Googology Wiki
Googology Wiki

Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labelled for deletion.


I think that the redirect 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000Googol should be deleted, because it doesn't fit into Special:Allpages. -- 09:32, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

Who will write 100...00 (100 zeroes) instead of googol in title? Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 10:39, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
How about a following rule: every redirect starting at a number more than 20 digits long should be deleted if a number has more compact name. Do you agree with that? LittlePeng9 (talk) 16:09, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
Seconded. These hundred-digit redirects are ridiculous and of no use. FB100Ztalkcontribs 10:31, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
  • psst* If a number with more than 20 digits doesn't have a compact name, then its decimal expansion wouldn't be a redirect at the first place. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 11:09, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
OMG I will eat you Cloudy! (Wat this?) 08:53, December 11, 2014 (UTC)
I think the redirect should stay. Has it ever harmed anybody?? No! Leave it as an "easter egg" to people who are new to the wiki. Eners49 (talk) 13:12, June 23, 2018 (UTC)Eners49

Matthew's Function shouldn't be deleted

This is the main source of my function. What can I do to add sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubby3 (talkcontribs) 16:58, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

You have to publish your notations in external source, e.g. on Google Sites. LittlePeng9 (talk) 17:06, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

I think we can keep mattthew's function, when The author puts an external link and defines it in english —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antares.I.G.Harrison (talkcontribs) 11:13, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

If someone takes their time to write a quality article about this function, I won't delete. I don't want on this wiki a notation based almost solely on few examples. LittlePeng9 (talk) 12:35, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
There is no definition, those examples are the definition. I vote keep. Wythagoras (talk) 12:47, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
Btw, Peng, do you want to delete the BEAF article? Wythagoras (talk) 12:47, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
BEAF article has at least historical reasons to stay. If it was some new notation defined in a way it is, I probably would want to delete it as well. Beyond that, my main point with wanting to delete Matthew's function is the quality issue, and the fact that the definition can be fixed without a bigger problem if one took their time. LittlePeng9 (talk) 12:58, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Just delete this page Bubby3 (talk) 20:11, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

I think Utter Oblivion should not be deleted!

I just wrote a page called Utter Oblivion,and it was quickly labeled as a candidat for deletion.

I made the page respectably and I put the sources this time,so I do not see a reason for it to be deleted.

If someone thinks it should get deleted,than tell me and I will correct myself.

                                                                                                      Boboris02 (talk) 17:10, October 4, 2016 (UTC)Boboris02Boboris02 (talk) 17:10, October 4, 2016 (UTC) 

Functions that can compute numbers from any functions with n symbols is illdefined. AarexWikia04 - 17:37, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

Well...,that`s how it was defined in the source.

Jonathan Bowers,himself said it.I did not add anything that wasn`t clearly stated in the original article.

                                                                                                 Boboris02 (talk) 18:05, October 4, 2016 (UTC)Boboris02Boboris02 (talk) 18:05, October 4, 2016 (UTC) 

I don't think this article should be deleted, as the same way the article for Oblivion isn't deleted. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 02:00, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

Googology Course

Googology Course should not be deleted. It is a great way to learn googology. It tell you what order you learn everything. It's helpful and should not be deleted. Nathan da' R. 11:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC) 22:58, January 30, 2017 (UTC)‎

It has no sources. Every article must source something and link to it. So it has to be. Username5243 (talk) 23:13, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

It has a source. Check it. Nathan da' R. 11:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC) 23:29, January 30, 2017 (UTC)‎

Yes, but it isn't linked Username5243 (talk) 23:37, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

It has a source. Check again Nathan da' R. 11:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC) 00:07, January 31, 2017 (UTC)‎

I see what you are getting at. What I mean is, usually the source is linked directly (that is, a URL is added with a link to the source). That page does not have that. This is necessary to show the source can be reached. Username5243 (talk) 00:09, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

There is no rules that a souce has to be linked (most books can't be linked, for example), so I don't think that's a valid reason for deletion. However, I suggest the page's deletion for a different reason: The page appears to be promotional in tone. The first thought when I saw the page was created is that to move it to userspace, which I did. The creator did further edits to that page, meaning they are aware of the page move; until the issue is fixed, it's best left at the userspace. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 02:04, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
I didn't rellay mean for it to be a promotion. I wrote it just for fun and it's 100% free. If anyone wanted access to it, I would be happy to give it to them.
Just because it's free doesn't invalidate the claim that the article promotes it, or at least very much looks like it does.
Regarding the source, I'd say that a problem with it is that it is unverifiable. A Google search doesn't give any results. If you could have the (unfinished, or wait until it's finished) course uploaded and available somewhere, I would say there wouldn't be a problem with it. LittlePeng9 (talk) 14:55, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
I agree with LP. Normally source is something that is published. It is not published yet. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 18:22, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

I have decided to delete this article for now. Feel free to edit the page on your user space, but I would kindly request for you to not recreate the mainspace article, until you have some freely accessible source for it. Once you do, I think it would also be for the best if you left creating this article to us, so that we can write it in a more objective manner (see also this part of our Wiki's policy). LittlePeng9 (talk) 18:30, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

clouds! ⛅ 02:00, October 5, 2016 (UTC)


Megafugatwelve (and Megafugathirteen) should not be deleted.

I do not know how to add sources to a wiki article, but Megafuga-x is a pretty well known name for x↑↑x. One source (among many) for this fact: —Preceding unsigned comment added by PsiCubed2 (talkcontribs)

To add sources to an article, just put <ref>[URL Nameofpage]</ref>, and then make a sources section that contains <references/>. Username5243 (talk) 20:57, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

