User talk:Salix alba/Archive 2

Altman Photos

It is my opinion that the Apostle12 (talk · contribs) account either belongs to Founders4 (talk · contribs) or is a meatpuppet. He gave Wikipedia permission to use the photographs, but when the content of the article was closely examined for original research and references, he gathered up his toys and ran running home, taking the photos with him. This is his way of "punishing" Wikipedia. It's extremely childish, and I wonder if we can abide by it. The photos were released in good faith, and now that Founders4's personal bias has been culled from the article, the photos have been removed in bad faith. It's sad that certain people would use Wikipedia to advance their own personal agendas, but there you have it. —Viriditas | Talk 01:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I decided to change my name from "Founders4" to "Apostle12." I made this change in an attempt to insulate myself from repeated slanderous attacks by Viriditas (talk · contribs); no sockpuppetry was involved. The above accusation is fairly typical of the attacks I have endured, especially the subtle twisting of truth. For example, I possess neither the authority to release Robert Altman's photos "in good faith," nor to remove them "in bad faith".

The timing of the removal of Robert Altman's photos from the "Hippie" article was coincidental and had nothing to do with "gathering up...toys and...running home." Robert requested their removal, and I felt honor-bound to comply. Nor was there any motivation to "punish Wikipedia." My only disenchantment with Wikipedia concerns Viriditas himself and the unwillingness of Wikipedia administrators to control his behavior.

I made the original request asking Robert to allow the use of his work in the "Hippie" article; he granted his consent, and I accomplished the upload of the original four photos. During subsequent weeks, Robert uploaded approximately sixteen others himself. I had nothing to do with Robert's decision to remove his entire collection from Wikipedia, which was motivated by growing awareness of his exposure due to loss of copyright protection.

I hope Wikipedia finds some method of copyright protection that will allow Robert to include the four excellent photos that appeared in the "Hippie" article, as well as inclusion of the many other photos in his collection.

I also hope that Wikipedia will someday choose to curb offensive behavior so that the extant reality of "survival of the most obnoxious" does not force me (and other editors) to abandon the project altogether. Apostle12 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Altman contacted me and asked me to remove them from the article, which I did as a favor to him. He would like them removed completely from Wikipedia, because he did not fully understand the extent to which he was compromising his copyright protection when he originally granted permission to use them. I don't know how to help with that. Do you? Apostle12 06:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert has replied by email

Dear Richard: Thank you for taking the time to check with me about this; one of the very good sides to the Wikipedia community.

Yes, I did specifically ask the user you've mentioned to kindly take the time and remove my photos on the "Hippy" page. He is a great supporter and contributor of Wikipedia and has become a staunch friend of mine.

As I wrote to another wiki 'sheriff" (who took first took it upon himself to have all my other contributions (see User talk:robertmark) ultimately removed.

I've posted a question on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. It might be possible to keep some image on Robert Altman (photographer) as Wikipedia:Fair use. --Salix alba (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you find a method that will allow Robert's photos to remain on Wikipedia. He is supportive of Wikipedia and his only reason for asking that they be removed is that he depends on income derived from the commercial use of his work. I believe Wikipedia needs to create a specific category that will allow the inclusion of great photography while retaining copyright protection. Shouldn't be too difficult. Apostle12 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Rosencomet.com

Hi, thanks for your comments. I agree that for some of the artists, appearance at starwood might be notable enough to deserve mention. I have looked at a number of these artists "official web sites", and there are quite a few that do not mention starwood, and so I would imagine that for these artists, appearance at starwood should not receive any more weight than appearance at other venues. However, the real question that is on my mind is what to do next. User:Calton, User:Timmy12, and I, have all deleted rosencomet.com links, and they have just been reinserted. Spam warnings have been left on the inserter's talk pages. Will an admin step in and make a statement to these users? Should we repeat the process of deleting the links? I would appreciate advice on this. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL

Then I strongly suggest you get consensus to change the wording on the main page of the guideline as it currently says:

Links normally to be avoided

7. Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself.

semper fi — Moe 00:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can see where some debate might be and I can also see where removing them may be helpful until they are proven to be correctly indentifyed as the subjects MySpace. If they are proven, my apologizes for removing them. semper fi — Moe 00:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

NPA

Being called a "dick" by a spam-enabling revert warrior seemingly stalking my edits doesn't put me in the best of moods. --Calton | Talk 08:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How many Rosencomet.com links are too many?

