User talk:Gandalf61/Archive7

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Square root of PI

Does not believe that the square root of PI is deliciousness... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.13.8 (talk • contribs) 15:50, July 29, 2008

(The cryptic comment above relates to a lame joke which I removed from Talk:Pi. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Echidnahedron

Hi, you reverted my redirect of Echidnahedron to The fifty nine icosahedra. I do not believe that the Echidnahedron is notable enough, or has enough to say about it, to justify its own article and have started a discussion on its Talk page. It would be helpful if you could give your reasons for keeping it. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw the thread at Talk:Echidnahedron, and I have now put a response there. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Little pictures

How do I get those little pictures that you have on the right side of your user page. I want to add similar ones to mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.176.185 (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They are called userboxes. See Wikipedia:Userboxes for more information about them. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

for the stupid pointless bickering at WP:RD/H. I should have read your comments more closely. I guess I'm tired now and WP:EUI kinda applies. Sorry, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm also at fault because I didn't pick up your point about no voting rights in your theoretical example. Anyway, maybe the questioner learnt something from our debate. Happy editing ! Gandalf61 (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure he/she did. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Docking in orbit

Gandalf, thanks for the note re the reversion. Have you reviewed the discussion at Wikipedia talk: Reference desk, and the OPs contribution history? This single question may be harmless, but it is part of a pattern of disruptive questions by one editor (including edits from other IPs in the 79.76.x.x range). I believe the appropriate response is to remove all that editor's contributions. I won't remove the question again, but I will ask for some more community input at the talk page. - Eron^Talk 20:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Excel and the three variables

Nice, instructional reply to that Excel question at the refdesk. I'm going to keep that in mind as a model. — OtherDave (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ! Gandalf61 (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Scienece in non-science articles

Hi. So I can maybe understand where you are coming from better, do you have some examples of articles where you currently think scientific understanding is misplaced? A concrete example might help me, and others, get to grips with your thinking. Thanks Verbal chat 14:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples included in my latest response at Wikipedia talk:Scientific standards. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked you to refactor your response there as you have misinterpreted my statements. Could you be more specific about what the problem with these articles is, as you see it? Verbal chat 14:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I should have restricted my comments to the reading of the proposal, and my attempt to interpret your own position was clearly flawed. I have depersonalised my response.

I don't have a problem with the articles that I referenced as they stand now. I do have concerns about what would happen to those articles and others like them if the proposed policy were applied to them.

I have been very clear about the parts of the proposal that, as I see it, embody scientific fundamentalism. You seem to have a different reading of those sections from me. There seems little prospect that we will understand one another without a great deal of effort, and we are in danger of running in circles over this. So let us agree to disagree - I see no benefit in continuing a discussion of this point. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay no problem, and thanks for your correction. Just so you know, I would be against any proposal that says the scientific "view" should have primacy (let alone to the exclusion of any other) in all articles. Verbal chat 15:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement of Newton's Second Law in terms of d(mv)/dt

Hi, I noticed you had commented on the Newton's Laws talk page in favor of the form of Newton's Second Law F=d(mv)/dt as opposed to F=ma. I read the whole dispute, and I am not convinced that it is the correct relationship. It appears only to work for constant mass systems. It seems, therefore, misleading to put the mass inside the differentiation operator, and to state that F=ma is a simplified, restricted form. Otherwise, I was wondering if you could point me to a reference or give me an example of a system where dm/dt is nonzero that works correctly with F=d(mv)/dt but incorrectly with F=ma. Thank you. MarcusMaximus (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it the wrong way round. It is F=ma that only applies to constant mass systems. The classic examples of varying mass systems where the more general form F=d(mv)/dt must be used involve falling chains. Here is an example where a chain falls onto a surface. If we just used F=ma, then we would conclude that the only force on the surface is the weight of the length of chain that has come to rest, and so the force on the surface after a length x has fallen is the weight of this length Mgx/L. However, taking into account the fact that dm/dt is not zero, there is a contribution from vdm/dt, and the force on the surface is in fact 3Mgx/L. There is a similar example here that involves a chain falling while attached to a spring scale. The rocket equation is another, more complex, scenario where F=d(mv)/dt must be used. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

<Removed> MarcusMaximus (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes, you have written far too much. It is impolite to post such long messages on other edtors' talk pages. I suggest you write up your thoughts in a sub-page of your own user page, Then you can just post a short message with a link.
2. It is also impolite to post an apparently genuine query which is in fact just a rhetorical device to introduce your own opinions. I put some effort into replying to your first post. If I had realised that you already knew everything I was saying I would not have wasted my time. Hiding your real intentions in this way is unlikely to get you a sympathetic reception from any editor.
3. There is no point trying to convince me that your alternative interpretation of Newton's second law is correct. I am not at all interested. Please take your arguments somewhere else. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Noted. I actually wasn't concealing my intentions. I actually didn't know everything you were saying, and I spent quite some time studying the falling chain example before figuring out that it was flawed. I appreciate the effort you put toward finding those examples. It's just that all the examples I've ever seen that supposedly require the d(mv)/dt form are actually flawed. Thanks anyways. MarcusMaximus (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious if you'd be more interested in my position if I found reliable sources supporting it, namely, that F=d(mv)/dt is only valid for constant mass systems. In the article on Newton's Laws, there is a section called Open Systems, and footnote 22 cites a pair of physics textbooks that agree with me. I also have in my possession Weisel's Spaceflight Dynamics that also says so. So, this is not just my "alternative interpretation" of Newton's 2nd Law. I humbly ask for your reconsideration. If you're still completely uninterested, let me know and I'll leave you alone. Thanks, MarcusMaximus (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, still not interested. Please leave me alone. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I am not a great "joiner" of things so I doubt I will get invovolved in any of these initiatives, but it is good to know that they exist. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

