11,356
pages
Cloudy176 on Googology Wiki (v · e)

Main links: User page · talk with me · my blog posts · stalk me (log)
Other wikis: BFDI (me · talk · RC) · Time (me · wall · RC)
Special pages: Recent changes · New pages (patrol) · Logs · All pages (user · user talk · user blog) · Long pages · Short pages · Undelete · more...
My pages: Main (mirror) · What? (A · B · C · T) · The BDG · teh faketestz (p2 · p3 · p99 · F) · DBNNB · timeline · stats · LoG stats · ExE index · more...
Important pages: Main Page · Googology · The List (nav) · Functions · Inter-language: cs de fr ja ms nl ru zh · (more soon...)

Discussions older than 3 months may be archived. My timezone is UTC+9 hours.

## Mutual "Friend"

Hello Cloudy176, there is something I need to talk to you about. I know I have made no edits here, but we do have a mutual "friend". If possible, I'd like to meet you in chat at 8:00 PM, SAST.

Cooljoe01 (Talk) (9 Mar 2019 8:37 AM SAST) 06:37, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

That would be 3:00 AM in my local time, though. Any other suggestions? -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 13:10, March 9, 2019 (UTC)
Alright, tell me a time that will suit you (that still keeps my time zone in mind).

Cooljoe01 (Talk) (9 Mar 2019 7:50 PM SAST) 17:50, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, you two are going to talk about a "friend"? I wish I could meet them... I love making new friends! :D MegaR0ck3r (talk) 01:41, March 10, 2019 (UTC)
I am free now for another 3-5 hours.

Cooljoe01 (Talk) (10 Mar 2019 7:04 PM SAST) 17:04, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

### Not directly related to the above messages

Hmm... -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:54, March 11, 2019 (UTC)

## Please stop reverting my contributions

It looks like you have reverted my contributions on Exponentiation. I have reverted your contributions. If you keep reverting my contributions, you might be blocked from editing anymore. {{SUBST:user|Physicsphysics}} 22:31, April 4, 2019 (UTC)

I re-added $$n \neq -1$$ because the equation $$\int x^n dx = \frac{1}{n + 1}x^{n + 1} + C$$ doesn't hold if $$n = -1$$, as $$\int x^{-1} dx = \int \frac{1}{x} dx = \ln x + C$$. I would have re-added it again if it wasn't already re-added in a different form. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 08:00, April 5, 2019 (UTC)

## Google Docs as a source

XYZeed (talk) 01:23, April 18, 2019 (UTC)Hey, I have a question. Can I cite my numbers using a Google doc that is open to the public?

We allow (or allowed?) Google Sites as a source, so why not Google Docs as well? They aren't that much different. However, if you allow editing of the doc by the public, it would count as an open wiki, and I don't think that will be a reliable enough source. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 14:35, April 18, 2019 (UTC)

## apology

I apologize for vandalizing your userpage. DrCocktor (talk) 14:42, April 18, 2019 (UTC)

It's fine. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 15:10, April 18, 2019 (UTC)

XYZeed (talk) 13:02, April 19, 2019 (UTC)Okay so I made a page for my number and added a source does that mean it won’t get deleted?

According to Sbiis Saibian, the only other reason a page will get deleted is if your number is ill-defined DrCocktor (talk) 18:56, May 8, 2019 (UTC)
I don't think being ill-defined is a valid reason to delete an article. Oblivion is still around, for example. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 03:06, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

## 25

what did you add to the article about 25? Ribark (talk) 10:08, April 23, 2019 (UTC)

It's just fixing grammar. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 14:32, April 23, 2019 (UTC)
And now with Hyper operator? Ribark (talk) 15:16, April 29, 2019 (UTC)
Just changing the link to Wikipedia. Nothing special. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 15:18, April 29, 2019 (UTC)
Oh Ribark (talk) 15:20, April 29, 2019 (UTC)

## Myriotar and Myrintar

Who added the titles "Myriotar" and "Myriotar"? If you deleted the pages I made for them because they're not in their source, then who made them if it wasn't Denis Maksudov? Ribark (talk) 12:49, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

It's someone who frequently added unsourced numbers on the mainspace and templates on this wiki. I have removed that name from the template containing Denis Maksudov's numbers, but for some reason, the what links here for Myriotar and Myrintar still display links. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:38, April 28, 2019 (UTC)
Huh Ribark (talk) 10:02, April 29, 2019 (UTC)
I have an image with the two, showing that they're still around. Ribark (talk) 10:07, April 29, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making me realise euro shouldn't be capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribark (talkcontribs) 15:25, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

No problem. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:50, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

