User talk:Certes

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

With great regret, I announce my semi-retirement from Wikipedia. I have enjoyed helping to build this encyclopedia since 2007, and we have achieved a lot together, but times have changed.

The WMF was formed to facilitate Wikipedia and initially did so well. The disks spun reliably; the software mostly worked. Since then, the WMF has bloated exponentially. Funded by aggressive and deceptive begging, it has turned to ever more tangential ways to dispose of its embarrassingly large cash surplus. This arrogant parasite is now so aloof that it cannot even remember who funds it: its mission statement and annual goals don't even mention an encyclopedia. I see little point in continuing to contribute to an enterprise which has lost its way so badly, and I feel that my time would now be more productively spent elsewhere.

On a practical note, I have turned off various daily and weekly reports listing tasks which I will no longer be doing. Please feel free to reinstate any which you find useful. I have marked my status as semi-retired as I will log in occasionally and respond to messages, though perhaps not very promptly, and may even fix the odd error which particularly irritates me.

Thank you to those who have worked with me. I apologise for leaving you with many incomplete projects. The fine colleagues I have met along the way are too numerous to mention individually, and I wouldn't wish to insult anyone by omission. However, you know who you are. The readership, of which I remain a grateful member, appreciates your dedicated and skilled service. I shall miss your company. Certes (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

2

Hello. I just started asking about a mysterious paragraph in 2, about the digits of pi: talk:2#Transcendental numbers. You might just be able to see what this is about, and if you could explain it to me I would be grateful. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Question

So, based on your reply to the on-going conversation about the article for 2, I want to ask you: do you believe that my work has been of worth? Since you said, “Wikipedia is not a place to play.” Do you think, using your vocabulary and different definition than mine of “play”, that I am not contributing worthwhile information? That someone else is capable of doing what I have done for the page for 5, for example, or even for 58? If so, then why hasn’t that person showed up? I’m about to quit editing here if either I don’t receive my due respects, since I see it as a disgraceful lack of gratitude for my effort. *No one has said even a “thank you”, in any way, for what I have done. So much for these barnstars! Radlrb (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)*

Especially, in the landscape that as encyclopedists, it is our duty to reveal published information that makes sense, together; to show the best possible configurations and layouts of information on a subject, and that if that reveals something special, not to hold back even if it looks like “OR”, or might be in part, even if it happens to be in Wikipedia. Especially with all that is going on the world, it’s not the time to start setting limits at the wrong time & place (people have tried in the past, and breaking points lead to laws being broken for the interest of much higher ideals). I’m not malingering here, adding what I perceive as essential information (most points, at the very least), and if you think that I am wasting time here (most seem to not think so, else I wouldn’t have done as much as I have), then you have a perspective on my editing vision that is entirely wrong. Think carefully of what I have added, if you’ve followed most of it. Radlrb (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked through your contributions in detail but I do think your work has been of worth and that you are contributing worthwhile information. Editing can be a thankless task, but let me say a belated thank you. However, I do think that you sometimes go into more detail than is ideal, especially when the text is not primarily about the article's topic. Adding information about pi to an article about 2 is an example of that. Yes, it is our duty to reveal published information, which means summarising reliable sources rather than drawing conclusions for ourselves. Mathematics is unusual in that statements can be proven true even if they don't appear in the literature, but we should still follow Wikipedia's general rule that we are reporting knowledge rather than creating it. Certes (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Count your blessings, you never know how or in which form something will come to be; so be careful to get picky. Secondly, adding information about pi in the article for 2 is not improper, different from what you are saying; clearly, the generalized continued fraction showcased for pi in the article is quite remarkable, and has been known in high regard for a long time. Happy editing, and thank you! Radlrb (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Backlinks report

Special:Diff/1113515685/1229574528 - Hi, I'm going to comment it out in the crontab, otherwise it keeps running (but doesn't upload the report). It can be re-enabled anytime just let me know. -- GreenC 16:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC: Thank you for all your help. Yes, please turn off the job. I hope a talk page stalker may adopt some of the most frequently mislinked titles from User:Certes/Backlinks but they'll probably have their own way of doing that rather than using my entire list. I've tried to be consistent with edit summaries and have a shorter list of the links I've fixed most often, in case someone wants to take over just the most prolific cases. X (social network) should probably be added, as it now gets mislinked as just X. Wishing you all the best and thanks again, Certes (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)