non-standard calculus

Hi, Thanks for your stimulating questions as WP math. Hope you liked my answers. Incidentally, Keisler has a several-page document about hyperreals in the classroom that he wrote as a response to an attack on Robinson by Errett Bishop thirty years ago. Katzmik (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your answers are great, and I can see why you find non-standard calculus so interesting. Afraid I still think the good old standard epsilon-delta methods are clearer, though ! Cheers. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! Wiki's the place for you. Welcome to plurality :) Katzmik (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought this might interest you, and the WPM thread is huge enough already, so here goes: there are in fact two ways in which the non-standard proof of the IVT for the rationals can fail. The first occurs for functions such as f from [1,2] to {0,1}, f(x)= -1 if x² < 2, f(x)=1 otherwise. This is continuous on the rationals in the usual sense, but not in the non-standard sense. That is, the natural extension of f to the hyperrationals maps infinitesimally-close arguments to non-close values. Thus the non-standard proof doesn't get off the ground here. The other way is typified by g(x)=x²-2 (again on [1,2] for the sake of argument). This is continuous in both the standard and non-standard senses, and the non-standard proof of the IVT almost works: it gives a hyperrational a such that g(a) is infinitesimal. However, a is not close to any rational, so the proof again fails. Algebraist 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is interesting. So some properties of functions over the rationals can fail to translate to properties of equivalent functions over the hyperrationals, and other properties can fail to translate in the other direction. The non-standard proofs using hyperreals obviously avoid these non-trivial pitfalls, or maybe they depend on some axiom or principle or property of hyperreals that does not apply to hyperrationals. Makes me even more convinced that thenon-standard proofs are not as short and simple as they appear at first glance. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong but I think Algebraist meant his remark not as a criticism of the non-standard proof of IVT, but rather as an interesting remark concerning the behavior of the hyperrationals. As you recall, one can actually construct the real line as the quotient of the hyperrationals by the ideal containing the infinitesimals. One explanation for why this is true is that one can construct the hyperreals by analogy with the reals. To construct the reals, we start with rational Cauchy sequences, and then introduce a suitable equivalence relation. To construct the hyperreals, we start with arbitrary rational sequences, and introduce a suitable equivalence relation using an ultrafilter (whose existence depends on the AC). Since the collection of Cauchy sequences is contained inside the collection of all sequences, it is not unreasonable to expect that the construction of the reals will be englobed in the construction of the hyperreals starting with rational sequences. This is actually all there is to constructing the hyperreals if that's all you want. The additional complications come from the fact that one also wants the tranfer principle, etc. Katzmik (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's fine, but there are still several parts of non-standard calculus that I find very non-intuitive. One example is the non-standard definition of continuity, which seems to be rather different from its standard counterpart. We know that the Dirichlet function I_Q is nowhere continuous over the reals. But if we define an equivalent function over the finite hyperreals by

$*I_{Q}(x)={\begin{cases}1\,{\mbox{ if }}\,\operatorname {st} (x)\,{\mbox{ is rational}}\\0\,{\mbox{ if }}\,\operatorname {st} (x)\,{\mbox{ is irrational}}\end{cases}}$

then I think this is continuous everywhere in its domain (using the non-standard definition of continuity now) because if x and y are infintely close then they have the same standard part and so *I_Q(x)=*I_Q(y). Is this correct, or have I gone astray somewhere ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Very intriguing question. I need to think about it a bit. In the meantime, do you mind if I copy it over to the talk page of Non-standard calculus? Other editors might be interested. Katzmik (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - copy away ! Gandalf61 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I replied at the talk page of non-standard calculus. Katzmik (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

errett bishop

Incidentally, I would be interested in your reaction to my comments on Bishop at WP math. Katzmik (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Motto of the day

