User talk:Old Entity Valkyrie 2

From LifeWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

It's good to have a nice clean user talk page for EV2. If the old user page is ever needed for reference, it ended up at User_talk:Entity_Valkyrie_1. Welcome back, and good luck! Dvgrn (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Output orientation T

I'm still confused about what the "Turned" option for conduits is actually supposed to mean. I skimmed over this tiki bar discussion from last year, but I still don't understand why for example PT38P doesn't use the more specific "L" instead of "T". Ian07 (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I understand this now; it doesn't really matter which way it's turned because with symmetric inputs you can just flip the conduit, and according to Kazyan on Discord this is in fact well-established terminology. Ian07 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
"L" doesn't make anything more specific, since you can flip the conduit without changing either the location or the orientation of the first pi, and it all of a sudden becomes "PR38P" instead of "PL38P". The T is only used for input Pi or other symmetrical input.
x = 69, y = 12, rule = B3/S23 2o8b3o8b2o23b2o8b3o8b2o$o2bo6bobo8b2o23b2o8bobo6bo2bo$2b2o6bobo43bobo 6b2o2$22b2o21b2o$22bo23bo$23b3o17b3o$5b2o4bo13bo17bo13bo4b2o$5bo2bobob o43bobobo2bo$7b2ob2obo41bob2ob2o$13bo41bo$13b2o39b2o! #C [[ THUMBSIZE 2 THEME 6 GRID GRIDMAJOR 0 SUPPRESS THUMBLAUNCH ]] #C [[ AUTOSTART GPS 19 THUMBLAUNCH THUMBSIZE 2 THEME 6 ZOOM 8 WIDTH 640 HEIGHT 320 PAUSE 2 T 38 PAUSE 2 LOOP 39 ]]
(click above to open LifeViewer)
RLE: here Plaintext: here

The two conduits on the left are two Tanner's p46s, just mirror images. However, this is what happens if we try to name the conduits without the usage of T:

  • The first oscillator consists of a PL38P and PR8P
  • The second oscillator consists of a PR38P and PL8P

Two names had been given to the same conduit (marked in bold and italic respectively), and there is no need, so T is the standard. Entity Valkyrie 2 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Conduit bug

There is a bug in Template:Conduit. The recovery box is not stable in Fx77 and probably lots of other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entity Valkyrie 2 (talkcontribs)

Unexplained removal of objects in RLEs

I noticed that in these two edits: [1] [2] you removed some objects from the respective RLEs which as far as I can tell are useful for the article (e.g. the twit eater in Bx222). I know this has probably already been asked of you several times, but please get in the habit of using the edit summary more often when you make potentially controversial changes like this, to explain your justification for removing these things. Especially in the case of editing RLEs, where it's hard to tell what's actually changed just by looking at it, so you need to open both the previous and current versions in Golly to find out. Ian07 (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I finally found the stray < symbol in the conduit infobox template. However, I tried to fix the conduit info not appearing for edge shooters (Fx119 inserter) but failed to do so. Ian07 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The "torus" edit was to fix a bug that the pattern is 2 steps away from the top, and directly sticking to the bottom. I fixed this by changing the size of that pattern from 100x100 to 98x98. The problem was hard to notice. But I'm just bad at making pages, and better at messing them up. (self-proclaimed) Entity Valkyrie 2 (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean, though the edit you just made ended up breaking the RLE entirely due to lack of newlines so I had to revert it. Unfortunately I'm not sure what to do about this, since it looks like LifeViewer actually interprets bounded grid RLEs differently compared to Golly.
Also remember that the best way to improve the quality of your edits is to listen to the advice of other editors so you know which mistakes to avoid. Complaining that you're just "bad at making pages" isn't going to help anything, and again you've already made plenty of great contributions in your time here, albeit with some cleanup required. Ian07 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like simply selecting the RLE in Golly and pasting it to the wiki solved the issue. Ian07 (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
And that's exactly what I did, but maybe I pasted wrong... Entity Valkyrie 2 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Bx222 edit issue

I based off the "eater removal" off F171, where an eater was removed over 1 year ago with the logic "the eater is not mandatory". Which of the two following is correct?

1. The eater should be left out the infobox, and the text should say when an eater is needed.

2. The eater should be in the infobox, and the text should say when an eater can be left out.

Entity Valkyrie 2 (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Filter and 68P32.1

Question: where exactly have you seen 68P32.1 used to make a p160 gun? I'm asking this because I'd like to add a LifeViewer to these pages demonstrating it but I can't find the actual gun and I can't figure out how to make it myself. Ian07 (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A quote from the page of Period-20 glider gun:

"Filtering the output of the gun with a blocker yields the smallest known period-40 glider gun, beating the eponymous period-40 glider gun at its own game. The further addition of Rich's p16 doubles the period again, resulting in the smallest known period-80 gun, and adding 68P32.1 on top of that doubles the period once more to 160."