Use this: linkspamming by Rosencomet (talk · contribs). There are 115 links from Wikipedia to Rosencomet as of now. Timmy12 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hangs head in shame ;-). There 237 to Plants for a Future (of which I'm webmaster) [1], [2]. However, because of vanity articles I've added only about about 5 of these. The rest of these have been added by other wikipedians, because they think it is a good resource. In general this is the way things should happen with individual article editors adding links as they see fit rather than many links added by one editor.

So there no hard and fast rule as to the number of links. Perhaphs better is to ask the broader question as to when its appropriate to list the the places a particular has performed. This really comes down to is it a notable fact. Say playing at Woodstock Festival is probably notable, as might be headlining at Glastonbury Festival. However, for other performers, with a string of other gigs, then playing on one of the smaller stages at Glasonbury probably would not be notable. This really boils down to is the gig a high spot in the performers carear. There might also be a case for listing if the artist has very close ties with the event, with far more regular appearances at one festival than others, hopefully with some third party source to make the link. Policy-wise we can think of undue weight - is it undue weight to list just one gig out of many, and I'd probably say yes. The third reason for listing is if it helps explain the artist and their work. For example I've included that Kneehigh Theatre have performed at a outdoor castle as it gives a flavor to their work. --Salix alba (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

Hi, I'm happy you like it, as of now (if you look at my contribs) I go at random in order to tag as many articles as possibles with whatever WProject tags there are. By doing that, I will thus make every articles be fathered by a wikiproject and all the “assessable articles” be assessed and taken into consideration by mathbot. I used to work on the bio wikiproject doing it with AWB but someone was pissed for reviewing 2-3 articles per minutes so I stopped being so focused. If you want me to help with the math tagging, I can lend a hand but Mathematics isn't my cup of tea and as I see these articles (sometimes only formulas without giving details of what they mean) I will tend to give poorer ratings. Lincher 12:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Starwood Festival

Please explain to me why the section you excised is "ad like". First, though, take a look at the Burning Man article. (not that I have anything against them)

An ad would say "a spectacular life-changing experience" or "great value at a great price" or "the finest in the world", or some other ad copy. The "Features of the event" section is just that: a list of some of the things you would find there if you, like the author of the encyclopedia article, had been there. It doesn't say why a sweat lodge is wonderful or what its benefits are, it doesn't say "you'll thrill to the pulsing rhythms" or "cool off in the placid waters of the pool" or " your mind will expand, your spirit will soar, and your soul will be nurtured". It just lists some of the structures, the existence of some resources, and adds to a complete "encyclopedic" description of the event.

Look at the Grand Canyon article, for instance. It doesn't just give the length and depth. It presents a history, offers pictures, discusses who comes to it and what they do there; hiking, climbing, endurance runners. Who has been there, why it's unique.

Look at the Woodstock article. The Glastonbury Festival. Renaissance Fair. Does this simple list really constitute making the article into an ad? Does it really not make the description more complete? Rosencomet 21:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rosencomet, with one exception--listing of the times. If those are eliminated, this section becomes purely general information, and I think it should be included. Apostle12 04:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

RefDeskBot

Yes, I see the problem there. It's something I can fix (by, as you suggested, making the whole ref desk a collection of archive days, transcluded) - this is something we'd need to discuss at the RefDesk talk page first though, to get a consensus before making such a big change, so I'd suggest you leave a message at WT:RD. Sorry I can't be of more help right now, but I'd like to get a consensus first, because this does radically chagne the wikitext of the main page. Thanks, :) Martinp23 13:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks - it's fairly easy for me to do in practice, though I'll only be able to start next weekend, due to real life. Thanks, Martinp23 13:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

List of plants with edible leaves

Hi, Rich. I've been working on List of plants with edible leaves lately, and thought you might be interested. I think that I'd mentioned to you that I'd put together a decent sized XML-based DB of plant info, along with a set of tools (in Python) that transform it into and out of all sorts of other forms. I've written a formatter that produces WP markup, and am using it to generate (most of) the content of List of plants with edible leaves. Any comments would be very welcome! Waitak 15:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Environmentalism as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 18:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for congratulating me for not being a sockpuppet

Everyone else was disappointed, I guess. In any event it did me no good to be cleared and I am exhaused from the months of effort. I have offered User:999 ane User:Hanuman Das a deal. I will check edit histories and if their name (or User:Ekajati is there), I will leave the article alone. I am hoping they take me up on it. If not, and maybe even if they do, I will go away as Wikipedia has turned out not to be much fun anyway.