This source (and suppose neither do others) doesn't list this explicit number. Unless you point one which mentions Megafugatwelve, this article lacks references. Also worth noting that we have an article for megafuga- prefix. LittlePeng9 (talk) 21:08, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
Why should that matter? It's a large number that has a name, and the source confirms that this name is the correct one for this number.
You could argue that since the case of x=12 wasn't specifically mentioned anywhere, then it doesn't meet the "notability" criteria for a main-space article. But is it really less notable then, say, "Trihemoth-Giant-turreted-territethrateron" (a number which even Saibian himself didn't bother to give any kind of description for)? Or numbers by Aarex and Denis and Username5243, which no-one outside our little community knows anything about?
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for allowing all these numbers in the mainspace of the wiki. As long as they are well defined, have an outside source, and are relevant to googology - why not? I'm simply saying that disallowing megafugatwelve while allowing all these other rnumbers doesn't make much sense.
(by the way, the previous unsigned comment was me. Forgot to sign it. Sorry) PsiCubed2 (talk) 22:53, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
My understanding of citation rules here is that every number article needs a reference which defines, or at least mentions, the specific number explicitly. Just because the number can be defined in a particular manner is not yet a reason to include it here. This has nothing to do with notability. LittlePeng9 (talk) 06:20, April 7, 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for your understanding of the citation rules? ;-)
As far I know, there are no citation rules here - yet. And quite frankly, I find the specific rule you are proposing to be absurd. In what way is megafugatwelve any less "canonical" a number then megafugaseven? Is our a wiki an actual reference for the world of large numbers, or a stamp-collection of the stuff people list on their websites?
Also, according to this proposed rule, if someone makes a website with nothing but a list of thousands of random number names, all these numbers would suddenly be eligible for the mainspace here. Even if they were all things like "one million three hundred and seventy two thousand two hundred and fifty one" and none of them contained any explanations for why the number is listed. Does this makes sense to you?
As Sabiis Saibian said a few months ago, this community has to answer some hard questions regarding the purpose of this wiki. It doesn't really matter what these answers are. The important thing is to have a set of consistent guidelines which serve an agreed-upon prupose. PsiCubed2 (talk) 08:22, April 10, 2017 (UTC)

Best Idea for a Notation Ever

Please remove the deletion candidate tag from my page "Best Idea for a Notation Ever". I also really don't like how the reason given was just "Seriously?" That is criticism and he claims he put the tag because of his opinion on it. If no one wanted to read that, they really didn't have to. It didn't contain anything disrespectful, and if you don't know, it's a joke. It's a disrespectful way to force your criticism onto me when I am not affecting anyone. Also, I made it as a general article because I was making a page on a notation that was already invented. You need to learn to respect other people's opinions(As long as they aren't affecting you in a morally wrong way), and you guys take things too seriously. Come on, just have fun and crack a harmless joke once in a while, instead of being robots employed by a type over 9000 civilization to develop their language of FOST! 2607:FB90:983D:D1BE:1509:FD7B:F460:1F3A 23:23, August 10, 2017 (UTC)

This is the Googology Wiki. The purpose of a wiki page is not for you to present your ideas, but instead for people to be informed about what is going on in modern-day Googology. As an alternative, put your ideas on your blog. It just doesn't belong on a Wiki page. Nathan Richardson "Simon Weston" 19:47, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

He can't. In case you didn't notice, he is an anonymous user, and I'm fairly confident his user account got banned last month. So that was his only choice.

@AFU:: My "Seriously?" was in response to you coming back as a sock puppet. I knew who you are, and I know you got banned. So don't try to get around the ban. It's that simple.

In any case, it seemed Cloudy decided to put this as a subpage to his "Department of bubbly negative numberottles" (which I guess is where funny stuff that was made in main space but shouldn't be there goes). Username5243 (talk) 20:25, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

I agreed. Googleaarex (talk) 20:35, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

Category:Orders of symmetric groups

“This category is exactly the same as the category of factorial numbers.”

But the Category:Factorial numbers contains also numbers such as Expofaxul, which are not the order of any symmetric group. -- 16:43, September 3, 2017 (UTC)

Because expofaxul is exponential factorial, and these numbers are multiplicational factorials. Alpha-ketoacid (talk) 12:40, August 30, 2018 (UTC)


Since there are two facts with different categories, it should be kept. -- 17:22, January 4, 2018 (UTC) 00:25, January 11, 2018 (UTC) I disagree with my page being labeled a candidate for deletion because my page is about a topic that is not my own and I added citations to the page.

Pages created by User:Zerimtam

The User:Zerimtam has been blocked for unsourced page creation. Can we delete Megafugafourteen, Megafugafifteen, Megafugasixteen, Megafugaseventeen, Megafugaeighteen, Megafuganineteen, and Megafugatwenty? I consent to delinking the deleted pages in my comment. -- 18:00, January 11, 2018 (UTC)

The pages should not exist until someone add some sources Yabuszko (talk) 18:11, May 19, 2020 (UTC)


For some pages starting with “Googovple-”, such as Googovplexvij, Googovplexix and Googovplexxi, we can’t find sources. Can we delete them? -- 19:45, January 11, 2018 (UTC)

Yes DrCocktor (talk) 01:25, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

Template proposal:Numberlink

… should be not deleted, but moved to Template:Numberlink (or a shorter name). -- 09:51, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

What is this template for? Do we really need this? Rpakr (talk) 09:59, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

It was used in 299792458, and can be used to shorten links to unnamed numbers with about 20 digits. -- 10:07, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

Substubs in the 700s range

Some user(s) has/have created substubs in the 700s range; namely, 701, 705, 706, 707, 708, 711, 712, 713, 716, 717, 718, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726 and 727. Can we delete these? I consent to delinking the deleted pages in my comment. -- 10:55, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

But we should keep the following pages for now:

  1. 700 (alphabetic numeral; commemorative coin);
  2. 702 (alphabet-related combinatorics);
  3. 703 and 710 (radio frequencies);
  4. 704 and 720 (TV picture resolution);
  5. 709 (parliament-related);
  6. 714 and 715 (Ruth-Aaron pair);
  7. 719 and 721 (DST-related);
  8. 728 and 729 (Smith brothers).

-- 11:02, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

As I said here , all articles should be relevant to gooology, so they should be deleted. Maybe we can keep the 700 article, but for me a number being a radio frequency or being related to parliament is not a good reason to keep the article. If the article is related to googology then it should be kept. (for example, a value of a googological function like 107 or having a name in googology like 405) Rpakr (talk) 13:23, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Or being used in googologisms like 666. Rpakr (talk) 16:59, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

I already turned 703, 704 and 710 into redirects. -- 13:37, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Since the Category:Numbers in metrology contains stubs, we need a page Numbers in metrology. And where should 719, 721, 743 and 745 go: a) to Calendar-related numbers or b) to Numbers in metrology? -- 13:41, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a page Unnamed numbers with multiple unrelated uses. -- 13:45, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Or should it be named Unnamed numbers with various unrelated uses? -- 15:30, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

We have a Category:Numbers in politics, but no page Numbers in politics. Can we create the latter? -- 13:55, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

If this page has been created, then 709, 3497 and 7228 should be turned into redirects. I added a fact about the concert pitch to 435. -- 14:05, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Confusable proposed SI prefixes

Some proposed SI prefixes are too large or too small for any practical use, and can even be confused in some languages. In particular, I request the deletion of the following unsourced prefixes:


