User talk:Requiemdirge

Hi Requiemdirge.

Regarding your reverts of the contraversial "universal Turing machine" news item, at the talk page for Wolfram I wrote:

This is current news, and the expert testimony of professional mathematicians, including the informative sur-rebutal from Wolfram Research, is in electronic form, particularly, email on publically accessible lists. Hopefully the issue will settle down and the news item will turn into mere scholarship, citing books instead of email. In the meantime, simply ripping out the contraversial part is disinformative. Please discuss these things here in the talk page before editting; in particular, cite specific wiki guideline documents so we can assess their suitability to this particular case, if you believe the guidelines justify removing topical material.

Please feel free to discuss this at the Talk page. I'm sure we all want to avoid an edit war, and would prefer that the quality of the article rise to the occasion.

I posted this same thing at the anonymous IP address talk page who did a similar revert. Pete St.John 14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a synopsis of the controversy, as I understand it, in user space here. Comments, rebuttals, etc are welcome. Thanks, Pete St.John 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the Erdos Number categories

Recently the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages, e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review at this deletion review log item. Pete St.John 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Requiemdirge, citing that Intelligencer article was just perfect. Good catch. Pete St.John 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]