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Triangle group

I think it's a bad idea to replace π/n with 180/n in Triangle group. The argument for avoiding potential confusion is rather weak, and I have never seen degrees used in this context, a clear OR issue. Arcfrk (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that degrees are more familiar to the general reader than radians. As the article does not use trigonometric functions or Euler's formula, there is no mathematical reason to prefer radians here rather than degrees. Triangle, hyperbolic triangle, wallpaper group, point group and rotation matrix all use degrees rather than radians. But if you feel strongly about this, you could initiate a discussion at Talk:Triangle group or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to determine consensus. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But there is mathematical reason to prefer this: Gauss–Bonnet theorem. The area of an individual triangle in the the spherical and hyperbolic cases (which determines the number of the triangles in the spherical case) is computed from the angles expressed in radians. As for the "general readers", at the level of this article the majority of them will be familiar with radians (after all, we are talking about group theory, which way past trigonometry in the math curriculum). Again, I'd like to emphasize that degrees are not standard in this context: can you provide references that use degrees? Arcfrk (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you switched the article back to radians just 5 minutes after posting the above, so I see no point in continuing this discussion. Please take your radians campaign somewhere else. I am not interested. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If I may be allowed to add my penny's worth, it seems reasonable to say that whether one uses pi or 180 really depends on the audience. If an article mostly addresses a secondary education public, this should be 180. For a college public this should be pi. I have not looked at all these articles but it seems to me that for instance in the context of hyperbolic geometry, it would be more appropriate to use pi. Could this be a topic for a calm discussion at WP math? Katzmik (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I already suggested that to Arcfrk above. You could take the matter up with him if you want to pursue it. I am really, really, really not interested. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your description of your revert at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Discussion of rationale is incorrect.

• I was not trying to implement the guideline.

In fact, I did not know it was there. I was merely trying to use HTML to display formulas mainly because the present rendering is dramatically incoherent, offensive and unreadable. (I admit converting stand-alone formulas was too bold).

• My changes were not disastrous.

It actually improved something but you did not notice it. You felt annoyed because it was not something you were used to see (except for the disappearing denominators; I admit there is a technical problem with these). And you refused to coöperate in diagnosing the problems.

• I am not sure what you mean by sorting out.

If it means noticing, it does not get along with your had to because noticing is involuntary and free. If it means fixing, this is not true because I addressed all your complaints and you just reverted everything that was left, at the cost of several mouse clicks and a one-liner. Please change your description of the event to something closer to what actually happened. --Yecril (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you read what I said more carefully, you will see that I did not say that you had tried to implement SMcCandlish's proposed guideline. My reason for mentioning your markup changes at modular group and triangle group was that they were similar to what would happen if editors tried to implement SMcCandlish's overly-complex ideas.
• My opinion was (and still is) that your markup changes were well intended but disastrous.
• By "sorting out" I meant my attempt to discuss your experimental changes with you on your talk page, and then reverting your changes when it became clear that you were not very interested in seeking consensus or getting input from other editors. "Had to" is obviously a figure of speech.
• Having reviewed my post, I stand by my brief account of this interaction and I see no reason to change my post. If you want to present your own point of view at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting) or slsewhere, you are obviously free to do so. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Oops. Sorry about that. I must have accidentally deleted a few lines when changing the title. Thanks for spotting my error and restoring the missing lines. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, do you like Bath Olivers and Gentleman's Relish? Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, Gentleman's Relish is a favourite spread of mine, especially on hot buttered toast. Bath Olivers not so much. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Task force Invite

You may not remember but we talked a while ago. I just wanted to let you know that a European Space Agency task force has been set up to improve the presently very poor condition of articles about ESA and related topics. If you are interested, please join the task force here. I have looked over some of your work and think you would be a great asset to the force. Thanks. Skeletor 0 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

about fibonacci numbers and fractals

Dear Mr Gandal61, what concensus? weeks ago, this open paragraph was open by another person than myself so, This paragraph must not be empty

regards jean claude perez.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 09:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to my reversion of your latest attempt to add your papers as references in the Fibonacci number page, there is a consensus that your papers are not sufficiently notable to be included in this page. Several different editors have reverted your repeated attempts to add them and you have been warned about edit warring on your talk page. If you wish to try to change this consensus, start a discussion at Talk:Fibonacci number.

If you mean the link that you added to the "See also" section, I removed it because it is a redlink - the page does not exist, and the link is useless. (Well, was a redlink when I removed the link - article has since been created ... and then deleted). Gandalf61 (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Close Packing

G'day,

I've done quite a bit of work with particle packing recently. Polydisperse and monodisperse are often works that came up in that context. Furthermore the words seem to regularly appear in some of my lectures at uni. I am not sure as far as mathematicians go, but as far as physicists and chemists are concerned poly/monodisperse seems quite common in usage, being more convienient than "of the same size" or "of difference sizes".

Close-packing is too ambigous as a title and hence unsuitable, it leaves the shape and size distributions ambigous. The first move I performed resolved the shape ambiguity but there are in reality different classes of spherical packing problem, monodisperse (which the article discusses) and polydisperse (dealing with a distribution of particle sizes). Therefore, in my view, "Close-packing of monodisperse spheres" is the only suitable name which provides a "a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". "Close-packing of spheres" could be used, but the article would need content on the polydisperse and monodisperse cases, which only really have surface similarities.

I'd suggest the page be left where it is, unless you can think of a less ambigious title. I will copy the second page here to the talk page at the article, I'll let you take it to the mathematics project if you wish.

