This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I don't see the revelance of the two references. No 1 (the 1936 Erdős-Turán paper) does not, repeat does not mention this statement. I can only get the first page of the No. 2 reference which specifically mentions only Erdős' name ("these results have led Erdős to conjectue...") in connection with this conjecture. So, why don't we agree that it is a conjecture of Erdős? Kope 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There are two statements.
(A) .
(B) If are natural numbers, , then there are arbitrarily long APs in the sequence.
I never, ever, ever, ever stated that (A) is not from Erdos and Turan. But the whole argument is not about (A), it is about (B). What I claim is that Turan had no part in conjecturing (B). It is (B), not (A) which is on the page Erdős–Turán conjecture. The whole argument is about (B), not (A). Please read the article. Kope 04:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
He does. Exactly on the page you quote: "A big breakthrough was Szemerédi's proof that for all k,..." Your statement "Guy discusses (B) by use of the function " is nonsense. From the fact that the density is 0, you cannot determine if the sum of the reciprocals is infinite or not. My (A) above is the Erdos-Turan conjecture, proved by Szemeredi, (B) is a conjecture of Erdos alone. Cannot be more clear. What standard books are you referring at?
Kope
13:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There is one reason I bring it into this: it is the above statement (A), conjectured by Erdos and Turan. You quote it from Guy's book and you say that it is a conjecture of Erdos and Turan. Indeed it is, however I have always spoken on a different statement, which says something else, is unsolved, and I claim that it is a conjecture of Erdos alone. You somehow confuse the two. They are very different statements. Kope 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You claim that Guy attributed the statement to Erdős and Turán. For proving that you cite a sentence merely saying that they INTRODUCED a bit of notation. Whay would this support your claim? In continuing sentences Guy mentions Szemeredi's theorem. There are 2 (equivalent) ways of describing the statement of Szemeredi's theorem, one is . Indeed, you never stated this, technically, you quote a sentence simply saying that E. and T. defined a function. Defining a function is not a conjecture. There are two statements. They are different. One is a theorem, the other is a conjecture. We should not confuse them. Kope 12:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi CRGreathouse,
I've started an article, ideal (set theory), which is where I think small set should probably eventually be merged. Right now I have no lack of material to add to it, but I haven't figured out just how it should be organized. -- Trovatore 22:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please see this edit summary. Michael Hardy 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a pic. However, it would be better if it had some visual context, like a bowl. Do you think you could make another pic where we can see the dessert in situ, so to speak?
Peter Isotalo 06:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been nominated again. Please help. Captain Zyrain 13:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that more sources have been added, check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rome High School. Dreadstar † 01:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you would revisist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelmer Valley High School, please? The article has been rewritten showing the school has been independently judged to be Outstanding with a world record breaking gymnastics team. TerriersFan 17:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Mikkalai/By Erdos contains a very raw list made from remnants of categories and the log of the bot which implemented the deletion you opposed. Please join the discusion here to decide how to proceded. A clandestinely proud Erdos-Number-3-wikipedian `' Míkka 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Recently, as you know, the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages (e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review towards overturning the deletion, at this deletion review log item. Pete St.John 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You participated in this AfD on Como West Public School. It has since been proposed that the article be merged into its suburb article per WP:LOCAL and I was wondering if you would be willing to voice your opinion on the merger here. Thanks. Twenty Years 03:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You're a longstanding Wikipedia contributor with a solid history. User:VoteFair is a single-purpose account with an agenda of self-promotion. And yet VoteFair claims that you approve of his edits and that you will re-add content for him, and you haven't been refuting this idea. What's the deal? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've created a project page: Wikipedia:SCHOOLCONSENSUS, because of a village pump proposal. I thought you might want to participate. -- victor falk 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If Matrix vote is going to be merged into Quota Borda system, we will need a redirect page. I just fixed up both articles so that a merger would work.-- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 03:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ping - expanded, multiply sourced including "Fairfax County's sole high school for black students". TerriersFan ( talk) 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that you think that India is a great power. But there are no accredited sources that believe that is a Current Great power, only a possible Future Great Power. Please read Encarta - Great Powers, Is India a Major Power? and India: The Fourth Great Power? for more information. Not only that but please re-read Asia’s overlooked Great Power Haass says Mention Asia, and most people think of the region’s fascinating, rising giants, China or India—or both but Giants are not the Same as Great Powers they actually have different meanings and are more akin to Regional Power. -- UKPhoenix79 ( talk) 23:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The part about Shanks in [1] doesn't make sense to me. Omitting sup means that all prime gaps are considered. The average prime gap is around log(pn), so the fraction for random n will typically be around 1/log(pn) which is far from 1. PrimeHunter ( talk) 05:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Just curious.
Did you place the {Confusing|date=October 2007} tag in Anti-psychiatry?
I don't see anything confusing and maybe it's time to remove it?
Cesar Tort 18:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ping - Another editor pointed out the Merge option in WP:SCL. As a result, I modified my opinion on the Afd for the school. Regards. -- Daddy.twins ( talk) 19:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I sent you an email. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I generated some tables for Maths articles using your proposed formula. Can you take a look here and see if the ordering of the articles looks better to you. Thanks a lot! Walkerma ( talk) 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I see you have removed some as of year links on computational prime records which will probably be beaten within a few years, considering how computers evolve. Have you seen Wikipedia:As of? If a statement (for example "the record is ...") may become invalid later then this is a way to indicate when it was known to be valid.
Regarding the weird category you removed in [2], the article was hijacked in [3]. The old definition is a rarely used term for a right-truncatable prime so I don't think it should be restored. Good to see you removed the hype and unrelated content from the program which I'm not sure is notable. PrimeHunter ( talk) 02:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Howdy, I saw the prod for minimal prime in order to move (back) the number theory article as the primary article. I think the commutative algebra usage is more widespread, but since neither are making the 6 o'clock news, I thought a neutral disambiguation page would be best. Of course the previous move had been nearly a year ago, and up until a few minutes ago the commutative algebra article had still not been written! I tried to take care of that, and wrote a little stub for it. I've asked Arcfrk to help expand it, as comm alg. is far from my specialty.
At any rate, I removed the prod, and converted the redirect to a dab page, pointing first to the number theory article, and secondly to the brand new stub comm. alg. article. Let me know if that sounds reasonable. JackSchmidt ( talk) 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just verified that 10000500001 is indeed prime. But who has verified that it is the smallest base 10 triply palindromic prime? PrimeFan ( talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:OberonScreen.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In [4] you added: "Primes of the form for are infinite". Yes, but for any fixed n and free m, this is just a case of Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions. Is there more to the story, for example restrictions on m in relation to n? I haven't seen the reference. PrimeHunter ( talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I created it as a response to List of prime numbers, which I didn't very much like. It's not ready to become an article, but I would hope to make it good enough for the article namespace eventually. Actually, I was going to solicit feedback from you and a few other editors once I had gotten it to a more respectable stage.
