LifeWiki Edit War Reporting Thread

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145922
Edit war over an issue previously reported elsewhere

[...]
3
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=139987
I think the addition of the section for medium period oscillators should be reverted. As far as I can see, that section was copy-and-pasted (again, without acknowledging source) from the page "Prime number" ( https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Prime_numbe ... scillators ) with modifications.
The medium-period oscillators are not relevant on the "Large prime oscillator" page.
The assertion "Most SKOPs for large prime periods are rectifier loops." is an unsubstantiated claim.
I suggest to revert the page to the revision https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=139987
[...]

---

Previous unresolved issue from the last page

An edit war in https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=131196
User:DroneBetter readded content which I previously reverted ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=131195 ).
[...]

[dvgrn]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145922
Edit war over an issue previously reported elsewhere...

I've rolled back the copy/pasted part of the "prime period oscillator" edit, keeping the part that seemed useful. The copy-pasted information didn't fit in the new location, and duplication of that information probably wasn't a good idea anyway.

When there's a choice between duplicating information vs. having it in just one location and linking to it elsewhere, the "single source of truth" option is usually highly preferable... with some exceptions! (Every rule has a few exceptions.) E.g., a pattern that doesn't have its own article might be equally good as an illustration in multiple places, maybe with different captions.

Previous unresolved issue from the last page ...

An edit war in https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=131196

I can't see any problem with these additions to the article on Harold McIntosh. At the moment the edit war is not continuing (nobody has reverted DroneBetter's edit) so I'm thinking there's no need to come up with an official executive decision. I'd certainly be interested to hear from anyone who agrees with confocaloid on this issue, though.

[confocaloid]

[...]
I can't see any problem with these additions [...]

Pages about people should not be cluttered with irrelevant/excessive details.

The edit added excessive details about actions of the person on the wiki, to the point of discussing how contributions from IP addresses were merged into an account named "Spam User". Such details are not relevant to the topic of the article, and hence should not go on the page.

The same applies to the bulleted list of user-namespace pages with dates. Such information is mostly of interest to other editors, rather than LifeWiki readers. A brief footnote (without dates and other excessive details), simply linking to one or two user namespace pages, would be more than enough.

[Sokwe]

The edit added excessive details about actions of the person on the wiki, to the point of discussing how contributions from IP addresses were merged into an account named "Spam User".

I think the note about IP addresses and "Spam User" is appropriate and not excessive. It clarifies that major contributions to the pages were in fact made by Harold McIntosh, despite not appearing under his LifeWiki username. If a person tried to check who wrote those pages, they would likely get the wrong impression from the edit history.

The same applies to the bulleted list of user-namespace pages with dates. Such information is mostly of interest to other editors, rather than LifeWiki readers. A brief footnote (without dates and other excessive details), simply linking to one or two user namespace pages, would be more than enough.

I disagree. These aren't simple user pages like a sandbox. They are essentially short articles written by McIntosh and hosted on the LifeWiki. Being some of McIntosh's last writings on Life, I think they are notable and should be discoverable from his LifeWiki page. The inclusion of dates with the articles matches the format of the previous sections. The dates should probably be reduced to just a month and a year, since the articles were written over multiple days, but I see no need to get rid of the dates entirely.

[confocaloid]

[...] E.g., a pattern that doesn't have its own article might be equally good as an illustration in multiple places, maybe with different captions. [...]

(Not directly relevant to the recent issues, but) hopefully the RLEs of such patterns will be put into the RLE: namespace, with relevant links / discovery information preserved in pattern comments. (Instead of copy-and-pasting the RLE into multiple pages.)

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146076
Edit war over the permanently-controversial topic of NFTs.

An earlier claim was added in https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... ldid=96826

I edited that to change the link to what seemed a more appropriate link (Catagolue instead of completely unrelated website): https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=117642

Now Haycat2009 reverted a recent edit removing the dubious content completely.

For the record, I think the sentence should be removed.

[hotdogPi]

I also think the sentence should be removed.

[dvgrn]

I also think the sentence should be removed.

Interesting -- the editor who removed that line was the discoverer of the spaceship, who also minted the NFT and added the original line with the link to opensea.io.

There's a blank edit summary for the removal of the line, so it's hard to tell what the thinking was. Haycat2009's edit was basically just asking for more information -- all pretty reasonable so far. I'll see what I can find out.