  1. Benta-, Venta-, Wenta-
  2. Vessa-, Wessa-


  1. Zenti- (can be turned into a redirect)
  2. Zinqua- (Cinqua- has already been deleted)


  1. Denta-, Tenta-


  1. Genta-, Jenta-, Yenta-
  2. Genti-, Jenti-, Yenti-
  3. Getta-, Jetta- (a Volkswagen car)

Silent H

  1. Enta-, Henta-
  2. Etta-, Hetta-
  3. Henti- (Enti- has already been deleted)
  4. Hinqua-, Inqua-


  1. Kara-, Qara-


  1. Lara-, Rara-


  1. Sessa-, Xessa-


  1. Nica-
  2. Nici-
  3. Pica-
  4. Pici-

Other connotations

  1. Anti-
  2. Cynti-
  3. Ussa-

-- 11:40, January 17, 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Joyce designed his extension to the SI prefixes with practicality in mind. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 15:10, January 17, 2018 (UTC)

Since both nica- and pica- are listed here, I request the former prefix to be kept, and the latter one to be restored. -- 19:57, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

But nici- and pici- are not listed on the same source. Therefore, I request the deletion of the former prefix, since the latter prefix has already been deleted. -- 20:00, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

Vaughn's Numbers

Vaughn's numbers shouldn't be deleted because you shouldn't need sources for a new number. 00:51, January 23, 2018 (UTC)

There is a rule which states you do need a source however, otherwise the Wiki is liable to be filled with poorly made numbers

-- Edwin Shade 00:57, January 23, 2018

Ancient Roman numerals

Edwin Shade nominated the redirect from the ancient Roman numeral ↂ for 10,000 for deletion. What about the redirect from the ancient Roman numeral ↁ for 5,000? -- 17:48, January 29, 2018 (UTC)

-- 18:08, January 29, 2018 (UTC)


Can we delete all the factorial numbers starting with lexx-? On [1], only lexexfa is listed. -- 12:23, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

And also all the factorial numbers starting with lexexv-? -- 12:28, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

I think there must be a direct mention of the number in order for the source to be applicable. However, I'm not sure if the rule has changed Nathan Richardson "Simon Weston" 14:51, February 4, 2018 (UTC)


Can we delete all the numbers of the form googol*kaidekaplex? In particular, the articles googoltriskaidekaplex, googoltetrakaidekaplex, googolpentakaidekaplex, googolhexakaidekaplex and googolheptakaidekaplex have no valid sources. And the deletion of googolundeciplex and googolduodeciplex also needs to be considered. -- 14:29, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Seventy-sevens and Sixty-sixes

… should be kept, since they are found here. -- 16:09, February 8, 2018 (UTC)


Can we keep this article, or should we delete it? -- 13:39, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

-- 16:38, March 2, 2018 (UTC)

And what about Category:Numbers with radical 33? In Germany, radicalism is frowned upon, and “33” is also an abbreviation for the year, in which the bad part of German history begins. -- 19:40, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

You like to link mathematical things with unrelated things. Anyway, the category was deleted, but not for the reason you given on this page. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:34, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

-min-, Begiston, Eleventy-elevens, Twelvety-twelves

These four articles are numbers by André Joyce without valid sources, and have been created by Andrejoyce, so they must be deleted. -- 15:12, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

Pages created by Andrejoyce

Can we delete all pages created by Andrejoyce? I think that there is a rule against creation of articles without external sources, and a rule against adding their own numbers to Googology Wiki. -- 15:33, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

But the following pages should be kept:

  1. -dex
  2. -dhex
  3. -minex
  4. Booprovi
  5. Gaxoogol
  6. Gerigol
  7. Ghigol
  8. Givoogol
  9. Gogogirl
  10. Gogogogirl
  11. Gol
  12. Googom
  13. Googovi
  14. Gooprovi
  15. Gooprovij
  16. Lexexfa
  17. Little googol
  18. Quadrooprovi
  19. Trooprovi

The following pages should be merged:

  1. Cyplev
  2. Little bigger little googol

The following pages should be moved:

  1. Anti- (to Prefix 10^96)
  2. Fetta- (to Prefix 10^237)
  3. Kenta- (to Prefix 10^66)

The following redirects should also be kept:

  1. Googool (redirects to Gargoogol)
  2. Googoviji (redirects to 4294967296)
  3. Xova- (redirects to Prefix 10^27)
  4. Xovi- (redirects to Prefix 10^27)

And the following pages should be turned into redirects:

  1. Gogov (to 50)
  2. Gogovi (to 72)
  3. Gogovij (to 98)
  4. Inqua- (to Prefix 10^150)
  5. Menta- (to Prefix 10^60)
  6. Nica- (to Prefix 10^57)
  7. Oca- (to Prefix 10^54)
  8. Otta- (to Prefix 10^210)
  9. Qeda- (to Prefix 10^48)
  10. Rinda- (to Prefix 10^45)
  11. Sara- (to Prefix 10^120)
  12. Satta- (to Prefix 10^42)
  13. Weica- (to Prefix 10^30)
  14. Zenti- (to Hecto-)

I am not sure whether the following page can be kept:

  1. Googogoogol

I am also not sure whether the following pages can be kept:

  1. Zotta-
  2. Zotti-

If they are kept, then we should merge them to Prefix 10^255. -- 19:07, February 27, 2018 (UTC)

The following pages, which have been created by LegionMammal978, should also be deleted:

  1. Googoolxiv
  2. Googoocxex
  3. Googoocclvi

The following page, which has been created by ARsygo, should also be deleted:

  1. Googovplex

The following page, which has been created by LegionMammal978, should be moved:

  1. Googoocxexviji (to 2^2048, 256^256 or ²256)

-- 17:00, February 28, 2018 (UTC)

-- 18:15, March 1, 2018 (UTC)

The name “googoocxexviji” has no external sources, but its numerical value appears in the computation of mega.