I'm still trying to decide how to format the thing and what constellations (k-tuples) to include (since they're all essentially similar). I'd like to have another column beyond name/size/OEIS but I'm not sure what.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 14:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
1. When in mainspace, I think all listed prime forms should be defined in Wikipedia (and removed if they are not).
2. I don't like calling some of the forms "solutions to Diophantine equations". Sources don't appear to use that terminology and it makes it sound like people solve equations to find such primes, when they usually just insert a number in the defining formula and test whether the result is prime. I'm not sure what to call them instead though. I just think of them as the prime values of a given function (and I think of your recurrence relation primes in the same way).
3. I would classify repunit primes as base dependent. The name refers to a numeral of 1's in a given base and the values of repunits are different in different bases (they are usually called generalized repunit primes [6] in other bases). There just "happens" to be a simple known expression for them using exponentiation. The classification of odd primes (or whether to include them) does not seem important to me, but the name implies that they are viewed as linear 2n+1. I think the main thing about the primes themselves is that they are mentioned before any other prime classes.
4. There should be a link to big O notation. O is often used about the precise value and not an upper bound, so I think the assumed meaning should be made clear to avoid misunderstanding. I think there should only be one size column. If there is more than one interesting thing to say then put it in the same cell. Repeating "lower bound is unknown" a lot of the time would be annoying. There could be some common notes at the top, for example explaining what is assumed when not stated explicitly, and that "trivial density" means the density of the number form the primes are a subset of.
5. I don't like saying "unknown" density when many other entries list a conjectured density. It makes it sound like there is a significant difference but conjectured implies unknown, anybody can make conjectures, and there might exist more or less reliable published conjectures about anything. Claiming there is no conjectured size would be original research (unless maybe if a reliable source directly makes that claim). Maybe we should just say nothing if we don't have something sourced to say.
6. Do you prefer to be sole contributor while it's a user subpage or is it OK if I edit it? I would fully respect reverts by you when it's in your user space. PrimeHunter ( talk) 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
1. I tend to like lists like this to be as "complete" as reasonable in including what is already elsewhere in Wikipedia. That also improves their navigational value. If a prime form seems non-notable then you can first suggest deletion at its primary location. Serious mathematicians often dislike base-dependent things and consider them "impure", but I guess the average Wikipedia reader is more recreationally minded. I just want a definition, not a fancy article, for the listed forms. Just create a stub or mention a wanted form briefly in an existing relevant article so there is something to link.
2. Primes are often described as "of form something with n where n is integer", but do you often see sources use terms like diophantine equations and solutions in the context of such prime definitions? I associate diophantine equations for primes with things like http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeDiophantineEquations.html. Markov primes (and possibly Leyland primes) are the only I view as "Diophantine solutions" and I don't think they (at least not Markov) should be grouped with the same as now. I would move to other primes. Maybe functions of two values (Leyland, Pierpont, Proth, ?) should be in their own group. Functions of one value can be split by the form of the function with an "other" group for things not easily grouped. And maybe there should be a group for all not base-dependent primes that are defined as primes having some special property and not as the primes among some set of numbers. In density estimates I think there is a principal difference between the two cases, especially when the size of the number superset for the latter case is already well-known and the problem is how many of them are primes.
6. It's perfectly OK that only you edit it until you consider it ready for mainspace. I understand your view. I don't like "special" in Table of special primes, and tables like that where each row represents a separate entity are usually called "List of ..." in Wikipedia. If we have both your page and List of prime numbers as separate pages then the important difference in your page is the inclusion of densities, so I think that should be in the name. Maybe something like Density of prime number classes. We already use "classes" in Category:Classes of prime numbers. If there is no good sourced thing to say about the density (for example because the form is uninteresting to mathematicians) then maybe the form should be removed. PrimeHunter ( talk) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
1. If it goes live with redlinked prime classes then I might suggest they are omitted on the talk page, but if nobody supported then I wouldn't do it if you were against (unless the classes seemed really non-notable). Or I might make stubs myself if the classes appear notable. I have personally searched weakly primes for [7] and posted the name to Tao at [8]. I guess it took work by a fields medallist to make you add a redlink to a base dependent class ;-) PrimeHunter ( talk) 00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
6. I lack good ideas for something interesting which has sourced information for many forms and isn't already at List of prime numbers (name, definition, first values, OEIS number). Computational prime records is a hobby of mine. I have lots of them and a website [9] about it, so I would personally be interested in the largest known example of each class. But it would require some maintenance and the current records are often only in selfpublished Internet sources. PrimeHunter ( talk) 00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I kind of doubt that any of the 3 entries would pass a notability test if they were split into an article of its own, since they look like languages with very little use and probably no coverage on press at all -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This edit did not only "TeXify", as the edit summary put it, but also changed the words "In combinatorial mathematics..." to "In combinatorics...". The lay reader is likely not to know what combinatorics is and should be told right away that mathematics is what the article is about.
I don't know how strongly you feel about "inline" TeX, but we've been waiting since January 2003 (when we first got TeX) for the problems to be fixed, with nothing to show for it. "Displayed" TeX looks good; "inline" TeX often looks terrible.
