User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction

I liked your description of WP:LEDE as WP:DUE on steroids [1]. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) and Sennecaster (Chat) 00:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Pasterski–Strominger–Zhiboedov triangle, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Revolving Doormat: I don't know why this message was left on my Talk page, since I did not create that redirect, and in fact I argued that it should not exist. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The closer of the AfD requested I notify all those involved in the discussion. Feel free to delete the notice. Revolving Doormat (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts in preserving Foucault's measurements of the speed of light as a Good Article! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss the recent undo of my contribution. While I understand the article already contains many images, I believe the addition of these specific renders is justified by several factors that align with WP:DUE and WP:IMAGEQUALITY:

1. Technical Superiority (Anti-aliasing): Unlike many existing examples, these images were rendered using 8x8 (64 samples per pixel) supersampling. This eliminates moiré patterns and aliasing artifacts, providing a mathematically cleaner representation of the set's boundary compared to standard renders.
2. Visual Depth and Palette: The color palette was algorithmically generated to maximize the dynamic range of the iteration layers. This allows for 24-bit TrueColor gradients that reveal structural details in high-density areas which are often lost in "flat" or low-bit palettes.
3. Community Recognition: These files have been officially vetted and designated as Quality Images on Wikimedia Commons. This status confirms they meet high technical and aesthetic standards, distinguishing them from the "stupendously large number" of low-quality, automated fractal generations.
4. Unique Locations: These renders focus on specific, high-magnification features of the Mandelbrot set that illustrate its self-similarity better than existing overview shots.

I believe replacing or supplementing older, lower-resolution images with these QI-standard renders significantly improves the visual quality of the encyclopedia. I would appreciate the community's feedback on integrating at least the most representative of these works. Fractals by Aokoroko

Art and the Mandelbrot Set Some people enjoy finding interesting geometric shapes in the Mandelbrot set. Here are a few examples of beautiful regions in this set: May I?

Quality Image Status: It is important to note that these images have been vetted under the Quality Images guidelines on Wikimedia Commons and officially designated as Quality Images. This status confirms they meet high technical and aesthetic standards, distinguishing them from common fractal renders.

So. There are 256 colors to start with!

pal[a][0]:=round(127+127*cos(2*pi*a/255)); // Green pal[a][1]:=round(127+127*sin(2*pi*a/255)); // Blue pal[a][2]:=Random(256); // Red

And the 256 files are an animation—one file per file. When you "rotate" the palette, you only change 1024 bytes (256 entries of 4 bytes), so it works incredibly fast even on older hardware.

An animation of 256 files, where each file is a separate frame, is an image sequence, which is usually assembled into a single animated format. GIF formats are most often used for such purposes. When working with so many files, it's important to number them correctly (e.g., frame_001.bmp, frame_002.bmp...) for automatic import. Here it is:

ffmpeg -i frame_%%03d.bmp "Mandelbrot Set Color Cycling Animation 600px 58.gif"

But then! Then, look! If you look at most programs, you'll see the problem: only 256 colors and obvious "steps" between color transitions (so-called color banding). I don't like this! So I decided—there would be a whole new level of quality! I implemented true supersampling (antialiasing)—with 8x8 antialiasing (64 passes per pixel!!!)

That is, not 1080 by 1080 pixels, but 8x8 more! 8640 by 8640 pixels! Then, these 64 passes are smoothly reduced by one pixel—and no longer 8-bit, but 24-bit TrueColor!

24-bit color (TrueColor) is an image encoding method that uses 8 bits per channel (RGB: red, green, blue), yielding 16,777,216 shades. Unlike 8-bit color (256 colors), TrueColor delivers realistic color reproduction by eliminating visible boundaries between shades and is considered the standard for modern displays and photos.

Key differences and features of 24-bit TrueColor:

Color depth: Each pixel is described by 24 bits (3 bytes), allowing for the expression of over 16 million colors, exceeding the capabilities of the human eye.

Channel separation: 8 bits (256 brightness levels) are allocated to each of the three colors: red, green, and blue.

Advantages: Provides smooth gradients, high color accuracy, and is ideal for photographs and complex images.

So ALL my animations, videos, and images are 24-bit color (TrueColor)!

I have an animation, for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mandelbrot_Set_Color_Cycling_Animation_600px_58.gif Or a video, for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mandelbrot_Set_Color_Cycling_Video_1080p_4.webm And an image, for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mandelbrot_Set_Image_76.png

If possible, I'd like to call it "Art and the Mandelbrot Set"... After all, it says, "Some people enjoy finding interesting geometric shapes in the Mandelbrot set. Here are some examples of beautiful regions in the Mandelbrot set.