-- 09:53, March 2, 2018 (UTC)

400000 and 750000000

According to Talk:Sechstelmillion, numbers with single-word names (i. e. not formed from two smaller numbers) in foreign languages, and sourced single-word fractions of -illion and -illiard numbers should be kept. -- 12:04, February 27, 2018 (UTC)

The creator of the pages ( added sources, after Rpakr nominated the pages for deletion. -- 12:28, February 27, 2018 (UTC)

The numbers are named Lehu and Dreiviertelmilliarde in Hawaiian and German, respectively. I created the redirects, and I think that the numbers should be moved to the foreign-language words, since the English translations “four hundred thousand” and “three quarters of a billion” aren’t that simple. -- 13:06, February 27, 2018 (UTC)


… should be kept, if this category is for numbers which are the result of a tetration with reasonably small base and polyponent. -- 08:48, March 2, 2018 (UTC)


… shouldn’t be deleted, but cleaned up, since it is listed here. -- 07:56, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Powers of 22

I nominated this category for deletion, because it was too small. Now, it contains only two pages; both are unsourced numbers. Can we delete it, and also the two unsourced numbers in it? -- 07:13, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Powers of 21 and Category:Powers of 122, and the unsourced numbers in them, should also be deleted. -- 07:27, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Powers of 10 with exponent not ending in a 0 or a 3

Should direct categorizing into Category:Powers of 10 be allowed instead? But then we shall exclude numbers with the endings -illiard, -illion and -yllion (which should go into the respective subcategories), as well as numbers of the form 1010n larger than a googolplex (to prevent inclusion of most Saibianisms) from it. -- 12:08, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting idea. I think they should indeed be directly categorized into powers of 10. The categories of prime exponent and squarefree exponents can be done away with. Cookiefonster (talk) 12:27, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

7920, 604800 and 17971200

… should be moved to Mathieu group M11, Janko group J2 and Tits group, respectively. -- 13:46, March 21, 2018 (UTC)


… should be kept, since it is listed here. -- 14:36, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Times Square categories

Can we delete all three Times Square categories? -- 19:41, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Obsolete size categories

The categories Category:Numbers with 1000 to 4933 digits and Category:Numbers with 4933 to 1000000 digits have been deleted. But why are the unsourced numbers still in these categories? -- 21:22, March 22, 2018 (UTC)


… and similar titles need to be transwikied to -- 20:40, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

Only the first revision of each page I created today should be transwikied. -- 20:46, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

I created all affected titles on Can somebody delete all 16 pages with titles starting with “Inconsequent”? -- 09:10, May 12, 2018 (UTC)

May somebody start deleting these MilkyWay90 (talk) 21:41, June 12, 2018 (UTC)MilkyWay90

They were already deleted. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 15:16, June 13, 2018 (UTC)

Hamlet Monkey Number

Hi everybody, I saw that the article 'Hamlet Monkey Number' had become a candidate for deletion due to 'googology article ban'. Can someone please clarify what that means, because I think that article should stay on the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eners49 (talkcontribs) 18:28, June 15, 2018 (UTC)

I think the ban should be lifted. It's been long enough. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 09:21, June 16, 2018 (UTC)


… should be deleted, since no valid googological use could be found. -- 09:02, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

I think that it should be turned into a redirect to Prime numbers. -- 10:10, August 14, 2018 (UTC)

Football-related numbers

Please delete 1866, 16772 and 19985, since the Nationalelf has been eliminated after the group stage. -- 16:01, June 27, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Lucas numbers

… can be kept, since I created a page Largest known Lucas prime. Any objections? -- 10:38, July 8, 2018 (UTC)

Now no longer a candidate for deletion. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:07, August 30, 2018 (UTC)


In June 19, 2018, Eners49 created the article Googolquadribang. At the bottom of the article, there was a paragraph reading:

Note to mods: Googolquadribang isn't explicitly stated on the page, but from looking at the googolbang, googoldubang, googoltribang, etc. pattern, we can clearly extrapolate the pattern and this was the number people most likely had in mind. So if you still want to delete this than can we at least discuss it on the candidate for deletion page?

Here's the reason I decided to delete the page despite the above. In early-mid 2012 (which I like to call the Made-up Number Era), people created a lot of articles for numbers that don't have sources, or aren't mentioned in the sources given. They are eventually deleted when an administrator returned from hiatus. Some of them are obvious extensions to existing googolisms (such as giggolquadriplex and giggolseptaplex, which are extensions to giggolplex and giggolduplex), yet they were deleted anyway because they don't have sources. I think this—the requirement of the name being mentioned in the source—still applies today (with a few exceptions such as the numbers named with the fuga- previx), and that's why I decided to delete the page. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 08:17, July 29, 2018 (UTC)


I don't think it makes since for 122 to be deleted just because it's a stub and it's not that relevant to googology.

I think this because there are several very similar pages that you could argue those things about that DON'T have the delete tag.

Just off the top of my head, there are 103, 106, and 115, and I'm sure there are dozens of pages like them.

So If none of them have the tag, Why should 122? 2601:142:2:EC49:84E:28D6:3668:15B 13:00, September 16, 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. There are literally hundreds of other pages like this which aren't flagged for deletion yet this one is? Does anybody have a good reason for this? I mean Sbiis Saibian defined a large number as a number larger than 1. ubersketch📞 17:29, September 27, 2018 (UTC)

{10,100 (0,2) 2} & 10

Ginglapulus shouldn't be deleted, it has gingulus entries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noogai93 (talkcontribs) 00:57, January 19, 2019 (UTC)

Please don't delete "Unsexigantacentillion"

I created the page Unsexagintacentillion a while ago and Googology Wikia bots and/or admins have now suppposedly listed it as a canditate for deletion. The reason was "No source".  However, "unsexagintacentillion" is a valid -illion number, plus this Youtube video and this webpage list it as an actual number. For these reasons, I do not agree that this article should be deleted.

Nirvana Supermind (talk) 08:29, July 8, 2019 (UTC)

Then why don't you add sources? It is an exact solution. The article has actually no sources accessible from the article itself.
p-adic 09:49, July 8, 2019 (UTC)

Infinite Layers

GoogolFan2000 (talk) 04:48, September 25, 2019 (UTC) Why exactly is the page for Infinite Layers on the chopping block? Are game links not considered sources? If that's the case, I don't know why that would be, since the best sources are often the original source material itself, in my opinion at least. If game links are adequate enough to count as a source, the Infinite Layers page should not be a candidate for deletion, as the page does indeed have a link to the game's GitHub page.  

The external link is added by Bubby3 (cf. history), but he perhaps forgot to remove the deletion tag then. Although I have not seen the link, you can remove the tag if it can be a source.
p-adic 05:42, September 25, 2019 (UTC)

What Happened?

I saw that (Vista Function)will be deleted? P-adic and Cloudy176, Could you tell me?

Why Vista Function Will Be Deleted?

P-adic and Cloudy176, Could you tell me?