So that is why I reverted to the previous edit. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replied here. TerriersFan ( talk) 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. How is (sequence A094076 in the OEIS) a better example than OEIS: A072041 of "or -1 if no such number exists" given that the former has no instances of -1 in its first 104 elements? PrimeFan ( talk) 22:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You have either participated in a previous deletion debate over this article, or edited the article or its Talk page. If you are interested in contributing to the current debate, please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination). Thanks. -- Abd ( talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The tag on theorem is appropriate. There had been content that covered the foundations, but it was deleted. I don't like tagging pages myself. However, this is the civil/low conflict way to handle these situations. Do not remove the tag, unless the issue has been resolved. (P.S. love your work on elective system stuff) Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the argument you make about introductions also applies to attempts to summarize briefly the arguments over Instant-runoff voting. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to summarize the arguments being made in the real world (i.e., the elements of "controversy,") without creating POV imbalance. To counter the imbalance requires consideration in depth, and in the case of the IRV article, attempts to do that within the article were starting edit wars; the controversies article was started to be a place where the argument "that's too confusing, too much detail" would not apply. It is one thing for a topic to be sufficiently notable for its own article, and quite another for it to be notable enough to warrant more than minimal mention in an article on a more notable topic. The criticism of and campaign for instant-reunoff voting is notable all on its own, but if simply merged into the main article, it isn't notable enough to justify the necessary detail for NPOV balance. So Instant-runoff voting controversies was created by a consensus of editors (pro and con POVs and some relatively neutral) as a way of dealing with this, and the goal was once a reasonably satisfactory article was built, bring the most notable parts back with summary style. The latter has not yet been done, but the controversies article did make some progress, and we didn't see edit wars with it, though it was edited by pro and con editors. In an article on controversy, the notable opinions expressed *are* the facts being discussed, partly, but AfD editors are accustomed to seeing "opinion" as POV, which, of course, it is. That does not mean that it cannot be in articles, but that the *fact* is mentioned. I.e., as an example, so-and-so wrote such and such as a newspaper editorial. Attributed, reliably sourced, notable. However, "such and such" could not be sourced from that article, unless it was something other than opinion.... So I'd appreciate it if you would look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination) again, as well as at the subject articles. Because of the AfD, and a certain blocked editor who wikistalks me, it's getting a little tricky to manage. As a more neutral editor, your help would really be appreciated. The question of sourcing is complex, and it needs someone willing to look beyond an immediate reliance on guidelines, when the higher policies of verifiability and NPOV are at risk. There is a reason why WP:RS is a guideline and WP:V is policy. Guidelines are guidelines, to assist editors in forming a consensus, but consensus trumps guidelines. But not policy. Anyway, thanks for your attention.... -- Abd ( talk) 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please see my comments at the AfD. I am doubtful if this will ever really make it as an article but the claim "the first independent school to offer the IB Primary Years Programme in Washington, Oregon or Alaska" is reliably sourced and a fair claim to notability. Perhaps you would consider recommending a merge to the locality so that this sourced statement can be retained? TerriersFan ( talk) 22:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You are receiving this message because you recently participated in an AfD discussion regarding the notability of high school sports conferences in Ohio State. While the AfD has been closed as no consensus, the discussion is continuing here. You are invited to participate. Thank you. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Another admin, User:RockMFR brought back two previously deleted HS articles in the middle of the AfD. The two are Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference. What's the policy on this? It seems like Rock abused his powers. -- BurpTheBaby (Talk) 19:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dickman-de Bruijn function/archive1. I think every one of your suggestions is helpful! I'm going to update the article over the coming week.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure there has never been a known prp above the largest known prime, and it seems unlikely to happen anytime soon with the current algorithms and prime searches. People spend far more cpu time on easily provable prime forms and I (very experienced and Internet active prime searcher) haven't even heard of anybody searching prp's above the proven record. I think your edit [11] creates more doubt than it removes since readers could easily think there has been and maybe are known prp's above the largest known prime. The former "known to be a prime number" seems clear enough to me for this article. PrimeHunter ( talk) 01:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just came across the following comment that you added to the CFD for Category:Kindergartens in Hong Kong: "Delete for notability concerns, uniformity across nations, and Cgingold's issues." And I couldn't help but wonder if you had actually meant to add it to the CFD just above that one, for Category:Propaganda films, seeing as you had previously posted other remarks vis-a-vis that subject. It just seemed perhaps a bit out of place where I found it, so I thought I'd ask, just in case it was a mistake.
Also, if you are supporting deletion of the Propaganda film categories, I'm curious as to why you've changed your mind from your earlier comment that seemed to support my suggestion for container categories, etc. Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for developing what seems to be a template for math citations. How difficult would it be to invoke it at certain pages on wikipedia? I certainly favor this format, so if you have a chance please switch one of the pages I developed over to math-citation. The main page at systolic geometry has a lot of citations but if possible you could adapt one of the auxiliary pages with just a few citations, e.g. Loewner's torus inequality, filling area conjecture, filling radius, Pu's inequality for the real projective plane, Adriano Garsia, etc. Katzmik ( talk) 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The page differential geometry of surfaces is currently under development. The bibliography is in "citation" right now. It would be helpful to switch it over to math-citation to get a feeling for how people react at that site. Katzmik ( talk) 10:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried to switch over at differential geometry of surfaces, an article I happen to be working on. However, I immediately ran into a problem. I lose the author name when I switch over to math-citation. This happened with each of the first two references. Perhaps this is due to slight differences in code. It would be ideal to have identical code for both templates. Katzmik ( talk) 13:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Math-citation does not seem to support separate entries for first name and last name, as citation does. Katzmik ( talk) 07:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I just noticed that one of the main contributors to differential geometry of surfaces does not seem to be in favor of math-citation, so it is best to leave that particular page alone. There is enough support for the template out there, though, to continue working on it. From personal experience, it is not that easy to get used to a different format. Many times I walked away from an item in a bibliography thinking that it does not mention the year. This leads casual readers to think the work at wiki is not being done professionally. Mathscinet lists I think tens of thousands of authors, a significant percentage of them still active in math. Expecting such a large public to get used to the new order in a bibliography is like expecting people to start saying ice tea instead of iced tea overnight. It is just not going to happen. It is true that by now I am aware of the problem and am able to find the year quickly, but not everyone has spent as much time in wiki. People who argue for uniformity seem blissfully unaware of the diversity out there. Katzmik ( talk) 08:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, CRGreathouse! Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal was recently cleared of all design entries. You may want to re-enter your design(s), based on the details here. (You can see the old list of designs here). NOTE: A survey was conducted on what users wanted to see in the new main page, you can see the results here. Nick Penguin( contribs) 02:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Please update the template if you get a chance so it can handle books as well. I looked briefly at "citation" itself and understood why nobody wants to touch it... At any rate, math-citation would be much more useful if it could handle book references. Katzmik ( talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The section you just added back was already being debated at Talk:Manifold_Destiny#deletion_of_.22reactions.22_subsection. Please chime in. VG ☎ 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see my thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Apovolot ( talk) 02:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll in selecting five proposals before an RFC in which it will be against the current main page. You're input would be appreciated. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot ( talk) 14:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."
We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Apovolot ( talk) 16:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Phew! You had me worried there. Absolutely no excuse for not having scrutinized properly the source cited by both the Psychiatry article & the one on Reil himself. Exactly the sort of thing that gets WP a bad name. Your vigilance is exactly the sort of thing to get it, in due course, a good name. I shall be more cautious in future.
Was doubly worried because I'm in the middle of moving & my library is all boxed up in storage. Relieved to say I've been able to find four seemingly reliable sources. They include the British Journal of Psychiatry and a German monograph. Shall remove the embarrassing YouNameIt ref pronto. Thank you again for spotting this. Regards Wingspeed ( talk) 20:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently, there's been a complete absence of people running for adminship. It looks like it's time to recruit people. So I looked back through my talk page for people I've interacted with who would make good admins. Based on your years of well-researched contributions to Wikipedia, and your level head when dealing with people whose contributions are... less well-researched, I'd say you fit the bill very well. Are you interested in running?
If you're not interested in the admin tools, or not interested in going through the drama of RfA, I understand. But if you are interested, let me know and I could put together a nomination statement for you. rspεεr ( talk) 21:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have listed several people that you had conflicts with. You did not list me. Granted, I never met you before I saw your RFA.
I hereby declare that I am in conflict with you! How are you going to resolve it?
