User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction: Difference between revisions

 

Line 158: Line 158:

::: Please let’s watch our language. I cannot be further promoted, really! What is “aggressive” is not engaging in conversation. But again, my main point is to welcome (both of you) to a project I have been contributing to and studying for about 2 decades. [[User:Adler.fa|Adler]] ([[User talk:Adler.fa|talk]]) 00:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

::: Please let’s watch our language. I cannot be further promoted, really! What is “aggressive” is not engaging in conversation. But again, my main point is to welcome (both of you) to a project I have been contributing to and studying for about 2 decades. [[User:Adler.fa|Adler]] ([[User talk:Adler.fa|talk]]) 00:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

::::In any case, even if you aren’t promoting your preprint, we still can’t include it in the article. Preprints are [[WP:PREPRINT|usually not considered reliable sources]] because they are [[WP:SPS|self-published]], often without peer review. If your paper gets [[WP:INDEPENDENT|independent media coverage]], feel free to re-add it. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 00:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

::::In any case, even if you aren’t promoting your preprint, we still can’t include it in the article. Preprints are [[WP:PREPRINT|usually not considered reliable sources]] because they are [[WP:SPS|self-published]], often without peer review. If your paper gets [[WP:INDEPENDENT|independent media coverage]], feel free to re-add it. [[User:SuperPianoMan9167|SuperPianoMan9167]] ([[User talk:SuperPianoMan9167|talk]]) 00:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::Or, better yet, ask if others are willing to re-add it, to avoid [[WP:COI|conflicts of interest]]. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction#top|talk]]) 00:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text you removed is fundamentally correct, but woefully poorly sourced, and the maths are a mess.

You have significant knowledge on this topic.
If you get time, a rework of the correct content from the removed section would be super helpful.

thanks for helping to keep the encyclopedia accurate, Augmented Seventh🎱 17:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I discovered the quantum machine learning article because I have been fixing reference errors (instances of {{cite book}} that should be {{cite journal}}, etc.) and one of its citations was flagged in Category:CS1_errors:_periodical_ignored. The page is a horrible mess overall. I don’t know if people were actually using it to advertise their own preprints, but it sure read that way, along with random hype from press releases and so forth. The article quite possibly needs reworking from scratch, or nearly so, with a more principled sense of what is necessary to include. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

noted. Augmented Seventh🎱 19:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction,

I was just curious, you seem to be primarily editing articles that begin with the letter “Q”. Is that intentional or just a really odd coincidence? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found my way accidentally to the category of CS1 errors mentioned above, and I got the idea that it would be fun to resolve all of them under the letter Q. It was the first letter I looked at where the number was small enough that the task looked do-able. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: And now they’re all done except for the one that needs Extended Confirmed editing rights! Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Excellent New Editor’s Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Although I am “conflicted” as I give out this accolade in the sense that I appreciate you agreeing with my arguments at two AfDs, I am still summarily impressed by your initial contributions generally. Welcome to Wikipdia and let me know if you need any help as you get going. jps (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look also at the information at this page, which appears every time you edit J. K. Rowling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have jumped into AfD, with a great sense of humor (humour?), which is a great way to learn about our culture and processes. Your expertise is needed here. If you have any extra time, please help to source stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/June 2025. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for calling that to my attention. I was working on citation errors; I will try browsing the unreferenced stubs as well. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Here’s an example: Forward scattering alignment. Make sure you place the phrase “# JUN 25” without spaces or quote marks in your edit summary. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another one is Four-fermion interactions. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And another is Gauged supergravity. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi I noticed that you merged the article on Ising critical exponents to Universality class. I though the summary of AfD is that one should not touch this article. Are you sure you interpreted this properly?

If you decide to merge, do you have an idea how to avoid the fact that now the numbers for Ising critical exponents appear in two tables? It would be good to avoid having to update both tables. Currently the second table contains updated numbers in 3D (and also the omega exponent), while the first big table contains outdated numbers in 3D and no omega exponent.
PhysicsAboveAll (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no affirmative consensus to merge, but there was no definitive consensus against doing so, either. (And when I mentioned doing this at WikiProject Physics, nobody complained.)