Read the description in the deletion tag.
p-adic 09:47, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
I can tell you where I refered to Vista Function:
Mango523WNR (talk) 10:29, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
I said that read it. If you can read it, then you will soon understand that your article is not allowed.
p-adic 12:52, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

Unless something changed:

1. GWiki userpages and blog posts are not considered acceptable sources.

2. There's a rule against creating an article aobut something you made yourself.

At any rate, I deleted the page. By the way, there was no deletion tag on the page at the time of its deletion.

Username5243 (talk) 10:50, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

1. Blog posts are acceptable now, but it needs to pass a voting system.
2. There is no such rule. For example, this page was created by the same person who made up Notation Array Notation himself.
Triakula (talk) 10:56, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
The rule against creating articles about own inventions exists, just it not always was followed. But I respect this rule. --Denis Maksudov (talk) 20:53, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
According to our current citation policy, "Googology Wiki doesn't have a conflict of interest policy, and it's acceptable to write articles about your own work." — Best regards, Triakula 07:26, February 14, 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here's what seemed to happen:

At 2:16 AM in my timezone (EST) P-bot marked the page with a {{personal}} tag, which displays the following text:

This page is a candidate for deletion. The contents are suitable for blog posts rather than articles. The wiki policy requires us not to put original works without valid external sources on the main space.

The page was also blanked at this time. (I'm not sure if I agree with that part of the edit - how sould we know whether to delete it without being able to look at the page's contents? - but I agree with the rest.)

At 5:37 AM, Mango523wnr seems to have undone P-bot's edit - including removing the {{personal}} tag (he got a few more revisions in before I deleted the page). At the very least, removing a deletion tag from a page that was marked for deletion is probably against the rules - especially if it's being done by the page's creator.

Username5243 (talk) 22:51, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

> I'm not sure if I agree with that part of the edit - how sould we know whether to delete it without being able to look at the page's contents
I thought that we could look at the contents, because we have history pages. Since the page creator intensionally created it with a clarification that it would be deleted, I regarded it as an intensional violation. Shouldn't I revert the content in that case when I put a deletion tag? (I personally think that intensinal trolling contents is worth reverting together with putting a deleion tag.)
p-adic 23:04, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I'd classify that as "trolling" like with the Edwin puppets. I don't think it was made to attack anyone or specifically only to violate rules on purpose.

Username5243 (talk) 23:13, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

It is ok that if I had guessed that it was not created for an intensional trolling, then I would not have had to revert it when I put the deletion tag. What I would like to ask is " even if I guess that some page is created for an intensional trolling, shouldn't I revert the content when I put a deletion tag?"
Also, I still think that it was created for an intensional trolling, because the OP intensinally igonred the site policy. For any reasons, we should carefully follow rules. Otherwise, it is profane to the effort of other members to keep the community sound by setting reasonable rules by cummulative discussions.
p-adic 23:47, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
In normal circumstance, I agree with username that the page should not be blanked when tagging candidates for deletion. However, in the current state of this wiki, I think it is better to blank the page and tag at the same time. The reason is that there are so many pages that has the deletion tag and not deleted for so many years. It is quite abnormal. What is the meaning of the tag? Admins should delete the tag or delete the page in a reasonable period. Because users are not sure that the page with the deletion tags are to be deleted, it is reasonable to blank the page with deletion tag, as p-bot did. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 08:22, February 14, 2020 (UTC)

I think Triagol should not be deleted!

Triagol is a number that I invented and it's equal to 10 ↑↑↑ 3 in up-arrow notation, so PLEASE, do not delete it

See your talk page.
p-adic 08:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


It's a candidate for deletion because it has An uncommon name whose origin is not sourced... The number's name is made-up by me, but the number itself has existed before. I provided a source for the number (it was invented during the Big Number Duel). My goal in creating the article/page was just giving that number a name and showing it's approximation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Torplex (talkcontribs)

We are not allowed to create an article for a made-up name of a number.
p-adic 14:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Largest known squarefree semiprime" should not be deleted...

I just added a source link, like the one on "Largest known semiprime" which is not a candidate for deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgorithmicHead (talkcontribs)

What you added is not a source for the largest known sequarefree semirprime, is it? Please check Googology Wiki:Policy#Citation for what can be a source for a specific title or a description. Say, a source for an arbitrary function cannot be a source of Buchholz's function.
p-adic 00:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I think Aleph-zero should not be deleted

I copied and credited the page from Wikipedia and now it's been labeled as "candidate for deletion." Why though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Chocolate-dolphin (talkcontribs)

The sources from Wikipedia are not allowed per policy page, since it is considered as a bad source. ARsygo (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
can you use Wolfram? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Chocolate-dolphin (talkcontribs)
Is it the one from MathWorld Wolfram? I think it's ok to add that. ARsygo (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I've edited my Aleph-zero page with the MathWorld Wolfram source. Is that okay now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Chocolate-dolphin (talkcontribs)

I have edited my Aleph-zero page, is it okay now?

I also used a MathWorld Wolfram source.

Tag deleted. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 12:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think -logue should NOT be deleted!!!

I don't think it should because it does not include any bad sources. And -logue is a used prefix. So why delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenzzz (talkcontribs)

You can see the reason at the article.
p-adic 22:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

My pages

Trianta-taxis should NOT BE DELETED but P進大好きbot took over it and and added the {{No source}} tag.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by N6n5r6n (talkcontribs)

Sorry, but that page does not have a valid source, hence it has marked for deletion, actually. ARsygo (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Terminusfinity should be deleted, Why?

Terminusfinity is a fictional number, this wiki is about nonfictional numbers, here is the article; —Preceding unsigned comment added by MauroPerin (talkcontribs)

The article has already been deleted since 2018. Perhaps you confounded with .
p-adic 16:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
For , the reason is explained there as follows.
No valid external source is provided. The wiki policy requires a good source for the contents. For example, academic papers are good sources, while articles in other wikis such as Wikipedia are bad sources.
🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 16:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Why ☉ Should Not Be Deleted

☉ Is Terminusfinity The Name: Terminusfinity, Terminusfinity Is A Big Number, Bigger Than Absolute Infinity. Proof: Terminusfinity = Absility (^) x Absility (^) Absility = Inaccessiblefinity x Inaccessiblefinity Inaccessiblefinity = Enternalfinity x Enternalfinity Enternalfinity = Endfinity x Endfinity Endfinity = Final Infinity x Final Infinity Final Infinity = Infinifinity x Infinifinity Infinifinity = Ultrafinifinity x Ultrafinifinity More Info: Numbers 0 to 𝗡̴̖͈̰̑̇͌ 𝗘̷̪͔̤̤̪̇̐̈́̒͆ 𝗩̸͙̫͎̃̓̀̈́̐ 𝗘҉̜͙̦̋͌͛̌͋ͅ 𝗥҈̰̘̬̳͕͛̒͑ !!! [1/2] - YouTube —Preceding unsigned comment added by Althathebest (talkcontribs)