:P
Chergles ( talk) 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of cooperation, I suggest we discuss any differences before seeking retribution, such as blocking. Blocking is officially not punishment, but in practice it is. Since I have forgotten what we need to discuss, I think our conflict can be concluded very soon, if you also agree! Chergles ( talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I am my own people. A proposed resolution of "On January 15, 2009, the conflict was resolved." Ok with you? Chergles ( talk) 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Great! Congratulations on being an admin! Now don't block me with the message "ha, ha, now I am in power, our conflict is over because you are now blocked!" Chergles ( talk) 20:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added a few optional questions. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I have responded to one of your comments at your RfA. My comment is at oppose #2. Have a good day/night! Cheers, K50 Dude ROCKS! 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Despite my oppose, I wanted to let you know that I do like your attitude... Whatever happens during your RfA, keep it up!--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
When in doubt, don't delete. Even if the article clearly meets a CSD criterion apart from G10 or clearcut vandalism, search for a way to fix the article before deleting it. Be as literal as possible in interpreting CSD, with the exception of leaning toward saving rather than deleting. If the concern is borderline notability, PROD or AFD. Always check the page history. Be very reluctant to delete an article created by an experienced user. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your RfA passing! Here are some useful links for you:
If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line and I (or another experienced admin) will be more than happy to help you out.
Congrats again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations from me as well - I can't be as helpful as these guys, but I'm still very happy you made it through the gauntlet. Have fun with the mop. Townlake ( talk) 05:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You had me on the edge of my seat for a while. Congrats, and use your tools wisely. (And don't let them distract too much from writing articles!) rspεεr ( talk) 09:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
And you now have a new way you can procrastinate. Congratulations. JoshuaZ ( talk) 23:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
More congratulations spam. :) -- Congratulations, and best wishes in using your new tools. Much more importantly, though, thank you for volunteering. sinneed ( talk) 05:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup, all the best, and kudos to the closing 'crat for making the right judgement call. See you around ;) EyeSerene talk 09:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
To relieve some momentary boredom, I declare our conflict temporarily on again. I hereby make personal attacks and legal threats against you for the next 8 hours.
Attack....rat..tat..tat..ka-pow. Legal attack....sue..sue..sue.
Chergles ( talk) 00:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
8 hours have passed. The conflict is now declared over, at least from my side! Chergles ( talk) 15:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Great house, A big "Thanks" for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. There was a direct question about your comments. Ikip ( talk) 02:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, on the Talk page of this article is a question that's gone unanswered for five months. When Talk page questions go unanswered for a long time, readers may conclude that (a) the question was so elementary that trying to educate the asker would have been a Sisyphean task, or (b) the Talk page regulars are "too good" to waste their time replying to lay people. Is one of the two assumptions correct in this case?-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 06:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It was a little confusing to me when you pointed to WP:OVERLINK and when I partial reverted I thought maybe you were seeing something in OVERLINK that wasn't there. Now I see that this was the case, because it was at WP:MOSLINK! Thanks for taking the time to help me understand. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for suggesting that you have read a couple of books on Ahmes. But have you spent any time decoding the RMP 2/n table ( http://rmprectotable.blogspot.com/) and its vivid use of aliquot parts. A direct study of Ahmes Papyrus considers all of his problems per: http://ahmespapyrus.blogspot.com/2009/01/ahmes-papyrus-new-and-old.html. In the 20th century scholars mostly overlaid their cultural positions over the text, thereby badly translating Ahmes 'inital calculations' as well as his proofs. Yes, Ahmes offered statements and proofs. Fro example, RMP 38, reported Ahmes proving that 320 ro (one hekat) times 35/11 times 1/10 (actually 320 x 7/22) equals 101 9/11 was returned to 320 by multiplying 101 9/11 by 22/7. Note Egyptian division in RMP 82 was the inverse of Egyptian multiplication reported in 29 examples, with divisor n set to 1/64 < n < 64 by using the relationship:
(64/64)/n = Q/64 + (5R/n)*1/320
example: let n = 3
(64/64)/n = 21/64 + 1/192, that Ahmes scaled the remainder by 5/5 to obtain ro 1/320 units such that:
(16 + 4 + 1)/64 + (5/3)ro = 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + (1 + 2/3)ro
as the Akhmim Wooden Tablet also returned to its initial value 64/64 by multiplying by 1/3.
Best Regards, Milogardner ( talk)Milo Gardner 4/9/09 6:00 am PST
If you define it as "percentage by mass of iron", then it's 0.16 percent. If you define it as "percentage by mass of astronomical metals," then the answer is 1.6 percent. The iron aspect only comes into play when comparing the metallicity of the Sun to that of other stars, not in measuring the metallicity of the Sun itself. Serendi pod ous 14:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The Sun article's infobox lists those elements heavier than hydrogen and helium by percentage:
Oxygen 0.77 % Carbon 0.29 % Iron 0.16 % Sulfur 0.12 % Neon 0.12 % Nitrogen 0.09 % Silicon 0.07 % Magnesium 0.05 %
which adds up to 1.67% Serendi pod ous 16:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you remove the italics to Metamath and to the name of the explorers. It is traditional in books to emphatize the titles of novels, songs, paintings and so on and mutadis mutandis emphatizing should also be used for softwares and internet sites.
Moreover I don't understand why you change the word jansenism for the collocation "low level". Apparently you understood what it meant. -- fl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.41.166 ( talk) 17:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
set.mm
but occasionally also with peano.mm
. I recently corresponded with Norman Megill about a Greasemonkey extension for Metamath I was writing. Does that count as something? You'll have to decide.
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
18:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
set.mm
, italic set.mm, or something else. Any thoughts?
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice cleanup work on the Wage Slavery article. I've been meaning to give it a once through myself. BTW, I'm worried about the use of the term 'wage slave' to refer to wage workers in some parts of the text. Do you think the text should use the term 'wage slave' in a generic way? Seems a pretty loaded term to me. Thanks, LK ( talk) 08:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.
Thankyou. Exxolon ( talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and, as the title says... The main problem with removing redlinks in such contexts is that it adds one more task for interested editors to complete, after those articles exist. Now, the problem with WP:REDLINK is that it suggest I should go out on a spree and create article upon article on topics which I know (and, if challenged, could easily prove) are validated. Because the redlinks will normally result in redlinks, and those redlinks in their own redlinks etc. Either that or refrain from redlinking those terms, creating the articles as I go about, and then revisiting each and every article to make them back into links - which is quite frustrating and, well, silly.
Also, bear in mind that, just like one finds the occasional editor who claims redlinks should be removed on principle, one also finds editors who claim that article "providing insufficient context etc." should be deleted - meaning that an editor working on such obscure subjects would have to create not just articles from redlinks, but referenced and well-structured articles, all in one go (I'm all for that, but I'll only be physically able to do it in the time imagined if wikipedia starts paying and feeding me...). I think I do a lot already by researching and completing what I think are fairly good articles on people like V. A. Urechia and other topics which must be themselves obscure to many eyes; it would be exhausting and, after a while, sickening if I were to follow part of what WP:REDLINK says, especially since that part still clashes with WP:BTW. And also since those links were names of people (whom even googling would prove notable), falling under what REDLINK defines as "good redlinks", and not the likes of "a celebrity's romantic interest", "every chapter in a book" etc. That is why I reverted your edit, and sorry for losing the relevant link you changed in the process. Thanks, Dahn ( talk) 14:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Of many, but one that you might find interesting. Maybe. [13] - skip sievert ( talk) 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You were certainly right about Economics being more relevant. Thanks very much I hadn't thought of it. Dmcq ( talk) 09:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I don't see the revelance of the two references. No 1 (the 1936 Erdős-Turán paper) does not, repeat does not mention this statement. I can only get the first page of the No. 2 reference which specifically mentions only Erdős' name ("these results have led Erdős to conjectue...") in connection with this conjecture. So, why don't we agree that it is a conjecture of Erdős? Kope 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There are two statements.