Noodle snacks (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and invited interested editors to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Close-packing of monodisperse spheres. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Statistical proof" and other new sections

Hi, I restored "statistical proof" and put an explanation on the talk page. It may be terse, but it is accurate, and unrelated to probabilistic proof. I do not know the background of people here, so I don't know the kind of argument to put on the talk page. I was at Stanford for eleven years doing philosophy of statistics, so this is an area of expertise, but I frequently make mistakes, so likely did in the small section I wrote. However, I am certain that a statistical proof is completely unrelated to a probabilistic proof. The only remote relation would be if a probablistic proof were used to establish existence in some area of mathematical statistics, then that area of mathematical statistics were to be applied to a method that is then used to make a statistical proof applied to some concrete data set. (But I can not think of even an example of this, perhaps in some new applicatoin of graph theory to the classification and regression trees work of Charles Stone, et al, over at Berkeley.) Even if someone used probablistic proof to create a method of statistical proof, they would be very different concepts and objects. I do not know your background, but the fact that you deleted my edit, no matter what your background, indicates it was poorly worded on my part. I will try to rewrite it for nonspecialists, like by throwing in a p<.05, or something. Please let me know what your think. Thnx EricDiesel (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• PS - If you agree with the talk page and restoration, you dont need to reply. EricDiesel (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Mathematical proof. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• 1. I am new to Wikipedia, looking to kill time indoors while laid up with a medical problem. I did not know what "mini essay", "sourcing", or "original work" meant here, but I think I am learning. I have incorporated your comments into a rewrite on the Statistical proof section. Is this rewrite more in line with Wiki standards? Criticism is welcome. (PS- I do not know how to alert you that I left this message on your talk page.)
• 2. I did complete rewrites of other sections, too, in light of your brevity and non-essay suggestions.

Thnx EricDiesel (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Message re - "Homelessness"

comment/question 4 u here[1] 19:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Arithmetic functions

Thanks for you recent edit of the article. There is one thing I need to ask. The introduction was a direct quote from the book referenced. In the past I have changed the working of quotations and had them reverted. I think it reads better now, but are we allowed to reword quotes? Or is it okay to leave the reference there to direct the interested reader?  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  11:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to use a direct quote you should put the quoted passage in quotation marks "like this". Without quotation marks there is nothing to show that it is a direct quote, and the reader will assume (as I did) that it is simply a summary or précis of the reference, in an editor's own words. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So with a précis I can rewrite a passage from a book and still reference it? There aren't any silly copyright issues there are there? It was a direct quote, but after you nice corrections it is now a précis.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  12:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are continuing to query this, as I think the convention is clear and obvious. If you want to use a direct quote then put it in quotation marks. Provided the quote is short it is "fair use" and there is no copyright infringement as long as it is correctly attributed. If you want to rewrite a passage from a book in your own words then it does not need quotation marks, there is still no copyright infringement as the words are now your own, and the citation just shows that you have used the referenced passage as a source. See Wikipedia:Quotations and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to know Wikipedia better than I do, and as such I though I would ask you for confirmation and clarification. There's no need to be defensive. I was simply asking some questions. Why are people so bad tempered on Wikipedia? I try to get to the bottom of it, and you have a go at me. All the other editors seem to be the same. If you don't do it right you get told off, and if you ask how to do it right you get told off. I don't get it. There's an old Chinese proverb that goes something like this "The man that asks a question feels stupid for a moment; the man that asks no question is stupid for all of his life." That's a motto of mine. Sorry to have been so such trouble!

 Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  15:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to make changes to an article then please do it in the constructive way that you did your first edit of the article. Don't just wrip things out. I had to add the line "This binary operation on the space of arithmetic functions has some interesting properties. See the article on Dirichlet convolutions for more details" so that the interested reader might have the chance to know that such things exist (without having to, by chance, read the whole Dirichlet convolutions articleand stumble upon these facts).  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  21:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Out of curiosity I just pulled out my copy of Jameson to see which part of your original rewrite of the lead here was a direct quote from Jameson. I was astonished to find that you had copied the whole lead paragraph practically word for word from Jameson section 1.2. So I looked through the rest of your re-write and found that your "Summation" section was also very close to part of Jamson section 1.2, and your "Convolutions" section came from Jameson section 1.8.

So now I understand why your rewrite was in such an unencyclopedic "textbook" style, and why you were asking strange questions about "silly copyright issues" above. Closely copying extensive passages from a book like this (even with attribution) definitely is a copyright violation, and is not allowed in Wikipedia. You need to realise that such "silly copyright issues" are taken very seriously in Wikipedia and you can be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you repeatedly post copyrighted material - see Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

Anyway, I have re-written the lead section so that it is no longer a copy of Jameson, and I will rewrite other sections of the article so that they are not as close to Jameson when I have time. I strongly suggest that you read and understand Wikipedia's copyright FAQ and it's linked articles before you go any further. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As a mathematician you will know that we copy from each other all the time: a definition is a definition. Put a few blue reference boxes in and there's no problem. If that's not acceptable then almost every academic journal is guilty of breaking copyright laws. You should try reading some sociology papers: they're even worse. The papers are just made up of 'cut and pastes' from different articles and are a sea of footnote references. Feel free to rewrite the English language. I shall trust your judgement. This does seem to highlight a problem with Wikipedia. If I write original things it's bad, if I take from an accepted source then it's bad. And please, if you're going to write a horrible reply trying to make me feel small then please don't... there are a million people on Wikipedia that seem to do that to everyone each day.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The introduction's looking nice after your changes.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  00:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Formal statements like definitions and theorems can sometimes only be written in one way, or a limited number of ways. In those cases, copying is okay, because it's not possible to rewrite them. But the paragraphs you apparently copied from Jameson are not just definition and theorems, and you really should not copy them verbatim. This goes for both Wikipedia and mathematical journals.

