Talk:2

Recently, I rewrote this article (in WP:PROSE) to remove several undue facts and generally make it more readable, User:Radlrb re-added these without providing rationale beyond a WP:NPA. I was hoping to get some other editors opinions on the subject. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

? It was vandalism, at your rate. Also, these points are all clearly WP:DUE (contextual, and examples of applications). All valid entry inclusions; all that go beyond a mlre minimalistic elementary bullet-pointing style of "prose". Prose is far deeper than that, it needs to read with structure, rather than a seemingly haphazard listing of data. Radlrb (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it wasn't vandalism. The content that was removed (and has since been restored) includes many uncited statements and much that does not rise above the level of "this formula has a 2 in it". XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this user is at WP:ANI for being unable to differentiate between vandalism and removal of WP:CRUFT so his opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You were vandalizing since you kept removing information without intent to seek consensus, after it was asked of you, which seems that you also might not have known what was WP:DUE (my additions were in good faith, however, as I see yours in the beginning could have been, yet chose to ignore pleas of seeking consensus, like me not listening to removing the SYNTH material in the past). Yes I have an active AN//I and have support for many of my additions, as multiple users have clearly noted - at least 6 people have shown support already for my content (either by reverting your edits, or mentioning support regarding consensus in removing the extraneous information that exists alongside WP:DUE mentions), against the 9 "Support votes" in the AN/I (some of which don't even give proper reasoning other than "as per above" or of the sort); so your words should also be taken with a grain of salt (the initiator of the very AN/I vote to TBan me). XOR'easter also followed up with the mass content removal at 7, I should note, by further removing information (regarding specific polyhedra with number of elements of 7, i.e. the smallest and simplest toroidal polyhdra with 7 faces or vertices - relevant and WP:DUE with regard to the Fano plane and its associated symmetries). Let's do this the natural way, and slowly make way to making amends, we (and our wishes) can all here come out as "winners". Radlrb (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUE is not about whether text is contextual, and examples of applications. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I forget you are being pedantic and legalistic. I meant for higher quality articles like GA-status, you will need more than just facts, you will need to let the reader understand why these are important, and that requires explanation. Radlrb (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

When someone says "WP:DUE", it's not "pedantic" or "legalistic" to think that they are talking about WP:DUE. XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You've recently been incredibly insensitive to my good-faith edits, with a strong short and what seems as a "combative" tone, where I see little sign of seeking understanding between us, where here I am trying to reach understanding and consensus, removing days-hours of work I added here in great-faith. So forgive my transgression onto your intentions once more. Radlrb (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

FTR, Radlrb has been topic-banned from math articles, and we now have Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers/Guidelines to help decide what content should be in number articles. -- Beland (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This needs to be improved with the following:

/* 10000 */ new section 37.111.194.148 (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you're asking for there. Can you please elaborate? HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the "x" in the section multiples of 2, to an asterisk or other symbol, as 2 x x is hard to read. Solnight99 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The redirect √4 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 1 § Square root redirects until a consensus is reached. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)