(A) .
(B) If are natural numbers, , then there are arbitrarily long APs in the sequence.
I never, ever, ever, ever stated that (A) is not from Erdos and Turan. But the whole argument is not about (A), it is about (B). What I claim is that Turan had no part in conjecturing (B). It is (B), not (A) which is on the page Erdős–Turán conjecture. The whole argument is about (B), not (A). Please read the article. Kope 04:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
He does. Exactly on the page you quote: "A big breakthrough was Szemerédi's proof that for all k,..." Your statement "Guy discusses (B) by use of the function " is nonsense. From the fact that the density is 0, you cannot determine if the sum of the reciprocals is infinite or not. My (A) above is the Erdos-Turan conjecture, proved by Szemeredi, (B) is a conjecture of Erdos alone. Cannot be more clear. What standard books are you referring at?
Kope
13:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There is one reason I bring it into this: it is the above statement (A), conjectured by Erdos and Turan. You quote it from Guy's book and you say that it is a conjecture of Erdos and Turan. Indeed it is, however I have always spoken on a different statement, which says something else, is unsolved, and I claim that it is a conjecture of Erdos alone. You somehow confuse the two. They are very different statements. Kope 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You claim that Guy attributed the statement to Erdős and Turán. For proving that you cite a sentence merely saying that they INTRODUCED a bit of notation. Whay would this support your claim? In continuing sentences Guy mentions Szemeredi's theorem. There are 2 (equivalent) ways of describing the statement of Szemeredi's theorem, one is . Indeed, you never stated this, technically, you quote a sentence simply saying that E. and T. defined a function. Defining a function is not a conjecture. There are two statements. They are different. One is a theorem, the other is a conjecture. We should not confuse them. Kope 12:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi CRGreathouse,
I've started an article, ideal (set theory), which is where I think small set should probably eventually be merged. Right now I have no lack of material to add to it, but I haven't figured out just how it should be organized. -- Trovatore 22:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please see this edit summary. Michael Hardy 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a pic. However, it would be better if it had some visual context, like a bowl. Do you think you could make another pic where we can see the dessert in situ, so to speak?
Peter Isotalo 06:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been nominated again. Please help. Captain Zyrain 13:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that more sources have been added, check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rome High School. Dreadstar † 01:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you would revisist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelmer Valley High School, please? The article has been rewritten showing the school has been independently judged to be Outstanding with a world record breaking gymnastics team. TerriersFan 17:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Mikkalai/By Erdos contains a very raw list made from remnants of categories and the log of the bot which implemented the deletion you opposed. Please join the discusion here to decide how to proceded. A clandestinely proud Erdos-Number-3-wikipedian `' Míkka 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Recently, as you know, the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages (e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review towards overturning the deletion, at this deletion review log item. Pete St.John 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You participated in this AfD on Como West Public School. It has since been proposed that the article be merged into its suburb article per WP:LOCAL and I was wondering if you would be willing to voice your opinion on the merger here. Thanks. Twenty Years 03:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You're a longstanding Wikipedia contributor with a solid history. User:VoteFair is a single-purpose account with an agenda of self-promotion. And yet VoteFair claims that you approve of his edits and that you will re-add content for him, and you haven't been refuting this idea. What's the deal? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've created a project page: Wikipedia:SCHOOLCONSENSUS, because of a village pump proposal. I thought you might want to participate. -- victor falk 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If Matrix vote is going to be merged into Quota Borda system, we will need a redirect page. I just fixed up both articles so that a merger would work.-- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 03:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ping - expanded, multiply sourced including "Fairfax County's sole high school for black students". TerriersFan ( talk) 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that you think that India is a great power. But there are no accredited sources that believe that is a Current Great power, only a possible Future Great Power. Please read Encarta - Great Powers, Is India a Major Power? and India: The Fourth Great Power? for more information. Not only that but please re-read Asia’s overlooked Great Power Haass says Mention Asia, and most people think of the region’s fascinating, rising giants, China or India—or both but Giants are not the Same as Great Powers they actually have different meanings and are more akin to Regional Power. -- UKPhoenix79 ( talk) 23:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The part about Shanks in [1] doesn't make sense to me. Omitting sup means that all prime gaps are considered. The average prime gap is around log(pn), so the fraction for random n will typically be around 1/log(pn) which is far from 1. PrimeHunter ( talk) 05:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Just curious.
Did you place the {Confusing|date=October 2007} tag in Anti-psychiatry?
I don't see anything confusing and maybe it's time to remove it?
Cesar Tort 18:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ping - Another editor pointed out the Merge option in WP:SCL. As a result, I modified my opinion on the Afd for the school. Regards. -- Daddy.twins ( talk) 19:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I sent you an email. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I generated some tables for Maths articles using your proposed formula. Can you take a look here and see if the ordering of the articles looks better to you. Thanks a lot! Walkerma ( talk) 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I see you have removed some as of year links on computational prime records which will probably be beaten within a few years, considering how computers evolve. Have you seen Wikipedia:As of? If a statement (for example "the record is ...") may become invalid later then this is a way to indicate when it was known to be valid.
Regarding the weird category you removed in [2], the article was hijacked in [3]. The old definition is a rarely used term for a right-truncatable prime so I don't think it should be restored. Good to see you removed the hype and unrelated content from the program which I'm not sure is notable. PrimeHunter ( talk) 02:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Howdy, I saw the prod for minimal prime in order to move (back) the number theory article as the primary article. I think the commutative algebra usage is more widespread, but since neither are making the 6 o'clock news, I thought a neutral disambiguation page would be best. Of course the previous move had been nearly a year ago, and up until a few minutes ago the commutative algebra article had still not been written! I tried to take care of that, and wrote a little stub for it. I've asked Arcfrk to help expand it, as comm alg. is far from my specialty.
At any rate, I removed the prod, and converted the redirect to a dab page, pointing first to the number theory article, and secondly to the brand new stub comm. alg. article. Let me know if that sounds reasonable. JackSchmidt ( talk) 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just verified that 10000500001 is indeed prime. But who has verified that it is the smallest base 10 triply palindromic prime? PrimeFan ( talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:OberonScreen.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In [4] you added: "Primes of the form for are infinite". Yes, but for any fixed n and free m, this is just a case of Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions. Is there more to the story, for example restrictions on m in relation to n? I haven't seen the reference. PrimeHunter ( talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I created it as a response to List of prime numbers, which I didn't very much like. It's not ready to become an article, but I would hope to make it good enough for the article namespace eventually. Actually, I was going to solicit feedback from you and a few other editors once I had gotten it to a more respectable stage.
