User talk:Anita5192/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Anita5192. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit reverted on Tangent space article

Hello, I recently had an edit reverted and was warned for sockpuppetry. I don't understand how the sockpuppetry warning occured since I have only (to my knowledge) edited from the SFeesh account.

More importantly, I think that my edit was mathematically correct. Specifically, in the section Definition via derivations, a derivation at a point ${\displaystyle x}$ in a smooth manifold ${\displaystyle M}$ is defined to be a linear map ${\displaystyle D\colon C^{\infty }(M)\to \mathbb {R} }$ satisfying the Leibniz rule ${\displaystyle D(fg)=D(f)\cdot g+f\cdot D(g)}$. My main issue with this is that the definition needs to involve the point ${\displaystyle x}$, but here it does not. Moreover, the expression ${\displaystyle D(f)\cdot g+f\cdot D(g)}$ must be a real number by definition, and as written it is not.

The definition is fine, but the Leibniz rule needs to be ${\displaystyle D(fg)=D(f)\cdot g(x)+f(x)\cdot D(g)}$ to make things correct (since ${\displaystyle f(x),g(x)}$ are real numbers by definition). If you do not believe me, you can read the definition of a derivation at a point in the book Introduction to Smooth Manifolds by John M. Lee, near the beginning of chapter 3 on tangent vectors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SFeesh (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I think what you are saying is correct, so I put the text back the way it was. I warned you about sockpuppetry because I saw the same edit from three different accounts. In the future when you post a message on a talk page like this one, please sign your post with four tildes, as noted on your talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Triangular numbers

Hey :) I see you've reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangular_number&oldid=prev&diff=1045053331

You wrote "relevance". I've added this since 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ is the article about triangular numbers when n goes to infinite. It seems like a relevant "see also", could you please explain why not add it?

Tal Galili (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I see someone else already reverted your revert and explained. Tal Galili (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Revert of edit in Boolean ring

Hi Anita5192. I see that you reverted my edit to streamline the header portion of the Boolean ring article. As we will both agree, the definition of Boolean ring is a ring where x=x^2 for each element x, in other words a ring for which each element is idempotent (as by definition an idempotent element is one for which x^2 = x). There are already a group of three footnotes ([1],[2],[3]) pointing to sources referring to that definition. The second part mentioning idempotents is just a rephrasing for the benefit of the reader, there is no need to have footnotes ([4],[5]) referencing sources at that point. If anything, we should have all footnotes referencing the definition grouped together with [1],[2],[3]. Why do you want to have footnotes to the rephrasing via idempotents? PatrickR2 (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because your edit summary did not justify the deletion of the citations. I agree that it would be better to have all footnotes referencing the definition grouped together with [1],[2],[3] after both statements. I have already made the edit. Happy editing!—Anita5192 (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. PatrickR2 (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Prime factorization of smallest 9-perfect number

The prime factorization of the smallest 9-perfect number is

2^104 × 3^43 × 5^9 × 7^12 × 11^6 × 13^4 × 17 × 19^4 × 23^2 × 29 × 31^4 × 37^3 × 41^2 × 43^2 × 47^2 × 53 × 59 × 61 × 67 × 71^3 × 73 × 79^2 × 83 × 89 × 97 × 103^2 × 107 × 127 × 131^2 × 137^2 × 151^2 × 191 × 211 × 241 × 331 × 337 × 431 × 521 × 547 × 631 × 661 × 683 × 709 × 911 × 1093 × 1301 × 1723 × 2521 × 3067 × 3571 × 3851 × 5501 × 6829 × 6911 × 8647 × 17293 × 17351 × 29191 × 30941 × 45319 × 106681 × 110563 × 122921 × 152041 × 570461 × 16148168401.

By looking at its prime factorization, what can you say about it? Fomfeider (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You should probably ask this at Talk:Integer factorization instead of here.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You can talk about it here, Anita5192. Fomfeider (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

11-perfect numbers

Can you please try to find an 11-perfect number for me?

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Multiply_perfect_number#Known_11-perfect_numbers. You can discuss about finding an 11-perfect number there. Fomfeider (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comedy Revert

Thanks Anita5192 for your reversion of my edit in Comedy. I was aware of the existence of the link earlier on in the article. The additional link was only for those people who would cursorily read the article and then move on to "See also" links to get associated information. In retrospect, I feel I should have let such people suffer for their lack of detailed reading of each and every article, before moving on to "See also" section. Thanks again. Anil1956 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Blunt undoing at screenwriting

Please do not undo an entire edit of otherwise constructive changes (e.g. my addition of an {{anchor}}) if you only take issue with some of the changes as you did here.