[confocaloid]

Edit war in https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... on=history

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140558 Repeated removal of an existing term that can be found via forum search. False/misleading edit summary.

Latest revision as of 05:13, 1 March 2024

Prior use of the term can be seen with a forum search. In my previous edit summary, I already provided a link that shows the term was coined by a person other than me long time ago, and was used by other people.

Naming the specific crystal is better (more specific) than just saying "a crystal".

[Sokwe]

Edit war in https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... on=history

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140558 Repeated removal of an existing term that can be found via forum search. False/misleading edit summary.

Latest revision as of 05:13, 1 March 2024

Prior use of the term can be seen with a forum search. In my previous edit summary, I already provided a link that shows the term was coined by a person other than me long time ago, and was used by other people.

Naming the specific crystal is better (more specific) than just saying "a crystal".

I made a post about this in the naming proposals thread. I also edited your post to be a bit more magnanimous.

[confocaloid]

(1) Multiple undiscussed changes of formatting in articles, restoring (in some cases previously merged) very short sections (not an improvement), restoring links in section headings (should be moved into text), some examples: one two three four

Special:Contributions/Muzik

(2) Undoing merges of blahblahpole pages and beacon variants without previous discussion:

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... ldid=97976
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... ldid=97977
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... ldid=97978
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=109112
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=109103

I think those should remain redirects, until and unless individual examples are shown to be notable (LW:NB).

[confocaloid]

(1)
(2)

In addition to the above unresolved issues,

(3) Long edit warring in Rectifier: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... on=history

* https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=139965 Haycat2009 adds "prime" without edit summary
* https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=139990 Galoomba removes "prime" with edit summary "they aren't necessarily prime"
* https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140007 Haycat2009 re-adds a different variation of the same claim ("especially [[Large prime oscillator]]s"), again without edit summary
* https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140068 Galoomba removes the claim again, with edit summary "it's not even especially primes"
* https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140974 Haycat2009 re-adds again "especially [[Prime number|prime]]" with edit summary "See large prime osc."

Edit warring should be obvious from the above.
Currently I fail to see how the claims about prime numbers being somehow "special" in this context are supported. Hence I think the added claim should be reverted again.

EDIT by dvgrn: In case anyone is worried, the "without edit summary" links above are from the time before Haycat2009 started including consistent edit summaries; this is an older edit war with one recent edit, not a recent series of edits.

I tried to find a way to usefully mention prime periods, since they do make up a majority of the list of rectifier SKOPs up to 200 -- which is probably the list Haycat2009 was looking at. But of course primes quickly get to be much rarer, so they're nowhere near a majority of rectifier SKOPs in Galoomba's list of SKOPs up to 2048. So my attempt to address this issue added a See-Also link to that larger list, instead of mentioning primes.

[wildmyron]

(3) Long edit warring in Rectifier:
<snip edit war details>
I fail to see how the claims about prime numbers being somehow "special" in this context are supported. Hence I think the added claim should be reverted again.

EDIT by dvgrn: <snip>
I tried to find a way to usefully mention prime periods, since they do make up a majority of the list of rectifier SKOPs up to 200 -- which is probably the list Haycat2009 was looking at. But of course primes quickly get to be much rarer, so they're nowhere near a majority of rectifier SKOPs in Galoomba's list of SKOPs up to 2048. So my attempt to address this issue added a See-Also link to that larger list, instead of mentioning primes.

I believe there's a misunderstanding here, and that what Haycat is trying to say is that "the majority of SKOPs with prime period are rectifier loops". I haven't checked the validity of this alternative interpretation, but it seems a lot more likely than "the majority of large period SKOPs that are rectifier loops have prime periods".

[confocaloid]

Well, I do not see what it is about prime numbers, that could/would make them "special" in this particular context. Does anything change if "... with prime period ..." is omitted? Does this affect accurateness/validity of the claim?
Especially given that the linked edits by Haycat2009 twice inserted the word 'especially'.

[dvgrn]

I believe there's a misunderstanding here, and that what Haycat is trying to say is that "the majority of SKOPs with prime period are rectifier loops".

Thanks -- that's the perspective I was looking for, and for some reason couldn't find! I've added a separate sentence at the bottom of the section to say that.

Prime periods do tend to get a certain amount of special attention, just because they're generally the hardest problems to solve for oscillators and guns. I can certainly see why Haycat2009 wanted to call them out specifically. Maybe the added sentence should become two added sentences, to make that clearer?