Make me an admin please DrCocktor (talk) 04:43, May 5, 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're ready yet. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 03:06, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

🙁 DrCocktor (talk) 21:56, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

## Gender

So I’m confused by your profile. R u male or female DrCocktor (talk) 23:45, May 10, 2019 (UTC)

I made that part intentionally confusing. I'm actually male. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:05, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

## Undo Revision

Why did you undo my revision on deedlit’s userpage DrCocktor (talk) 02:58, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

While Deedlit having reducing interest in googology might be true, he might not want to write messages like that on his user page. In general, you may want to avoid edits that significantly alter the meaning of other user pages. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 17:40, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

## GibsonC0104

Why did you block him a second time? He was creating his numbers as blog posts not articles DrCocktor (talk) 16:02, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

The user was still creating unsourced pages on article space. I turned them into blog posts. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:12, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

## New Rule-Breakers

Well, well, well. Look what was just made. https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Googolongplex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribark (talkcontribs) 15:33, May 24, 2019 (UTC)

Link unavailable. Error 404 DrCocktor (talk) 01:00, May 25, 2019 (UTC)

Well, I moved the page off the mainspace, so the original link will no longer work. I should have replied sooner. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 09:25, May 25, 2019 (UTC)

Another one. https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Googolox I am a Googologist at the extreme!!!! 10:40, June 14, 2019 (UTC)

That one's more like an old rule-breaker, as it's one of the unsourced articles created by Andre Joyce back in 2014. I will handle all of them later. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 18:37, June 14, 2019 (UTC)

## Wikis as sources to post your googologism

Are we allowed to use the other wikis as sources DrCocktor (talk) 21:26, May 27, 2019 (UTC)

The rule on citation is available here.
p-adic 22:06, May 27, 2019 (UTC)

## Clarification of Problems

Hi. Since this wiki is the largest wiki on googology, many beginners refer to it. Then they usually do not doubt that numbers or systems in articles are actually well-defined, while several stuffs contain theoretical problems.

For example, BEAF is said not to be successfully defined beyond tetration level, while some believe that BEAF is stronger than that level. BIG FOOT is ill-defined, while many believe that it is a valid uncomputable number. The definitions of Little Bigeddon and Sasquatch contain undefined stuffs, while they are widely believed as the largest valid uncomputable numbers.

I think that it is better for us to clarify the existence of such problems (mainly on ill-definedness) so that beginners hesitate to just believe the well-definedness of them without sufficient thoughts. What do you think abut it? If you agree with me, then I will add some descriptions on such problems. I would like you to give me your opinion.

p-adic 05:25, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Sure, if you want. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 14:09, May 28, 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!
p-adic 15:08, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

## Clarification of Problems, part 2

Hello, Cloudy176. I would like to ask you: which ordinal in FGH corresponds to Worm(3)? Indirect methods derive an estimate about \omega*3+1. Tetramur (talk) 15:01, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for sticking around and helping moderate the place. It can be kinda depressing to see others leave so finding people like you, Ynought, and others popping up in the comments really means a lot. Again, thank you. QuasarBooster (talk) 00:09, May 29, 2019 (UTC)

My determination keeps me going. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 18:02, May 29, 2019 (UTC)

## Could you please block DrCocktor?

Or at least, block him from editing my talk page. It seems like he's only there to troll or leave nonsensical comments. He first left two kind of stupid question, then left fart jokes, then left a sexual orientation joke (the latter two I deleted). Cookiefonster (talk) 19:36, June 9, 2019 (UTC)

I came here to do googology. I did not come here to troll this place DrCocktor (talk) 22:23, June 9, 2019 (UTC)

## googolnews

Why did you delete my content on Googology Wiki:googolnews about sexual orientation DrCocktor (talk) 20:22, June 10, 2019 (UTC)

Because I don't think that's an event notable enough to be displayed on the main page of the wiki. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 12:58, June 11, 2019 (UTC)

He always reverts my edits to his talk page DrCocktor (talk) 21:44, June 11, 2019 (UTC)

blah -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 18:29, June 13, 2019 (UTC)

## Unsourced Article

I marked this article as a candidate of deletion with a specific explicit reason, but the mark was deleted by Ubersketch without any arguments in the corresponding talk page. I would like you to give us your opinion on this article. According to the article, the title ψ(ψᵢ(0)) is one of Rathjen's OCF, but there is no source about it. It is neither Rathjen's standard OCF or its simplified variant in Realm of Ordinal Analysis, and hence I doubt the existence. If it does not actually exists, it is not responsible for us to keep the description that the OCF is created by Rathjen. Since we are not allowed to create an article of a large number without a source, we should not create an article on an expression of an ordinal based on an OCF without a source, shouldn't we? At least, I sometimes hear other googologists to talk the false statement that Rathjen's standard OCF satisfies the property of in the article, and hence the article actually causes confusion.