In regard to the other edits, nb WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization...only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.") and that sources for these terms do not consistently capitalize these terms — one does not and one (with generally poor copy editing) does. Also, nb WP:HYPHEN ("Hyphens indicate conjunction in...compounds that are hyphenated when used attributively...") and WP:MOSBOLD ("The...use of boldface is to highlight...the first occurrence of a term ...that redirects to the article or one of its subsections...") Generally, Wikipedia has a higher standard of copy than the blogs and the like that are cited in the article, and the guidelines I mentioned here are an important part of this.

Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  16:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for informing me of my inappropriate use of "i.e." I had always thought it is an abbreviation for "in example" and never really checked that it comes from Latin "id est", which I would even have understood from my High School Latin. Freundliche Grüße PutzfetzenORG (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Freundliche Grüße zu Ihnen und danke sehr für die Barnstar! Many confuse "i.e." (that is) with "e.g." (for example), so this is a common mistake. Happy editing! —Anita5192 (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Revert at Euclidean domain

> sourced in the text you just deleted

I got "a first course in abstract algebra" 7th edition in front of me, and I can't find where this stuff is mentioned. Can you help me? Dlesos (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The Euclidean domain article refers to the fifth edition.[1] I have the second edition,[2] and this material is not in it, so I can't verify it. However, the passage in question defines "algorithmic Euclidean property" as "if there is a division algorithm that for given a and nonzero b produces a quotient q and remainder r with a = bq + r and either r = 0 or f(r) < f(b), then an extended Euclidean algorithm can be defined in terms of this division operation," and links to the extended Euclidean algorithm. Except for not being able to locate this in the seventh edition, what is not clear?—Anita5192 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There should be a source Dlesos (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a source: the fifth edition.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm skeptical it is, when it's neither in 1st edition or 7th. Even if I'm wrong, what's the point of a source no one has access to? Dlesos (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Fraleigh, John B.; Katz, Victor J. (1967). A first course in abstract algebra (5th ed.). Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-53467-3.
2. Fraleigh, John B. (1976), A First Course In Abstract Algebra (2nd ed.), Reading: Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-01984-1

Woke article

I moved this discussion to Talk:Woke/Archive 6#Woke article because I think that is a more appropriate place for it.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Crime-Free Multi-Housing

The article Crime-Free Multi-Housing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not indicate notability per WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 05:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry...

You must have got there just before me at Crime-Free Multi-Housing and I left the warning. Sorry! Knitsey (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. You simply left a message similar to the one I would have left. Thank you for posting it!

Whenever I see someone else has reverted vandalism before I could get to it, I wait a few minutes before posting a warning message, in case the editor who reverted it is about to post something. Happy editing! —Anita5192 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Carl Jung

The University of Zurich knows about this peace concept, and will bring in the references.Philotrio (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Gravity

there is an article on gravity in the antiquity section which describes In India, the mathematician-astronomer Aryabhata first identified gravity to explain why objects are not driven away from the Earth by the centrifugal force of the planet's rotation but i can't find any sources depicting about his claim please remove it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed—Anita5192 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Comedy Revert

Thanks Anita5192 for your reversion of my edit in Comedy. I was aware of the existence of the link earlier on in the article. The additional link was only for those people who would cursorily read the article and then move on to "See also" links to get associated information. In retrospect, I feel I should have let such people suffer for their lack of detailed reading of each and every article, before moving on to "See also" section. Thanks again. Anil1956 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Spaces

Hi Anita. Please don't do this. It has no effect on the rendered HTML, causes watchlist churn, and can provoke emotional responses on the one-or-two-spaces-after-a-period question. --Trovatore (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Associativity and commutativity...

Hi, Anita. Your thanks prompted me to go back and think again about the edit in question, and I was prompted to wonder why on earth anyone who says they are a PhD student in mathematics would think that associativity of matrix multiplication depends on commutativity in the underlying ring. A few seconds' thought about it shows that it doesn't. JBW (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I was tempted to remove it myself with my previous edit, since it made no sense, but I was concerned with other things at the time, and since it was just a comment and wasn't affecting the visible text, I decided to leave it for someone else to resolve.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I too considered leaving it because it didn't affect the visible text, but I decided against it, because it conceivably might cause confusion for some editor or other at some time. JBW (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Ownership?

I was baffled about your recent edit warring in Talk:Story structure, would you mind terribly explaining an edit like Special:Diff/1166966831 in relation to BRD and AATP? Sam Sailor 02:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The archive code was on the page to archive when the posts become old and numerous. Why remove perfectly good code just because it hadn't been used yet?—Anita5192 (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If at all possible, please explain your edits quoting guidelines and policies.

I was not asking why you added the "code" in the first place, I was asking why you chose to edit war it back in again.

BRD is quite clear: You make an edit, I revert, then you start a discussion. You did nothing of the sort, instead you reverted right away. That is edit warring.

Why remove perfectly good code just because it hadn't been used yet? First of all, the code is bad, it is not good, Anita. A user named KimYunmi in their second-ever move moved Narrative structure to Story structure without paying attention to WP:POSTMOVE, leaving the "good code" to point, erroneously, to Talk:Narrative structure/Archive.

