User talk:95.167.183.172

Hello, I'm MrOllie, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• 1) I didn't "add" it - it was already there. The tables were merely calculations made with formulas, which were already present in page. As such, either resulting tables are correct, or those formulas are also incorrect.

${\displaystyle L={\left\lceil {\frac {H}{\log _{2}N}}\right\rceil }}$

• 2) It's not ORISS - it had 2 sources: about number of Unicode symbols^[1] and number of Basic Multilingualar Plane symbols^[2] .
• 3) I did shrink tables to acceptable size.

Therefore, it's not original research, and it was added to the page by someone else. --95.167.183.172 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Both of these formulas and both of these tables were around since page was created. Therefore, you should blame User:Ian Kelling for ORISS. --95.167.183.172 (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

They shouldn't have been there in the first place, and you defiantly did re-add them. It is clearly OR. WP:OR only has exception for the most simple of calculations, like 2+2. I'm not concerned with assigning blame, I'm concerned with fixing the problem. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

One doesn't exclude the other. The user who did add it in the first place, and each user who did previously re-add it, and each user who did contribute to those tables, should also be notified - as they are also responsible for those tables, and therefore are part of the problem. --95.167.183.172 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I repeat, I don't care who added it originally. I care about fixing the problem. You only got a message here because you reverted that fix and falsely called it vandalism. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Mis-blamed. Those tables were since 2008. So, User:ArnoldReinhold (talk) is responsible for those, not Ian Kelling talk). --95.167.183.172 (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

But why you think, that those 2 references were incorrect? --95.167.183.172 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The content of the table is not supported by the cited sources. I have made no claims about whether it is correct or incorrect. MrOllie (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The content of the table uses cited sources to validate the "n" parameter used in calculation. And again: those are calculations derived from those 2 formulas above - and those formulas are supported by other references. Therefore, either both tables and formulas are incorrect (and formulas must be deleted), or neither tables nor formulas are incorrect (in which case, i should add the tables back). --95.167.183.172 (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Calculations are WP:OR. That's the problem. We don't do that on Wikipedia. Sourcing is required, and it is not present. We don't insert things because we did the math and personally think it is correct. MrOllie (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

All math was done correctly and reliably. As such, you admit that formulas were incorrect, and must be corrected or deleted? --95.167.183.172 (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I admit nothing, it is an irrelevant question. I'm only concerned with what can be sourced (or not). MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The table is result of simple calculations - as they require Python program so small that it could fit on a sticker, or using web mathematical formula calculator. Calculations are directly, correctly derived from formulas; i could add more souces for formula (e.g. ). Therefore, either both tables and formulas are wrong, or neither are wrong, since tables are as wrong as the formulas; you can't deny one and keep the other. --95.167.183.172 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

'Simple calculations ' as defined by our policies are 2+2. If you need to write a program or employ a formula it is not simple and it isn't something to put on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't require a specialized program or formula. This can be done in calculator: take Python interactive mode and "insert from math import *", then "log(256)/log(2)". Or take normal calculator, make logarithm (log) of n (whichever number is needed), then logarithm of 2, then divide one by another. Anyone capable of using calculator should be able to do such simple calculation. Besides, your claim about 2+2 needs citation - since you didn't put the link to the policy's part about calculations - and is invalid until you show me reliable source of Wikipedia's calculation rules. --95.167.183.172 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

If I need a calculator it is also beyond what policy permits. The policy in question is linked above. You're trying to parse this like we're lawyers examining a legal statue, but it is much more simple than that: If it isn't directly stated in a source, we leave it out. MrOllie (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

So, now i understand. Tables were wrong, because they're done by calculations. Apparently, Wikipedia's Policy is written by and for people who never completed more than 2 grades of education - and as such don't understand, and therefore don't consider to be factual, any math more complex than basic addition and subtraction of natural numbers. It's not because formula or program is wrong. The topic is exhausted. --95.167.183.172 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

But one more question: where can i find the place, where people propose and discuss changes to Wikipedia's Policy? --95.167.183.172 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Comment 95.167.183.172 called my attention to this discussion. If there is a concern about a Wikipedia article it should be first discussed on the article's talk page, not in some private side chat, so that all interested parties can participate if they wish and to maintain an complete article history. But before moving this discussion to that forum, I would suggest you both review WP:CALC, a section of our original research policy that, as I read it, explicitly allows the types of calculations that seem to be at issue here.--agr (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)