Content deleted Content added
→Your reversion of my latest edit on Dual polyhedron article: Little grammatical improvement Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
→Your reversion of my latest edit on Dual polyhedron article: Previous edit: Little grammar/specification/clarity improvement. This edit: Little specification/clarity improvement Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 287:
::Yes, Citation Styles 1 and 2 are different for readers, as I have now repeated for you multiple times. The. Most. Obvious. Difference. Is. That. Citation Style 1. Has. Lots. Of. Periods. Breaking up. The citation. Into little pieces. Citation 2, on the other hand, uses commas to separate things. Yes, Wikipedia's citation standards are not perfect, but they are what they are, and they're much better than allowing random web pages to be used as sources. MathWorld falls on the allowable side of what can be cited, but it is not usually a good source — it has a lot of mistakes and idiosyncracies. So it is not a good example to use for arguing why you should be allowed to cite something else that is even more dubious. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein#top|talk]]) 23:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
-----
My many little phrasing/specification changes are not useless to averagely gifted at mathematics readers... On the condition, which i
[[User:RavBol|RavBol]] ([[User talk:RavBol|talk]]) 15:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
| |||