|
You have made around 100 edits to Talk:Pascal's triangle over the last 24 hours, most of which are minor edits. For those of us who use watchlists, this can be irritating. I'd like to suggest (1) that you use the preview button and make several changes at once rather than many in a row, and (2) that you move your draft text to your sandbox, where you can work on it without bothering anyone else. (And you could leave a link from Talk:Pascal's triangle to your sandbox so that other people can see your draft.) Thanks, JBL (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with JBL. Although I don't think, that you intend your editing to be disruptive, it is becoming disruptive. Many tiny edits in rapid succession are essentially a denial-of-service attack against the crucial Wikipedia feature of the Wikipedia:Edit history. Please use the Wikipedia:Preview feature, or edit pieces in your sandbox or elsewhere in your personal space.
- Please also use Wikipedia:Edit summarys.
- Please also do not edit your talk page posts, after other editors have responded to them. Doing so alters the context of those other editors' posts. In the best case, it makes threads difficult to follow. In the worst case, it is tantamount to changing other editors' posts.
- Otherwise, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Mgnbar (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I wasn't aware of Sandbox until I happened to look at the icons in the top-left menu just now. I would like to apologize for the excessive minor edits and any disruptions or annoyance it has caused, and also apologize for doing any of these things in the interim since you posted these messages. Thank you for the suggestions and the heads-up on editing the comments. I will definitely comply and keep my edits to my sandbox and also not edit the comments. Again, I meant no harm, thanks so much for the friendly advice! Twoxili (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense. Happy editing. Mgnbar (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I was using the Preview in the beginning, then moved to keeping a backup revision offline, editing that one, then after a few rounds of revisions, copying my offline edits here once and publishing. My workflow was always: offline -> online, never backwards. But when I looked at that bulk revision in the Preview, I'd notice something that needed changing, and sometimes by force of habit I would make the change here online and either publish it or make a round of online changes and then publish them without remembering to copy the changes backwards (a no-no). The result was that I was loosing edits trying to keep the two versions in sync (e.g. going back to working offline, then copying the stale version over the latest online revision). When that happened, I'd have to do the editing in reverse. This was especially the case during the huge overhaul of removing e. I hope that at least helps to explain some of the micro-edits. Thanks for the workflow tips, I've been using them and its made my work on the draft painless for other editors and a ton less frustrating for me. Twoxili (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's understandable. I too tend to work offline when I'm making big edits. For what it's worth, my workflow is often:
- start a new edit on Wikipedia,
- copy the wiki markup into my offline text editor,
- work for a while there,
- paste my new version back into Wikipedia,
- preview/fix/preview/fix/...,
- write edit summary and save changes.
- Cheers, Mgnbar (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to try it that way. I'm really getting a lot of milage from the Sandbox area. I don't feel the pressure to commit my latest changes for others to see and comment on. Twoxili (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. After reading your discussion about Pascal triangle, I thought you might find this interesting background: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#On the use of Mathematics StackExchange and MathOverflow as references. Much as you (and I used to be the same) may dislike it, Wikipedia is not "meant to teach" (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). It is also not meant to a repository of all true and interesting facts about mathematics. Instead (for mathematics at least) it is supposed to be a reflection of facts published in peer-reviewed literature or textbooks, which is a smaller scope. Personally I would prefer if it were a continuously growing repository of interesting and correct mathematics, but unfortunately that's not the way it is meant to be. Facts/theorems that are outside the scope above can be explored on one's own on stackexchange for example. Greetings. PatrickR2 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi PatrickR2,
- Thank you so much for reaching out and sharing the link to the discussion on the use of Mathematics StackExchange and MathOverflow as references. I appreciate your insights and understand the limitations and scope of Wikipedia as a platform more clearly now.
- Your explanation about Wikipedia's aim to reflect peer-reviewed literature and established textbooks, rather than serving as a comprehensive teaching resource or a repository of all mathematical facts, makes a lot of sense. I see the importance of adhering to these guidelines to ensure the reliability and verifiability of the information provided.
- I agree that it would be intriguing if Wikipedia could encompass a broader spectrum of mathematical knowledge. However, I understand the need for a more curated approach to maintain a high standard of information quality, not to mention keeping the articles manageable in scope. I will explore additional mathematics topics on platforms like StackExchange, as you suggested, which seems like an excellent venue for more exploratory and detailed discussions.
- Thank you again for your guidance and for helping me better navigate the contributions to Wikipedia in the field of mathematics.
- Warm regards. Twoxili (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|