![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
In Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014#Oppose (Proposal 12) you said "If PC2 is a useful tool, then it should be applicable to a different range of articles than FP, so a page having had FP should not be a necessary criterion for PC2's deployment."
I read this as an categorical statement, not one restricted to "Proposal 12."
I replied using the analogy of full protection being like a "big hammer" and PC2 being like a "small hammer." There is at least one proposal that would allow or even encourage the use of PC2 instead of full protection for some pages that, today, are under full protection.
I believe that even if PC2 is only used on pages that would, under today's rules, be fully protected, it is still a useful tool because in some cases where the current best tool to apply is full protection, PC2 is a better tool. That is what I meant when I said I disagreed with you.
While I currently think we should be conservative and only use PC2 on pages that would be fully protected under today's rules ("Proposal 2" comes very close to this), I'm open-minded enough to consider other possible uses. However, I'm a "hard sell" when it comes to putting PC2 on a page that under current rules would have a lower level of protection. In other words, I'm all in favor of decreasing a page's protection if it can be done without defeating the purpose of the protection, but I am generally against increasing a page's protection unless all less restrictive forms of protection would be inadequate. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 05:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! As a result of discussion with other editors regarding
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014, I have made a slight change to
Proposal 12 to remove the so-called "exclusivity clause". For the change, see
this diff. I am posting this notice on your talk page because you have already inserted comments on the original proposal, and I want to make sure you are aware of the change so that you may revise your comments if you wish to do so.
I apologize for the confusion. If you wish, you may slap me. Ivanvector ( talk) 03:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Per the wp:3RR rule, changes made to an article should not be continually reverted. At this point, you have reverted 4 sets of edits which I have made on 8 February 2014 to pages " Integral" ( dif574, dif518) or " Spherical trigonometry" ( dif931, dif585) when using math-tag "{array}{ll}" to align equations which trigger parser errors on "{align}" or "{alignedat}". Once 3 reverts have been made, then a user is subject to a wp:Block. Please refrain from reverting edits which allow equations to be displayed in articles. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
• See "
WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reverting fixes of equations"
We can discuss with others for a broader consensus. -
Wikid77
10:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Couple of things, on theorems, I did that because sometimes a theorem is several paragraphs long and it is not obvious where it ends. Also it does not display any quotation marks for me so I don't know what you are referring to there.
As for the subscripts, the \nolimit option is appropriate when you don't have a superscript, other wise the formula's vertical placement will be non-symmetric and closer to the text that appears before it.
So I disagree on your second point, but the first point I was trying to address a problem, maybe you have a better solution.
99.241.166.168 ( talk) 05:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Ozob! Please read the note in the article "Iitaka conjecture."-- Enyokoyama ( talk) 02:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I have addressed some of your concerns about this draft article after having performed some initial research, I would appreciate your comments...thank you! YWA2014 ( talk) 05:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
In Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014#Oppose (Proposal 12) you said "If PC2 is a useful tool, then it should be applicable to a different range of articles than FP, so a page having had FP should not be a necessary criterion for PC2's deployment."
I read this as an categorical statement, not one restricted to "Proposal 12."
I replied using the analogy of full protection being like a "big hammer" and PC2 being like a "small hammer." There is at least one proposal that would allow or even encourage the use of PC2 instead of full protection for some pages that, today, are under full protection.
I believe that even if PC2 is only used on pages that would, under today's rules, be fully protected, it is still a useful tool because in some cases where the current best tool to apply is full protection, PC2 is a better tool. That is what I meant when I said I disagreed with you.
While I currently think we should be conservative and only use PC2 on pages that would be fully protected under today's rules ("Proposal 2" comes very close to this), I'm open-minded enough to consider other possible uses. However, I'm a "hard sell" when it comes to putting PC2 on a page that under current rules would have a lower level of protection. In other words, I'm all in favor of decreasing a page's protection if it can be done without defeating the purpose of the protection, but I am generally against increasing a page's protection unless all less restrictive forms of protection would be inadequate. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 05:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! As a result of discussion with other editors regarding
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014, I have made a slight change to
Proposal 12 to remove the so-called "exclusivity clause". For the change, see
this diff. I am posting this notice on your talk page because you have already inserted comments on the original proposal, and I want to make sure you are aware of the change so that you may revise your comments if you wish to do so.
I apologize for the confusion. If you wish, you may slap me. Ivanvector ( talk) 03:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Per the wp:3RR rule, changes made to an article should not be continually reverted. At this point, you have reverted 4 sets of edits which I have made on 8 February 2014 to pages " Integral" ( dif574, dif518) or " Spherical trigonometry" ( dif931, dif585) when using math-tag "{array}{ll}" to align equations which trigger parser errors on "{align}" or "{alignedat}". Once 3 reverts have been made, then a user is subject to a wp:Block. Please refrain from reverting edits which allow equations to be displayed in articles. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
• See "
WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reverting fixes of equations"
We can discuss with others for a broader consensus. -
Wikid77
10:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Couple of things, on theorems, I did that because sometimes a theorem is several paragraphs long and it is not obvious where it ends. Also it does not display any quotation marks for me so I don't know what you are referring to there.
As for the subscripts, the \nolimit option is appropriate when you don't have a superscript, other wise the formula's vertical placement will be non-symmetric and closer to the text that appears before it.
So I disagree on your second point, but the first point I was trying to address a problem, maybe you have a better solution.
99.241.166.168 ( talk) 05:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Ozob! Please read the note in the article "Iitaka conjecture."-- Enyokoyama ( talk) 02:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I have addressed some of your concerns about this draft article after having performed some initial research, I would appreciate your comments...thank you! YWA2014 ( talk) 05:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)