Maintaining one page (even if this means some changes apply in two places) is more convenient than maintaining two. And as I mentioned at the Talk page for the merged article, the first table could stand a refactoring anyway. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there! Keep up the good work.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We’ve started crossing paths on AfD posts and gotta say I laughed out loud for your usename. Not as much the “Dysfunction” part but when my brain finally did its “wait a minute” double take about a Stepwise continuous function. Hilarious!

— Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’m glad I could provide a chuckle! 🙂 Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Sunjara, not you. At Wikipedia:Administrators’_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sunjara_reported_by_User:MrOllie_(Result:_) – MrOllie (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since I’ve reverted 3 times, I’ll leave it alone now and wait for that report to be resolved. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of everything in the disputed section, only the Penrose and Connes items could potentially be worth including, and even those are insufficiently sourced and would have to be rewritten from scratch based on better references. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left it for a day, and in the interim, someone else came along and cut a paragraph, so I decided to go ahead and do some trimming, tagging, and revising. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, I think your recent edits at Asim Bhaumik were a bit aggressive, please remember both WP:5P and WP:DONTBITE. For instance the patents were listed on his page, and there was a GS link already. If a page is full of puffery and WP:Peacock then some careful removal is appropriate, paying attention to preserve the spirit of encyclopedic content. However this page was definitely not puffed, just a newbie learning the ropes with their second page. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including raw citation numbers (or counts of patents, publications, etc.) is not standard practice on Wikipedia’s academic biographies. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it outside spammy bios that are treating Wikipedia like it’s LinkedIn. They’re just figures that are meaningless without context. Do we give an h-index for Albert Einstein or Rosalind Franklin? No, we don’t. What about a currently active researcher like David Eppstein or Jessica T. Dempsey or Katie Mack? No, we don’t. Not every number spat out by Google’s imperfect parsing of whatever content they decide to scrape belongs in article text. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember WP:5P#4.

I disagree with you. Deans want to see citation numbers, they are routinely included in faculty annual reports at strong R1 universities. They also routinely come up at promotion and tenure decisions, both in Departments and at the School level. Similarly Program Managers pay attention them.

On WP they are routinely used as a gauge at AfD, this has been discussed extensively at WT:NPROF, and your opinion on them ( particularly GS) does not match the concensus. I have seen them numerous times in good pages, and there is no policy that supports your opinion that they are not to be used. In a case where there are no major awards they are useful; David or others such as Laurence D. Marks have enough that just a link to them as David has or authority control as for Laurence is common. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to see a citation number can go look it up on Google Scholar or Scopus or wherever if they’re desperate. Plenty of things that a committee considers don’t belong on Wikipedia, e.g., recommendation letters. A Wikipedia article is not a CV, nor is it an annual report for a funding agency or a tenure application.

I am not objecting to Google Scholar links down in the “External links” section or the use of citation numbers at AfD. I’m saying that “so-and-so has over N citations” doesn’t belong in article text. It’s an undue use of a primary source. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction. Thank you for your work on High-dimensional Ising model. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thus page needs substantial work, it looks like a project abandoned half way through.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like to see new editors with enthusiasm. However, less “aggression” in editing would go a long way. Keep up the good work. Adler (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do that was “aggressive”? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting their self-promotion of their unpublished preprint. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please let’s watch our language. I cannot be further promoted, really! What is “aggressive” is not engaging in conversation. But again, my main point is to welcome (both of you) to a project I have been contributing to and studying for about 2 decades. Adler (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, even if you aren’t promoting your preprint, we still can’t include it in the article. Preprints are usually not considered reliable sources because they are self-published, often without peer review. If your paper gets independent media coverage, feel free to re-add it. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or, better yet, ask if others are willing to re-add it, to avoid conflicts of interest. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]