User talk:Ozob/Archive 7

PC2 and full protection
In Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 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)


 * My intent was, yes, to make a categorical statement about the utility of PC2. I suppose that it's possible that the appropriate use case of PC2 is limited to "pages that were full protected, and seem to have calmed down so that we don't want full protection anymore, but we don't trust them to be un-/semi-/PC1-protected", in which case my specific objection to Proposal 12 is irrelevant.  But I don't think that small case would justify the increased complexity and bureaucracy that would come with PC2.


 * Proposal 12 aside, I am against PC2 in all cases because I don't think that it will have a positive effect. I don't think it solves the problems a page actually has, whether they're vandalism, copyright violations, BLP violations, edit warring, sockpuppetry, or whatever.  Its weakness is that the root cause of all these problems is people, and PC2 does nothing to address people.  Full protection forces editors to stop whatever it is they're doing; changing the page requires either gaining consensus and making an edit-protected request, or displaying calm, adult behavior for long enough that the page protection expires and is not reset.  Whereas under PC2, editors can continue their same wrongful behavior.  The fruits of that behavior won't be immediately visible to the public, but they can always hope that an unknowing admin will accept their edit; and if their edit is rejected, they can always try again.  Put a different way, PC2 answers the question, "How do we make sure that the public does not see our internal disputes?"  It does not solve any dispute itself, so disputes will continue unchecked.


 * For this reason, I think it is a much better use of our time to use full protection, blocks, checkuser, and all the other tools that we currently have. I'm willing to admit the possibility that I'm wrong, but I won't be convinced of it unless and until someone can produce an example of a page where PC2 is the right solution.  I've asked PC2 supporters for examples before, and I've never seen one that I thought held up.  Always I'm told examples of user conduct problems that deserve blocks.  Sometimes they're widespread enough that the page should be under full protection for a little while, but PC2 (without blocks) would never have helped.  So as far as I can tell, wishful thinking aside, PC2 is not a solution to anything.  Ozob (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi there, sorry to butt in on your conversation here, but I appreciate this discussion and thought maybe I could elaborate. Like Ozob, I am against all of the currently proposed criteria for PC2 because I think existing tools already handle those problems effectively, or as effectively as PC2 would, plus PC2 does not address problematic users. My idea behind proposing that FP be applied first is that in many cases where a page gets to FP, there are editors involved who should be warned, mediated or mentored, or blocked, and issues that should be talked out on the talk pages, and that applying FP and forcing those actions solves (maybe temporarily) the vast majority of problems, even very serious ones. I fear that allowing PC2 to be used instead, or if the problems tick certain boxes, won't deal with those issues that do need to be dealt with, or they will just keep coming back when FP is dropped. However, allowing PC2 as an option after following FP would make it available for maybe stepped-down but still fairly high protection if editors feel the need. FP appears to be very rare already, and I expect that this use of PC2 would be even rarer still.


 * Also, would you consider moving this to the RfC talk page, or to discussion under proposal 12? I think it's worthwhile for other editors to see this discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't anticipate that this would be a long discussion, but now that it is, I agree. Ozob, if you are willing, please copy this to a new section on the RFC talk page.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for copying this to the RFC page. I cut-and-pasted it to the RFC talk page.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes 2014 RfC Proposal 12
Hello! As a result of discussion with other editors regarding 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)

Notice of wp:3RR
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" ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integral&diff=594471574&oldid=594470969 dif574], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integral&diff=594476518&oldid=594476045 dif518]) or "Spherical trigonometry" ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spherical_trigonometry&diff=594471931&oldid=594460327 dif931], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spherical_trigonometry&diff=594476585&oldid=594474853 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)


 * So far I have reverted you twice, per the definition of WP:3RR. Given that your edits damage the encyclopedia, I shall feel no compunctions about reverting you a third time.  At least one other mathematics editor feels the same as me; perhaps you should admit that you are simply wrong.  Do not damage the formatting on mathematics articles.  Ozob (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this has already been discussed centrally as you know, and the problem has been identified as being in the WP server, not articles. So they do not need 'fixing', certainly not with such non-standard markup. To deal with the 3RR problem I will be monitoring the articles in case further reverts are needed.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 07:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &bull; See "WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard" We can discuss with others for a broader consensus. -Wikid77 10:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Blockquotes and subscripts
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.


 * Thank you for informing me on the issue with quotation marks, I did not know that and from now I will refrain from using blockquotes for Theorems and instead use colons.


 * On the second point, go back and see the the formulas that you have posted on my page, I am talking about vertical asymmetry. The first formula is much closer to the text above it than to the text below it and that is why I think you should use the \nolimits option when there is no superscript ...

99.241.166.168 (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

On κ=-1
Dear Ozob! Please read the note in the article "Iitaka conjecture."--Enyokoyama (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft 1/∞ Article
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)


 * That's an interesting article. It needs a few references and then it can be placed on mainspace.  There are several books and articles that mention this technique of Wallis's. Tkuvho (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)