The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#It's_time_to_euthanize_Wikipedia. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
OP blocked two days for personal attacks. - Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
If Michael Hardy does retire, that's relevant to this WikiProject, as he has edited a lot of Mathematics articles. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
To keep an unfolding drama focused in the places most appropriate for it, rather than letting it sprawl across the backrooms of Wikipedia?yeah pretty much Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The "personal attacks" to which "Roxy" refers consist of my declining to recant an accusation. When I'm the target, it's an "accusation"; when "Roxy" is the target, it's a "personal attack" regardless of whether it's a factual statement. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Boris Tsirelson. While it is certainly not appropriate to "spread drama" over various project pages, shadowing users to censor their drama on those various project pages doesn't strike me as particularly appropiate either. The regular users/project members of those projects pages can decide for themselves whether they want to close/cut short/archive a discussion or not.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 21:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Whatever the issues are concerning Michael Hardy and his behavior elsewhere (see above section "Wikipedia requiescat in pace") I want to point out that Michael, in his 16 years here, and with over 200,000 edits, has made an enormous contribution to Wikipedia's mathematics content and in addition has been an extremely valuable member of this project. In my 14 years as a member of this project, I can personally attest to the significant positive impact Michael has made here. It would be a shame if that were to come to an end. Paul August ☎ 23:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Redirects -4 (number) and -999 (number), which presently target 4 (number) and 999 (number) respectively, have been nominated for deletion at RfD. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 3#-4 (number). Thryduulf ( talk) 10:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that WENO methods are notable and important. We should change one of them ( WENO and Weno) to a disambig page.-- Sharouser ( talk) 15:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
04:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Could somebody take a look at Draft:Plane normal form and leave review comments on the draft. It requires a SME to review properly. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Finally, at last, all remnants of disagreement by an highly meritorious math editor vanished to oblivion for any casual passers by. What a satisfaction for a certain gang.
I myself bemoan mostly that also the despicable efforts to completely eradicate, and when this did not work, to brutally silence any utterance of empathy.
I hope this is ignored, but I expect it to be deleted, because talking about silencing math editors is off-topic for the WikiProject Mathematics. In any case I can do no other. Purgy ( talk) 08:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
IS related to the question of editing math articles on wikipedia.Purgy ( talk) 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If you want to whine about some user's conduct, go do it on their talk page or on some drama board -- that is not what this page is for. Everyone who watches this page is aware of the issue. I will not comment here further.
Mathematical practice, an old (2004) but still-unsourced and short article, has been proposed for deletion. Anyone want to try rescuing it? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
02:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
So, many of the older mathematical articles are not well referenced (indeed may be unreferenced), because (a) they are old, and WP:V was not the first content policy, and (b) there was a view, which I would articulate in this way, "full inline referencing does not help to see the wood from the trees in understanding advanced mathematics". I deprecate the by-passing of WP:BEFORE in nominations for deletion. In the case of older articles, I would like to underline the point that if they predate Google Books, the facile step of searching Google Books should be carried out. Come on guys, the Web is not static, and new potential sources are posted online all the time. Nominating some article started in 2004 for deletion should not be done without the due diligence specified in the guideline. I'm quite happy to beat anyone over the head with it if they think it is kind of OK to use AfD as a cleanup area.
Which brings us to whether mathematical practice is an encyclopedic topic. Well, it is. It is quite hard to explain what "mixed mathematics" as mentioned in Mathematical Tripos actually was without the concept. And so to explain why my alma mater has DPMMS and DAMTP, and why both Hawking and fluid dynamicists had offices in the latter. That is, it may not be the kind of concept an "internal" view of mathematics in the 21st century relies on, but it has a great deal of traction in placing mathematics socially and historically. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Update on September 22: To resolve the confusion described in the following paragraphs, I have now installed my rewrite of Section 2 of the page for Beltrami equation, my new version being a cookbook of Gauss's technique. For more details, see Talk:Beltrami equation. Unless someone else finds themself confused, the issue can now probably be considered resolved.
LyleRamshaw ( talk) 17:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The page for Beltrami equation underwent a significant rewrite in mid-2012. User:Mathsci added Section 2, which discusses Gauss's technique for constructing isothermal coordinates on a Riemannian 2-manifold whose metric is real-analytic. I am quite interested in that technique, but I can't follow the argument presented in Section 2. I described my confusion in a posting on Talk:Beltrami equation back in June, with no response so far. I recently posted a query to User talk:Mathsci as well. They haven't responded; but that isn't surprising, since they were recently hospitalized.
An Australian grad student named Yi Huang referred to Section 2 in a 2013 posting of his to MathOverflow: [3]. Huang's posting suggests that some of the equations in Section 2 may have their variables somehow scrambled. Huang also apparently interprets Section 2 as approximating the isothermal coordinates by computing successive terms of their power series. That's a reasonable approach, but I didn't have that approach in mind when I tried to read Section 2.
User:Mathsci references Volume IV of Spivak (pages 314-317 in the third edition, pages 455-460 in the second edition) as their source. I have read the argument in Spivak, and I now understand that argument well enough that I have successfully used Mathematica to numerically approximate isothermal coordinates in a simple but nontrivial test case. I have posted a possible new version of Section 2 to Talk:Beltrami equation, explaining Gauss's technique as I now understand it. Unfortunately, I still don't understand what is going on in the current version of Section 2.
Does some Wikipedia math editor know enough differential geometry to help me out with the current Section 2, or to comment on my proposed new version?
