User Talk: Anita5192

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(365d)
| archive = User talk:Anita5192/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 10
}}
{{Archive box |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=12 |units=months |auto=yes }}

Congruence as equation

Hi Anita5192! I have replied at talk:modular arithmetic ↗ re the presence of congruences in equations. 109.166.136.27 ↗ (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Speed a vector?

I see that in your edit summary for this edit ↗ you said that speed is a vector. Did you really mean that? If that is so then I spent many years misleading numerous students. <big><big>🤨</big></big> JBW (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

:In more than one dimension, distance and speed are often associated with vector quantities, and so could be confusing in a discussion of real numbers. That is why I removed them.—Anita5192 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
:: Saying that something is "associated with" vector quantities is a long way from saying that it is a vector. Speed is a scalar. JBW (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies

The problem is that that reference doesn't support what's being claimed here - we need a secondary source to provide the interpretation. See WP:PSTS ↗. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for responding here. Why could I not post a coherent message on your talk page?—Anita5192 (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
::There was an old open ref tag further up the page that wasn't playing nicely with the ref tags you were posting. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

:::I see that you fixed it on your talk page. Thank you for replying, and thank you for fixing your talk page.—Anita5192 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Anniversary Anita5192 🎉

Hey @Anita5192. Your wiki edit anniversary was 8 days ago, marking 15 years of dedicated contributions to this Wikimedia project. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you all the best for the year ahead :) -<span style="color:#990000">❙❚❚</span><span style="color:#339966">❙❙</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#000"> GnOeee </span><span style="color:#006699">❚❙❚</span><span style="color:#339966">❙❙</span> ✉ 06:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you! {{=)}}—Anita5192 (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Minutes and seconds on the Doomsday Clock

I know the Doomsday Clock has moved back in seconds, but why saying "This is the first time the Doomsday Clock moved back a second or fraction" unnecessary? ~2025-32019-78 ↗ (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

:Anyone can see this from the table.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Don’t tread on me

What does this slogan mean ~2025-38067-10 ↗ (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

:See Don't Tread on Me ↗.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

What is mathematical basis for Euler's Totient Function clarification removal?

I am trying to understand the removal of my edit that provides the EFT primes form that leads directly to the expansion shown below it. That shown expansion appears out of nowhere, without showing the mathematical context for its basis. Showing this makes it easier for readers (especially those not formal mathematicians) to see the structural basis for the expression's expansion. Jzakiya (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

:The step from 1 - 1/p to (p - 1)/p is simple and obvious. I don't think it is necessary. Also the grammar was incorrect.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Chain (disambiguation) revert

Hi. Regarding your revert of my ordering change at Chain (disambiguation) ↗, you asked “Why?”, so I wanted to explain.

My thinking was that the Films and television, Literature, and Music sections would be easier to scan chronologically because they list creative works, where the year is often the clearest way to distinguish similarly titled entries. The previous order looked alphabetical, but it was not immediately clear to me whether it was sorted by title, artist/creator, or something else.

WP says entries should be ordered in the way that best helps readers find the intended article, and that chronological order can be appropriate. Would you consider restoring the chronological ordering, or perhaps restoring it as normal oldest-to-newest chronological order if reverse-chronological seems less intuitive?

Thanks. NipponBill (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

:Ordering the entries chronologically seems good to me. What I objected to was putting them in reverse-chronological order. That is rare, and I would expect a good reason for it. Two of the sections were already in chronological order. I have now put the others into chronological order.—Anita5192 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks.That makes sense. My main intent was chronological ordering for those sections, not specifically reverse-chronological. I appreciate you putting the remaining sections into chronological order. NipponBill (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Your reversal of my edit on Climax (narrative)

I get why you reversed the edit, but to me it didn’t seem ''totally'' redundant.

it’s good information to have that inevitable means a) at the beginning it seems like it can go anywhere and b) when looking back from the climax you realize it could’ve only gone the one way

and unexpected means that the audience could not anticipate the ''manner'' in which events play out.

and ik I didn’t explain all that in my original paragraph of the article, but it’s all there in the page I cited in the article in McKee’s book. maybe we can re-add in a way that actually explains new info and isn’t fodder like my original parag.

also IMO it’s a bit weird to have the now-one sentence constitute a paragraph, which is how it currently stands ~2026-35934-38 ↗ (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:What I removed stated exactly what was in the previous sentence, with more verbiage, so it was completely redundant.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::Well, fair point. My original paragraph was verbiage. But what I explained about inevitable and unexpected ''on this talk page'' is not 100% redundant, right? ~2026-35934-38 ↗ (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)