User talk:Anita5192

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reaction rate revert

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

A kitten for you!

Sorry for the edit mistake.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

HELP!

Anita, I need your help very much. I have a draft, Fabien Vienne, i have many problems at references. some peoples give me some references, but idk how to do it. Please help. The references links in here [2]. Bera678 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For help, please read the links in the latest post on your talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This time why?

I give reference I explain my modification and you erased it for no reason even you can see that the version of Spanish have it look https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorial#Soluci%C3%B3n_n%C3%BAmero_negativo_factorial

Arrobaman (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss this on the article's talk page, where another editor has already replied.—Anita5192 (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Period after exclamation point

Hi Anita, I just noticed this revert. Of course I agree that a period after an exclamation point is incorrect, but the '!' character in the factorial expression n! is not a punctuation mark here. All authors that I know of, write the period in sentences that end with such an expression. See for instance

Joseph K. Blitzstein; Jessica Hwang (2014). Introduction to Probability (illustrated ed.). CRC Press. p. 225. ISBN 978-1-4987-5976-2. Extract of page 225.
Piero Olla (2014). An Introduction to Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics (illustrated ed.). Springer. p. 51. ISBN 978-3-319-06188-7. Extract of page 51

I can show a gazillion of such examples if you like . So I have undone your revert. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to show me examples. I'll take your word for it. Aside from the mathematics and grammar, I also thought "n!." looked awkward.—Anita5192 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good excuse to generate a few citations with my home-written (in AutoHotkey) automatic formatter that generates a proper citation when I have a book page open in Google Books Search. I just love doing that, and it still works

. - DVdm (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove indentation? Unnecessary spaces are not always redundant.

Hi Anita, thanks for your continued maintenance of Moore–Penrose_inverse. In Special:Diff/1193373705 you removed unnecessary spaces. I agree that trailing spaces are bad, so thank you for removing those.

However, I see a lot of value in leading spaces used for indentation. While they are unnecessary for the MediaWiki parser, they are not redundant for us human editors. They clarify the structure and make it easier to parse multi-line expressions, making it easier to maintain articles. Imagine having to maintain computer program source code where all indentation was removed.

For similar reasons, I also see some value in spaces inside of XML tags and sometimes parentheses. They simply make it easier to see the math and ignore the markup.

What do you think? RainerBlome (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the spaces I removed did not make the source text any more readable.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]