Have you ever read my user page? I'm curious because you don't really seem to know what has been happening to me from almost the day I started. I am depressed that it is allowed to a new person this way. And I have been clueless on how to get help -- and it turns out there isn't any anyway. In fact, I get depressed anyway everytime I log on now as there is always an ugly message for me. Timmy12 08:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[[3]] I post crazy paranoia. I never even got a welcome letter from Wikipedia. 999 and Hamanum Das and Ekajati accused me of being Mattisse after I had been on Wikipedia one week. I was a newbie and still am because I am too aftraid to use Wikipedia. And the people that helped get me are on the Starwood discussion page making fun of me. Like User:Septegram who snuck around and reported on me to Hamunam Das and Ekajaki to get me in trouble. Now he acts superior, like he did some good., I got no good out of this, All the accusations were against me. But I got no help became everyone is only interested in Mattisse. Timmy12 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

mediation cabal doesn't relate to me.

The problem stated is not one I can relate to. I have no interest in it. It does not pertain to me. It is a setup -- a den of lions waiting for me to step in to attack me again. (You forget, I've been through this before -- three months of sockpuppet accusations and, when that didn't work, endless An/I attacks.) But I credit you with innovation -- a Mediation Cabal -- even if you did go about it in a very unorthodox way compared to the others I have observed. (I'm going to send you a link to a normal Mediation Cabal so you can see what one looks like.)

I have no beef with Rosencomet anyway. He has been encouraged by 999, Hunamun Das, Ekajaki and you. It's not so much his fault. I think he is confused like me.

Besides, I don't care anymore what happens to Starwood or how much spam is on Wikipedia. My Wikipedia improvement drive is over. I noticed the spam links from Rosencomet are up to 125, now that the Starwood articles are being "improved" lately by you and the others. What a farce. I'm not wasting energy on this anymore. The direction is clear. It's not like it matters what the outcome of the Mediation Cabel is anyway. After all, the Admins on my side dropped out of the Starwood improvement editing quickly after their edits got reverted -- they decided not to bother anymore. If they don't care enough about Wikipedia to put energy into it, why should I? My idealism is over.

After the AN/I incidents on October 27, and the endless sockpuppet accusations, I know I don't stand a chance against User:Hanuman Das and his cohorts anyway. Why expose myself to more abuse? They disregard warnings from admins and break rules consistently and no one seems to notice. The Mediation Cabal wouldn't be necessary if they were held to the same rules as everyone else. The only person who defended me against the consistantly nasty personal attacks in edit summaries and talk pages was BostonMA. This mediation does not pertain to me. I was not breaking rules, harassing others, or making personal attacks in edit summaries or talk pages.

Anyway, you all would swamp me. I am alone. I am not sophisticated computer-wise plus I have a dialup connection that's always cuts off when I try to save what I've written and I have to redial at every step. Defending myself on AN/I has been exhausting, depressing and taken way too much of my time. I have no energy left after the last several months of concerted assaults to prolong this anymore. And all I would get is more grief -- even if nothing was conceded to me there would be more attacks in more innovative ways. It would not stop. So I concede and give you your articles. You've won. You own them.

So there is nothing to mediate as far as I am concerned. Since I was the target anyway, it seems to me that leaves the Mediation Cabal with nothing to do. Timmy12 10:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

curious

I'm curious about the Mediation Cabel you have set up and how you settled on the particluar issues, article and people in your decision to file for one. So much has gone on, it doesn't seem quite right that you should focus on Timmy12. Look at the history of the article you singled out, Silver Ravenwolf: [4]. It's rather mild compared to some of the really rough stuff that's been going on elsewhere in the Starwood articles' edit histories. And what about the whole suite of articles? (Some have been deleted now, but they will rise again.)

• Starwood Festival
• Brushwood Folklore Center
• WinterStar Symposium
• Winterstar Symposium
• SpiritDrum Festival
• Trance Mission
• Association for Consciousness Exploration

You worry about internal links in the Starwood Festival article [5], but why single out that one and not care about Winterstar Symposium [6] or Association for Consciousness Exploration [7]?