You're right that there is a tension between the no-original-research policy and the policy that we can't copy text verbatim. There is a path between those two extremes, and that's the path we should take.

I don't want to belittle you. This is an important point for Wikipedia, and I thought that perhaps it's easier to accept it if you hear it from somebody else than Gandalf. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated jeep problem, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on October 12, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks --Bruce1ee^talk 10:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jeep problem 1.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Jeep problem 1.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, have now added {{GFDL-self}} to the image page. I am hoping this is the right thing to do, but not certain as Wikipedia:Image copyright tags is, frankly, quite baffling in its complexity ! Am I supposed to remove the {{di-no license}} tag now, or does someone else do that ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No response, so I went ahead and removed the {{di-no license}} tag myself. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Jeep problem

On 18 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jeep problem, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Bruce1ee^talk 07:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrino is a name for the fairies powerful guns

Surely that is common knowledge and does not require a reference? SpinningSpark 11:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume the monkey face means that your question is not meant to be taken seriously, right ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it is now a Wikipedia rule that all jokes must be accompanied by an emoticon to show you are not serious. SpinningSpark 19:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of graph

Pls check out my entry in the discussion page and lemme know what you think.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

your problematic multiple reverts

You have not addressed my objection to your revert. Namely, it is based on a mathematical error, as I have explained on the talk page. Multiple reverts may be consistent with wikipedia policy but they do not make for good etiquette. Katzmik (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. So please stop re-inserting your addition to the article's lead until and unless you can establish a consensus at Talk:Uniform continuity that agrees with your new sentence. At the moment consensus is that a prominent mention of non-standard analysis in the lead section of uniform continuity would give it undue weight. However, a mention further down in the article may be more acceptable. A word of advice - if you seek consensus instead of being so confrontational, you will find editing Wikipedia is a more rewarding and less frustrating experience. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read both of my previous comments, this time more carefully. Katzmik (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you thought you would achieve by complaining about me on other editors' talk pages. Most editors react badly to such spamming, and I would guess that your tactic might backfire. I repeat my suggestion that you should seek consenus at Talk:Uniform continuity, instead of behaving so agressively towards everyone who disagrees with you. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree to leave out mutual recriminations as they are not a productive way of spending our time (perhaps you would agree that the accusation of "behaving agressively toward everyone who disagrees" is somewhat uncalm). I personally am very much in favor of seeking consensus, as I already mentioned. Note that you were the one to revert an edit twice. As far as uniform continuity is concerned, I would like to reiterate the point that I feel the claim that it is "global" is misleading and is a shortcoming of the epsilon, delta definition rather than an intrinsic feature of the concept itself. Perhaps the problem can be solved by moving the entire discussion of local versus global to a later section. Katzmik (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear ! A sermon from the person who recently told me to "leave your motherhood and apple pie comments for your family". I nearly fell off my chair laughing at that one ! Katzmik, you are priceless. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about colorful language and I am pleased I was able to amuse you. At any rate hope you suffer no further accidents of the sort that occurred at the talk page of non-standard calculus :) If you have any constructive suggestions with regard to uniform continuity I would be glad to hear them. Katzmik (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

ANT

Hi, I'm not sure if you might have been somehow offended by the "rejection" of your edits at Algebraic Number theory. I didn't mean to reject, and would have (had I the time) rather merged your ideas with the existing stuff. I do think they are really valuable -- consider readding the material to the relevant subarticles. Cheers, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I was not offended at all. It just became clear that there was no support for the direction in which I thought the article should be taken. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles *

Dear Gandalf61 - I am not denying that the practical details of conducting TRUE scientific peer review are to be addressed but I am optimistic re expert review feasibility and therefore do believe this should be attempted at least as an optional (by the special request) feature. In my view the experts should be willing (at least temporarily during the review) verifiably reveal their true identity and credentials, which should be at least at the PhD level in the corresponding area of science (or higher). I am not myself in high admiration of those "obsessive, quarrelsome, petty-minded, intransigent and incoherent" high priests of science but do believe that using them for review is still better than existent highly anarchic form of review. Democracy is OK, anarchy and the rule of ignorance is not. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 01:37, 28 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) 16:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