Please read the comment by kyodaisuu above, and learn what a proof means.
p-adic 22:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Graham's, Graham's number shoudlnt be a canditate for deletion

Okay the sand grain comparasion may not be the most accurate (so you can edit that ) but still , it has some content and the definition and the size is accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by MfsmGame23 (talkcontribs)

The page you showed in this edit, the quora page, is not a valid source for the number, because no one in the page clarified that the number in the name of "Graham's, Graham's number" was created by the author. Read "What can be a source?" section of the policy carefully.
If you want to add a source to a specific description, e.g. a definition or a statement, you need to cite the first source or a peer-reviewed source of the description. A personal website is not peer-reviewed, and hence can be a source of the definition of a number only when the website clarifies that the number is created by the author or the creator allows it as the first source.
Moreover, the source is to be given to a specific description. You added sources without specifying the sentence, which is not recognized as a valid way of showing source. The article will be deleted soon. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 00:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Maxillion shouldn't be deleted.

I think Maxillion page shouldn't be deleted because there's no psyhical end for this illions and the last ending is "Hapaxillion" what is a power to 3000, there is abillity to push limit even more by adding Geop or Alph to prefix but that only gives us power of 300k and new big number need to have power of 3 Million, so my thought was to make that number and somehow name it, by second argument to not delete it is that is unofficial and there are other unofficial illions and i just wanted to end somehow illion sector by 1 last illion. This is only my opinion and not everyone will agree on that but for me, it shouldn't be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomekCreeper (talkcontribs)

The reason why is should be deleted is explicitly written in the template in the article. So, please check it first, and solve the issue.
p-adic 00:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Do not delete DeepLineMadom's Array Notation

Please do not delete DeepLineMadom's Array Notation because I think it should actually be a notation, and I want to move the article to the user page namespace. DeepLineMadom (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I moved the page to User:DeepLineMadom/My array notation. DeepLineMadom (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

ThaAwesome's Array Notation

I thought I had a source lol but I didn't I just added one now

Template:PentacthulhumEasy I just haven't added stuff yet, I would but I had to sleep. Mumuji Penguin (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Tetramur discord messages.png

I frankly don't see why this is being proposed for deletion. The reason for proposal for deletion is: "Bringing a wrong claim from an irrelevant and unreliable website. See the talk page of Googology Wiki:Users casepage", but it's a quote, being used as a quote, not even in the mainspace. It's quoting someone who said something on a discord. If you disagree with it, considering that it's being used as a quote to represent someone's thoughts, you should discuss it, not delete it. Furthermore, how is a quote about googology from a discord about googology irrelevant to googology? Moooosey (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of, although not using evidence from Discord might be justified, it seems like whether Discord messages are acceptable as evidence for claims related to the wiki is inconsistent. For instance, Yto was banned using evidence from the Discord server. There does not seem to be any rules relating to whether such things are acceptable so I'd like this to be cleared up. ubersketch📞 22:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Simply because of the situation that discord members use their one-sided wrong opinion to change this wiki with no discussion here. Since any reflection of discussion/decision in the discord to change this wiki violates the policy, such a trial should not be justified. We have explained this to discord members so many times, but they are just ignoring. Therefore, we do not need to care about such trials any more.
Indeed, could you remember that you two have ever done the same thing? Moooosey tried to remove a sourced and correct description in this wiki even when we have discussed the inappropriateness of the attitude in this wiki. Ubersketch tried to delete some page following one-sided opinion from discord based on a wrong fact, even after we have held discussion in this wiki including the denial of the fact. I believe that you two just suddenly forgot the fact that the one-sided opinions from discord are frequently wrong, but please never forget our policy to forbid to bring decisions from discord.
Seriously, why should you continue to make me, the target of the harassment and racism, to waste my time for this topic related to personal attacks to me? Are you really to further reast the victim to cost precious time for this topic? I expect you two to solve the problem in the discord responsibly first, before blaming the victim for saving this wiki.
p-adic 22:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I reply to Ubersketch. C7X blocked Yto because of the incident at discord. I disagreed to the block as a normal user at the time, but C7X did not change mind. Since then, many many many troubles arose from discord. At the time Yto was blocked, discord server was shown at the top page of Gwiki, and appeared something like the comunity was related, but it is not linked any more, and therefore currently communities are not related. Moreover it is clearly written in the policy "In order to make discussions about decisions on this wiki (e.g. creating new rules, removing descriptions from articles, renaming or moving articles, blocking and unblocking users, and so on) visible and available, those should be held inside this wiki." It is clearly forbidden to block a user because of discord server now. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 05:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
"how is a quote about googology from a discord about googology irrelevant to googology?" You can check pinned messages in the #wiki-talk channel, where Cloudy and C7X's message of planning how to block p-bot is shown. So it is a channel to discuss how to block p-bot based on personal hate, not a channel to talk about googology, I think. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 05:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, these pins do exist, and they are the result of drama and hate (from both sides of that conflict) but I fail to see how completely blocking out unrelated aspects of the discord due to it is justified. That just sounds like guilt by association to me. Moooosey (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
It is a result of one-sided hate. You are just trying to blame victims as if they were also causes. Please stop it. Such an attitude directly causes further trial to harass us by people who believed the wrong claim, as several members have already done. It is quite inresponsible to make the problem tiny in that way. You should be responsible for the situation, because you are allowing such a situation in discord, i.e. allowing harassment and racism toward us, and allowing pins to invite innocent members to the blocking project based on wrong reasonings.
p-adic 23:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but my point is that you shouldn't just ignore everything on the discord because some people on it were actively involved in this drama, especially as much of the content on the discord is entirely unrelated, productive, and not hating on you. Moooosey (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
The quoted discord message is about the "Users casepage" which is actually the log of drama itself, so it is inappropriate to describe it as "unrelated aspects of the discord". Actually the fact that Cloudy does not unpin the message is the proof that Cloudy likes such drama and wants to keep it forever and ever. As discord mod team allows it, they also like such drama. But I do not like such drama. As the casepage was blanked, I think that there is no more need to discuss about it.
As an admin @Binary198 uploaded the file, I think Binary198 can delete the file if she doesn't need the file any more, or she can delete the delete tag if she thinks that the file is still needed.
Additional note for citing discord message. Instead of screenshot, It is better to use "copy text" and "copy message link" to make the source of the citation clear. Note that for citation it is required that the source should be identified so that anyone can verify. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 04:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I understand the arguments on both sides, yet I believe the file should not be deleted. The reason why is that @Tetramur is making an honest criticism of the Googology Wiki:Users casepage article, as he believes that it misinterprets his tone of voice, and so this criticism should be taken into account and the article should be modified so that it doesn't antagonize @Tetramur and misinterpret his words. But note that just because I support the Discord community still does not imply that I condone Cloudy's or Username5243's actions. Also, since Fish suggests I post a link, the messages in this screenshot are this and the subsequent messages. Jayde 0101 0101 0101 ... 07:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I explained you that you should not bring issues from discord. If Tetramur honestly had tried to solve the issue, then Tetramur could discuss it here instead of using discord, where harassment and racism are officially permitted. Instead, Tetramur tried to spread one-sided and incorrect claims. I sincerely would like to ask you, Binary198. Why do you repeat to bring issues from discord, even though we have already explained so many times that it is really inappropriate. You have experienced that a racist in discord make use of use for bypassing by hiding an important information. This time, Tetramur is also hiding the fact that I have already explained the user's wrong arguments so many times by spending much time, but Tetramur ignored many of them. Generally speaking, spreading incorrect statements cost much less time than to explicitly give corrections. Since Tetramur did not seriously receive feedbacks, it is reasonable for me to give up to explain how to solve the errors by spending my time more than Tetramur. What Tetramur should learn is that Tetramur should not spread uncertain information on what Tetramur has no idea of. But now, have you seen that Tetramur is insulting me by saying that my feedback is worse than doing nothing, and claiming that I should have wasted more time, without looking back what Tetramur did for my feedbacks. Do you really think that this is an honest attitude?
p-adic 10:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Binary, Ubersketch, and Moooosey. I would like to ask you to imagine the situation. Please imagine some community pins a project to block you by some wrong reasoning which you have already denied so many times. Please imagine that the community accept members to insult you, by direct offensive words, usernames like "XXX is idiot", and so on. Please imagine the community tries to make you repeat discussions which you have already spent suffient time. Moreover, the discussion requires to you to refer to pages including harassment to you. Admins in the community clarifies that there is no harassment even when you showed evidences, and do not block such inappropriate members because they are friends. Members in the community do not blame the harassment, and they even try to punish "betrayals", i.e. honest members who try to solve the problem. They say that both sides are bad, and hence you should be patient, even though you are continuing to propose to have discussions to solve the issue. They even claim that you are the one who refuse to solve the issue and you never listen to them, even though you asked to have dialogues. The worst result is that the community naturalised the harassment and racism, i.e. members become feeling nothing when they see harassment toward you. For you, harassment aimed at you cannot be a "daily event" which is too tiny to care about. But members do not care about it anymore, due to their trial to naturalise it.