p-adic 06:13, June 15, 2019 (UTC)

Keep the article for now; I think that ordinal is notable enough to not require a source. Maybe get a better source later. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 18:05, June 15, 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Then at least we should delete the description that it is defined by Rathjen. What do you think about it?
p-adic 22:12, June 15, 2019 (UTC)
Sure. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 17:48, June 16, 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!
p-adic 22:49, June 16, 2019 (UTC)

## Grammer: iff

In traditional mathematics, "iff" is used only when we explain equivalence. When we define a notion N by a property P, the we write "brah-brah is said to be N if P". The replacement of "if" here by "iff" is informal. (I know that it is correct in the usual grammer, though.) Which grammer should we obey?

p-adic 10:15, June 25, 2019 (UTC)

Okay, in that case "if" can be used. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 10:19, June 25, 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thank you.
p-adic 11:23, June 25, 2019 (UTC)

## Thank you

Thank you for stopping Derived Sugar. I appreciate if you deleted all the comments given by Derived Sugar.

p-adic 22:09, July 10, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for editting them again. However, the comments containing discriminatory terms remains in the history pages. Could you delete them?

p-adic 23:47, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

## Link from http to https

As you wrote in your profile, wikia now changes http to https. This is stupid and I reported here. Now they say that my report was passed to their technical staff for investigation and review. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 17:34, July 21, 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have been fixed. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 16:52, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
I tried Chrome and IE, but found that it had not been fixed.
p-adic 20:54, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
It turned out that we may need to purge old pages. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 02:01, August 6, 2019 (UTC)
Oh, now I succeeded after purging. Thank you!

## harassment

Everyone is accusing me of harassing people on wiki & discord Pi.jayk (talk) 20:59, July 21, 2019 (UTC)

## Question

Could you tell me how to delete a category from an article? The article of Rayo's number is categorised in "Computers", but it is irrelevant to computers. Therefore I would like to delete the categorisation. Thank you.

p-adic 06:29, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

To delete a category, go to the source code of the article and remove the row that says "[[Category:(category name)]]". Or, you can go to the "categories" section of the setting and click the trash can icon. Rpakr (talk) 09:07, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I don't agree with removing Category:Computers from the Rayo's number article, because it's description states that it's about content related to computers and computability theory. Maybe create a separate category for stuff related to computability theory? -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 09:10, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
@rpakr But I could not find "[[Category:(category name)]]" when I tried to edit the article. Also, I could not find "categories" section.
@Cloudy176 Rayo's number has nothing to do with computability theory, because it is undefinable in hyperarithmetic. It is a large number in second order set theory. Why does it belong to the category? At least it is good to clarify what article should be added to the category numbers irrelevant to computability theory.
p-adic 09:23, August 5, 2019 (UTC)
If you're using the classic editor, see the right of the edit screen, where you can find the Categories section. If you're using VisualEditor, click the "three-bar" button on the upper right and select "Categories". Click the category you want it removed, and click the trash can icon.
Also, now I think Category:Computers might not be the best fit for the article, but it is still notable that the number is defined using uncomputable functions. We already have Category:Uncomputable, but we don't have a separate navbox template for uncomputable functions/numbers, which is why I restored the {{Computational googologisms}} template on the article. I think we should create a new navbox for uncomputable functions/numbers, or if it existed in the past but was redirected, restore it. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 01:10, August 6, 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Then I think that it is better to separate "uncomputable function" section from "computable googolism" nav box. It should be a new nav box such as "uncomputable googolism", "uncomputable function", or something like that. If we need to distinguish set theoretic uncomputable functions such as Rayo's function from hyperarithmetical functions such as BB and oracle BB, then it might be good to embed the section into "set theory" nav box instead of creating a new nav box.
p-adic 01:54, August 6, 2019 (UTC)

## People Returning to the Wiki

Long time no see! I am a Googologist at the extreme!!!! 08:17, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I was pretty busy, so I didn't have much time to work on this wiki; maybe I should do them soon. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 15:51, August 24, 2019 (UTC)

## Question on Categories

Hi. Are we allowed to add blog posts to categories? Categories are portions of main spaces, but I do not know whether adding blog posts to categories means submitting original works to this wiki, which is prohibited. I heard someone (maybe Username) to say that we are not allowed, but I found that this blog post is added to categories. Thank you.

p-adic 13:16, November 15, 2019 (UTC)

At least, we are supposed not to add personal pages to categories for googological notions, right? If so, could you add an explicit rule and disattach personal pages from those important categories? I know that your personal page is also added to many categories, but they seems not to be for googological notions, and hence it is not the case.
p-adic 03:09, November 30, 2019 (UTC)

## Question by Luckyluxius

Why did you have to block Luckyluxiuz? He is my alt, and I have officially confirmed this on my alt, the person who asked to block me, my account, and lastly, yours. This garbage fire "elijah andy" who I assumed was "Edwin" started ranting about me. TBH I'd rather chug a gallon of Vicks VapoCool than get blocked from this wiki. This wiki is a masterpiece to me.

