User talk:198.53.108.48

June 2021

Hello, I'm Edipio. I noticed that you recently removed content from Noel Gallagher without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Edipio ^💬 02:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Please don't put insults in edit summaries. Just describe the change, thanks! WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 03:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Excellent yeoman's work on adding lots of mathematical information. jp×g 23:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Requests for comment.

Whatever it was you posted at Talk:Inertial frame of reference, it wasn't formatted remotely like a Request for Comment in the way Wikipedia requires, and accordingly, I've removed it. If you actually want outside involvement in a discussion, I'd recommend taking a look at the recommendations of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and making at least a token effort to comply, since nobody is going to respond favourably to what might very well come across as a deranged rant accompanied by threats of violence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Archimedes, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

On agreeing to disagree on Archimedes

Hi, user 198.53.108.48:

I hope my note finds you well, and that you do not take my views as a rebuke to you personally. I welcome the opportunity to debate and appreciate your insights into the work of Archimedes and what it means to you. I just wanted to reply to your last comments but felt the Talk page under "Archimedes" is already too long on this subject and in any case, I think these matters are better discussed here than elsewhere.

I found your analogy of the wall beautiful; however, I also found it somewhat misleading. Mathematics is an activity and a way of thinking, in addition to a language. And like all activities, ways of thinking, and languages, it develops and changes over time. Some of those changes do build on previous work, much like brick goes on top of brick, but not all of them do. Some changes become sterile and die off. Some of them live on but take on new meanings. I prefer to see mathematics as growing organically, like a tree, rather than statically, like a wall.

By this, I do not wish to diminish Archimedes' mathematical work. Quite the contrary! I think his work is brilliant and should be known by lay people as much as by mathematicians. This is why I invest in his Wikipedia page, and I have a feeling this is probably why you too do the same. That being said, there is nothing written in the stars that says we shouldn't compare Archimedes' work with anyone. And in any case, the quote of Leibniz you used implies that a comparison is being made. Note also that I was not arguing that Gauss is greater than Archimedes, but only whether he was influenced by Archimedes. I don't think there is anything unfair about that.

I also do not wish to diminish your concern about the infobox becoming unwieldy because of too many names being included. Quite the contrary! This is precisely why I advocated two-form criteria. So allow me to repeat what these are and see if perhaps we can find common ground:

1. That Archimedes' influence on person X is substantiated by evidence. By which I mean not only that person X read and understood Archimedes (which is great!), but that said person used that specific knowledge substantially in their own investigations. This could mean extending Archimedes' results to other areas (e.g., check out Dr. Rorres work here: https://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Floating/floating.html) or using Archimedean methods extensively (e.g., like in this book: https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/The-Illustrated-Method-of-Archimedes.pdf). This would reduce the number of people from those who are merely acquainted with Archimedes (think high school student writing a 1-page paper on Archimedes) to those who are not only acquainted with him but actually have visible signs of Archimedes' influence in their own work. Let's called this the criterion of utility.

2. That person X is closer to the times of Archimedes than our own. Even if we enforce the first criterion, we will still end up with a huge number of people if we go back and add every person that meets criterion 1 since Archimedes' death. So we need to reduce this further, and that is why I suggested "closer in time" as another bar to clear. Hero, Pappus, and Eutocius fit criteria 1 & 2, Rorres and Assis (the authors on the links above) meet 1 but not 2, so they could go to the "Legacy section" if we feel strongly inclined to do so. Let's called this the criterion of proximity.

I hope these arguments clarify my position better, and that you'll be able to see commonalities between your views and mine. If all else fails, and the community decides otherwise, I would not stand in the way of getting the Influence/Influenced categories removed. I'm not married to said categories and in any case, our time can be best spent doing something else.

Best regards, Guillermind81 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, I recently added a standard "welcome" message and "shared ip" template to this talk page, which you then promptly removed with the edit summary: "wikipedians" are so cute with their big splash "welcome"s on talk pages. not a static ip btw. it may stick around after a router restart, but it's not a guarantee". Per Wikipedia's userpage guidelines, you can remove the "welcome" message if you like (though not the "shared ip" template), but I was curious why remove them at all? And why do so with the hostile comments? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thank you - wolf 00:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse!

