User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2005 August

Previous · Index · Next

1000000000000000000

I do not think it was a good idea to move 1000000000000000000 to 1000000000000000000 (number). If you noticed, the article is being voted for deletion, so it is best to keep it in place while the vote takes place.

Second, by moving it, you made the link to the votes for deletion page invalid (well I did a redirect, but that does not change my point).

Can you move the article back please? Oleg Alexandrov 20:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Oleg.

I have closed the VfD (which has been running a long time), making 1000000000000000000 a redirect to 11th millennium and beyond. I have moved the content to 1000000000000000000 (number) where it belongs. I have put small note at the top of 11th millennium and beyond for anyone who gets redirected having entered 1000000000000000000 (or any other large number), and meant the number not the year. If you want to have 1000000000000000000 (number) deleted, then a seperate VfD could be used. Rich Farmbrough 20:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I see. I was confused by the fact that the article was moved but the vfd notice was not removed (I mean, almost half of the day passed between the two).

About the new article 1000000000000000000 (number). I think this has no chance of developing into an encyclopedic article, so I do plan to vote it for deletion. Let us see how it goes. Oleg Alexandrov 21:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You may well be right. Sorry I left the VfD notice in by mistake. Rich Farmbrough 21:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Why did you close the VFD on 1000000000000000000 with redirect? The tally for the VFD was 5 or 6 for redirect (to different articles), 13 for delete. Are you ignoring the results of VFD? --A D Monroe III 00:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Would deletion and recreation as a redirect pacify you? — David Remahl 01:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I've put my thoughts on the 1000000000000000000 (number) VfD page. Rich Farmbrough 01:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I read your comments. To summarize, you looked over the VFD results, disagreed with them (for reasons you stated), redirected the page, and then closed the VFD with the text "The result of the debate was move and replace with redirect" when you knew the result of the debate was to delete. Is this right? --A D Monroe III 02:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's

Hi Rich! No, I’m not using a bot for the corrections I am currently doing, just a custom wiki editor. I have a registered bot for automated tasks, though (User:Diderobot). Cheers, Sam Hocevar 08:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wondrous numbers?

What are wondrous numbers? What are the wondrous numbers before and after 384? I searched the OEIS for the term "wondrous number" then a search for core sequences containing 384, but found nothing for this. PrimeFan 20:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Multi-index notation

Hi Rich. Just one remark. You deleted a huge chunk of the article Multi-index notation without an edit summary and only with a minor edit flag. It took me a while to realize that it was you who put that fragment to start with, but it is good if you put an explanation next time. By the way, just before seeing your deletion I saw a (real this time) vandalism at real number where again stuff was deleted without explanation, so as you might guess I am not very pleased with text just vanishing unexpetedly. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 17:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Double-indent -- please don't

Hi, I notice you double-indented several formulas in several articles. Please don't, it violates the current style guidelines Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) (against which more than several thousand math articles are written). To change the guidelines, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Don't be surprised if the double-colon usage is reverted to single-colon over time. linas 00:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Please rewrite or otherwise improve any of those articles (some sorely need it). However for future reference the style guide currently says:

When displaying formulas on their own line, one should indent the line with one or more colons (:);

Rich Farmbrough 10:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Obliged?

Pardon my ignorance, but why did you put "obliged" instead of "obligated" in Anti-semitism? What is the difference between the two words? I thought "obliged" meant something similar to "pleasured" or something like that....

Thanks! --Sebastian Kessel 17:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Apart from a special use in biology obligate means pretty much the same as oblige. I am of the opinion that it is a back-formation from obligation that came about in the 15th or 16th century, and I find it ugly. For the wikitionary defn. of oblige see. Rich Farmbrough 20:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that I didn't know! :) Thanks! --Sebastian Kessel 20:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question about the similar edits made in the Liberty Law article. I think there is a difference between the two words; obligated implies there is a requirement defined by law or contract, obliged implies it is a moral or social requirement. (The wikitionary definition doesn't follow this, but unfortunately I don't regard it as being as authoritative as other dictionaries, which do make this distinction.) That said, I think obligated is the correct word in the context of this article. MK2 23:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

OED agrees that legal requirement is included, in its lengthy articles. More accessibly the American Heritage Dictionary says " To constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means." Mirrim Webster has "to constrain by physical, moral, or legal force or by the exigencies of circumstance". Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 23:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's impossible to interpret obliged the way you're using it. But obligated conveys the meaning more accurately. MK2 04:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Until recently, the sense of this word has been restricted to positive and personal acts; and when moral duty or law binds a person to do something, the word oblige has been used. But this distinction is not now observed." Websters 1828.

"Obliged" is more common in British speech. That said, please stop converting one to the other because you find one "ugly". Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Much obliged for your advice. Rich Farmbrough 16:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Obligated has been in use for 500 years. I think you need to concede it's won a place in the language. MK2 04:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Who would have thought the old word had so much blood in him? Rich Farmbrough 11:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I see you have been reverting the American "obligated" to the British "obliged" even on American topics and pages that were written in AmEn. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English states that if the page is regarding a specific country (i.e., the US) then that country's style of English should be used. I am refering specifically to the MLB, NBA and US political pages you altered. It seems like you are compromizing the spirit of the guidelines in favor of your personal preference. The word "obligated" conveys a much stronger meaning on these pages and is languisticly more appropriate in American English. Would you mind please stop altering the word on the pages that are already written in American English? Have a good day!--CrazyTalk 19:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hallo. Rather than ugliness, redundancy is a valid criterion for removing parts of words, and the 'at' of obligated appears to be redundant even in this context. I say this as an English graduate and as a lawyer. I'm not sure I would bother editing an article just for the sake of it though. DavidFarmbrough 17:14 (BST) 12 September 2005

alex is right and teal is wrong. obligate and oblige is the same thing

Orientated/oriented

Hi, a friendly heads-up: orientated is the usual British English spelling, so I use it in my articles. I appreciate the thought, though. ;) Mark¹ 04:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

With both these words the shorter (orient, oblige) is more widely used, and acceptable on both sides of the Atlantic. The extra syllable makes one (orientate) grate on American ears, the other (obligate) on British. It seems sensible to use the shorter version, but <meh>, if anyone wants to change my edits back, I'm not likely to be bothered. Rich Farmbrough 12:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

47, 11^6

Thanks for the 47 from the Doctor's aria. It's a little reaching, but I've added it to my list. Thanks also for the note about 11^6. I see PrimeFan added it to 1000000 (number) (together with 1331^2) but didn't tell me about it. I thought this number was on that sequence about the dying rabbits. ShutterBugTrekker 22:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sitaxsentan

Now you've written sitaxsentan, would you mind also writing endothelin and bosentan? I now next to nothing about it but it sounds fascinating. JFW | T@lk 21:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Psalms of Confession

Thanks. Eugene van der Pijll 11:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

PlanetMath Exchange project

Hi Rich, welcome to the PlanetMath Exchange project! I've modified slightly the entries you made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange/05-XX Combinatorics, to be consistent with the other entries and the style that has developed in the project. Hope you don't mind ;-) Thanks for contributing, It is a big project and we can use all the help we can get. You might want to consider adding your name to the "Participants" list at the bottom of the projects page here. Again thanks for helping out. Paul August ☎ 22:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)