AATP suggets that we achive talk pages when they exceed 75k. That does not mean that we set up archiving bots in advance.

I have reverted your edits. You are welcome to post any P&G-based arguments you may have on the article talk page, Talk:Story structure.

Sam Sailor 22:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Reaction rate revert

your reason for reverting it? AryanpateI (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to reaction rate because, 1. you did not leave an edit summary explaining what you changed and why you changed it, 2. the grammar was incorrect, and 3. SI units belong in a sidebar—not in the lead. See, as examples, force, momentum, and torque.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

miss, I'm new and don't know to edit well can you please add SI unit of reaction rate. I'm unable to do it because I don't know how to make side bar and also where to explain it . AryanpateI (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I'll take a look. But I may not get to it immediately.—Anita5192 (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done—Anita5192 (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks AryanpateI (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sorry for the edit mistake.

Bearian (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That's quite all right. It looked like an accident. I was able to spot it and correct it before an administrator reached it through the backlog. Happy editing! —Anita5192 (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Kyber crystals

Re the edit summary in your revert [1]:

The source quotes Lucas at times, certainly, but not this quote ("decided that the Force could be intensified through the possession of a mystical Kiber Crystal [sic]—Lucas's first, but by no means last, great MacGuffin."). This is the book's author, as evidenced by his referring to Lucas in the third person.

The book as a whole is about the saga in general, but this passage is about an early draft of the first movie as it gradually evolved into "Star Wars". The crystals are not in the movies. That's what's misleading. Also misleading is "Lucas's first, but by no means last, great MacGuffin," which is the author being tongue in cheek. It was Lucas's first great MacGuffin, but audiences never saw it. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Kyber crystals are mentioned in Rogue One, which may not be considered part of the Star Wars canon proper, but is a Star Wars story. Although the crystals are not mentioned in all of the movies, they obviously exist in all of the movies.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Using something which appeared in the tenth movie in 2016 as evidence that there are McGuffins in the Star Wars movies is still misleading, particularly when coupled with "Lucas's first McGuffin", which would imply that it appeared before 1980. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There's also no source saying that Kyber crystals are a MacGuffin in Rogue One. My memory is that they weren't, and that the MacGuffin was the Death Star plans. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Climax (narrative)

Thank you for your recent talk message about my edits to Climax (narrative). I agree with you that my changes would have been improved by summaries. In fact, on review of WP:ES, it seems that it was contrary to policy of me to omit a summary for my first edit. However, the policy clearly also states, "Editors should not revert an otherwise good edit because of a missing or confusing edit summary; good editors may simply have forgotten..." The policy goes on to state that reversion without review is understandable (if still improper) for unsummarized "substantial" edits, but my edits were not substantial under the provided definition.

Since I'm going to revert your reverts, I should explain the reasoning for my original edits:

• Although "Emergency Self-Destruct" is a more "realistic" text for a (fictional) self-destruct button to bear, the text "Destroy Building" clarifies and heightens, by means of ironic and unrealistic repetition ("destroying a... facility... [by] pushing a red button which reads "Destroy Facility"), the narrated anticlimax.
• In contrast, the use of the word "destroying" in the following clause violates the otherwise-prevailing English convention against word repetition, and its replacement, "demolishing" is more consistent with the intended mundane, urban planning tone.

Because my second edit removed a misplaced comma, it did not need a summary under policy, though I understand that I should have provided one there too.

Finally, while I understand that your message to my talk page was likely automated, it would be more polite for it to explicitly call out the reversion. On its surface, your message appears to be merely offering me constructive feedback on my edit, while in actuality it is an administrative notice justifying a reversal.

I've been editing Wikipedia lately without logging in, mostly due to laziness. Since my edits seem to be treated quite differently without my credential, I'll try to avoid being logged out in the future. Unfortunately, logging in to reverse this edit would have the effect of publicly associating my IP address with my account, which is undesirable. 74.101.159.213 (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition to not explaining the reason for your edits, your edits were trivial changes of wording that did not improve the article.—Anita5192 (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A question about a link

Hello, Anita. In this edit you linked to the article Zero. Why was that? It looks to me very much like overlinking, as I would think it easily falls into the category "Everyday words understood by most readers in context", and I don't see anything in the linked article which anyone is likely to need to look up in order to understand the text from which you linked. JBW (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I reverted two unexplained edits by an IP. Since the lead describes a basic element, i, of the imaginary numbers, I think it is appropriate in this case to describe a related, basic element of the real numbers.—Anita5192 (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I see what you mean, but it doesn't seem to me relevant enough to justify the link. Nevertheless, I'll leave it as it is for now. On a different matter, you say that you "reverted two unexplained edits by an IP". The fact that the editing was done by an IP editor should be totally irrelevant, and as for "unexplained", your editing was equally unexplained. JBW (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)