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=147518

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146004
In 68P16, the hassled reaction consists (at some point) of four blocks and four wings. It never consists of "wings and nothing else". So this oscillator is not a wing hassler, and should not be added to the page.

[dvgrn]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=147518

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146004
In 68P16, the hassled reaction consists (at some point) of four blocks and four wings. It never consists of "wings and nothing else". So this oscillator is not a wing hassler, and should not be added to the page.

This is an interesting case. For the phases where there's an obvious wing in the rotor, there are three blocks in each quadrant. Clearly two out of the three blocks are catalysts. But how do we tell that the third block isn't also a catalyst -- a transparent-block catalyst?

We have plenty of other hasslers that include transparent catalysts around the edges -- e.g., in the p42 wing hassler, the loaf is transparent, but nobody complains that that oscillator is really a "wing and loaf hassler" and shouldn't be in the list.

Can we draw a bright line between those kinds of transparent catalysts, and cases like 68p16 where the transparent block isn't near an edge, and looks a little more like "just part of the rotor"?

There's definitely a dividing line somewhere -- like, if a "transparent catalyst" is absent for most of the oscillator's lifespan, it seems much more like a "temporarily congealed ash object" and less like an actual transparent catalyst. But cases like this one don't seem to be as clear-cut Those blocks in 68p16 happen to straddle that particular line -- they're recognizable as blocks or recovering blocks, just over half of the time.

[confocaloid]

Those blocks in 68p16 happen to straddle that particular line -- they're recognizable as blocks or recovering blocks, just over half of the time.

Those blocks in 68P16 are just temporary blocks belonging to the hassled reaction. Unless it is possible to meaningfully extract the specific interaction that makes those blocks reappear and show that in a different pattern in another context, where the same reaction happens as an uncontroversial, obvious catalysis.

We have plenty of other hasslers that include transparent catalysts around the edges -- e.g., in the p42 wing hassler, the loaf is transparent, but nobody complains that that oscillator is really a "wing and loaf hassler" and shouldn't be in the list.

The difference is that in the p42 oscillator shown on the page, the phase containing wings doesn't contain any other parts of the hassled reaction. In particular, that phase doesn't contain temporary loaves (which appear at different time):

Code: Select all

x = 26, y = 26, rule = B3/S23
2bo2bo$5bo10b2o$bo4bo9bobo$b2o2bobo9bo$6bob2o3$6bo2bo$6b2o$2o$bo14b3o
$bobo12bo2bo$2b2o3bo9bobo$6bobo9bo3b2o$6bo2bo12bobo$7b3o14bo$24b2o$18b
2o$16bo2bo3$16b2obo$8bo9bobo2b2o$7bobo9bo4bo$8b2o10bo$20bo2bo!

[dvgrn]

The difference is that in the p42 oscillator shown on the page, the phase containing wings doesn't contain any other parts of the hassled reaction. In particular, that phase doesn't contain temporary loaves (which appear at different time)...

Oops, sorry -- that was a very unlikely coincidence! I'm not sure where I got "p42" from, so it's very odd that it also happened to contain a temporary loaf. The transparent loaves I meant to point to are the ones in the p37 wing hassler.

I definitely agree that the loaves in the p37 are transparent catalysts, whereas the ones in the p42 are just transient junk that happens to be shaped like a loaf for a short time.

It's not clear that there's any kind of good argument for labeling those four blocks in 68P16 as "transparent catalysts" -- but it's also not entirely clear yet (at least to me) exactly where the dividing line is. I have some vague recollection that there might be hasslers out there where there's a transparent catalyst around the edge somewhere, that successfully does the job of absorbing some very specific active reaction -- but where that exact reaction is very specific and isn't used anywhere else.

That's still going to be an "around the edge" transparent catalyst, probably interacting with just one copy of the active object (in cases where the hassler is working with multiple symmetric copies). In the 68p16, I think I wouldn't want to call the block a "transparent catalyst" when it's right in the middle of the action, being hit from two sides by the active reaction in two quadrants.

EDIT: The separate 68P16 article has had a "p16 wing hassler" alias in it since it was created on January 2, 2019. So rather than a simple revert for DroneBetter's edit, I think I should add a link to that article, saying something about why it's not exactly a wing hassler (as the article says, it's a hassler, but it hassles "four wings and four blocks".)