I'm still trying to decide how to format the thing and what constellations (k-tuples) to include (since they're all essentially similar). I'd like to have another column beyond name/size/OEIS but I'm not sure what.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 14:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
1. When in mainspace, I think all listed prime forms should be defined in Wikipedia (and removed if they are not).
2. I don't like calling some of the forms "solutions to Diophantine equations". Sources don't appear to use that terminology and it makes it sound like people solve equations to find such primes, when they usually just insert a number in the defining formula and test whether the result is prime. I'm not sure what to call them instead though. I just think of them as the prime values of a given function (and I think of your recurrence relation primes in the same way).
3. I would classify repunit primes as base dependent. The name refers to a numeral of 1's in a given base and the values of repunits are different in different bases (they are usually called generalized repunit primes [6] in other bases). There just "happens" to be a simple known expression for them using exponentiation. The classification of odd primes (or whether to include them) does not seem important to me, but the name implies that they are viewed as linear 2n+1. I think the main thing about the primes themselves is that they are mentioned before any other prime classes.
4. There should be a link to big O notation. O is often used about the precise value and not an upper bound, so I think the assumed meaning should be made clear to avoid misunderstanding. I think there should only be one size column. If there is more than one interesting thing to say then put it in the same cell. Repeating "lower bound is unknown" a lot of the time would be annoying. There could be some common notes at the top, for example explaining what is assumed when not stated explicitly, and that "trivial density" means the density of the number form the primes are a subset of.
5. I don't like saying "unknown" density when many other entries list a conjectured density. It makes it sound like there is a significant difference but conjectured implies unknown, anybody can make conjectures, and there might exist more or less reliable published conjectures about anything. Claiming there is no conjectured size would be original research (unless maybe if a reliable source directly makes that claim). Maybe we should just say nothing if we don't have something sourced to say.
6. Do you prefer to be sole contributor while it's a user subpage or is it OK if I edit it? I would fully respect reverts by you when it's in your user space. PrimeHunter ( talk) 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
1. I tend to like lists like this to be as "complete" as reasonable in including what is already elsewhere in Wikipedia. That also improves their navigational value. If a prime form seems non-notable then you can first suggest deletion at its primary location. Serious mathematicians often dislike base-dependent things and consider them "impure", but I guess the average Wikipedia reader is more recreationally minded. I just want a definition, not a fancy article, for the listed forms. Just create a stub or mention a wanted form briefly in an existing relevant article so there is something to link.
2. Primes are often described as "of form something with n where n is integer", but do you often see sources use terms like diophantine equations and solutions in the context of such prime definitions? I associate diophantine equations for primes with things like http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeDiophantineEquations.html. Markov primes (and possibly Leyland primes) are the only I view as "Diophantine solutions" and I don't think they (at least not Markov) should be grouped with the same as now. I would move to other primes. Maybe functions of two values (Leyland, Pierpont, Proth, ?) should be in their own group. Functions of one value can be split by the form of the function with an "other" group for things not easily grouped. And maybe there should be a group for all not base-dependent primes that are defined as primes having some special property and not as the primes among some set of numbers. In density estimates I think there is a principal difference between the two cases, especially when the size of the number superset for the latter case is already well-known and the problem is how many of them are primes.
6. It's perfectly OK that only you edit it until you consider it ready for mainspace. I understand your view. I don't like "special" in Table of special primes, and tables like that where each row represents a separate entity are usually called "List of ..." in Wikipedia. If we have both your page and List of prime numbers as separate pages then the important difference in your page is the inclusion of densities, so I think that should be in the name. Maybe something like Density of prime number classes. We already use "classes" in Category:Classes of prime numbers. If there is no good sourced thing to say about the density (for example because the form is uninteresting to mathematicians) then maybe the form should be removed. PrimeHunter ( talk) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
1. If it goes live with redlinked prime classes then I might suggest they are omitted on the talk page, but if nobody supported then I wouldn't do it if you were against (unless the classes seemed really non-notable). Or I might make stubs myself if the classes appear notable. I have personally searched weakly primes for [7] and posted the name to Tao at [8]. I guess it took work by a fields medallist to make you add a redlink to a base dependent class ;-) PrimeHunter ( talk) 00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
6. I lack good ideas for something interesting which has sourced information for many forms and isn't already at List of prime numbers (name, definition, first values, OEIS number). Computational prime records is a hobby of mine. I have lots of them and a website [9] about it, so I would personally be interested in the largest known example of each class. But it would require some maintenance and the current records are often only in selfpublished Internet sources. PrimeHunter ( talk) 00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I kind of doubt that any of the 3 entries would pass a notability test if they were split into an article of its own, since they look like languages with very little use and probably no coverage on press at all -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This edit did not only "TeXify", as the edit summary put it, but also changed the words "In combinatorial mathematics..." to "In combinatorics...". The lay reader is likely not to know what combinatorics is and should be told right away that mathematics is what the article is about.
I don't know how strongly you feel about "inline" TeX, but we've been waiting since January 2003 (when we first got TeX) for the problems to be fixed, with nothing to show for it. "Displayed" TeX looks good; "inline" TeX often looks terrible.
