User talk:GabeTucker

MrOllie, did you see my post to the talk pages of EEng and WatkynBassett, the users who undid my changes? You said, "Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." If you look at the talk page, you will see that I did so. I also left a comment on my reversion, explaining the conflict we resolved in the talk page. "When I initially edited, I misspoke, saying it solved the "Monty Python problem", leading this user to undo my changes, assuming it's not a serious answer. As a result, I tried to fix it by publishing the new changes (rather than by undoing the undo), which was undone under the assumption I was ignoring a dispute. I am now properly undoing the undo with a revision correcting the "Monty Python" mistake." With that in mind, may we restore my version, which does represents the consensus among editors (being that my version is fine with the typo correction)? GabeTucker (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

No, you have not ever commented on that article's talk page:

MrOllie (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not understand why getting consensus on the talk page of the user who disagreed with me is not sufficient, especially since we established the sole reason my changes were reverted was due to a simple misunderstanding from a typo. I will be wasting people's time by posting on an entirely separate page for feedback on my proof when there is no issue with my proof. Regardless, I'll do this anyway. I don't want my changes to be reverted a third time. GabeTucker (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to the talk page [1], but nobody has responded. If nobody responds within 24 hours, I am going to reimplement my changes, as per the consensus of the community (on the talk page of the user who initially undid my changes). I am not going to entertain a bureaucratic hassle rooted in an unwillingness to understand the situation and a desire to needlessly impose power over others. If you're having such an issue with my post, why don't you verify the proof yourself? Any example at all of where my proof is wrong will be sufficient for me to agree with you. GabeTucker (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no deadlines here, volunteers don't have to respond on any kind of schedule, let alone one you set.

MrOllie (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You are not responding to any of my points except for the ones that are easiest to vaguely dismiss. GabeTucker (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that in your

WP:BRD

. So I looked into it myself, and I found an interesting quote on that page.

"To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion..."

I attempted a new edit that reasonably addresses the reverter's concerns. And the discussion did reach a specific conclusion, even though it need not do so.

I am cohering with the guidelines of Wikipedia. So this is concluded. GabeTucker (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that the Monty Python Problem has long contentious history in Wikipedia as well, which might explain why there might be some resistance/hesitance to change or engage (frankly various aspects have been pretty much talked to death, you can form your own impression by browsing the discussion archives). --Kmhkmh (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One should not write things like this:

P(C1|X1,H3)

Instead, that should look like this:

P(C₁ | X₁, H₃)

Notice that

• The letters are italicized but the digits and the parentheses and the vertical slash are not. This is codified in
  WP:MOSMATH
  . The point is to follow LaTeX style as closely as possible. One should also not italicize things like max, cos, log, sup, det, etc. Certainly one should not indiscriminately italicize everything in non-TeX mathematical notation.
• Actual subscripts are used. (Doesn't that seem easier on the eyes to you?)
• Horizontal space precedes and follows the vertical slash.

Likewise the following

${\displaystyle P(H3|C1,X1)}$

should instead look like this:

${\displaystyle P(H_{3}\mid C_{1},X_{1})}$

Here again, actual subscripts are used. The vertical slash is coded as \mid, which results in proper horizontal spacing.

Michael Hardy (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's super useful information—the original proof didn't use this notation, so I assumed it wasn't possible. Thanks for the tip! I'll be sure to use it in the future. GabeTucker (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked your account for this screed at the admins' noticeboard. Legitimate disagreement is not a conspiracy or an attack. The assertions and comparisons you made in that rant are completely unacceptable in themselves, but if you truly believe them then you are not suited to this community. Although Wikipedia may seem rules-oriented and bureaucratic, the essence of the rules is fairly simple. Collaboration is key to everything we do on Wikipedia and sometimes that means people disagree with you. If you wish to appeal this block, or you wish to return to editing with a different approach, you can type {{unblock|your reason}} below this message and an independent admin will review it. This block does not have a fixed expiry but I'm happy for any admin to lift it if you are willing to edit in a more collaborative manner. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

GabeTucker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi there—thank you for letting me know. I would like to briefly clarify that the intention behind my screed was not to frame legitimate disagreement as an attack, but to frame the manner in which some Wikipedia editors disagree as sometimes being unnecessarily condescending or hostile. However, my approach to dealing with this was completely out of line and I should not have ranted in such an unproductive and emotional manner. I feel embarrassed at how I handled the situation. There were a variety of factors in my life that were causing me a great deal of stress at the time, but this does not excuse my behavior and I will not make the same mistake in the future. If I get to a situation again where I am feeling upset at another Wikipedia editor for being condescending and am tempted to lose my composure, I will just rant about it on a private note that I will not publish or just rant to a friend. The reason I am requesting to appeal the ban at this time is because I felt excited about getting back to editing, so I would greatly appreciate your forgiveness just this one time. I will not make the same mistake again, and I am excited to get back to editing provided I am given the opportunity. Thank you. GabeTucker (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

As you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and have said what you will do to avoid the behavior in the future, I think you should have another chance. Pinging HJ Mitchell for their awareness. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]