quantifier order

Hi, Thanks for your comments at uniform continuity. There have been numerous edits there recently and it may not be obvious that I tried to answer your question, so I thought I would let you know. Katzmik (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As per your comment, I think the pages involved have been clarified and may be self-explanatory by now. What is meant by "local" is "only depending on the pointwise germ of the function", as in the ordinary notion of continuity. Now uniform continuity cannot be defined merely in terms of the pointwise germs. For this reason, one of the editors (not I) described the standard definition of uniform continuity as "global". I am not sure if this is such a great term, but at any rate it should be clear what it means. Now in the hyperreal field, given the natural extension f*, one can give a local (in the above sense) definition of uniform continuity of f. The definition is only "local" as far as "f*" is concerned, namely we need the germs of f* at infinite points. One certainly cannot give a local definition in terms of merely the standard points. Hope I am less confusing than yesterday. Katzmik (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Cut-the-knot Ramanujan-Soldner constant Minkowski's theorem Fiber bundle Inequality Egorov's theorem Fermat number Theory of equations Coversine Precalculus Finite geometry Apastamba Bohr–Mollerup theorem Mathematics Subject Classification P-adic analysis Mathematical statistics Value distribution theory of holomorphic functions Constructivism (mathematics) Analytic number theory

Cleanup Computation Actual infinity Pierre de Fermat Merge Logarithmic integral function Modular function Prime factorization algorithm Add Sources Infinitesimal transformation Greek mathematics Reductio ad absurdum Wikify Surface energy Walter A. Shewhart William Skelhorn Expand Emmy Noether Packing problem Soliton

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fractal cosmology. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbal chat 13:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No edit warring here - I am simply trying to prevent the article being gutted while it is the subject of an ongoing AfD. And I must say I think your threat of blocking is a hugely inappropriate over-reaction, especially given your own involvement in the article and the AfD. The article needs some improvement, but blanking whole sections of it is not a reasonable approach. Note that my last edit was not simply reverting yours - as you requested in your previous edit comment, I kept the MOS copyedits, while at the same time restoring the large sections that you and ScienceApologist had blanked. Let's take this discussion to the article's talk page - I have now put a note there and I will look out for your response. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "threat" it's a simple warning designed to remind you that there is a limit and not to go beyond it - would you rather no warning was given and you were just blocked if you accidentally went to 4 reverts in 24hrs? I used the template rather than a personal note as it has been written by consensus and doesn't bring my personal view into anything at all. I didn't want you to get blocked by accidentally breaking 3RR. I would expect that your revert except for the MOS changes would be counted as a revert over at 3RR, but that isn't my expertise. Better safe than sorry. Verbal chat 18:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading it through again it is quite strong. Perhaps in future I will craft a personal message unless it's something simple. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I might also comment on the template that it should be more nuanced, or maybe a second version created. Verbal chat

It is difficult to read "If you continue, you may be blocked from editing" as anything other than a threat. A polite personal message would have been far better received. I suggest you review WP:DTTR and try to be less quick off the draw with the templating in future, especially in situations where you are an involved party. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, take it up with the template writers. You were correctly warned. It is not a "threat". I am aware of the essay DNTTR, and decided that rather than write a personal message which would also have annoyed you, I'd use the template, as you needed to be warned. I agree the template could be worded better. I'm not interested in discussing this further with you. Many thanks, Verbal chat 19:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Take it up with the template writers" ! Incredible ! You throw out templates and accusations at random and when you victim protests you try to disclaim all responsibility for how the template is worded or the effect it has. To paraphrase a famous saying, "Templates don't bite editors. Editors bite editors." I see our views on how to treat other editors are so far apart that further discussion is pointless. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't subscribe to the views of the NRA either :) The point I am trying to make is I used the standard warning, and have started a discussion about the template on the relevant board to address your concerns. Some think it is right that it is harsh, as the 3RR is a bright line which will result in immediate blocking. However, some have also pointed me to some alternatives, which I may use in future. The use of templates in situations like this can be good as it doesn't make it personal - and they only apply if correctly placed. You had reverted several times, and I was making you aware. There was no "at random" about it, and no "biting"; the template is worded that way for a reason. I, of course, will not every be warning you of 3RR again - because I now know you are aware of it. And that was the point. There really is nothing further to discuss - apart from improving articles, which I look forward too. I am truely sorry that you are offended and spending time on this. Yours, Verbal chat 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed simpler derivation

A suggestion - a simpler derivation is

${\frac {x^{2}+ab}{x}}={\frac {(x-{\sqrt {ab}})^{2}+2x{\sqrt {ab}}}{x}}={\frac {(x-{\sqrt {ab}})^{2}}{x}}+2{\sqrt {ab\,{}}}$

- which is simply an application of completing the square - and then note that as x is always positive, the first term takes a minimum value of 0 when $x={\sqrt {ab}}$. Then the whole section in question can be omitted. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How is that simpler? It's the same thing except that you're working only with the numerator, and it's LONGER than why I wrote in the article (as long as you don't expand the hidden content). Michael Hardy (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's simpler because it replaces the whole hidden section with one line and it doesn't introduce ${\sqrt {x}}$. But 'scuse me for trying to help you with a suggestion - next time I won't bother. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it replaces the hidden section. It's clear how you go from right to left in the equality

$x^{2}+ab=(x-{\sqrt {ab}})^{2}+2x{\sqrt {ab}}.\,$

but many people will still wonder how you go from left to right. And that's what the hidden section explains. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(Michael Hardy copied the above from discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