Hello! 198.53.108.48, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

- wolf 14:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Boston, you may be blocked from editing. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Roxy the dog: my apologies roxy. i thought i was genuinely contributing to improving the article. i will be more careful in the future. 198.53.108.48 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You know, some of your earlier contributions to mathematics/physics articles in the past were actually halfway useful, reading past the incredibly irascible tone. If you were a little nicer and a little less extravagant you could've easily collaborated with people and successfully argued your point. Instead we have this mess, and with vandalism like that edit to Boston I doubt you'll be able to continue without a block for much longer. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: father? is that you? i'm allowed to have a little fun here and there. people even monitor my talk page which is the most flattering thing. why not give them a chortle. bahstun is the capitalla ireland!! you know it's true!! ;) obviously i have to starting adding some more useful stuff shortly here. that part is clear, but i think i did some good work/research on the space challenger stuff that, in my view, is being held up on unreasonable grounds. to each their own, though. it's moments like those that make additional, worthy contributions more challenging. i know what i'm doing and usually when i make meaningful edits, they're well-sourced. i just dislike the fact that there have been memorable cases where, in spite of the evidence, some editors just take control of a page and want it that way. 198.53.108.48 (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Account

You have an account, please use it. Acroterion (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Both this and your account are blocked. Any recurrence of this behavior will result in a long block on this IP and an indefinite block on you and your account. You were warned, we have no patience with your attempts to play games with renaming. Acroterion (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

i just showed the term wigger is not racist, and now you're saying i'm playing games? please explain @Acroterion:

And I will make the block indefinite and remove your access to this page if you don't stop. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

you do realise this is an authoritarian action, others are watching, and it is clearly demonstrating you are taking issue with a well-sourced claim?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

it seems that people who want to believe the term wigger is racist are not willing to accept that the sources do not support that interpretation. Acroterion (talk · contribs) banned me (notice i haven't even been given a 24 hour warning prior to this? isn't it supposed to escalate?) because Jacona (talk · contribs) interfered with my usurpation request. originally acroterion alleged the name was racist/derogatory, and i disagreed. the user Jacona swooped in with poor sources topped off with snark to say it was racist in a very "matter-of-fact" tone. i then proceeded to invest a non-trivial amount of time demonstrating how the term is not racist using strong scholarly sources. clearly this pinched a nerve with Acroterion (talk · contribs) who chose to give me a 3 day ban instead of the 24 hour that is supposed to occur for a first offence. i originally voiced concern to Acroterion that i was given vacuous warnings by Walter Gorlitz and how this may lead to unfair sanctions in the future, which may have happened here. Acroterion told me he couldn't do anything, and yet here i am banned for 3 days instead of 24 hours. lastly jacona involved themselves in a discussion that did not concern them, did not want to participate further when i showed it was not racist, and now i am banned. jacona chose to engage and it's not out of wikipedia rules to expect them to respond. i disagree with both the length and reason for the ban. the quality of the content could have easily been edited, but instead i was banned before finishing up my work! i had another source i was adding and i'm upset because the block prevents me from finishing it! it's pretty obvious wigger is not a racist term, so i don't know how the administrator can threaten me with further sanctions for demonstrating something with solid evidence. shouldn't there be someone reasonable reviewing my unblock request?

Decline reason:

Personal attacks are not allowed, even if you think you are right. 3 days is a normal duration for such blocks. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Also if you have an account here then it is not acceptable for you to be editing as an IP in a disruptive manner. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighinBC: i don't think i've been disruptive to be honest. save like, two edits. all of my edits are in earnest. with respect to a personal attack, is assessing someone else's pretentious (and clearly unjustified) conduct towards another a personal attack? if saying someone is playing "hero ball" is a personal attack, then fine i get it. but i won't use Wikipedian1337 until it's renamed Whigger. this is the problem. acroterion tells me to use my account with a loser name, and i just don't want to. everyone else has a cool username and i can't even be a fan of sir robert walpole? what's up with that? that to me is offensive. it's pretty damn clear i don't want "Wigger", but "WHigger" because i think it's very cool to have that name. if you can help facilitate that, then i will use the account. if you only knew how many edits i've made to this site over the past 8 years. if i compiled all of the IPs i would probably be at dr eppstein's level (well, maybe not that high up, but up there for sure) 198.53.108.48 (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This [1] will give you some insight. Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: well look at how he responded. who did he think he was with the bud in italics. he needed to be put in his place. he came in without respecting me because he thought i wanted a racist name, and he chose to lecture me from a platform of flawed righteousness. i don't know how you couldn't empathise with that position. i don't do that without provocation. sometimes administrators spend so much time on ticky-tacky sh*t instead of reinforcing positive and productive traits. asking someone where they went after they interfered on a page without invitation is not a personal attack. he's obviously not able to respond to my sources because wigger isn't racist, but it seems now you're claiming that isn't the point.

you all want me to use my account, but you won't give me something that i've shown is VERY VERY admissible compared to darknipples. i showed that. what else do you want? i am not using an account with a dumb name. 198.53.108.48 (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The answer on the userame is: no. [2] Talkpage access revoked as promised. The next step if this starts up again is indef, which means no editing from an Ip or anywhere else. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

IP blocked for a year, page semi-protected. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

---