User talk:Lambiam/Archive 5

; Archives
	Archive 1: January 2006 – March 2006; Archive 2: April 2006 – June 2006; Archive 3: July 2006 – September 2006; Archive 4: October 2006 – December 2006; Archive 5: January 2007 – March 2007; Archive 6: April 2007 – June 2007; Archive 7: July 2007 – September 2007; Archive 8: October 2007 – December 2007; Archive 9: January 2008 – March 2008; Archive 10: April 2008 – June 2008; Archive 11: July 2008 – September 2008; Archive 12: October 2008 – December 2008; Archive 13: January 2009 – December 2009; Archive 14: January 2010 – June 2010; Archive 15: July 2010 – December 2010; Archive 16: January 2011 – March 2011; Archive 17: April 2011 – June 2011; Archive 18: July 2011 – September 2011; Archive 19: October 2011 – December 2011; Archive 20: January 2012 – June 2012; Archive 21: July 2012 – December 2012; Archive 22: January 2013 – December 2015; Archive 23: January 2016 – December 2017; Archive 24: January 2018 – December 2019; Archive 25: January 2020 – December 2021;

Happy New Year, and Kudos

Happy New Year, Lambiam, and thank you for your erudite and informative contributions to the Reference Desk. I'd give you a barnstar if I knew how, but I see you have several already. Marco polo 21:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Have an exciting, relaxing 2007 Lambiam! I hope the past year was a good one. The sad thing is, though, that now we have to wait until Easter for another major holiday. --Bowlhover 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

From one retiree to another I have got to say: Thanks for all the great help. --Doug 19:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind if I use on my User page your great answers on that Latin translation you did, as well as that of the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon.
Your wording and history information on this is far better than I could ever come up with. Thanks again for your help. --Doug 00:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and from me, too!

Hi Lambiam, happy New Year as well!

Thanks so much for your encouraging comment on the nomination page; it came at a good moment. :) I hate to bother you, but could you just add that you support the article? There aren't many people voting, and your vote would be helpful. If I've mis-interpreted your assessment, and you can't support it, sorry about that! Hoping all's well with you, Willow 14:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question regarding the Persian Gulf name dispute

Hi. I wanted to talk with you outside the context of that page, too much is going on there. I wanted to know if you know the Occam's razor? You know "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one"? I really think you should re-evaluate your contributions to this page with this rule. I do agree that the page is one sided, but the problem is there is no acceptable "other side"! I mean even if 29 maps - if we accept all of them, have labels as Arabian Gulf, while every other map (which is incidently much more than 29 meager maps) it does not justify the sudden surge to call it the Arabian Gulf. I would like to bring to your attention a Hadith by the Prophet Mohammad - which was an arab you know - who calls it the bahr-e-fars or persian sea. I am trying to find an english version of it to link to it. And as ali doostzadeh says you can not find one mention of the arabian gulf in arabic before nasser anywhere. (still even accepting the disputed 29 maps above). so finally arriving to Occams razor isnt it more likely that the arab nations - mainly nationalists of course - decided during the wars between Israel and the Arabs since Iran helped Israel by selling oil and with the long history of enmity between the two nations it would be possible to try to change this name change? I mean they really didnt even need one map to change the name if you put yourself into that context. This is the problem as I see it, there is no justifiable "other point of view", and if the page makes people think that it is persian gulf and not arabian gulf, well that is merely because it is telling the truth. Think of it this way, if today I announced that Bratislava real name is PWLtag and put up a whole nation to support this because they think this word is cool, would the encyclopedia entry on this name really not be POV? I hope I havent talked to much, tend to do so. I would like to here from you. I feel you are one of the few that can actually have a logical discussion. Take care Ali Soltani 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I have to disagree with your notion that all we have to do is to report what others have written about it. In order for Wikipedia to become a true online encyclopedia and be able to compete with other encyclopedias, its pages not only need to be reported but to also be a fact. Just saying what others have said on the matter is not an encyclopedia as I understand it. I must stress again that I do agree that it is one sided. As I see it there should be something explaining the arab reason for naming disputation, what I dont agree is that it should just be recitation of what someone somewhere has said, and it has to be a (n established if possible) fact to increase the credibility of that matter. I would really like to see something explaining why the arabs think that this body of water is called the arabian gulf, which is a fact also. That would be the reason I would want to go to a naming dispute page in the first place wouldnt it? There should of course be explanations even saying there are 27 maps calling it the arabian gulf, but also explain that this is not the real reason behind the sudden name changing since none of these are in Arabic, and the Arabs have called it persian gulf all along. and then there should be an explanation why the arabs call it the arabian gulf, which I really dont have any idea why except for nationalistic reasons. I believe that there is truth and once again disagree with you on this matter. The facts should be said in an unbiased matter. If the facts do favor one side, that does not mean you can remove those facts because it should be unbiased. This is where I strongly disagree with you. Just because you feel that the page is one sided does not justify you to distort and misrepresent facts, which you insist on doing. By just saying there are 27 maps you are only partionaly representing the "truth" and misleading to think that the argument is because it was called arabian gulf before - which it has not been called by the majority. Please bear in mind that an encyclopedia is not a place where we report what people have said on the matter, it is supposed to help people understand the matter better. And just saying that there are 27 maps that name this body the arabian gulf will only divert the true reason. I believe that this is distorting facts and presenting them in a fashion that does not convey the fact. In the end, I believe it does come down to what you believe. This is not a history book where it is encouraged not to think and influence the history with your thoughts, this is an encyclopedia which has to be right and true. If this is not the case, I believe you and any wikipedian to be mistaken. and if the policies of wikipedia are really just telling what others have said, I am sorry to say that this is not what I and most people I know expect from an encyclopedia. If this is what really you are looking for, someone can start writing under the united states of america "great satan" and write that this is what khoemeini said about the US. as you say this is telling what others have said, but is it a fact? In the end, since I am not an arab, I dont feel free to write about the arab views. I think we should find someone to do so. Take care Ali Soltani 16:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repairs to RD/C