The new question is, should we remove the "(or p16 wing hassler)" from that article? Or at this point is that one of those names that's valid even though it isn't actually accurate? I haven't dug up any instances of anyone actually using "p16 wing hassler", so I'm thinking maybe it's still a good idea to remove that parenthetical alias.

[confocaloid]

Edit:

EDIT: fixed original and quoted links

My reply about Pentadecathlon IDs is harder to connect to the quote when the quote is edited. For context, the link was "68p16" before the edit to the above post, and didn't work since the article is named 68P16.

EDIT: The separate 68p16 article has had a "p16 wing hassler" alias in it since it was created on January 2, 2019. So rather than a simple revert for DroneBetter's edit, I think I should add a link to that article, saying something about why it's not exactly a wing hassler (as the article says, it's a hassler, but it hassles "four wings and four blocks".)

The new question is, should we remove the "(or p16 wing hassler)" from that article? Or at this point is that one of those names that's valid even though it isn't actually accurate? I haven't dug up any instances of anyone actually using "p16 wing hassler", so I'm thinking maybe it's still a good idea to remove that parenthetical alias.

The link doesn't work; it should be 68P16 instead. Pentadecathlon ID descriptors have "P" in them (unlike abbreviations such as "p16" for "period-16").

I think " (or p16 wing hassler)" should be removed from that article, for the same above reasons.

EDIT by dvgrn: Hearing no objections to this, I've adjusted the Wing hasslers page and also removed the "p16 wing hassler" name from 68P16 (and explained why).

[confocaloid]

[...] For the phases where there's an obvious wing in the rotor, there are three blocks in each quadrant. [...] Can we draw a bright line between those kinds of transparent catalysts, and cases like 68p16 where the transparent block isn't near an edge, and looks a little more like "just part of the rotor"? [...]

Correction: having temporary blocks in the rotor inside supporting objects doesn't prevent classifying the oscillator as a "X" hassler, as long as there is a phase where the engine entirely consists of instances of "X".
(The engine of a hassler oscillator may even be supported by sparks/interactions from other hasslers.)
So "presence of four blocks in the rotor" should be changed to "presence of four blocks in the engine" on the affected page

EDIT by dvgrn: Done.

[confocaloid]

Bi-pond
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=130398 lesser
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=146901 less
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=146917 lesser
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=146955 less
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=147692 lesser

EDIT by dvgrn: Tried something a little different (adding a redirect and link).

[confocaloid]

• https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140732 rq cleanup: "Replace the PASTET pattern with a plain-Life pattern that shows the reaction in question"
• https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140736 "No need for the replacement - an edgeshooting 23-tick dot spark predecessor is hard to find, and also it is more clear."
• https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140745 "rq cleanup again -- one possible example is https://catagolue.hatsya.com/object/xp4_8eh5e0e5he8z178a707a871/b3s23 (and more could be found by looking through Catagolue soups), and you can zoom to the area of interest"
• https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140757 "Pastet is the most convienient and clear option - a sufficiently long dot predecessor is hard to find, not very representative and this option places the most emphasis on the main point."

Since the above is already a bit repetitive, posting it here.

PASTET (as well as other unnecessary scripting trickery) is undesirable in LifeWiki articles, because it is misleading. Life patterns and reactions are plain two-state, and don't need any external input during evolution.

Note that my edit summary already linked to the existing glider synthesis, which directly contradicts the claim "a sufficiently long dot predecessor is hard to find" from the edit summaries. Here is the synthesis, copied from Catagolue:

Code: Select all

x = 96, y = 35, rule = B3/S23
2bo$obo$b2o12b3o$15bo$4b2o10bo73bobo$5b2o81b3ob3o$4bo82bo3bo3bo$87bobo
bobobo$77b2o9b3ob3o$76bo2bo$77b2o9b3ob3o$73b2o12bobobobobo$72bobo12bo
3bo3bo$74bo13b3ob3o$90bobo18$39b3o$39bo$40bo!

Take the first stage of the synthesis (which features the same reaction), and use ZOOM for additional emphasis. There is no need for extra scripting trickery.

EDIT by dvgrn: The explanation using PASTET looks good to me -- a nice clear visual explanation. The 5G synthesis also seems worth showcasing, though, so I've added another embedded LifeViewer showing a two-state-only way of delivering the dot spark.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146544
Continuation of a classification war in Table of oscillators by period.

