User talk:Nxavar

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Nxavar. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Diego (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Why change a perfectly straightforward explanation?
In the edit summary to this edit you said "The edit showed how Heron's formula is derived". can you explain why that version makes it clearer how the formula is derived than the original version? As far as I can see, it just makes it unnecessarily complicated, and I totally fail to see how anyone who can understand the more complicated version can fail to understand the simpler version. I should also like to call your attention to WP:BRD, which is not WP:BRR. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for starting the discussion. Moving to the main point, I believe it is better to explain math with math, with prose being complementary. I understand your concern about keeping things simple. I tried to fix this by doing some more editing on the prose, which is very close to what was originally there. Moreover, the math that I have added to the section is no more complicated than the math for h2 and is just a two step derivation. Don't you agree? Nxavar (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) You still haven't, as far as I can see, answered my question about why you think your version makes it any clearer "how Heron's formula is derived" than the original.
 * 2) I have no particular objection to replacing "from which Heron's formula follows" with an equals sign followed by the formula; I don't feel strongly either way, though I do like stating that the required result has been reached, rather than just stopping.
 * 3) "We have now expressed the height h from side c in terms of the three sides (a,b,c)" is factually incorrect: only h2 has been so expressed. Of course, that is a trivial detail, but I don't see any advantage in making an inaccurate statement rather than an accurate one. However, why mention it at all? Anyone who is capable of understanding the proof can see for themselves that h2 has been expressed in terms of the sides, so stating it is an unnecessary complication, and an inaccurate one too. I don't see that the prose in any useful way complements the maths.
 * 4) It seems to me that when c is multiplied by the expression for h, squaring c and putting it inside the square root is an unnecessary complication, since c is going to be cancelled anyway.
 * 5) None of those is a matter of importance, and if the article had originally been written the way you prefer I would no doubt have left it that way. However, you evidently must have thought that the change was a very significant improvement, since you restored an edit which had been reverted, so that you cannot have thought that it was uncontroversial. I am also uncertain why you repeated your own edit without explanation or any attempt at raising the issue for discussion. I tend to assume that an editor who has been around for many years, and made well over 1000 edits, is aware of the accepted editing standards, and know that repeating your own reverted edit without discussion is not considered helpful, though I see that only a very small proportion of your edits have been on discussion pages, so I suppose it is possible that you are largely unaware of such understandings. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not just revert your edit. I reverted it and then did some more editing so that it is less complicated, targeting one of your concers. For this reason, Point 3 of your remarks is no longer relevant. About the derivation being complicated, feel free to show another way to go from $$A=\frac{ch}{2}$$ to Heron's formula. In anycase, what the math does is making the necessary substitutions and simplifications to arrive to Heron's formula. The previous edition just refered to that. The current actually shows it. This is how it makes it clearer how Heron's formula is derived. Also, "perfectly straightforward" is subjective, and not an argument in itself. Nxavar (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand what you say. Initially, I just saw your revert that I was notified of, and didn't check the editing history of the article, so I didn't know of your subsequent edits. I see now that what you were doing was significantly different from how it looked to me. I suggest that, to avoid similar problems in future, it may be a good idea whenever you do anything that even in part reverts a reversion of your editing, to mention what you are doing to the editor you are reverting. Obviously, "perfectly straightforward" is subjective, but that doesn't mean that it is "not an argument in itself": while mathematics may be concerned only with logical and objective issues, the meta-meta-mathematics of what formulation is most helpful to human readers is certainly concerned with such subjective issues as what does and does not seem straightforward to human readers. I still prefer the original version, but it's not a huge deal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You still have to explain yourself though, and you are actually right if we talk about the initial version of my edit. As for who should take the burden of informing the reverted party about corrective edits (the reverting party, the reverted party, or the notification mechanism), this an issue bigger than you and me and it should be discussed in a more appropriate page. Nxavar (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edits on the Germany + Talk article
Hi. I don't know where exactly it is coming from, but it seems like a gut feeling you're on a drive to impede the Germany article, given these, these and these ongoing discussions. How exactly do you intend to contribute here? How do you think your approach helps improving the actual article? I'm just curious. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit-war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Prime number. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * That was more of a collaboration than edit warring, since every restore was modified to address the rationale of the revert. Think about the process through which papers are published in scientific journals: the reviewers may refuse to publish the paper initially, and the paper may go through revisions until it is acceptable for publication. Since the issue had to do with mathematics, this was actually an accepted procedure for improvement. Nxavar (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You are invited to join the discussion here. -JBL (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

World War II
Hi, I've just reverted your recent changes to the article. If you'd like to make substantial changes, please discuss them on the talk page first. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

GamerGate Sanctions Notice

 * Cheers. --Jorm (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your edit in Quadratic integer
You have removed twice the clarification "different of 0 and 1" in Quadratic integer, asserting, in your second edit summary that it is redundant with "square-free". Firstly, it is clear that it is not a part of the sentence, but a clarification, because of the parentheses. Secondly, not all authors agree with the definition of square-free, and Wikipedia must take into account this absence of consensus. For example, the list of small square-free integers given in Square-free integer contains 1; the definition given in this article implies that 0 is not a square-free integer for one of the definitions of "divisor" given in Divisor, but 0 is square-free for the other definition. Thus it is not redundant to clarify that, for this article, square-free means "different of 0 and 1". D.Lazard (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe then my initial understanding was correct: that 0 and 1 are valid values for D. The Mathworld lemma for the quadratic field has "The integers in $$Q(\sqrt{1})$$ are simply called "the" integers.". Nxavar (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notice
You made some comments at a ANI filing involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Carter00000 (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Banning policy. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.   Sandstein   12:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * This is not edit warring. The page allows for 1 revert per day. My reverts also pointed to developments in the talk page. It is true that the page also suggest zero, but the addition, as the reverting editor admits, is minor so zero reverts do not seem to apply. Nxavar (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you repeatedly re-add content reverted by others, this is an edit war, no matter how many times per day. See WP:EW.  Sandstein   14:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You cannot call a conflict "war" regardless of scale. That is why WP:3RR exists for example. Nxavar (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Some help with Zig
I saw your edits in the Zig article, and I'm wondering if I might rope you in for some more?

I would really like to add a section contrasting Zig's compiler-time code concept (comptime and test etc) to the preprocessor language in C. C uses the preprocessor for several broad tasks, definition of constants and macros, importing headers (et all), and, critically I believe, conditional compilation for things like machine dependancies.

I was wondering if you might have some examples of the latter implemented in Zig. I was surprised to find none when I went looking in the introduction materials. Consts are not needed as they are directly supported, imports are turned into structs (one of the more interesting bits of the implementation IMHO), macros are not really needed (and have not for some time with inlining) but machine dependancy...

Any good examples? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I cannot help you with this one. My interaction with the Zig language is very limited. Nxavar (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fiar enough. I am going to RV your last change though, it is a direct quote from the ref. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is reliable as far as what Carbon's goals are. Not in that it has the same primary focus as Zig, i.e. systems programming/low level programming. I haven't watched the video so I really don't know if Zig is mentioned at all. I replaced Carbon with Go, which is a way more recognizable language and better understood by the non-practitioners. Nxavar (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)