). D.Lazard (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your good will edits to ferric oxalate article. However, I must ask you to refrain from doing similar edits in the future:
The {{hydrate}} macro creates a totally superfluous link to water of crystallization every time it is used. One should avoid multiple links from the same word to the same article.
Even one such link is superfluous. The link should be on the "tetrahydrate" word instead.
The <chem>...</chem> markup creates an image link which does not take into account the font choice by the reader. One should use the {{chem|...}} or {{chem2|...}} templates instead, that typeset the formula using the current fonts.
While it is OK to improve the appearance to an article while editing its substantive contents, one should not edit an article solely to make cosmetic edits.
The {{hydrate}} template is used for consistent notations. To remove the redundant link, I added {{{nolink}}} parameter.
{{chem2}} emulates partially the original <chem>...</chem> markup, which can typeset automatically without effort to use of HTML tags. I replaced <chem> with {{chem2}}, but I had to change markups. -- Cedar101 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the reply. However, I must disagree about the {{hydrate}} template being useful for "consistent notations". That might be the case if ALL hydrates were marked by it. Since that will never hapen, the template only ADDS inconsistency, because it is just one MORE way to typeset hydration water. More generally, a template must be really helpful to be worth defining. That accounting starts very negative, because each new template is one more thing that editors must learn to effectively edit articles. I estimate that 90% of the templates that have been defined have negative value, and Wikipedia would be much better if they were deleted and possibly replaced by explicit text or markup. The {{chem2}} template, for example, is a good one, because it makes chemical formula much easier type and read in the source, while providing essential layout -- the subscripts and superscripts that are semantically important in chemical formulas. So is the {{coord}} template, that adds a link to the map server without hogging up the source or the final page. On the other hand, I just can't see what service {{hydration}} provides, to the editor or to the reader, that {{chem2}} does not already provide. Also more generally, "consistency" is a goal that Wikipedia cannot achieve, and in fact should not even try to achieve. The useful contents of articles is created by volunteer editors who are not coordinated. They cannot be expected to follow any style conventions that some other editor wrote up. Indeed, it would be a crime to ask them to waste their scarce and precious time in making articles look as if they had been produced by a team of tightly managed employees. Note that consitency of looks or layout has absolutely zero value to the readers that Wikipedia was created to serve. Instead, Wikipedia should be telling editors to ignore all style guides, and just make each article as useful and readable to those readers as possible, independently of any other articles. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have twice reverted your edits at Template:Infobox school/doc, and I have also reverted similar edits at two other template documentation pages. You marked example wikicode as HTML. Do you have some Wikipedia guideline or policy, or external source, showing that wikicode and HTML are equivalent? You have made similar edits here and in other template documentation, and the edits appear (to me) to be inconsistent and incorrect. What am I missing? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what you want to highlight. In those templates, HTML comments is needed to highlight because they are longer than page widths. -- Cedar101 (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Widefox; talk16:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The style specification means |*style=(headerstyle, labelstyle, abovestyle, belowstyle and so on.) parameter values. lang="css" can't highlight it. 223.38.27.113 (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
A reminder, from one experienced editor to another, to start a merge discussion when proposing merges. For example, you tagged typeof for merging back in July without adding a discussion, and it has languished for months with no comment or action. I've now closed it, as there was no case made and the justification for the merge, to my mind, isn't obvious. So, please make the case obvious for us non-subject-experts who might nevertheless be able to help with merging. The protocol for proposing merges is at WP:MERGEPROP. Klbrain (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move of "GQL Graph Query Language" to "Graph Query Language" is wrong
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kripke–Platek set theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page QED. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I see that you recently made some formatting changes to Boolean ring (and other articles). To take an example, I agree with you that the previous version ''x'' ∧ ''y'' = ''xy'' that was rendering as x ∧ y = xy was not optimal. You changed it to {{math|1=''x'' ∧ ''y'' = ''xy''}}, rendering as x ∧ y = xy, which is better. But notice how unwieldy the source code still is, with all these quote symbols in particular. Why not use <math>x \land y = xy</math>, rendering as ? The result looks even better (notice the logical and symbol in particular), and easier to maintain, less error-prone in the source.
What you are doing is not very good. It's not worth the improvement in my opinion. It's just busy work that someone will eventually have to redo, instead of a real improvement. Better leave things as they are then until someone comes along and cares enough about a specific article to do it right. My 2 cents. PatrickR2 (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider the amount of change to the source to be particularly important. Uniformity of format within an article at least seems to have general support. I have learned that it is not worth caring about which of the three dominant variants of inline math formatting is used (x ∧ y = xy vs. x ∧ y = xy vs. ), since each generates objections, and the debate is endless. Saying "this looks better than that" does not mean much, since the rendering varies so much between browsers and with font choice. In some contexts, {{math}} and <math> mess up spacing/wrapping/size/contrast/kerning. Until WP gets its act together to get MathJax or similar working properly, a leave-it-be approach is often best.
The {{math}} and {{nowrap}} have the advantage that they can easily be exchanged through find-and-replace. The same is not possible for <math>/{{tmath}}. In any event, best not come to a conclusion in isolation: first discuss it at WT:WikiProject Mathematics. A user talk page is not suitable for finding a consensus. —Quondum
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for uploading File:Dubeolsik-Hangul-Mac.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pike (programming language) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
— Anita5192 (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
![{\displaystyle {\ce {0->{\mathit {A->[~~f~~]B->[~~g~~]C}}->0}}}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/60fb8b883c6f815995db5bf0df6aab7ce1aa8442)
![{\displaystyle {\ce {\mathbb {H1->[grad]H_{curl}->[curl]H_{div}->[div]L2} }}}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/c58b72b576cd47bc4e1f11519fcb3644a8ef5fa9)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Widefox; talk 16:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:GQL