Luckyluxius (talk) 06:53, November 29, 2019 (UTC)

## Request on Speedy Deletion

Hello. Could you please delete this picture? As I wrote in the "reason", Japanese government requires people not to upload such a picture or at least to be careful for others not to be able to print it. Seriously, I could not understand why such a picture is allowed to stay here.

p-adic 06:16, January 23, 2020 (UTC)

## Croutonillion

Hello, Cloudy. Shall we restore the original croutonillion? Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 10:31, January 30, 2020 (UTC)

The original croutonillion was deleted by Vel! because he didn't want the page to be kept. I exported the entire history of the page before it was deleted, and I have been thinking about created a new "archive" wiki and import the page there, safe from deletion.
But if you want to restore the page on its original place, go for it. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 17:07, January 30, 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I restored it. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 17:34, January 30, 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/User_blog:Mango523WNR/New_Numbers_in_Today(1) Mango523WNR (talk) 11:19, February 5, 2020 (UTC)

How do you rate my profile?

https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/User:Mango523WNR Mango523WNR (talk) 09:14, February 6, 2020 (UTC)

https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/User_blog:Mango523WNR/My_profile_has_been_Updated Mango523WNR (talk) 15:06, February 6, 2020 (UTC)

https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/User_blog:Mango523WNR/GMT_23:4x_2020/2/9 Mango523WNR (talk) 00:03, February 10, 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am Mango523WNR, I created a list about Numbers Classes, I will make all of Class 0-23 Numbers Lists. Would you like to add Class 21, 22, 23?

https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/User:Mango523WNR/p27 Mango523WNR (talk) 12:23, February 10, 2020 (UTC)

## Reverting

I'm sorry for reverting your actions again, but I don't know what to do for now. Could you please talk with P進大好きbot and reach a consensus about all these images? I'm a bit tired of this edit-warring. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 12:32, February 18, 2020 (UTC)

## Can you Unblock me

i am no longer homophobic so unblock me NOW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbyns (talkcontribs) 19:52, March 18, 2020 (UTC)

## UniversePoker777

Hi Cloudy.

I was wondering if you could get UniversePoker777 Unbanned; He has personally requested me to do so and he also has some ideas.

Thanks.VoidSansXD (talk) 02:51, April 9, 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't he an obvious troll? Username5243 (talk) 11:14, April 9, 2020 (UTC)
Well I'm not COMPLETELY sure if he's telling the truth or not in whether he's not edwin, but I checked his contribution history and I don't really see anything that can be considered a troll.  He's also gone out of his way to block users that were spam trolling on his wiki, which i personally think a troll wouldn't really do.  Like I said, I'm not TOTALLY sure, but I think he's telling the truth.VoidSansXD (talk) 16:40, April 9, 2020 (UTC)
On this wiki at least, he vandalized pages when he was here, IIRC he started putting Pepe the Frog Memes up everywhere or replaced pages' contents, or sometimes randomly redirected pages (like once he redirected something to "pornhub"). So no, I'm not unblocking him. Username5243 (talk) 18:41, April 9, 2020 (UTC)
Okay.   Thanks for listening to me though.VoidSansXD (talk) 20:53, April 9, 2020 (UTC)

### Trolls strike again

Can you ban Guirremo from the wiki. I mean, you probably already have, but just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeadndy (talkcontribs) 04:47, July 13, 2020 (UTC)

It appears that you have never edited an article in mainspace since March 2020. If you do not edit in mainspace frequently, you may be desysopped. {{SUBST:User|WikiOfEverything}} 18:03, October 3, 2020 (UTC)

## C7X

A user named C7X appears to be vandalizing the wiki. Could you please block him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiOfEverything (talkcontribs) 20:14, October 3, 2020 (UTC)

Refer to this edit https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Googology_Wiki?diff=prev&oldid=296769 C7X (talk) 20:21, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the edit was done with good intentions, so it's not vandalism. I protected the main page to prevent further vandalism there. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 09:24, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

