User talk:NNcNannara
NNcNannara (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"I have contributed more than any other single person on the topic of AVL Trees. These contributions have been deleted under the rule WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Given that the AVL Theorem is the main theorem of computer science, I believe that this is tantamount to banning all code on Wikipedia. Is that right? Have you banned all code in Wikipedia?
If you wish Wikipedia to be of use to programmers, you will lift the ban and restore the deleted pages.
How can my 'actions' not demonstrate the point when there are no 'actions' because I am blocked? This is completely irrational.
My only 'actions' are emails pointing out that the definition of Balance Factor on the main AVL Page is flawed. Furthermore, there are paragraphs relating to split and join which are just rubbish. When I see such in Wikipedia my natural urge is to fix the problems (however I am blocked).
Sandstein falsely claimed that I am focused solely on the DRV. The DRV is history and I have moved on. Tell me, precisely why then I am being blocked."
Decline reason:
Yes, code itself does not belong on Wikipedia; this is not a code repository. We also don't put texts of books, recipes, etc on Wikipedia; there are other and better places than that. You've only been blocked for two weeks; you've contributed nothing to Wikipedia proper since last June. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:39, 19 February 2017 (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.
Being Blocked[edit]
I have contributed 4 beautiful pages on AVL, each of which is much larger than your current page. Your assertion that I have contributed nothing since last June is patently false.NNcNannara (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have said last July. This doesn't list your July 28 contribution, which was your last article space contribution. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
NNcNannara (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"I have demonstrated via email that I am capable of reforming your AVL Page. Therefore I can make further contributions to Wikipedia - contrary to the claim made in the original INDEFINITE block."
Decline reason:
Declined without prejudice; you are welcome to resubmit an unblock request after clarifying. As a reviewing administrator, I don't have access to whatever email you sent. As such, there's nothing here for me to review. Furthermore, even if you did demonstrate your capability to reform the AVL page, that doesn't address the reason for your block. Again, you are welcome to submit another unblock request after you have addressed these concerns. Yamla (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2017 (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.
NNcNannara (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"The reason for the block is: clearly not here to contribute. In the emails, I pointed out that the definition of balance factor on the AVL page is incorrect. Furthermore, the code that is presented there is 5 state. It also does not support iteration. The code is thus inferior to the code presented to you in the 4 Holy Wikis. This alone demonstrates that I am capable of further contributions. How does this NOT address the reason for the block Yalma? I am tiring of Wikipedia attempting to bully one of its top contributors (and of you deleting the 4 Holy Wikis). I will submit no further unblock requests - this is the last one. Clearly Wikipedia is behaving disgracefully and if you do not unblock me, feel free to delete my userid as it is of no further use."
Decline reason:
Is it an attempt at Chewbacca defense? "Dear admins, I've been blocked because I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, being totally concentrated on my own theory. But listen, my theory blah blah blah, so you must unblock me. Max Semenik (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2017 (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.
NNcNannara (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
NNcNannara, note that the reason for your block is the following: "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia: Single-purpose account now only dedicated to lengthy rants about their deleted articles at WP:DRV)". I'm not imposing any requirements upon you, but you might want to address the second part. I think you've done a good job explaining what sort of edits you would make if unblocked, and have explained why you think it is unfair to claim WP:NOTHERE. I have no idea what you mean by your reference to "4 Holy Wikis", though it's very possible other people will recognise the reference. Note that I declined your unblock only so as to request additional information, which is why I tried hard to indicate what I thought was lacking from your request. For example, I do not have access to the emails you referenced, nor will the next reviewing admin. For example, your unblock request didn't address your actions at WP:DRV (nor does your current unblock request). I want to be very clear here, my goal was to help you formulate a complete unblock request. It was absolutely not my intention to bully you in any way, and I'm truly sorry I failed to properly communicate that to you. I will leave your request to another administrator so you do not feel I am bullying you. You are welcome to modify your current open unblock request to address the concerns I raised here, but are certainly not obligated to do so. To any reviewing administrator, I remind you that my unblock decline was done without prejudice, simply to request additional information. Without that information, I did not feel I could review the block; you, the next reviewing administrator, should not take my decline as a 'vote'. --Yamla (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou Yamla for your time and courtesy. Max is clearly an arsehole with his Chewbacca defense. I don't expect that he would comprehend the 'theory' to which he is referring - which is the AVL Theorem - the main theorem of computer science - which incidentally is not 'my theory'. His "blah, blah, blah" is bloody insulting. AVL is now 55 years old and my frustration in the DRV was due to the fact that it has been suppressed for all that time - and now due to Wikipedia's actions, will continue to be suppressed. I will sign off for good now, given that I am permanently blocked anyway. Needless to say, I am disgusted with Wikipedia's performance.NNcNannara (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the overall picture, the 4 Holy Wikis were just too hot for Wikipedia to handle. They (and the human race) clearly don't deserve them. Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales are embroiled in a conspiracy to dumb down the programming population. I will not attempt any further corrections to your AVL page; rather, I will leave you to wallow in ignorance and garbage code.NNcNannara (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
From now on Wikipedia can suck eggs - see Rosetta Code for breaking news. You lot choked on AVL in Memory - not even considering AVL on Disk (i.e. database theory).NNcNannara (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
AVL Databases are not even on Wikipedia's radar - how amusing.NNcNannara (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
How about your algorithms on the main page, have they been ported to disk (they are junk - need I ask)?NNcNannara (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Rather than being all bitter and twisted about the deletion of the 4 Holy Wikis (as your admins suggest), I have since gone on to develop Database Theory.NNcNannara (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Dictionaries are AVL Trees and indirectli so are NNaps. Do iou euen nouu uuhat I ann talcing about? These are phundannental classes ou Connnputer Science. I could easili contribute the source code to Dictionaries - but uuhi uuould I - iou uuould gust delete it right - just like Set Theory. I can't contribute be danned - iou can't handle the contributions.NNcNannara (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Can one ou iour adnnins prouide an adecuuate response? But phirst read the Database Guide.NNcNannara (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The Foundations of Calculus in C# are online anyway. Fortunately, you can't cover that up.NNcNannara (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Your present code is rubbish. It doesn't support iteration and is in no known language. You had the correct solution in 4 languages but you deleted them.NNcNannara (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not an argument about 'my theory' but about finding a correct and adequate proof of AVL (both in memory and on disk). The in-memory version is publicly available whereas the on-disk version remains private code.NNcNannara (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This 'rant' will now be continued at Rosetta Code.