User talk:Apple Bottom
- You're very welcome! Always glad to be able to help out. Apple Bottom (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Apple Bottom, and thanks for editing Catagolue links and other stuff into articles.
I am making this post because I have something to comment on. It seems that you are aiming to make a page for every single discovered and named Catagolue Life object in existence. I don't see the point in doing this. The vast majority of these patterns are not notable. FractalFusion (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I've bumped you up from "Trusted" to "Administrator". I can undo this change if you would prefer, but I figure you've more than shown that you can do great things around here. Nathaniel (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm humbled and honored. Thanks a lot for the kind words, and for your confidence and trust! Apple Bottom (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Fake Still Lives
- No -- a pseudo still life is a single object that isn't a strict still life because it can be decomposed into several parts; a fake still life is a pattern that isn't a single object to begin with. Contrast:
- Apple Bottom (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- BTW -- there's been some talk about this on the forums, and at User:Dvgrn's suggestion I've renamed "fake still lifes" to "constellations". Apple Bottom (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
You have the modified code, come and get it! -wwei23 10:31AM 6/25/2017 NY time
Why are you adding the ™ symbol to articles? Not saying that I don't like it (It's actually pretty hilarious and makes the LifeWiki™ more entertaining), but where did you get it from? It seems like you started using it in posting the "Catagolue Quota-O-Meter™". Keep the comedy up!
- I'm not adding it to articles. The only place I've used the trademark symbol on the wiki (as far as I recall) is once in Tutorials/Search methods, and I think the tutorials can and indeed should be written in a somewhat more engaging, entertaining style than the main articles with their encyclopedic tone. If you think it's not appropriate, though, feel free to edit it out. Apple Bottom (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your statement that orthogonality is not a worthwhile goal to pursue merely for its own sake. But I hope you agree that there is value in orthogonality, too: It often tremendously simplifies complicated situations and generally avoids duplication of work or reinventing the wheel. For me, orthogonality is similar to other ideals that we have come to see as values, such as honesty, which I strive to abide by, but can dispense of for the greater good. I'd be happy to discuss this futher here.
In the situation you refer to, Talk:Oblique spaceship#Questioning the table in its current form, I fail to see the greater good. Would you please be so kind and explain that there? Micromegas (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- There isn't much to explain, really. The table is appropriate for the article in question, and it's useful to people; that alone is enough for me to strongly lean towards keeping it. I'd understand your desire to delete it if the it was a mere duplicate of another table from elsewhere, but it isn't; the two are in fact quite distinct and have a very different focus. One is about types of oblique spaceships; the other provides a general overview over spaceships of various kinds. Apple Bottom (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)