I think they are referring to this gun:

x = 90, y = 73, rule = B3/S23 35b2o3b2o$37bobo2bo$34bo5b2o$35bob3o$36b2o2b2o2b2o$28b2o5bo2bobo2bobo$ 27bo2bo4b4o2bobo7b2obo$26bo2bo2bo6bo4bo5bobob3o11b2o$23bo2b3o8b2o2b3ob o3bo2bo4bo9bobo$15bob2o4b3o3b2obo4bo6bo5b3o3bobo4b2o2bo$2o11b3obobo6b 2o3bo7bob3o11bob5o2b4o$obo9bo4bo2bo2b2obo10b5o6b8o6bobo$2bo8bobo3b3o3b o3bo8bobo9bo7b3o4b2ob2o$2b2ob3o4bobo9b3o8b2obo11bo2b2o4bob2o2b2obo$4b 2o8b8o4b2ob2o7b2o9b2o2bo14bo$2b2o4b6o3bo3bo9bo5b2o8bo3b4obo5b6o$bobob 4o2bo3bo3bo7bo6bobo13b3o3bo6bo$bo6bo3b2o2bo2b2o7bob2o3bo10bo6bo2b3o2bo 4b2o$2b6o9b2o2bo16b2o6b2obo3bo4bo2b2o3b2o$6bo5b2o3b2o2bo9bo4bo3bo5b2ob obo2b4o$2b2o4bo3b3o3bo2bo9bo4bo3bo5b2o2b4o$2b2o3b2o3bo3b2o2b2o3bo5bo4b o3bo5b2obobo2b4o$12b4o4bobo14b3o6b2obo3bo4bo2b2o3b2o$16b3ob2o4b4o3b3o 10bo6bo2b3o2bo4b2o$12b4o4bobo27b3o3bo6bo$2b2o3b2o3bo3b2o2b2o3bo5bo5bo 9bo3b4obo5b6o$2b2o4bo3b3o3bo2bo9bo6b2o9b2o2bo14bo$6bo5b2o3b2o2bo10bo4b 2o11bo2b2o4bob2o2b2obo$2b6o9b2o2bo26bo7b3o4b2ob2ob2o$bo6bo3b2o2bo2b2o 8bo2bo15b8o6bobo4bo$bobob4o2bo3bo3bo7b3o2b3o7bo12bob5o2b4obo$2b2o4b6o 3bo3bo6b2o2b2o9b2o5b3o3bobo4b2o2bob2o$4b2o8b8o7bo2bo9b2o5bo2bo4bo9bo$ 2b2ob3o4bobo12bobo2bobo15bobob3o9b2o$2bo8bobo3b3o7b2o4b2o16b2obo$obo9b o4bo2bo55bo3bo$2o11b3obobo51bo3bobobobo3bo$15bob2o20b2o28bo5bobobobo5b o$35b2obo2bob2o22b2o2b2obobo3bobob2o2b2o$35bo4bo2b2o27bobo7bobo$39bo 12bo19bobo7bobo$36bobo14b2o$52b2o2$39b2ob2o3b2ob2o$38bo5bobo5bo$43b2ob 2o$41bo7bo$38bo2bob2ob2obo2bo19bobo7bobo$39bo3bo3bo3bo20bobo7bobo$40b 2ob2ob2ob2o11bo4b2o2b2obobo3bobob2o2b2o$41bo2bobo2bo13b2o4bo5bobobobo 5bo$42bobobobo13b2o7bo3bobobobo3bo$43bo3bo28bo3bo17$82bo$83b2o$82b2o! #C [[ THUMBSIZE 2 THEME 6 GRID GRIDMAJOR 0 SUPPRESS THUMBLAUNCH ]] #C [[ GPS 20 THUMBLAUNCH THUMBSIZE 2 THEME 6 ZOOM 6 WIDTH 640 HEIGHT 480 ]]
(click above to open LifeViewer)
RLE: here Plaintext: here

Also, is this blueprint notable enough for the page RRO?

(click above to open LifeViewer)
RLE: here Plaintext: here

Removing trusted flag again

I'm really sorry for doing this, because I understand that you really do mean well and want to contribute to the wiki. However, I've found that you're still making the same mistakes as you did on your original account. Ever since you got back the trusted flag I've had to go out of my way to clean up your edits, whether by fixing typos/grammatical issues or by reverting information that as far as I can tell at least really isn't useful for anything and just bloats the article with miscellaneous trivia. Meanwhile, the fact that you have a tendency to not use the edit summary further obscures the purpose of these edits. You've consistently been making several edits per day and while a lot of them are constructive overall, it's still far too much for me to keep up with and it's clear that no one else wants to step up to the task of reviewing them. Having said that, I'd be willing to allow you to have it back if there were more people checking the recent changes or if you show that you plan to change your habits.

Once again, I really wish I didn't have to do this but I just don't have time to review so many edits. Ian07 (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)