Aokoroko (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

None of this addresses the problem I noted in my edit summary. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Need a link to a reliable source? This will do: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images/Subject/Non_photographic_media And here's another one: This image has been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image.

And https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set

And https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fractal

Aokoroko (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons, like Wikipedia itself, is user-generated content and does not qualify as a reliable source. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the article of sanskrit the infobox details mentions that

It is an academically widely studied language

with no source provided for backing up this claim Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. That sort of commentary doesn't even belong within an infobox anyway; they're supposed to be a short and sweet guide to details, not a repository of generic statements. Yes, a language that was used across a subcontinent for hundreds or thousands of years will be studied academically; the surprise would be if it weren't. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the revision. I also noticed that the unsourced claim was added by the same user who was known for adding unreliable reference to articles like astronomy and mathematican. Now, it seems that the same user is adding unsourced claims to articles like Sanskrit and Savarkar. It is quite surprising to me that the user has 877 edits and is still adding unsourced or unreliable information, especially related to India. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

github:

https://github.com/Divetoxx/Mandelbrot

and English in Habr:

https://habr.com/articles/995936/

Aokoroko (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read WP:UGC. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that the current "Image rendering" section could be improved by mentioning modern techniques for noise reduction and deep-zoom precision.

I would like to propose adding information about:

1. 8x8 Supersampling (SSAA): Using 64 samples per pixel with direct RGB-space integration to eliminate aliasing and produce smooth 24-bit TrueColor gradients.
2. 80-bit Extended Precision: The use of long double (x87 FPU) to push the zoom limit to (10,000x deeper than standard 64-bit double).

I have already documented a full C++ implementation of these methods on Rosetta Code https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set#High-Fidelity_C++_Implementation_(80-bit,_64x_SSAA,_OpenMP) and uploaded a high-resolution sample to Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mandelbrot_Set_Image_49.png

Would it be appropriate to add a brief mention of these techniques to the article, or perhaps update the visual gallery with a higher-fidelity rendering that demonstrates these advantages? I'm looking for feedback from the community. Aokoroko (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any text added to the article must be supported by sources like papers in mathematics, computer graphics, etc. A wiki for your own hobby is insufficient. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that Wikipedia must be based on secondary sources. My proposal is not to introduce "original research," but to document standard computational techniques for fractal rendering that are currently underrepresented in the article.

To address the request for peer-reviewed sources, I refer to:

1. On Supersampling (SSAA) for Fractals: The use of oversampling to mitigate aliasing artifacts in fractal boundaries is a well-established technique described in:
   • Peitgen, H.-O., & Saupe, D. (Eds.). (1988). The Science of Fractal Images. Springer-Verlag. (Chapters 3 & 4 discuss rendering algorithms and antialiasing).
   • Glassner, A. S. (1995). Principles of Digital Image Synthesis. Morgan Kaufmann. (Details on stochastic and grid-based supersampling).
2. On Extended Precision (80-bit/long double): The necessity of extended precision for deep-zoom fractal exploration to avoid rounding errors and "pixelation" is documented in:
   • Milnor, J. (2006). Dynamics in One Complex Variable. Princeton University Press. (Technical discussions on numerical stability in iteration).
   • Higham, N. J. (2002). Accuracy and Stability of Numerical Algorithms. SIAM. (On the impact of hardware-level precision like x87 80-bit floats).

I propose to use my provided Rosetta Code implementation and Wikimedia Commons image merely as illustrative examples of these established scientific principles, ensuring that the technical section of the article reflects current computing standards (OpenMP parallelization and sub-pixel integration).

I would appreciate your guidance on how to integrate these citations into the "Image rendering" section correctly. Aokoroko (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise first writing a brief paragraph (your own words, without the use of chatbots or AI "assistance") explaining what issues the techniques were meant to address and outlining how they address it. Then, consider whether Mandelbrot set is the best article in which to put that paragraph. We have many articles about fractals and many articles about computer graphics; is your addition specific to the Mandelbrot set, or would it fit better somewhere else? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's the Mandelbrot set!!! Here https://github.com/Divetoxx/Mandelbrot and here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fractals_created_by_User:_Aokoroko I spent 60 years on this!!! Aokoroko (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it's the Mandelbrot set, but from the sources you provided, it sounds like you'd be talking about techniques employed in rendering many other fractals, too. It might make sense to describe such techniques in a different article than Mandelbrot set. Not everything about fractals has to go into Mandelbrot set when we have all of Category:Fractals, including Fractal-generating software and a dozen other pages about related software. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Theory of proportion, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

for this insightful comment in a discussion that didn't deserve it.

"The entirety of this project depends upon people having downright strange ideas of how to have a good time" is a sentence i have thought about for months now, and i'll continue to think about it.

ltbdl (cringe) 10:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]