Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spatial complexity: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Loew Galitz (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 23:
**** See? You even didnt understand what I said. Please also notice I am not bludgeoning: I even wrote that I am inclined to change my !vote. BTW I strongly recommend to reread what WP:BLUDGEON actually is and don't try to shut people down when you dislike discussion. [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]]) 23:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
***** {{tq|Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for deletion.... Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. ... They always have to have the last word .... While they may have some very valid points, they get lost due to the dominant behavior and others are less likely to consider their viewpoints because of their behavior.}} Seems pretty on-the-nose to me. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 12:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
******In other words you prefer to slap a label rather than address valid criticism. Good no know never talk to you. [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]]) 17:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Another example of the [[Bag-of-words model|bag-of-words problem]]: a couple ordinary words get smushed together to make a technical term, leading to countless false positives and the conflation of separate topics (i.e., [[WP:SYNTH]]). For example, the introduction says that spatial complexity is "eventually algorithmic", and the definition in the text (sourced to the 2020 book) insists that it is defined using either run-length encoding or edit distance. The [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.08.023 very next reference] uses none of these ideas, instead employing ideas from [[algebraic graph theory]] like the [[spectral radius]]. Ditto the [https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036139996306833 next reference after that]: once again, no algorithmic information, run-length encoding, or anything of the sort. It's all [[WP:REFBOMB]]-ing unrelated publications that happened to say "hey, this pattern looks complicated". There's no coherent subject here, no care put into the choice of references, and no text worth preserving. And I need to spare a moment for that opening sentence: "spatial complexity is defined as the complexity of a spatial entity" — so, spatial complexity is defined as the spatial complexity. [[Doge|Such spatial, very complex]]. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 18:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
**"spatial complexity is defined as the complexity of a spatial entity" - nothing wrong with this definition, and no, spatial complexity is '''not''' defined as the spatial complexity. [[User:Loew Galitz|Loew Galitz]] ([[User talk:Loew Galitz|talk]]) 22:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
| |||