So that is why I reverted to the previous edit. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replied here. TerriersFan ( talk) 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. How is (sequence A094076 in the OEIS) a better example than OEIS: A072041 of "or -1 if no such number exists" given that the former has no instances of -1 in its first 104 elements? PrimeFan ( talk) 22:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You have either participated in a previous deletion debate over this article, or edited the article or its Talk page. If you are interested in contributing to the current debate, please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination). Thanks. -- Abd ( talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The tag on theorem is appropriate. There had been content that covered the foundations, but it was deleted. I don't like tagging pages myself. However, this is the civil/low conflict way to handle these situations. Do not remove the tag, unless the issue has been resolved. (P.S. love your work on elective system stuff) Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the argument you make about introductions also applies to attempts to summarize briefly the arguments over Instant-runoff voting. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to summarize the arguments being made in the real world (i.e., the elements of "controversy,") without creating POV imbalance. To counter the imbalance requires consideration in depth, and in the case of the IRV article, attempts to do that within the article were starting edit wars; the controversies article was started to be a place where the argument "that's too confusing, too much detail" would not apply. It is one thing for a topic to be sufficiently notable for its own article, and quite another for it to be notable enough to warrant more than minimal mention in an article on a more notable topic. The criticism of and campaign for instant-reunoff voting is notable all on its own, but if simply merged into the main article, it isn't notable enough to justify the necessary detail for NPOV balance. So Instant-runoff voting controversies was created by a consensus of editors (pro and con POVs and some relatively neutral) as a way of dealing with this, and the goal was once a reasonably satisfactory article was built, bring the most notable parts back with summary style. The latter has not yet been done, but the controversies article did make some progress, and we didn't see edit wars with it, though it was edited by pro and con editors. In an article on controversy, the notable opinions expressed *are* the facts being discussed, partly, but AfD editors are accustomed to seeing "opinion" as POV, which, of course, it is. That does not mean that it cannot be in articles, but that the *fact* is mentioned. I.e., as an example, so-and-so wrote such and such as a newspaper editorial. Attributed, reliably sourced, notable. However, "such and such" could not be sourced from that article, unless it was something other than opinion.... So I'd appreciate it if you would look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination) again, as well as at the subject articles. Because of the AfD, and a certain blocked editor who wikistalks me, it's getting a little tricky to manage. As a more neutral editor, your help would really be appreciated. The question of sourcing is complex, and it needs someone willing to look beyond an immediate reliance on guidelines, when the higher policies of verifiability and NPOV are at risk. There is a reason why WP:RS is a guideline and WP:V is policy. Guidelines are guidelines, to assist editors in forming a consensus, but consensus trumps guidelines. But not policy. Anyway, thanks for your attention.... -- Abd ( talk) 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please see my comments at the AfD. I am doubtful if this will ever really make it as an article but the claim "the first independent school to offer the IB Primary Years Programme in Washington, Oregon or Alaska" is reliably sourced and a fair claim to notability. Perhaps you would consider recommending a merge to the locality so that this sourced statement can be retained? TerriersFan ( talk) 22:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You are receiving this message because you recently participated in an AfD discussion regarding the notability of high school sports conferences in Ohio State. While the AfD has been closed as no consensus, the discussion is continuing here. You are invited to participate. Thank you. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Another admin, User:RockMFR brought back two previously deleted HS articles in the middle of the AfD. The two are Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference. What's the policy on this? It seems like Rock abused his powers. -- BurpTheBaby (Talk) 19:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dickman-de Bruijn function/archive1. I think every one of your suggestions is helpful! I'm going to update the article over the coming week.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure there has never been a known prp above the largest known prime, and it seems unlikely to happen anytime soon with the current algorithms and prime searches. People spend far more cpu time on easily provable prime forms and I (very experienced and Internet active prime searcher) haven't even heard of anybody searching prp's above the proven record. I think your edit [11] creates more doubt than it removes since readers could easily think there has been and maybe are known prp's above the largest known prime. The former "known to be a prime number" seems clear enough to me for this article. PrimeHunter ( talk) 01:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just came across the following comment that you added to the CFD for Category:Kindergartens in Hong Kong: "Delete for notability concerns, uniformity across nations, and Cgingold's issues." And I couldn't help but wonder if you had actually meant to add it to the CFD just above that one, for Category:Propaganda films, seeing as you had previously posted other remarks vis-a-vis that subject. It just seemed perhaps a bit out of place where I found it, so I thought I'd ask, just in case it was a mistake.
Also, if you are supporting deletion of the Propaganda film categories, I'm curious as to why you've changed your mind from your earlier comment that seemed to support my suggestion for container categories, etc. Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for developing what seems to be a template for math citations. How difficult would it be to invoke it at certain pages on wikipedia? I certainly favor this format, so if you have a chance please switch one of the pages I developed over to math-citation. The main page at systolic geometry has a lot of citations but if possible you could adapt one of the auxiliary pages with just a few citations, e.g. Loewner's torus inequality, filling area conjecture, filling radius, Pu's inequality for the real projective plane, Adriano Garsia, etc. Katzmik ( talk) 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The page differential geometry of surfaces is currently under development. The bibliography is in "citation" right now. It would be helpful to switch it over to math-citation to get a feeling for how people react at that site. Katzmik ( talk) 10:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried to switch over at differential geometry of surfaces, an article I happen to be working on. However, I immediately ran into a problem. I lose the author name when I switch over to math-citation. This happened with each of the first two references. Perhaps this is due to slight differences in code. It would be ideal to have identical code for both templates. Katzmik ( talk) 13:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Math-citation does not seem to support separate entries for first name and last name, as citation does. Katzmik ( talk) 07:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I just noticed that one of the main contributors to differential geometry of surfaces does not seem to be in favor of math-citation, so it is best to leave that particular page alone. There is enough support for the template out there, though, to continue working on it. From personal experience, it is not that easy to get used to a different format. Many times I walked away from an item in a bibliography thinking that it does not mention the year. This leads casual readers to think the work at wiki is not being done professionally. Mathscinet lists I think tens of thousands of authors, a significant percentage of them still active in math. Expecting such a large public to get used to the new order in a bibliography is like expecting people to start saying ice tea instead of iced tea overnight. It is just not going to happen. It is true that by now I am aware of the problem and am able to find the year quickly, but not everyone has spent as much time in wiki. People who argue for uniformity seem blissfully unaware of the diversity out there. Katzmik ( talk) 08:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, CRGreathouse! Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal was recently cleared of all design entries. You may want to re-enter your design(s), based on the details here. (You can see the old list of designs here). NOTE: A survey was conducted on what users wanted to see in the new main page, you can see the results here. Nick Penguin( contribs) 02:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Please update the template if you get a chance so it can handle books as well. I looked briefly at "citation" itself and understood why nobody wants to touch it... At any rate, math-citation would be much more useful if it could handle book references. Katzmik ( talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The section you just added back was already being debated at Talk:Manifold_Destiny#deletion_of_.22reactions.22_subsection. Please chime in. VG ☎ 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see my thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Apovolot ( talk) 02:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll in selecting five proposals before an RFC in which it will be against the current main page. You're input would be appreciated. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 04:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot ( talk) 14:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."
We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Apovolot ( talk) 16:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Phew! You had me worried there. Absolutely no excuse for not having scrutinized properly the source cited by both the Psychiatry article & the one on Reil himself. Exactly the sort of thing that gets WP a bad name. Your vigilance is exactly the sort of thing to get it, in due course, a good name. I shall be more cautious in future.
Was doubly worried because I'm in the middle of moving & my library is all boxed up in storage. Relieved to say I've been able to find four seemingly reliable sources. They include the British Journal of Psychiatry and a German monograph. Shall remove the embarrassing YouNameIt ref pronto. Thank you again for spotting this. Regards Wingspeed ( talk) 20:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Recently, there's been a complete absence of people running for adminship. It looks like it's time to recruit people. So I looked back through my talk page for people I've interacted with who would make good admins. Based on your years of well-researched contributions to Wikipedia, and your level head when dealing with people whose contributions are... less well-researched, I'd say you fit the bill very well. Are you interested in running?
If you're not interested in the admin tools, or not interested in going through the drama of RfA, I understand. But if you are interested, let me know and I could put together a nomination statement for you. rspεεr ( talk) 21:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have listed several people that you had conflicts with. You did not list me. Granted, I never met you before I saw your RFA.
I hereby declare that I am in conflict with you! How are you going to resolve it?
