User talk:Latex-yow

Trump SCOTUS List
Hey, thanks for your note. I'm not sure why you were confused because I think the paragraph at the beginning of the section clearly suggested that there were other names besides the ones on Trump's lists included, but I've rewritten it a bit to make that more explicit. Does this satisfy your concern? Or do you think we need something more? What do you have in mind? I suppose we could try asterisks or daggers. Personally, I would have liked to see the lists just given in full somewhere, but I'm afraid that that would be too duplicative, and I think there are good reasons for keeping the main presentation integrated. Thoughts? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is already an indication after Kavanaugh and Clement's names that they were not on the list; it's just in the form of a note (I think it's Note 3). And the formatting of this article and the list is designed to match parallel articles for previous presidents, so I'm not sure about introducing a table here. Ultimately, it's not clear to me why you think this particular distinction needs to be any more visible than it already is. Did the rewrite I did help you at all? What about the idea of an asterisk or a dagger? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I tried something new. Why don't you go take a look and let me know what you think? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. Hopefully nobody else comes along and tries to undo it all . . . LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Note
Since you are not an extremely active editor, you might not be aware of two Wikipedia guidelines, which I wanted to point out. WP:3RR is about multiple reversions of one page in one day. MOS:FORMULA is about changing math formula from LaTeX to HTML or vice versa. In general, if an article was substantially developed using HTML for inline math, that should be preserved; the same goes for using &lt;math> tags and using the math template. Each of these three is acceptable on its own. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Alert
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Math rendering
Thank you for your numerous edits aimed to improve rendering of formulas in mathematics. I have the`(possibly wrong) impression that you are not yet fully aware of the Wikipedia guidelines on this subject, the main one being MOS:FORMULA. Moreover there is some consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS) between editors of mathematics articles, which is not always clearly stated in the guidelines. This is: Hoping that this may help you, thanks again for your work for improving Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not change from HTML to Latex or vice-versa without a clear improvement
 * Prefer Latex for displayed formulas and html for simple inline formulas (for inline formulas containing indices or exponents this may depend on editor preferences)
 * For HTML formulas, this is better to use math and mvar templates, for having similar rendering for variables that appear in both latex and html formulas
 * For coherency inside an article, if you add math to existing formulas, do it in the whole article, or at least in a whole section (adding math and mvar is easy with the button in "Math and logic" menu of the edit window)

Blank lines inside sentences
In some recent edits, the last one in Puiseux series, you have added blank lines inside sentences. More precisely, you added blank lines around displayed latex formulas. This is semantically wrong, as blank lines are paragraph separators, and your changes mean implicitly changes of paragraphs inside sentence. Also, this makes the sources harder to read for editors, as the paragraph structure may be hidden by numerous blank lines. So, please, self revert such changes.

However, I am not sure that there is a consensus on this point among editors. Therefore, whichever editor's choice, it is better to not doing any such change without specific reasons, since such changes do not affect rendering. D.Lazard (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Completely disagree. The blank lines in question help with editing and they don't change the appearance of the page. Finally my edits in Puiseux series and other pages contain a lot more improvements than adding blank lines, so please do not revert my edits without having a good reason for doing so. Latex-yow (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)