## Poll Changer 83

A user named User:Poll Changer 83 appears to be vandalizing the wiki. He continuously replaces articles with images of "Quack Quack Motherf**ker". Could you please block him? {{SUBST:User|WikiOfEverything}} 17:59, October 4, 2020 (UTC)

## UCP

Your wiki has been migrated to the Unified Community Platform. When your wiki is migrated, the new wiki guidelines apply. BadUser5656 (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

## Social Activities

Special:SocialActivity is now enabled. Please add it in the menu. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 06:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

While I can't add it to the top of Special:RecentChanges as this wiki doesn't have Discussions enabled, I added it to the top navigation under the "Top contents" dropdown. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 12:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 13:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

## Add article coments on main pages

Could you enable comments on pages on the main? I don't see any problem with it, and it could boost the discussion and SEO of the wiki.

Edit: forgot signature Nirvana Supermind (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

## Content dispute on Extensible Illion System

Hello. I had recently created a notation called Extensible Illion System, with the definition found on my website. I published this article to the wiki as this using the website as a first source.

After a few revisions, the user p-adic / P進大好きbot updated the article saying it is ill-defined on this revision. They explain that there is no rule applicable to 0[] and 1[], that there are two distinct ways to solve 1[0], and that there are two distinct ways to solve 1[0,0], and that the computation of 0[4,1] = 0[0[4,0]/1000] = 0[1.015] includes 0[1.015], which is ill-defined because 1.015 is not an integer (which was based on a typo I made, mistakingly labelling 1015 as 1015, so it is incorrect).

The first 3 arguments were valid, so I updated the definition in the blog post (the primary source) to fix the issues, and then updated the page and fixed the typo as shown in the here. Note that I removed the arguments pbot added since they were now outdated. But pbot reverted my edit and kept the arguments, because there was another error I made that made 1[0,0] still have two distinct evaluations. I fixed this mistake too, but pbot kept adding the arguments back (this time in an "Old definition" section though).

Not only keeping the old information is not required by the wiki policy, but even if that is dismissed, P進大好きbot still claims the current notation (the one with updated definition) is ill-defined because they misinterpeted a rule in my blog about the priority. I tried telling them this in the talk page, but they won't listen.

Now they claim I was cheating and highlighted a section of the talkpage to evidence it over here . I tried abandoning the page to stop this activity as shown on here, but P進大好きbot reverts it back and adds a new line to the explanation claiming that I vandalize the article (which was actually just my blanking). So overall, P進大好きbot is vandalizing (or at least adding fake information) to my article and most likely other people's articles too, so you should warn them or even block them and tell them to stop. Nirvana Supermind (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

p-adic 05:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The vandalist removed my comment above twice, because he or she knows that if others check the sources, then they can soon understand that he or she is a vandalist. Here are the evidences:
https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cloudy176?type=revision&diff=301642&oldid=301637
https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cloudy176?type=revision&diff=301644&oldid=301643
p-adic 10:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

“The vandalist is obviously you... Who believes you? We can check your edit history. You are repeating to add fake informations, ignore all arguments, cheat, and so on. The article of Extensible Illion System has explicit evidences of your cheatings with accessible sources.”

Any one who is logical and is not in the business of trolling others would believe me. I have also shown evidence from the revision history of the page in the previous reply.

“Moreover, you are deceving as if I used a signature of an admin. When I asked you to give an evidence, you refused and continued to claim that I used a signature of an admin. Hey, if you still insist that I did it, please give an evidence.”

I am no longer sure that p-adic is an admin. But why would you use their identity? Are you the same user as p-adic, but renamed later?

“Hey, if you still insist that I did it, please give an evidence. I gave evidences of your cheating, while you have never given evidences of what you insist I did. “

As I mentioned in my previous comment, I have already incorporated your feedback to make the notation well-defined. The current rules as stated in the page have no problems individually, and if two rules apply to the same expression, the upper-numbered rule is applied if it results in an expression that can be evaluated, or else the lower-numbered rule.

These rules produce a notation that is likely to be well-defined. So, you are the cheater, adding false information since you claim both the old and current notations are guaranteed to be ill-defined.

“(You stated that the application order was written correctly, while there is no description in the source. You stated that I kept your typo 1015, while I myself corrected it for you. You stated that my doubt on 1010 is wrong, while your computation was actually wrong. You stated that I used a signature of an admin, while I have never done it. You told a lie again and again. Also today, you created an article including fake descriotions today. You told a lie whenever you came to this community. What is your purpose?)”

