Hi Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction! I noticedyour contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, thecontributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!Jay8g[V•T•E]06:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text you removed is fundamentally correct, but woefully poorly sourced, and the maths are a mess.

You have significant knowledge on this topic.If you get time, a rework of the correct content from the removed section would be super helpful.

thanks for helping to keep the encyclopedia accurate,Augmented Seventh🎱17:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I discovered thequantum machine learning article because I have been fixing reference errors (instances of{{cite book}} that should be{{cite journal}}, etc.) and one of its citations was flagged inCategory:CS1_errors:_periodical_ignored. The page is a horrible mess overall. I don't know if people were actually using it to advertise their own preprints, but it sure read that way, along with random hype from press releases and so forth. The article quite possibly needs reworking from scratch, or nearly so, with a more principled sense of what is necessary to include.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)18:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

noted.Augmented Seventh🎱19:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction,

I was just curious, you seem to be primarily editing articles that begin with the letter "Q". Is that intentional or just a really odd coincidence?Liz^Read!Talk!20:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found my way accidentally to the category of CS1 errors mentioned above, and I got the idea that it would be fun to resolve all of them under the letter Q. It was the first letter I looked at where the number was small enough that the task looked do-able.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)20:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: And now they're all done except forthe one that needs Extended Confirmed editing rights!Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)04:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HelloStepwise Continuous Dysfunction! The thread you created at theTeahouse,Help requested fixing citations at Jose Maria Quijano Wallis, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can stillread the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, pleasecreate a new thread. See also thehelp page about the archival process.The archival was done bylowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered byKiranBOT, bothautomated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing{{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk)03:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Although I am "conflicted" as I give out this accolade in the sense that I appreciate you agreeing with my arguments at two AfDs, I am still summarily impressed by your initial contributions generally. Welcome to Wikipdia and let me know if you need any help as you get going.jps (talk)16:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)19:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related togender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by theArbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipediaadministrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to thepurposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicablepolicies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain fromgaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topicsprocedures, you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Please have a look also at the information atthis page, which appears every time you editJ. K. Rowling.SandyGeorgia (Talk)14:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have jumped into AfD, with a great sense of humor (humour?), which is a great way to learn about our culture and processes. Your expertise is needed here. If you have any extra time, please help to source stubs atWikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/June 2025.Bearian (talk)15:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for calling that to my attention. I was working oncitation errors; I will try browsing the unreferenced stubs as well.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)16:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Here's an example:Forward scattering alignment. Make sure you place the phrase "# JUN 25" without spaces or quote marks in your edit summary.Bearian (talk)17:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another one isFour-fermion interactions.Bearian (talk)17:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And another isGauged supergravity.Bearian (talk)19:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi I noticed that you merged the article on Ising critical exponents to Universality class. I though the summary of AfD is that one should not touch this article. Are you sure you interpreted this properly?

If you decide to merge, do you have an idea how to avoid the fact that now the numbers for Ising critical exponents appear in two tables? It would be good to avoid having to update both tables. Currently the second table contains updated numbers in 3D (and also the omega exponent), while the first big table contains outdated numbers in 3D and no omega exponent.PhysicsAboveAll (talk)07:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no affirmative consensus to merge, but there was no definitive consensusagainst doing so, either. (Andwhen I mentioned doing this at WikiProject Physics, nobody complained.)

Maintaining one page (even if this means some changes apply in two places) is more convenient than maintaining two. And as I mentioned at the Talk page for the merged article, the first table could stand a refactoring anyway.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)14:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there! Keep up the good work.

7&6=thirteen (☎)13:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've started crossing paths on AfD posts and gotta say I laughed out loud for your usename. Not as much the "Dysfunction" part but when my brain finally did its "wait a minute" double take about a Stepwise continuous function. Hilarious!

--Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)23:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad I could provide a chuckle! :-)Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)23:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Sunjara, not you. AtWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sunjara_reported_by_User:MrOllie_(Result:_) -MrOllie (talk)01:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since I've reverted 3 times, I'll leave it alone now and wait for that report to be resolved.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)01:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of everything in the disputed section, only the Penrose and Connes items couldpotentially be worth including, and even those are insufficiently sourced and would have to be rewritten from scratch based on better references.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)10:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left it for a day, and in the interim, someone else came along and cut a paragraph, so I decided to go ahead and do some trimming, tagging, and revising.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)04:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, I think your recent edits atAsim Bhaumik were a bit aggressive, please remember bothWP:5P andWP:DONTBITE. For instance the patents were listed on his page, and there was a GS link already. If a page is full ofpuffery andWP:Peacock then some careful removal is appropriate, paying attention to preserve the spirit of encyclopedic content. However this page was definitely not puffed, just a newbie learning the ropes with their second page.Ldm1954 (talk)09:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including raw citation numbers (or counts of patents, publications, etc.) is not standard practice on Wikipedia's academic biographies. I don't think I'veever seen it outside spammy bios that are treating Wikipedia like it's LinkedIn. They're just figures that are meaningless without context. Do we give an h-index forAlbert Einstein orRosalind Franklin? No, we don't. What about a currently active researcher likeDavid Eppstein orJessica T. Dempsey orKatie Mack? No, we don't. Not every number spat out by Google's imperfect parsing of whatever content they decide to scrape belongs in article text.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)21:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please rememberWP:5P#4.

I disagree with you. Deans want to see citation numbers, they are routinely included in faculty annual reports at strong R1 universities. They also routinely come up at promotion and tenure decisions, both in Departments and at the School level. Similarly Program Managers pay attention them.

On WP they are routinely used as a gauge at AfD, this has been discussed extensively atWT:NPROF, and your opinion on them ( particularly GS) does not match the concensus. I have seen them numerous times in good pages, and there is no policy that supports your opinion that they are not to be used. In a case where there are no major awards they are useful; David or others such asLaurence D. Marks have enough that just a link to them as David has or authority control as for Laurence is common.Ldm1954 (talk)21:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to see a citation number can go look it up on Google Scholar or Scopus or wherever if they're desperate. Plenty of things that a committee considers don't belong on Wikipedia, e.g., recommendation letters. A Wikipedia article is not a CV, nor is it an annual report for a funding agency or a tenure application.

I am not objecting to Google Scholar links down in the "External links" section or the use of citation numbers at AfD. I'm saying that "so-and-so has over N citations" doesn't belong in article text. It's anundue use of aprimary source.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)21:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction. Thank you for your work onHigh-dimensional Ising model. Another editor,Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thus page needs substantial work, it looks like a project abandoned half way through.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|Ldm1954}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk)12:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]