Edit summaries

Regarding your edit summaries on Fractal cosmology, please keep them civil and use them to summarise your edits. Thanks, Verbal chat 18:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My edit comments on fractal cosmology (and, indeed, everywhere else) have always been civil. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Occurrence-in-subtuple problem

it got speedily deleted... is arXiv not enough and/or is the problem really too uninteresting? (Biolex2 (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

The discussion that led up to the original deletion is here. To address the issues raised in that discussion, you need to show that subject of the article is notable. Re-creating a deleted article without any prior discussion is almost certain to lead to speedy deletion, because it looks as if you are trying to slip one under the radar. If you want to create a re-written version of the article with more sources, I suggest you discuss your ideas at the WikiProject Mathematics talk page first, or ask for help at the help desk. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material

Someone redirected the article again, and I removed the redirection. They are getting more aggressive. I need you to keep checking the article, as I will. If I check the article later and find it redirected, I may not know how to get back to it to remove the redirection. Can you tell me how to do that? Thanks.

Also, can you tell me how to request mediation?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the page and find it has been replaced with a redirect, you will be taken to the Jane Roberts page, but you will see a link saying Redirected from Seth Material underneath the title of the Jane Roberts page. This is a special link - if you follow it you will be taken back to the Seth Material page without being redirected, and you will see something like "|→ Jane Roberts" as the only contents of the page. But the full contents are still preserved in the page's edit history - a redirect is simply a page edit like any other, and does not remove anything from the page's edit history.

I restored the article for a second time, but Moreschi immediately reverted to his redirect, so I left a note on his talk page. I am not worried - Moreschi is not supported by consensus, and there are now plenty of editors interested in improving the article. The article's contents can be restored at any time - there is no deadline. We simply need to let impetuous editors like Moreschi cool down a little.

I wouldn't bother with mediation if I were you - it won't achieve anything, and it will only consume your time and effort and generate a lot of drama and bad temper. Some editors seem to enjoy such games, but I believe time is better spent on improving the encyclopedia. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, after some encouragement, Moreschi has now incorporated some parts of the Seth Material contents into the Jane Roberts article. So maybe expanding the coverage in the Jane Roberts article is a better way forward. Gandalf61 (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm awfully sorry -- I didn't read this before I requested mediation. I requested informal mediation, which means that someone will come to the Talk page and try to help us to cool our tempers. I do believe that any reasonable mediator will request that redirections stop since they are not supported by consensus.

I reverted the Jane Roberts article. I moved the Seth Material section to its own article for a reason, and that reason hasn't changed. If the Seth Material has to go back to the Jane Roberts article, I'll move it all.

Thanks for being part of this.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that a lot of these jerks are administrators -- can you believe it?

I'm not sure that I can continue to fend them all off. I'm thinking about closing down the Seth Material article myself and leaving just a short biographical blurb in the Jane Roberts article (but then, that's what they want, isn't it?). I'm going to start my own Seth Material web site soon. That Wikipedia allows their own administrators to aggressively attack articles they don't like is just astonishing to me. It turns out that at least two of them are Christians.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You do know the wiki software is free don't you? Some people have posted the entire Ra material on a wiki that they have. Because of copyright issues, you probably could not do the same thing for Roberts, but you may be able to make use of it in other ways. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as editing articles is concerned, there really is no "Wikipedia" apart from the community of its editors. The bar for adminship is pretty low, but one of the requirements is demonstrating involvement in some of the "policing and politics" areas of Wikipedia, so it does tend to attract a rather obsessive and officious "park keeper" personality type. I would urge you not to give up on Wikipedia - once you learn to accept its frustrations, editing Wikipedia is, on balance, a very rewarding experience. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I found some references to possible sources here which may be of use to you. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

They are now deleting wholesale parts of the article. Since I have already undone two bad revisions today, I was wondering if you would go there and restore the deleted paragraphs. Thanks.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I went to do that but the paragraphs are back for now it seems. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone named Linda went to the article and inserted a ton of third-party references. They can't claim that the subject isn't notable now! I am also slowly inserting references to the Seth books. Thank you for your help.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article has now been hugely improved, which is good for Wikipedia. This demonstrates the benefits of collaborative editing. It is unfortunate that some of the participants in the process have chosen to take a more adversarial approach, but we should try not to let that rub off on us. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the article is not hugely improved. Verbal has once again deleted most of it (the entire Tenets section). They are claiming that I have exceeded 3 reverts, although I don't believe that is true. Can you please go to the article and revert it to my last revision? Thanks!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm toying around with the idea of retiring from the fight. I don't have the energy for it. I have owned the domain name Sethmaterial.org for a long time, and I'm just going to develop that. This is not the first battle I've been in with atheists, skeptics, Christians, etc., on Wikipedia. This is the first time, however, that they showed up in such a large gang. Their tactic is to wear out other authors until the other authors give up. It doesn't matter how many references we put into the article, it won't be enough. Those two articles -- Jane Roberts and Seth Material -- are the only articles I edit, but it isn't worth the stress. Most people, I believe, do not go to Wikipedia for their info but instead search the net, so my site will probably get more exposure. There isn't, in fact, a site which simply explains who and what Seth was, so I'll be filling a void. This decision isn't definite. If I didn't feel that you needed backing up, I would definitely leave. If you decide to stay and continue working on the site, maybe I'll also stay. Tonight I'm just very tired.