Instead of making your own work, or reviewing other people’s work meaningfully, it seems you are here for the sole purpose of forcing your opinions even when they are illogical. On several occasions you have repeatedly edited my pages even when your suggestions & editions do not make sense. Also, what do you mean that there is no description of the application order in the source? I clearly state it:

If there are two or more distinct rules to apply to a single expression, the upper rule will be applied if it is well-defined, otherwise the lower rule. Here # denotes a portion of the array. It can also be empty.

What is YOUR purpose on this wiki? As far as I can tell, you have barely  made any of your own notations or googologisms. You just blank pages and make them a candidate for deletion, analyze other people’s notations, or rant about them and bully people.

Sbiis Saibian once said “Inevitably, googology wiki (and it's foreign language counterparts) serve as an official record and standards bearer for the googology community.”. But unfortunately, as evidenced by your actions in the past, it seems you want it to serve a very different purpose. You want it to be about the oldest in googology, and about ruining people’s work.

Nirvana Supermind (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

> I have also shown evidence from the revision history of the page in the previous reply.
Oh, you do not even know what an evidence means.
> I am no longer sure that p-adic is an admin. But why would you use their identity? Are you the same user as p-adic, but renamed later?
> As I mentioned in my previous comment, I have already incorporated your feedback to make the notation well-defined.
I told you that the current version does not make sense, because of circular logic. However, you stated that you could interprete what you wrote. And then I explained why it does not work. Even after it, you insist that the current version is well-defined, and added a fake description in the article.
> These rules produce a notation that is likely to be well-defined.
I clearly told you "no", cheater.
> Instead of making your own work, or reviewing other people’s work meaningfully, it seems you are here for the sole purpose of forcing your opinions even when they are illogical.
Wow... I added an alternative definition of your notation which solves the issues except for your mysterious examples... Uh, I understand it. Since your notation is meaningless for you, any revision is meaningless. It makes sense, illogical cheater.
> Also, what do you mean that there is no description of the application order in the source? I clearly state it:
I have explained several times. Just read the article and your talk page by yourself.
> As far as I can tell, you have barely made any of your own notations or googologisms.
I have submitted more notations than you in this community.
> You just blank pages
Self-introduction?
p-adic 05:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
> Oh, you do not even know what an evidence means.
What is it then? You couldn't have just told me in the post?
> I told you that the current version does not make sense, because of circular logic. However, you stated that you could interprete what you wrote. And then I explained why it does not work. Even after it, you insist that the current version is well-defined, and added a fake description in the article.
Your reasoning of circular logic is because you misinterpreted my rules. When I said "if it is well-defined", it means the expression made by applying that rule can be evaluated further. On the other hand, you think it means the current expression is well-defined, which would be a circular logic. If this is not clear enough, I will update it in the blog and then update the article accordingly. This means my description is not fake.
> I clearly told you "no", cheater.
Where? Or are you just referring to the previous reply?
> Wow... I added an alternative definition of your notation which solves the issues except for your mysterious examples... Uh, I understand it. Since your notation is meaningless for you, any revision is meaningless. It makes sense, illogical cheater.
Since when did I talk about understading the notation? And why would you misinterpret my application order then?
> I have explained several times. Just read the article and your talk page by yourself.
Where? I did see something saying "Moreover, the creator replaced the description of the priority order of application of rules, although it was not written in the source with the written retrieval date." (which is false, since you misinterpreted that source).
> I have submitted more notations than you in this community.
Then link me to at least one of them.
> Self-introduction?
What do you mean in this context?
UPDATE: You are repeatedly changing the title of the article to "Nirvana Supermind is vandalizing". This itself is a vandalism.
< : The vandalist removed my comment above twice, because he or she knows that if others check the sources, then they can soon understand that he or she is a vandalist. Here are the evidences:
https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cloudy176?type=revision&diff=301642&oldid=301637
https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cloudy176?type=revision&diff=301644&oldid=301643
I remove them because this started as discussion between me and Cloudy176, and your comments were irrelevant.

Nirvana Supermind (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

What I'm going to say is, the current version of Extensible Illion System is seriously biased to the point of view that it's ill-defined, and it should be rewritten to be more neutral. See Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy for how we could do it. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 09:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Cloudy. Long time no see. Now I have questions. In order to be neutral, we should write both opinions, shouldn't we? The user ignores all discussions, and always removes sourced informations. Besides the issue on the ill-definedness, the user repeated to add fake informations. Is it really allowed? Also, the user removed descriptions such as an alternative definition, the inconsistency of the explanation. (For example, the computation is obviously wrong, while the user strongly insists that it is correct.) Could you warn the user not to do it?
p-adic 09:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
EDIT: Following your suggestion, I rewrote the article in a neutral way. If the user added fake informations or remove sourced informaions again, please warn the user. (In order to notice the invalild change, please follow the page.)
p-adic 10:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia’s policy, neutrality means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. One of the key points stated in the article:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts.

• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.

Neutrality involves both points of view, but p-adic has been anything but neutral in their negative bias. In addition, p-adic accused me of removing valid sourced information without any evidence. When I tried to discuss his accusations, p-adic was unwilling to discuss and kept insisting that I was vandalizing.

• P-adic insists on beng opinionated and judgemental by accusing me of lying, faking and vandalizing. These are all biased opinions and should be removed.

• The difference page descriptions also contain many opinions such as “ actually removed the original definition and the description of the ill-definedness, although it was still ill-defined”, so a large portion of them should be removed.

• Also, it should be stated that “If there are two or more distinct rules to apply to a single expression, the uppermost rule which is applicable and whose result is a valid expression will be applied” rule is the latest one so the current notation is unanimously well-defined, so the “insisting” is false.

Nirvana Supermind (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

> Neutrality involves both points of view, but p-adic has been anything but neutral in their negative bias.

Removing everything as you did is the most awful one, and is far from the neutrality. I just reverted it, and asked you to discuss it. However, you ignored it so many times. There are many evidences of your dishonest removement. For example, check by yourself the history page of the article. How many times have you ignored my suggestion to discuss it at talk pages?

> In addition, p-adic accused me of removing valid sourced information without any evidence.

I added sources, which are evidences.

> P-adic insists on beng opinionated and judgemental by accusing me of lying, faking and vandalizing. These are all biased opinions and should be removed.

Huh? Have you forgotten that you wrote so many fake informations? Say, you insisted that I used a signature of an admin. (You finally accepted that you lied, because we are talking at the admin's talk page. But you have not apologised.) You wrote wrong and unsourced informations on a new article. (You insisted that you "forgot" them only after others discussed the wrongness. Also, your reasoning was meaningless, because you did not copy it from other articles, as you removed the source.)

You changed the description of the application order in the article, you removed the retrieval dates, you removed correct and sourced informations, and so on. My edit is not against the rules, and hence you should not ignore arguments, while you always insist your own justice.

> The difference page descriptions also contain many opinions such as “ actually removed the original definition and the description of the ill-definedness, although it was still ill-defined”, so a large portion of them should be removed.

Why don't you discuss it? I always told you to write opinions before silently removing descriptions. If you disagree with what is written, you can discuss it instead of ignoring others. What you have done is too arrogant. I will update the article as you insist that it is not neutral, instead of arrogantly removing all description like some cheater.

Before that, point out explicitly which sentences you are talking about. Discuss them instead of removing them as you always do.

> Also, it should be stated that “If there are two or more distinct rules to apply to a single expression, the uppermost rule which is applicable and whose result is a valid expression will be applied” rule is the latest one

No. You told a lie again. The latest cited description is "If there are two or more distinct rules to apply to a single expression, the upper rule will be applied if it is well-defined, otherwise the lower rule." including the circular logic. (You will repeat to insist "misinterpretation", but I have rejected it by saying that illogical sentence including circular logic does not admit a single correct interpretation. Logical interpretation works only when the original sentence logically makes sense. For example, if someone states "x is defined as x" and insists "I intended x = 0", it is meaningless.) Read the article by yourself before repeating the same mistake.

p-adic 04:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I added explanations to the article. They are not my opinions, but are just citations of facts on what you did and what you wrote. For example, you actually removed doubts on your fake explanations, while you insisted that you removed nothing other than ill-defined parts and "intended to be..." part. Since the computation is obviously incorrect as I poited out so many times, you intentionally tried to treat the fake computation as a fact.

@Cloudy

Seriously, why should we deal with the fake information as a valid opinion? You can check how the example is wrong. I explained it so many times, but the user still insists that it is correct. "Neutral" does not mean to allow mathematically incorrect arguments. Also, please read the evidences in the article, which have sources and explain how the user is telling lies.

1. The user actually removed many description by saying something like "I removed nothing". (I do not know what the user wants to do. The user might be trying to hide the mistakes of the computations, and the existence of alternative definition created before the issues could be solved by themselves.)
2. The user harrassed me so many times. (The user insisted that I was using a signature of an admin, while I have never done it. The user had never agreed this lie until I mentioned this at your talk page. The user is insisting that I have barely made any of my own notations or googologisms, while anybody can immediately check my posts by clicking blog posts. Especially, I taght the user how to make the notation well-defined by adding an alternative definition to the article, but the user arrrogantly removed it, even though I told the user not to remove contents without discussing.)
3. The user removed my comments, including links to the sources of what the user has done, to you several times. (You can see it at the history page of this talk page.)
4. The user ignored the suggestions to discuss the article so many times. For example, you can see the first few edits of the talk page, which the user ignored. (This is just an example. As the sources in the article show, the user repeated the removement ignoring arguments in the talk page.)

