Sections older than 12 months may be automatically archived by .
- I don't see that as a problem. You simply left a message similar to the one I would have left. Thank you for posting it!
- Whenever I see someone else has reverted vandalism before I could get to it, I wait a few minutes before posting a warning message, in case the editor who reverted it is about to post something. Happy editing! —Anita5192 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
there is an article on gravity in the antiquity section which describes In India, the mathematician-astronomer Aryabhata first identified gravity to explain why objects are not driven away from the Earth by the centrifugal force of the planet's rotation but i can't find any sources depicting about his claim please remove it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Anita5192 for your reversion of my edit in Comedy. I was aware of the existence of the link earlier on in the article. The additional link was only for those people who would cursorily read the article and then move on to "See also" links to get associated information. In retrospect, I feel I should have let such people suffer for their lack of detailed reading of each and every article, before moving on to "See also" section. Thanks again. Anil1956 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Anita. Please don't do this. It has no effect on the rendered HTML, causes watchlist churn, and can provoke emotional responses on the one-or-two-spaces-after-a-period question. --Trovatore (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Associativity and commutativity...
Hi, Anita. Your thanks prompted me to go back and think again about the edit in question, and I was prompted to wonder why on earth anyone who says they are a PhD student in mathematics would think that associativity of matrix multiplication depends on commutativity in the underlying ring. A few seconds' thought about it shows that it doesn't. JBW (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I was tempted to remove it myself with my previous edit, since it made no sense, but I was concerned with other things at the time, and since it was just a comment and wasn't affecting the visible text, I decided to leave it for someone else to resolve.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I was baffled about your recent edit warring in Talk:Story structure, would you mind terribly explaining an edit like Special:Diff/1166966831 in relation to BRD and AATP? Sam Sailor 02:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- The archive code was on the page to archive when the posts become old and numerous. Why remove perfectly good code just because it hadn't been used yet?—Anita5192 (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- If at all possible, please explain your edits quoting guidelines and policies.
- I was not asking why you added the "code" in the first place, I was asking why you chose to edit war it back in again.
- BRD is quite clear: You make an edit, I revert, then you start a discussion. You did nothing of the sort, instead you reverted right away. That is edit warring.
Why remove perfectly good code just because it hadn't been used yet?First of all, the code is bad, it is not good, Anita. A user named KimYunmi in their second-ever move moved Narrative structure to Story structure without paying attention to WP:POSTMOVE, leaving the "good code" to point, erroneously, to Talk:Narrative structure/Archive.
- AATP suggets that we achive talk pages when they exceed 75k. That does not mean that we set up archiving bots in advance.
- I have reverted your edits. You are welcome to post any P&G-based arguments you may have on the article talk page, Talk:Story structure.
- Sam Sailor 22:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Reaction rate revert
- I reverted your edit to reaction rate because, 1. you did not leave an edit summary explaining what you changed and why you changed it, 2. the grammar was incorrect, and 3. SI units belong in a sidebar—not in the lead. See, as examples, force, momentum, and torque.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Sorry for the edit mistake.
- That's quite all right. It looked like an accident. I was able to spot it and correct it before an administrator reached it through the backlog. Happy editing! —Anita5192 (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Re the edit summary in your revert :
The source quotes Lucas at times, certainly, but not this quote ("decided that the Force could be intensified through the possession of a mystical Kiber Crystal [sic]—Lucas's first, but by no means last, great MacGuffin."). This is the book's author, as evidenced by his referring to Lucas in the third person.
The book as a whole is about the saga in general, but this passage is about an early draft of the first movie as it gradually evolved into "Star Wars". The crystals are not in the movies. That's what's misleading. Also misleading is "Lucas's first, but by no means last, great MacGuffin," which is the author being tongue in cheek. It was Lucas's first great MacGuffin, but audiences never saw it. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Kyber crystals are mentioned in Rogue One, which may not be considered part of the Star Wars canon proper, but is a Star Wars story. Although the crystals are not mentioned in all of the movies, they obviously exist in all of the movies.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Using something which appeared in the tenth movie in 2016 as evidence that there are McGuffins in the Star Wars movies is still misleading, particularly when coupled with "Lucas's first McGuffin", which would imply that it appeared before 1980. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)