Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
This seems to be from the same author who gave us discrete object classifier. Since that led to some discussion/corrections here, I am suspecting that the author is not following the nForum. (?)
This is a bit strange. Whoever it is has made quite a number of edits, not what I would call trivial, since the 25th, and is not announcing any of them; and whoever it is seems to know the syntax of the nLab quite well.
Whoever it is seems to be knowledgeable, and I’m sure they’d be very welcome. But I think they do need to engage on the nForum, and to make an announcement when they make an edit.
What I will do now is block submission from this author until they make themselves known at the nForum (I will add an error message indicating that they should do this). If anyone objects to this plan, let me know.
The full list of edits is as follows. We should probably check these to make sure they’re OK.
| internalization | 2021-02-25 23:23:09 |
| preorder | 2021-02-28 14:09:27 |
| preorder | 2021-02-28 15:05:06 |
| Set | 2021-02-27 15:57:51 |
| subobject classifier | 2021-02-27 17:05:31 |
| simplex category | 2021-02-27 09:41:29 |
| internal logic | 2021-02-28 08:41:56 |
| internal logic | 2021-02-28 12:31:36 |
| 2-poset | 2021-02-27 09:39:25 |
| FinSet | 2021-02-27 11:31:36 |
| reduced suspension | 2021-02-26 11:32:38 |
| suspension | 2021-02-26 11:31:21 |
| (sub)object classifier in an (infinity,1)-topos | 2021-02-27 17:07:35 |
| proposition | 2021-02-25 22:38:45 |
| suspension object | 2021-02-26 11:34:02 |
| circle | 2021-02-26 17:02:29 |
| interval type | 2021-02-26 10:52:49 |
| interval type | 2021-02-26 11:43:55 |
| interval type | 2021-02-26 16:01:36 |
| interval type | 2021-02-26 17:12:31 |
| interval type | 2021-02-27 09:03:31 |
| internal set theory | 2021-02-28 11:53:08 |
| circle type | 2021-02-26 16:45:30 |
| suspension type | 2021-02-26 11:09:07 |
| suspension type | 2021-02-26 15:12:47 |
| suspension type | 2021-02-26 15:53:31 |
| discrete object classifier | 2021-02-27 14:30:16 |
| discrete object classifier | 2021-02-27 16:43:50 |
| discrete object classifier | 2021-02-28 02:01:50 |
| discrete object classifier | 2021-02-28 09:10:04 |
I would push back against the idea of locking edits for them, but only softly. It’s not something I would suggest jumping onto without consideration. If the edits are all serious or at worst considered/careful contributions, then I don’t want to scare anyone away who might like to work quietly. But I also appreciate the idea that we do need to keep a track on edits to some extent.
Presumably the IP address is captured, so one could make an educated guess where they are coming from (for instance, if it’s a university-assigned block, or at least a city in which category theorists and/or type theorists are known to lurk)
It’s a difficult balance, but there are at least a couple of the edits which needed discussion/corrections. It does say quite clearly on the edit pages that edits should be announced, and I think it is reasonable to expect this as a minimum. Anonymity is no problem at all.
Much of the content looks fine and very welcome! Hopefully whoever it is will show up here, and all will then be fine :-).
I should say that they are not blocked as such, just when they try to submit an edit, they will get an error asking them to make themselves known at the nForum, emphasising that anonymity is fine.
OK, cool.
Yes, these seem to be substantial and welcome contributions! All I meant was to highlight that we don’t seem to have contact to the author. Even excellent contributions need some discussion, sometimes.
Maybe if/since you, Richard, have the means, best just to point out to the author a pending discussion request at Comment_90019.
A thought: What we’d really need here is that “red bell” which forums have these days (such as on MO and elsewhere) indicating the presence of comments/questions for a user.
Maybe if/since you, Richard, have the means, best just to point out to the author a pending discussion request at Comment_90019.
The only means I have really, at least the only simple means, is to prevent an edit going through and give a message to the author. That is what I have done for the moment, and the message is indeed pointing to that discussion. Hopefully the author will indeed join us here, I like a lot the kind of 2-categorical material that the author has been adding, and I’m sure they’d be very welcome.
Thank you very much for confirming! I’ll make sure you can edit again asap.
It should be possible for you to edit again now :-). Best to have a low threshold for making announcements I suggest; anything with any mathematical content at all can be announced, for example. And good if you can to check the discussion thread in the nForum (there is a ’Discuss this page’ link at the top of each page for example) every now and then for a little while after you make a non-trivial edit, in case anybody has any feedback :-).
Maybe since Anonymous has been making so many edits (s)he should adopt an obvious pseudonym for the edits - “Daffy Duck”, “buttercup”, or whatever. At least that way observers can can say “oh that person” rather than rather than scrutinizing the contributions as if from a new random person.
I believe there are no requirements for using a pseudonym on the nLab and signing up for a nForum name requires no identifying information.
I don’t know, I kind of like the idea of high-quality anonymous content being added regularly, to the point that I may eventually anonymize some of my contributions. It gives a sense of ’this is about the mathematics, not the mathematician’ which I like; this might be preserved by pseudonyms, but high-quality totally anonymous posts add a nice air of communal mystery to the nlab IMO.
For the record, I am not the guest poster but I am enjoying reading their contributions. Please keep contributing, anonymously or otherwise!
1 to 16 of 16