Please warn the user to stop cheating. Thank you.

p-adic 05:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cloudy176

The behavior from the user “p-adic” is becoming extremely offensive. He is also trying to persuade you to believe his false information. Here are some details:

1. Why should we deal with a well-defined notation just because the user is claiming it as ill-defined? Anyone can see that the current notation in the latest version of the blog is completely well-defined. p-adic is the one who added retrieval dates which are not required by the policy at all, and falsely claiming the latest notation is ill-defined because the latest one with a retrieval date is. It’s simple: when a source is updated, you update the article and remove the old information. This is what the policy says.
2. “Neutral” does not mean that I should blindly accept a fake description given by someone just because he/she is using the retrieval date.  I am not sure what the user wants to do - is it show that he/she wants to take credit for knowledge on googology when he cannot actually give meaningful feedback?
3. As I mentioned earlier, I have never ignored logical suggestions made by anyone. The suggestions that were valid, such as how to fix the ill-defined expressions, I already incorporated. The alternate definition was created when the current, correctly-interpreted no-circular logic definition inside the blog was well-defined. However if a user keeps on making illogical comments or makes completely baseless acusations, then it is hard to take that individual as “neutral”.
4. I have never removed sourced information - except when the sourced information itself is irrelevant or incorrect. In the process of regularly improving the content, I have updated “Extensible Illion System” many times, however I have never added any fake information. You can check it.
5. Some information may become outdated and I have constantly tried to update it. Calling such information “fake” is a sign of either complete lack of understanding of such notation or deeply rooted negative bias.
6. The only thing the user p-adic has “taught” so far is how to make false accusations and how to come up with incomplete notation and claim that to be complete & correct.

Please warn the user “p-adic” to stop exhibiting this negative bias, to stop cheating and spreading erroneous information.

Nirvana Supermind (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

In this way, the user cannot give any sources of the user's fake information, while I gave sources so many times.

p-adic 07:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cloudy

Now the user agreed that the computation by the user was wrong, although the user strongly insisted the correctness even after I pointed out the error so many times. I think that you now understand that regarding the user's fake information as a valid opinion is not neutral in any sense. The user always ignores issues pointed out by others, and dishonestly insult them instead.

p-adic 07:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cloudy

Again, the user removed mathematical proofs of the inconsistency of the fake values. Do you allow the user to add fake descriptions and hide mathematical proofs of the fact that the user is writing completely illogical? Say, the user is essentially writing something like "1+1=3" and removing doubts on the results supported by proofs. Do you seriously think that we should be "neutral" against the fake description? The academic neutrality is based on scientific arguments such as mathematical proofs, and is not based on the equivalence of mathematical facts and disprovable rant. I seriously ask you to warn the vandalist in order to keep this great wiki, which is still growing thanks to you honest admins and helpful users. Thank you.

p-adic 03:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

## New Request

I ask you to make C7X an admin. The user is honest, netral, active, and trusted. Since you and Username are quite busy now, it is good to have another admin, isn't it? (Indeed, we have a new vandalist today, and hence we need an active admin.) Thank you.

p-adic 04:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you request it to me to become an admin as well? So that I can delete unnecessary redirects, cleaning up articles, etc. ARsygo (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I trust you as well. I first recommended C7X because C7X has deep knowledge in set theory and related consepts, and hence can deal with issues related to complicated googological works. Since you are devoting your effort to maintain the mainspaces, it is also good to make you an admin. So Cloudy, could you consider the two active users? (You can check that both users do not have troubles with other users, and also ask Username whether they are actually trusted or not.)
p-adic 04:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello (thanks for admin BTW)! P-adic has also proposed that ARsygo be admin as well, as well as recently on my talk page. (Also, in my opinion ARssygo is a responsible user) C7X (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

## Hmmmm.....

if you are the launcher of a thousand edits i am the launcher of a trillion explosions muahahahahahha so i can wreck havoc in the planet

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenalexwcr1 (talkcontribs)

Too late, Jonathan Bowers is already the launcher of a trillion explosions. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 17:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

## Moving before discussion

Hello. Please check Googology Wiki:Policy#Edit War. It says "Similarly, we should not move articles with contributions by other users unless we have discussions at the talk page." You should not move an article with other contributors before you disucss it. Thank you.

p-adic 23:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)