Your edit to "rm RefDeskBot stuttering" looks like it undid the handful of edits after RefDeskBot's that you wanted to undo. I've put those things back, but I thought you'd want to know what happened. --Tardis 16:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... for your help over at mathematical analysis. Gandalf61 10:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Archived Ref Desk page not up-to-date

Hi - I'm not sure I'm certain of what you mean (sorry!). I made that sort of edit to every Ref Desk (bringing the 6th or the 9th to the top of the trasclusion list) and the bot subsequently completed the archives from those desks, removing the 6th and (I think) another day (as intended). That is to say, the desks are now fully archived and up to date., but I may be missing something. Thanks, Mart inp23 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - I've been fairly busy recently with sockpuppets harrassing me :) I'll copy and paste the pages back to how they should be as soon as I can - there was a slight error in the bot (now fixed) which made it fail to do the process absolutely correctly, so when I fixed that bug on Wikipedia, the content was lost. I should be ablet o get ronud to it at the weekend. Mart inp23 12:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Next time you want to make comment on my talk page, be polite and don't make accusations. --Mardavich 20:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever is interested: this refers to this message, which the recipient promptly removed from his or her talk page. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read the top of my talk page, comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not on my talk page. As for the source, Niusha Boghrati is a respected correspondent and a reliable source. We don't evaluate or judge sources based on highly prejudiced and rude presumptions about the writer's background or nationality. --Mardavich 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Context: see the message erased here.) Unlike Mardavich, I think that requests to an editor to explain their behaviour do not belong on the talk pages of articles. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf

I will be happy to examine, and if reasonable, co-sign, an RfC on this matter. (No blank checks, of course; but this is a travesty.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the discussion on the talk page accomplishing anything. I agree with Sept. that some sort of content mediation is in order. CMummert · talk 03:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formal warning

Regarding comments such as this [1], Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Mardavich 22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is correct. Talking about users to such an extent as you have been recently is against policy. Please stop now, and focus on content instead. --InShaneee 22:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter how long you've been 'focused on content'; that doesn't give you license to stop. There are methods of resolving content disputes here; make use of them. --InShaneee 23:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. Attack another user as you have here and you will be blocked from editing. --InShaneee 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Punic War

Take a look at my User page at the bottom under "Articles I'm working on improving" of the title "Second Punic War". It's a "discovery" I've make concerning Acts of the Apostles.
Could I get your comments on this? Just add at the bottom. Thanking you in advance for your input. --Doug ^talk 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Belge

Thanks for your edit to that article, I was actually thinking of doing the same thing myself (having the official title of the conference). Khoi khoi 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RDB inactivity

Hi - I've left a couple of messages at WT:RD over the past weeks providing reasons for the inactivity - namely that my phone line was broken, hence I had no internet. I'll be getting the bot back online over the next few days. Mart inp23 21:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Pi Day!!

Happy Pi Day Lambian! Having any Pi today? :) [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 07:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf star

Hi Lambiam,

I just wanted to mention to you that, historically, stars of luminosity class V (such as Sirius) are called "dwarf stars". So normally it is quite acceptible to use that term, even though there exist a separate category of stars called a white dwarf and a near-star called a brown dwarf. So, no offense, but I'd appreciate if you wouldn't apply that "correction" on all the main-sequence star articles. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk thanks

It is long past time I said this: Thank you for your many helpful contributions to the Mathematics Reference Desk. The questioners take their answers and go without a word, but I know it takes a special combination of knowledge, skills, and attitude to give good answers week after week. You have certainly made my efforts easier and more enjoyable in spreading a little light in the world, one question at a time. --KSmrq^T 05:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:Appendix:Roman female given names

Word lists in Wiktionary go in the Appendix namespace. In this case, the article can be found at wikt:Appendix:Roman female given names. {{wiktionary}} boxes are good ways to link to Wiktionary articles. Cheers. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for speaking on my behalf at my RFA, when it was difficult for me to do so. CMummert · talk 02:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your Comments

You posted some comments to my Wikipedia user page almost a year ago (I was forced to erase them):

Are you an intuitionist of sorts? Even if you reject certain proof methods, it does not mean that statements traditionally proved with methods you find unacceptable cannot be proved with acceptable methods. In any case, there is little point in arguing with "classical" mathematicians about the unreliability of their logical principles, since they will use these very principles to argue their position. A further issue is that it is not terribly clear what terms like "incomplete totality" mean. Why not just scrap set theory and identify sets with predicates? So just say "the set of all primes" (which makes most mathematicians feel good), but secretly think: "the property of being a prime". How could they ever tell the difference, as long as you don't slip in making the translation between the two modes of speaking? Good luck. LambiamTalk 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, the ideas that I presented in this work-in-progress paper --- [2] and [3] --- would suffice to answer your concerns … Any further comments on my paper will be appreciated --- I intend to submit my paper to the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society on 29 March 2007. Best regards. [BenCawaling@Yahoo.com] BenCawaling 12:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT:WPM

I tried setting the width of the box explicitly. If that doesn't work, let me know and I will revert everything. CMummert · talk 16:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did setting the width resolve the issue? I had a hard time replicating it myself. CMummert · talk 14:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think the offset from the margin should be fixed now. CMummert · talk 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]