P.S. I can be reached at caleb@purebeads.com if you care to talk privately. Are you the one I corresponded with for a while, the one who wanted the info about frameworks inserted?--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your stress. My personal experience is that treating things in Wikipedia as a "fight" only leads to frustration and leaves a bad taste behind. But I can see that things will be different if you have an emotional attachment to an article's subject.

Anyway, you don't have to make a firm decision to leave or to stay - you could take a "wiki-break", do other stuff for a week or two, then come back when you have fresh inspiration. Everything will still be there, in the article's history and its talk pages. The most important achievement over the last few days is that the article now contains plenty of independent third-part sources, and almost everyone involved now agrees that the topic is notable. This is more important than whether the topic is classified as "fringe" or not, as articles can be deleted if they do not demonstrate notability, whereas they cannot be deleted just because they may be about a "fringe" topic.

I don't think we ever corresponded about frameworks, but it has been good working with you, and I hope our paths cross again in Wikpedia sometime in the future. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are going to continue to work on the article. 70.186.172.75 told me this morning he feels similarly to me, so that would just leave you. If you stop working on it, I think the article will be deleted within a week or two. Yes, I did get too attached to it, but I really did try to make it neutral in tone. I honestly don't know what kind of style they want it written in, because I thought I had achieved an encyclopedia-like style. If you intend to continue working on it, I'll stay and work on it too, but I can't do more than one reference a day -- I have all the Seth books, including the early books, and I can fill in all the primary references in the Tenets section. But truly, I don't think they'll allow that section to be returned to the article. Look for my web site in a month or two: Sethmaterial.org.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

For a short time it appeared that we were going to be able to edit the article in situ. But then they brought in a new person (SeminalPanic) who merged a bunch of sections and deleted some text. When I restored the text, he undid it and accused me of vandalism (ha), and then someone came in and froze the article for three days. I'm telling you, they aren't going to allow us to write this thing.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being a bit paranoid here. As far as I can tell, SeminalPanic was originally just trying to re-arrange material and his deletion of a paragraph may have been accidental. It would have been better if you had talked to him instead of just reverting his changes.

I think the timing of the page protection was accidental. When Verbal realised that no-one was going to support his sub-page idea, he requested page protection to try to force people to work in his sub-page - not a nice way to play, but some editors are like that. A random admin, Rulik0, picked up that request, saw your reversions of SeminalPanic's edits, thought that that was why Verbal had requested page protetction, and fully protected the page for 3 days. Complete SNAFU all round, but maybe it gives everyone a chance to calm down a bit.

By the way, it might help if you tried to drop the "them and us" language ... just a suggestion. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I requested page protection due to the behaviour of Caleb and SeminalPanic. The timing was accidental in that it was forced by the behaviour of these two editors (I also edited in SPs favour here, before the quick fire reverting). Talk is always better. I had stated I was going to delete the subpage, but it looks like it might be useful again now. My "subpage idea" received plenty of support. I much prefer the new version, and think this period will give us chance for calm and reflection. That further action hasn't been requested shows the good faith of those that disagree with Caleb's edits (3RR, Civility, etc). Thanks. Verbal chat 11:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping to save the article. Your contribution was more valuable than mine. I know that you disapprove of the way I communicate, but I felt that the real issue was the way the other editors ganged up on the article. Now that we've gone through this fight, it will be harder for people to try to delete the article in the future. The tongue-lashing that NoVomit got when he put the article in for deletion was a riot.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Seth Material, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you have good intentions, but I really think mediation is a waste of time. It just reinforces an adversarial approach to editing and grooms the egos of wikilawyers and wikipoliticians. Sorry, but I don't intend to get involved unless there is no sensible alternative. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, on second reading, maybe that was a bit harsh. Here's what I will do. If all the other involved parties agree to mediation then I will agree too, as I wouldn't want mediation to be blocked just by my scepticism. But I really, really doubt that your request for mediation will get that far. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my commenting here, feel free to remove. I'm not sure this really warrants mediation yet, as we can probably fix this by working together on fixing the problems as Gandalf and I have made some progress today. If you feel after some time this isn't good enough you should pursue other avenues of dispute resolution before filing for mediation, as it says on the requests for mediation page, such as an RfC. A misfiled medication cabal attempt that we weren't aware of doesn't give us any chance of resolving this. I wouldn't be surprised if this is rejected anyway, but I really feel we can make progress without making this a battleground. Verbal chat 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Seth Material. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Comment wasn't directed at you

See update at the Wikiquette page. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thanks for letting me know. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys

Gandalf61 and Algebraist and Lambiam and KSmrq and Meni Rosenfeld and others have taught me more about mathematics than have all of my formal instructors, - THANKS. hydnjo talk 02:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ! Very much appreciated. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)