I respect Binary because of not only the mathematical high experience, knowledge, and logic, but also the neutral mature mind. Binary always tries to assume good faith to everyone, including me. However, it sometimes causes troubles when Binary allows direct bypass from members who are trying to offend others, because they can easily hide important facts. It might look neutral to bring their opinion, but please imagine: "How many times should victims suffer from topics directly related to their harassments?" They try to justify their harassment, racism, tone-policing, wrong arguments, and so on. If you bring this, then we, the victims, need to waste further time to explain the incorrectness of their claims, even thought we have already spent much time.Indeed, Tetramur is the one who first harassed me together with Ytosk. Isn't it unbalanced to also require a few victims to spend time again and again for topics raised by so many members supporting harassment? I am asking you not to bring one-sided issues. This is not just an arrogant request by a lazy user, but an honest request to save our time. It is really shocking that you repeat to bring it again and again, because I am really respecting you. You can do whatever you can do. For example, if you really think that their attitudes are bad, you can propose to delete pins, releave admins, make good policy, and so on. Is there any reason why not only you but also members in discord do not try to change the community in that effective way? Maybe it is because they do not want to be involved. But then, why do they try to make us, the victims, spend additional time?

I respect Ubersketch because of not only the wide range (not restricted to googology!) of knowledge of mathematics including categories and algebras, and also googology, of course. I have never forgotten discussions with you, and I have seen many insightful ideas in your posts. In addition, you are quite logical, and moreover, always had justice. I believed that you would not allow their attitudes. Therefore, I got really sad when you clarified that you could not find issues in discord, and even clarified that you could not find any harassment in the sentences posted by the racist. You just explained that the sentences were just irrelevant to mathematical arguments, and denied the existence of the harassment when I directly asked you. I am not understanding why you did it. I believe that you had some idea to solve the issue by clarifying the non-existence of the harassment, but does it solve something? The situation got worse. They do not consider that their attitudes were bad. Even if you have some intention in your mind, what I have observed is just the fact that you denied the existence of the harassment. Does it look sound for your justice? Have you ever imagined my mind when you clarified it? I expect you to see victims, and to clarify to change your opinion. There are harassments. Denying the existence makes the situation bad.

I respect Moooosey because of the kindness toward others. Moooosey always tried to care about people who you know and are hurt. That is why I do not brame you. However, I would like to ask you to look at actual victims this time. Does your kindness allow you the misfortune that your community is persistently trying to block other by wrong reasonings by ignoring all requests to hold dialogues? Even worse thing is that they tend to explain that we, the victims, are the main cause of the confliction and never listen to you all. Then, newcomers in discord believe them, and try to spread harassments and labelings. Does it look sound? If you have spent your kind mind toward us, then the situation would become better. You might think that you are not the one in the centre of the problems because you have never tried to harass others. BUT, is it really innocent to ignore the existing harassment? Is it really innocent to repeat to require us to spend time again and again to the topics directly related to haarssment toward us? I trust you to notice that you can save not only discord, but also victims in this wiki. Since you have been sincerely respecting neighbours in mature attitude, most people listen to you, except for very few members who are persistently trying to justify harassment and racism. If majority of members listen to you to stop the drama, then you can finish it.