LyleRamshaw ( talk) 17:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Does the list of polygons have any value or is it just Listcruft that ought to go for AfD? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#It's_time_to_euthanize_Wikipedia. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
OP blocked two days for personal attacks. - Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
If Michael Hardy does retire, that's relevant to this WikiProject, as he has edited a lot of Mathematics articles. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
To keep an unfolding drama focused in the places most appropriate for it, rather than letting it sprawl across the backrooms of Wikipedia?yeah pretty much Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The "personal attacks" to which "Roxy" refers consist of my declining to recant an accusation. When I'm the target, it's an "accusation"; when "Roxy" is the target, it's a "personal attack" regardless of whether it's a factual statement. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Boris Tsirelson. While it is certainly not appropriate to "spread drama" over various project pages, shadowing users to censor their drama on those various project pages doesn't strike me as particularly appropiate either. The regular users/project members of those projects pages can decide for themselves whether they want to close/cut short/archive a discussion or not.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 21:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Whatever the issues are concerning Michael Hardy and his behavior elsewhere (see above section "Wikipedia requiescat in pace") I want to point out that Michael, in his 16 years here, and with over 200,000 edits, has made an enormous contribution to Wikipedia's mathematics content and in addition has been an extremely valuable member of this project. In my 14 years as a member of this project, I can personally attest to the significant positive impact Michael has made here. It would be a shame if that were to come to an end. Paul August ☎ 23:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Redirects -4 (number) and -999 (number), which presently target 4 (number) and 999 (number) respectively, have been nominated for deletion at RfD. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 3#-4 (number). Thryduulf ( talk) 10:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that WENO methods are notable and important. We should change one of them ( WENO and Weno) to a disambig page.-- Sharouser ( talk) 15:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
04:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Could somebody take a look at Draft:Plane normal form and leave review comments on the draft. It requires a SME to review properly. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Finally, at last, all remnants of disagreement by an highly meritorious math editor vanished to oblivion for any casual passers by. What a satisfaction for a certain gang.
I myself bemoan mostly that also the despicable efforts to completely eradicate, and when this did not work, to brutally silence any utterance of empathy.
I hope this is ignored, but I expect it to be deleted, because talking about silencing math editors is off-topic for the WikiProject Mathematics. In any case I can do no other. Purgy ( talk) 08:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
IS related to the question of editing math articles on wikipedia.Purgy ( talk) 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If you want to whine about some user's conduct, go do it on their talk page or on some drama board -- that is not what this page is for. Everyone who watches this page is aware of the issue. I will not comment here further.
Mathematical practice, an old (2004) but still-unsourced and short article, has been proposed for deletion. Anyone want to try rescuing it? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
02:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
So, many of the older mathematical articles are not well referenced (indeed may be unreferenced), because (a) they are old, and WP:V was not the first content policy, and (b) there was a view, which I would articulate in this way, "full inline referencing does not help to see the wood from the trees in understanding advanced mathematics". I deprecate the by-passing of WP:BEFORE in nominations for deletion. In the case of older articles, I would like to underline the point that if they predate Google Books, the facile step of searching Google Books should be carried out. Come on guys, the Web is not static, and new potential sources are posted online all the time. Nominating some article started in 2004 for deletion should not be done without the due diligence specified in the guideline. I'm quite happy to beat anyone over the head with it if they think it is kind of OK to use AfD as a cleanup area.
Which brings us to whether mathematical practice is an encyclopedic topic. Well, it is. It is quite hard to explain what "mixed mathematics" as mentioned in Mathematical Tripos actually was without the concept. And so to explain why my alma mater has DPMMS and DAMTP, and why both Hawking and fluid dynamicists had offices in the latter. That is, it may not be the kind of concept an "internal" view of mathematics in the 21st century relies on, but it has a great deal of traction in placing mathematics socially and historically. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Update on September 22: To resolve the confusion described in the following paragraphs, I have now installed my rewrite of Section 2 of the page for Beltrami equation, my new version being a cookbook of Gauss's technique. For more details, see Talk:Beltrami equation. Unless someone else finds themself confused, the issue can now probably be considered resolved.
LyleRamshaw ( talk) 17:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The page for Beltrami equation underwent a significant rewrite in mid-2012. User:Mathsci added Section 2, which discusses Gauss's technique for constructing isothermal coordinates on a Riemannian 2-manifold whose metric is real-analytic. I am quite interested in that technique, but I can't follow the argument presented in Section 2. I described my confusion in a posting on Talk:Beltrami equation back in June, with no response so far. I recently posted a query to User talk:Mathsci as well. They haven't responded; but that isn't surprising, since they were recently hospitalized.
An Australian grad student named Yi Huang referred to Section 2 in a 2013 posting of his to MathOverflow: [3]. Huang's posting suggests that some of the equations in Section 2 may have their variables somehow scrambled. Huang also apparently interprets Section 2 as approximating the isothermal coordinates by computing successive terms of their power series. That's a reasonable approach, but I didn't have that approach in mind when I tried to read Section 2.
User:Mathsci references Volume IV of Spivak (pages 314-317 in the third edition, pages 455-460 in the second edition) as their source. I have read the argument in Spivak, and I now understand that argument well enough that I have successfully used Mathematica to numerically approximate isothermal coordinates in a simple but nontrivial test case. I have posted a possible new version of Section 2 to Talk:Beltrami equation, explaining Gauss's technique as I now understand it. Unfortunately, I still don't understand what is going on in the current version of Section 2.
Does some Wikipedia math editor know enough differential geometry to help me out with the current Section 2, or to comment on my proposed new version?
LyleRamshaw ( talk) 17:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Does the list of polygons have any value or is it just Listcruft that ought to go for AfD? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)