:P
Chergles ( talk) 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of cooperation, I suggest we discuss any differences before seeking retribution, such as blocking. Blocking is officially not punishment, but in practice it is. Since I have forgotten what we need to discuss, I think our conflict can be concluded very soon, if you also agree! Chergles ( talk) 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I am my own people. A proposed resolution of "On January 15, 2009, the conflict was resolved." Ok with you? Chergles ( talk) 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Great! Congratulations on being an admin! Now don't block me with the message "ha, ha, now I am in power, our conflict is over because you are now blocked!" Chergles ( talk) 20:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added a few optional questions. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I have responded to one of your comments at your RfA. My comment is at oppose #2. Have a good day/night! Cheers, K50 Dude ROCKS! 06:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Despite my oppose, I wanted to let you know that I do like your attitude... Whatever happens during your RfA, keep it up!--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
When in doubt, don't delete. Even if the article clearly meets a CSD criterion apart from G10 or clearcut vandalism, search for a way to fix the article before deleting it. Be as literal as possible in interpreting CSD, with the exception of leaning toward saving rather than deleting. If the concern is borderline notability, PROD or AFD. Always check the page history. Be very reluctant to delete an article created by an experienced user. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your RfA passing! Here are some useful links for you:
If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line and I (or another experienced admin) will be more than happy to help you out.
Congrats again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations from me as well - I can't be as helpful as these guys, but I'm still very happy you made it through the gauntlet. Have fun with the mop. Townlake ( talk) 05:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
You had me on the edge of my seat for a while. Congrats, and use your tools wisely. (And don't let them distract too much from writing articles!) rspεεr ( talk) 09:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
And you now have a new way you can procrastinate. Congratulations. JoshuaZ ( talk) 23:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
More congratulations spam. :) -- Congratulations, and best wishes in using your new tools. Much more importantly, though, thank you for volunteering. sinneed ( talk) 05:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup, all the best, and kudos to the closing 'crat for making the right judgement call. See you around ;) EyeSerene talk 09:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
To relieve some momentary boredom, I declare our conflict temporarily on again. I hereby make personal attacks and legal threats against you for the next 8 hours.
Attack....rat..tat..tat..ka-pow. Legal attack....sue..sue..sue.
Chergles ( talk) 00:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
8 hours have passed. The conflict is now declared over, at least from my side! Chergles ( talk) 15:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Great house, A big "Thanks" for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. There was a direct question about your comments. Ikip ( talk) 02:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, on the Talk page of this article is a question that's gone unanswered for five months. When Talk page questions go unanswered for a long time, readers may conclude that (a) the question was so elementary that trying to educate the asker would have been a Sisyphean task, or (b) the Talk page regulars are "too good" to waste their time replying to lay people. Is one of the two assumptions correct in this case?-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 06:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It was a little confusing to me when you pointed to WP:OVERLINK and when I partial reverted I thought maybe you were seeing something in OVERLINK that wasn't there. Now I see that this was the case, because it was at WP:MOSLINK! Thanks for taking the time to help me understand. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for suggesting that you have read a couple of books on Ahmes. But have you spent any time decoding the RMP 2/n table ( http://rmprectotable.blogspot.com/) and its vivid use of aliquot parts. A direct study of Ahmes Papyrus considers all of his problems per: http://ahmespapyrus.blogspot.com/2009/01/ahmes-papyrus-new-and-old.html. In the 20th century scholars mostly overlaid their cultural positions over the text, thereby badly translating Ahmes 'inital calculations' as well as his proofs. Yes, Ahmes offered statements and proofs. Fro example, RMP 38, reported Ahmes proving that 320 ro (one hekat) times 35/11 times 1/10 (actually 320 x 7/22) equals 101 9/11 was returned to 320 by multiplying 101 9/11 by 22/7. Note Egyptian division in RMP 82 was the inverse of Egyptian multiplication reported in 29 examples, with divisor n set to 1/64 < n < 64 by using the relationship:
(64/64)/n = Q/64 + (5R/n)*1/320
example: let n = 3
(64/64)/n = 21/64 + 1/192, that Ahmes scaled the remainder by 5/5 to obtain ro 1/320 units such that:
(16 + 4 + 1)/64 + (5/3)ro = 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + (1 + 2/3)ro
as the Akhmim Wooden Tablet also returned to its initial value 64/64 by multiplying by 1/3.
Best Regards, Milogardner ( talk)Milo Gardner 4/9/09 6:00 am PST
If you define it as "percentage by mass of iron", then it's 0.16 percent. If you define it as "percentage by mass of astronomical metals," then the answer is 1.6 percent. The iron aspect only comes into play when comparing the metallicity of the Sun to that of other stars, not in measuring the metallicity of the Sun itself. Serendi pod ous 14:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The Sun article's infobox lists those elements heavier than hydrogen and helium by percentage:
Oxygen 0.77 % Carbon 0.29 % Iron 0.16 % Sulfur 0.12 % Neon 0.12 % Nitrogen 0.09 % Silicon 0.07 % Magnesium 0.05 %
which adds up to 1.67% Serendi pod ous 16:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you remove the italics to Metamath and to the name of the explorers. It is traditional in books to emphatize the titles of novels, songs, paintings and so on and mutadis mutandis emphatizing should also be used for softwares and internet sites.
Moreover I don't understand why you change the word jansenism for the collocation "low level". Apparently you understood what it meant. -- fl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.41.166 ( talk) 17:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
set.mm
but occasionally also with peano.mm
. I recently corresponded with Norman Megill about a Greasemonkey extension for Metamath I was writing. Does that count as something? You'll have to decide.
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
18:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
set.mm
, italic set.mm, or something else. Any thoughts?
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice cleanup work on the Wage Slavery article. I've been meaning to give it a once through myself. BTW, I'm worried about the use of the term 'wage slave' to refer to wage workers in some parts of the text. Do you think the text should use the term 'wage slave' in a generic way? Seems a pretty loaded term to me. Thanks, LK ( talk) 08:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.
Thankyou. Exxolon ( talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and, as the title says... The main problem with removing redlinks in such contexts is that it adds one more task for interested editors to complete, after those articles exist. Now, the problem with WP:REDLINK is that it suggest I should go out on a spree and create article upon article on topics which I know (and, if challenged, could easily prove) are validated. Because the redlinks will normally result in redlinks, and those redlinks in their own redlinks etc. Either that or refrain from redlinking those terms, creating the articles as I go about, and then revisiting each and every article to make them back into links - which is quite frustrating and, well, silly.
Also, bear in mind that, just like one finds the occasional editor who claims redlinks should be removed on principle, one also finds editors who claim that article "providing insufficient context etc." should be deleted - meaning that an editor working on such obscure subjects would have to create not just articles from redlinks, but referenced and well-structured articles, all in one go (I'm all for that, but I'll only be physically able to do it in the time imagined if wikipedia starts paying and feeding me...). I think I do a lot already by researching and completing what I think are fairly good articles on people like V. A. Urechia and other topics which must be themselves obscure to many eyes; it would be exhausting and, after a while, sickening if I were to follow part of what WP:REDLINK says, especially since that part still clashes with WP:BTW. And also since those links were names of people (whom even googling would prove notable), falling under what REDLINK defines as "good redlinks", and not the likes of "a celebrity's romantic interest", "every chapter in a book" etc. That is why I reverted your edit, and sorry for losing the relevant link you changed in the process. Thanks, Dahn ( talk) 14:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Of many, but one that you might find interesting. Maybe. [13] - skip sievert ( talk) 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You were certainly right about Economics being more relevant. Thanks very much I hadn't thought of it. Dmcq ( talk) 09:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)