User talk:Jakob.scholbach/Archives/2010/October

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more

In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers

Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle

WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes

Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture

Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Logarithm

Regarding you revert of my edits in Logarithm: First of all, entirely reverting my edits makes me want to stop editing wikipedia entirely. I actually spent quite a while ensuring the correctness on them. Seeing it reverted renders my time spent entirely wasted. Instead of dismissing edits, consider improving them. Furthermore you disregarded some relevant additions to the article, i.e. the division formula, which is a well known formula for logarithms. This is now missing again. However, regarding the math, I see you point in striveing for consistency. Although in my opinion; not using math notation makes the code of the articles look like someone vommited all over it. The beauty of the math tag, and why I use it, is that it shows as "HTML if very simple or else PNG" by default in most browsers. Regards --mgarde (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. First off, please don't let other people's reverts (like mine in this case) drive you off WP. In the quasitotality of all cases, this is nothing personal or anything you should be concerned about. As you know, you are always free to re-revert and/or discuss the matter on the talk page of the corresponding article. Also, please consider that not only you, but also others have spent time to write certain articles. Edits which seem to decrease the article's quality (which your edit didn't grossly, but I still feeel it was a tiny step back) then "waste" (to cite you) the time previously invested to the article. Moreover, I did think for some time about your edit--I didn't simply thoughtlessly revert it.

Math markup continues to be a somewhat stupid point in wiki-authoring. Neither solution is perfect. Using math markup all the time looks, to me (to use your parlance) like someone has vomited over all the article, whereas using math markup only where really necessary reduces the number of places but lets the remaining ones poke out more prominently. I hope we can both live with the way I've done it so far.

I intentionally removed the division formula, since it is a combination of the two other ones. Also, in the interest of a short, concise lead, we have to sacrifice slightly less important points in the lead. Of course, the division formula does show up in the main body. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)