In particular, both the p118 and the p142 are definitely glider shuttles (both are Jubjub reflector based glider shuttles).

Renaming "Glider shuttle" to "Relay" amounts to edit warring against a previous edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145720

Code: Select all

#C 144P118
#C A p118 glider shuttle with two Jubjub reflectors
x = 35, y = 36, rule = B3/S23
16b2o$17bo$16bo$16b2o11bo$14b2o11b3o$13bo2b2o8bo$14bobo9b2o$13b2obobo
4bo7b2o$17b2o3bobo6bo$21bo2bo4bobo$22b2o5b2o$17bo$4b2o9b3o$b2o2bo8bo$
o2b2o3bo5b2o$obo2b4o$bobo27b2o$3bob2o21b2o2bo$2bo2b2o21b2obo$2b2o27bo
bo$26b4o2bobo$19b2o5bo3b2o2bo$11b2o7bo8bo2b2o$10b2o5b3o9b2o$11b2o4bo$
4b2o$3bobo$3bo13bo$2b2o12bobob2o$7b2o7bobobo$8bo7b3o2bo$5b3o11b2o$5bo
11b2o$18bo$17bo$17b2o!

Code: Select all

#C 144P142
#C A p142 glider shuttle with two Jubjub reflectors
x = 38, y = 39, rule = B3/S23
19b2o$20bo$19bo$19b2o11bo$17b2o11b3o$16bo2b2o8bo$17bobo9b2o$16b2obobo4bo7b2o$
20b2o3bobo6bo$24bo2bo4bobo$25b2o5b2o4$17bo$4b2o9b3o$b2o2bo8bo19b2o$o2b2o3bo5b
2o15b2o2bo$obo2b4o22b2obo$bobo30bobo$3bob2o22b4o2bobo$2bo2b2o15b2o5bo3b2o2bo$
2b2o19bo8bo2b2o$20b3o9b2o$20bo$11b2o$10b2o$11b2o$4b2o$3bobo$3bo13bo$2b2o12bob
ob2o$7b2o7bobobo$8bo7b3o2bo$5b3o11b2o$5bo11b2o$18bo$17bo$17b2o!

[Haycat2009]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146544
Continuation of a classification war in Table of oscillators by period.

In particular, both the p118 and the p142 are definitely glider shuttles (both are Jubjub reflector based glider shuttles).

Renaming "Glider shuttle" to "Relay" amounts to edit warring against a previous edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145720

Code: Select all

#C 144P118
#C A p118 glider shuttle with two Jubjub reflectors
x = 35, y = 36, rule = B3/S23
16b2o$17bo$16bo$16b2o11bo$14b2o11b3o$13bo2b2o8bo$14bobo9b2o$13b2obobo
4bo7b2o$17b2o3bobo6bo$21bo2bo4bobo$22b2o5b2o$17bo$4b2o9b3o$b2o2bo8bo$
o2b2o3bo5b2o$obo2b4o$bobo27b2o$3bob2o21b2o2bo$2bo2b2o21b2obo$2b2o27bo
bo$26b4o2bobo$19b2o5bo3b2o2bo$11b2o7bo8bo2b2o$10b2o5b3o9b2o$11b2o4bo$
4b2o$3bobo$3bo13bo$2b2o12bobob2o$7b2o7bobobo$8bo7b3o2bo$5b3o11b2o$5bo
11b2o$18bo$17bo$17b2o!

Code: Select all

#C 144P142
#C A p142 glider shuttle with two Jubjub reflectors
x = 38, y = 39, rule = B3/S23
19b2o$20bo$19bo$19b2o11bo$17b2o11b3o$16bo2b2o8bo$17bobo9b2o$16b2obobo4bo7b2o$
20b2o3bobo6bo$24bo2bo4bobo$25b2o5b2o4$17bo$4b2o9b3o$b2o2bo8bo19b2o$o2b2o3bo5b
2o15b2o2bo$obo2b4o22b2obo$bobo30bobo$3bob2o22b4o2bobo$2bo2b2o15b2o5bo3b2o2bo$
2b2o19bo8bo2b2o$20b3o9b2o$20bo$11b2o$10b2o$11b2o$4b2o$3bobo$3bo13bo$2b2o12bob
ob2o$7b2o7bobobo$8bo7b3o2bo$5b3o11b2o$5bo11b2o$18bo$17bo$17b2o!

I did put them in glider shuttles-you can check that edit