User talk:PatrickR2

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Level set

The only reason I'm changing formatting is because using : to indent creates an incomplete list messing with markup and screen readers. Template block indent can be used, but the cuts off images on narrow screens. See MOS:INDENT for details Hellacioussatyr (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I did not know that. The result does not look as good sometimes, but ok. PatrickR2 (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, what do you mean by "screen reader"? What's an example of screen reader where things would be messed up? (I am usually looking at it from a laptop.) PatrickR2 (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Screen readers as in ease of access devices for the visually impaired or otherwise handicapped. Hellacioussatyr (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually used a screen reader and seen that the formatting is incorrect, or is it just a theoretical concern that the formatting on such a device could be messed up? PatrickR2 (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asking

Hello, @PatrickR2. Can I ask something before editing Wikipedia? I want to discuss with folks, but as you worded that my English is not grammatical and suggest to serious improvement, it is restricted me and therefore I cannot discuss something I don't understand. In this case, can I talk with others again but this time I would like to use grammar tools to aid me? My apologies for this silly question. Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dedhert.Jr Hi. Not sure what you are asking me here. Can you clarify? PatrickR2 (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickR2 If you remember the last time I talk in WT:WPM, especially this one, you told me this one:

“

...but I would like to suggest a serious improvement of your English capability before editing anything yourself in Wikipedia. Your English is just not grammatical. In a Talk comment we can figure out what you mean, but it would not be acceptable in a wikipedia article itself.

”

I am not sure if I cannot talk with other folks just because of abysmal grammar. It has bothered me every single time when I want to talk in English Wikipedia after you mentioned above. Can I have a suggestion from you so I can talk with others again? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If by "talk" you mean leave messages on other people's Talk page, there is no problem with that. You can discuss anything on a Talk page, even if the grammar is bad or the sentences sometimes are hard to understand. People can try to make sense of it, guessing if needed. The Talk pages don't need to be polished, except to convey opinions and discussions. It still helps if the message is understandable though. I realize I may not have been clear before. When I said "editing" Wikipedia, I meant editing articles themselves, as the articles are always held to a high standard of correctness.

You definitely have a basis of English and are able to convey ideas, but your writing does not flow naturally, it is sometimes really hard to understand and bothersome to read. In the link you gave at the top, nearly every sentence has some problems. (examples: "this article needs to rephrase" should be "needs to be rephrased", as rephrase is a transitive verb; "made the reader, probably, confused to read what it means" --> "probably made the reader ..." flows better; "to read what it means" does not make sense. Did you mean "to understand what it means"? (one reads a book, but one does not read a meaning; etc, etc for each of the rest of the sentences). Not sure what your native language is. But I think spending a substantial amount of time (months) to improve your command of English, especially written English, would be very beneficial in your future professional life. If it were me, a formal course would probably not be the way to go. But there are tons of resources out there on the internet, youtube, maybe ask a native speaker friend or hire a tutor to give you pointers. I think there may be "writing exchange sites" out there that could be useful (https://languagetool.org/, https://www.onlinecorrection.com/, https://www.grammarly.com/ maybe) Personally I like https://www.lingq.com for learning languages. The main thing is to spend time paying attention and analyzing things. Hope that helps. PatrickR2 (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickR2 Thanks. Hope this will helps me a lot. But there is one question left that I need to ask, so I probably make a new section on a random talk page. Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"this will helps me" --> "this will help me" :-) PatrickR2 (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickR2 Ahahaha... thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compactly generated space

Hi PatrickR2. You've added some references for "Rezk 2018" to Compactly generated space, but no such work is defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the "References" section, or let me know what work this refers to? Separately I've had to remove your references using stackexchange in the same article, it isn't considered a reliable source for referencing. It has an entry on WP:RSP where you can read past discussions on the matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll add Rezk as appropriate. Regarding the use of stackexchange, specifically Mathematics StackExchange, I'll bring the topic for discussion with a wider audience on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. It may have been discussed there before, but we'll need to rehash the topic. But I need to ask you, because it will be relevant to this wider discussion, specifically about the "nature of proof" in mathematics: are you a mathematician? Or what is your background in mathematics? PatrickR2 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not a mathematician, I've just seen some previous discussions around stackexchange. The appropriate place for any discussion would be WP:RSN, as that's the place for discussing the reliability of sources. Without going back over those discussions the issue is likely going to be WP:UGC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Like it says on WP:RSP, Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. We'll discuss this specifically for mathematics first on Wikiproject Mathematics and get back to you. Regards. PatrickR2 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but I very much doubt you'll have much luck at RSN and projects do not have the consensus level to overrule project wide decisions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

We got off on the wrong foot, and I just wanted to apologise. My comments might not have been uncivil, but they were hardly friendly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. We were both trying to do the best thing for Wikipedia. Although I think there is a loss here, the discussion was informative. The main thing is what I was advocating was just not practical, so I understand better why there is a blanket prohibition on MO/MSE references. Thanks for contributing. PatrickR2 (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]