p-adic 12:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Drama's not what I came to Googology Wiki for, so this whole convo is making me hate my life, seriously. But fine, I'll explain my point of view.
> Please imagine some community pins a project to block you by some wrong reasoning which you have already denied so many times. Please imagine that the community accept members to insult you, by direct offensive words, usernames like "XXX is idiot", and so on.
I understand the analogy, but when did I ever condone the actions of the Discord to block and mock you?
> It is really shocking that you repeat to bring it again and again
Okay, fine. The original incident of reverting the reversion or whatever was an honest mistake, and now me bringing a conversation from the GS into the talk of an article was also a mistake. But I believe that criticism, although it may be from an alternate platform, should still be taken into account, given the condescending tone of the original article the messages were addressing. Yet, as the policy forbids it, I will genuinely attempt to keep this in mind, and I am so so sorry for f**king it up (apologies for the language, I'm kinda buckling under pressure and stress rn), given my relatively low experience with administration. And I believe some subconscious bias may have come into account, given that I am great friends with Tetramur, and I'll once again genuinely attempt to remain totally neutral and policy-abiding in the future. Jayde 0101 0101 0101 ... 15:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
> Drama's not what I came to Googology Wiki for, so this whole convo is making me hate my life, seriously.
I know. Harassment and racism are not what I came to this wiki for. But people are essentially force us to be patient for them. Please imagine the pain.
> when did I ever condone the actions of the Discord to block and mock you?
Although I am not stating that you did it, if you mind how to make the situation better, then you and other members should strictly blame them in an effective way as I clarified "You can do whatever you can do. For example, if you really think that their attitudes are bad, you can propose to delete pins, releave admins, make good policy, and so on.", before bringing issues. Please imagine that some people repeat to insult you, your friend, your country, and so on, but others do not try to effectively stop them. Even worse thing is that they frequently bring wrong claims from those to you, and you should spend time even though they are not spending time to effectively stop them. Then they are essentially accepting such attitudes.
You brought an image file including a one-sided wrong opinion. Unlike sentences in talk pages, we cannot directly attach disproves to them. So, as long as you state that it should be kept. we should be patient for the existence of a page in the main space which involves wrong claims on us. Is it really neutral? For example, can I bring so many pictures including my one-sided wrong statements in order not to directly allow counteropinions?
p-adic 23:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I understand. Jayde 0101 0101 0101 ... 07:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
As p-bot insists, uploading image for citation is not a good way, because the image is shown from the file upload menu independently. Actually as you can cite by text, there is no need at all to upload an image for citing message. As the image was uploaded to be used in a talk page, you can replace the image in the talk page with a citation of text and link. Then you have no reason to keep the image and you can delete the image. How about this compromise? 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 07:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the quick deletion of the image, if you, Binary198, understand what I said, why don't you explain Tetramur at the user's talk page in this wiki not to repeat it anymore? You can now see that the user simply used this opportunity to harass me by insulting that my feedback is worse than doing nothing. If the user's statement that we should not point out the methematical incorrectness unless we spend time to correct them were correct, then when we have a vandal who spread thousands of incorrect claims without proofs, we need to waste time to correct all of them rather than simply clarify the incorrectness. Indeed, Tetramur actually spread so many wrong informations even after I explained the incorrectness of the logic itself so many times. I explained that we should not use what we have no idea of, but the user simply ignored it. But this time, the user used this opportunity to insult me again. If the user simply had wanted to discuss the topic in the casepage, then the user would have done it here. Instead, the user requested you to give this opportunity, and wasted my time again.
I clarified that the problem is that the members are trying to repeat past discussions and waste time of the very few victims. We, especially kyodaisuu, have spend really much time to explain the incorrectness of their claims related to this topic, but they are just repeating it as if we have never explained them. If you feel responsible for your uploading under the understanding that you have ever asked not to bring one-sided issues from discord, please promise that you will never bring issues again, warn Tetramur at the user's talk page in this wiki to stop harassment by explaining the incorrectness of the claim that we should not give feedbacks unless we spend time for corrections (automatically much more than people who spread wrong statements). If you think that Tetramur is a good friend, then it is better also for you. Firends should not control others by hiding important information and giving one-sided opinions.
p-adic 08:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
"We, especially kyodaisuu, have spend really much time to explain the incorrectness of their claims related to this topic" actually this is no. I am not a mathematician and I cannot judge mathematical correctness, especially for this complex one. I am sure I have never judged who is correct with regard to p-bot and Tetramur. I just insist that no one should be blocked by mathematical discussions. I just understand that the "users casepage", which had a name of p-bot in the title, was created for the purpose of blocking p-bot, as evident from the pinned messages in discord. Tetramur submitted the evidence to Cloudy. That is why it was listed as case of p-bot in the first place. So it is evident that Tetramur had intention to block p-bot at that time. Then p-bot counterargued by editing the page. Some people, especially Cloudy, still thinks that p-bot should be blocked at Gwiki, as evident from the pinned messages in discord. I just want that this kind of discussion to be finished... 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 09:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
> I am not a mathematician and I cannot judge mathematical correctness, especially for this complex one.
I meant our trial to deny their wrong claims such as that discord has never been used for harassment, that the discord community should be identical to this community, that the past blocking of Ytosk should imply that they can eternally bring issues from discord, that admins have never explained the reason of blocking Ytosk, and so on, rather than mathematical arguments. You remember that they are persistently repeating to insist such claims even after we denied them. This is why I say that this is waste of time.
p-adic 10:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
> You can now see that the user simply used this opportunity to harass me by insulting that my feedback is worse than doing nothing.
Really, where? On the Googology Server? Jayde 0101 0101 0101 ... 18:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
No. I am talking about the user's claim in this wiki: "It isn't good to insist that there are issues without pointing also a direction how they could be fixed. I actually don't recall the moments when P-bot actually offered a way to fix my issues if there were any. I definitely said a lot of incorrect things but it would be much better if he actually suggested the correct definitions of notions he thinks I don't understand. Overcriticizing without a suggestion is worse than doing nothing."
You can see that your good friend's claim is wrong, and is just harassing. If somebody spread dozens of wrong mathematical statements which are not based on actual definitions, should I keep silent unless we waste more time to explain how to correct them than the person spent for the random statements? I first gave advice on how to avoid the same errors, but the user simply ignored it by spreading wrong statements based on the same logical mistake. Since I did not want to waste my time any more, I decided to attach a comment just explaining the incorrectness. Do you really think that it is polite to claim that the person cannot remember any corrections, even though I have already give feedbacks so many times? The person is definitely just tring to justify their tone-policing upon me as a portion of blocking project by Cloudy and CyX, and wasting my times again and again for this repeated topic, which you innocently brough back under the belief that your good friend is correct. But before that, you could also believe my statement that bringing issue from discord is awful because it is mainly given so that the very few victims, which they persistently hate for years, need to waste time for the repetitive claims ignoring disproofs. Indeed, I am currently wasting my time for dealing with this topic, although the one who harassed me spent only little time. So, please answer my questions/requests in my comment at 08:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC).
p-adic 22:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)