I don't understand what you are doing here, except making trouble for Timmy12. I thought you were legit and I expected more from you, I guess. I am disappointed -- not that it matters if I am. Shows that I still have a little smattering of emotion about Wikipedia that I can actually experience an emotion about the place -- even so mild a one as disappointment. Must have been that I had some lingering expectations that there was something right in the world. Mattisse(talk) 17:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree that I have probably not started this in the best way, appologies for all. The first step in the process was to get a mediator willing to act in the case. Thats now been done and User:Geo.plrd has agreed to act as a mediator. Its the frist time I've participated in any dispute resolution so I'm learning the ropes at the moment.

The reason for focus on Timmy12 and Hanuman Das seems is basically because they seem to be the two having the biggest problems with each other, and hence most in need of some way of resolving the dispute. I guess that others can add themselves to the case if they wish.

I'm waiting for a response from the mediator before proceeding. --Salix alba (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, does anyone even know about it? I only found out accidently, and even now I can't find it most of the time -- it's so obscurely mentioned -- but now I have a link to it so I can keep up with poor Timmy12's mauling. I have a feeling he won't be around much longer. Everone else has been smart enough to be driven away. Poor him for thinking he can stick it out -- or maybe he is just not adaptively paranoid enough. Seems like he believes in being up front which is certainly not the way to go about things around here. I'd advise you to consult with BostonMA -- he is so smart (and kind) but he is overwhelmed with his own grievous problems right now on Wikipdeia and I wouldn't want to burden him more with this trivial junk. Well, we will see if this arbitrator is a wimp or not. I took a look at the links involved in the Silver Raven (or whatever the name is) and it is not hard to determine the relative value of the links being quibbled over. It's really not a mediation question if the policies and guidlelines mean anything -- but I learned long ago they do not. Mattisse(talk) 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think everyone has been driven away, look at the speed User:Hanuman Das was blocked for his personal attack on your page, look at the number of people who have reverted Rosencomet on Starwood [8], including some several administrators. More and more people are becoming the aware of this now. Mdiation Cable is the first step in dispute resolution if that does not work there are other avenue which have more bite. --Salix alba (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I received that attack just now. Rather scary. He's blocked? (Doesn't look like it - I just check his site.) Hope you are right. Mattisse(talk) 12:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just checked Starwood via your link above. [9]. No one has touched since November 4, and that was you. Mattisse(talk) 12:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Before that (2nd/3rd) you see User:Ehheh, User:Bunchofgrapes (admin), User:Dmcdevit (arbitrator), User:FloNight (admin), and User:Bishonen all reverted Rosencomet/Ekajati. --Salix alba (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again.[10]This is why you are not going to get Timmy12 involved. It's all too aggressive. Mattisse(talk) 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your bot request has been approved for trials, please see the bot request page for details. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Starwood Mediation

I will agree to participate in the mediation, although not very happily :-(. Has a page been created for discussion? Sincerely, --

Please read [11]. I'm asking you to let him off the hook on this one. He is engaging in another right now and is sad enough about that. ~~

question

Should I be preparing for something?[12] An RFC? How do I find out if he is filing one against me? Mattisse(talk) 21:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

For my experience an RfC doesn't acheive much. For the most part they seem to be ignored. Means of resolving disputes in level of severity are

1. Mediation Cabel - where we are now
2. WP:RFM the Mediation commitee - step two in resolving disputes, currently very busy
3. WP:RFAR requests for arbitration

you should generall go through them in order, only going up the scale if the dispute cannot be solved by lesser means. All these can cut both way, which is why its important to always keep your head.

The key question to mean seems to be is it notable to list the fact than an artist performed at starwood? For this it really requires a third party source, i.e. not the Starwood or ACE wesites. There may well be some artists for which this holds, but a mear listing of tour dates does not seem to be enought to establish notability. --Salix alba (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That's the way it seems to me too -- but they are going to so much trouble I wasn't sure. Mattisse(talk) 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do so much appreciate your message (again I say), as I did have a total unbelieving freak out before and you having a little bit of faith in me means so much. I'm trying to live up to it, as you did give me anothe chance in your words written long ago. Reciving some support does count. Thank you. Timmy12 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Do you think that I should remove my talk page? Is this what you mean when you say that I "removed posts from the other" or do you mean the I "removed posts fron the other" talk page, deleting them off that page? Please tell me what I am doing wrong as I not wanting to go off the handle like before. I did copy stuff and put it on my talk page because I was so freaked out that no one was understanding and I wanted people to see and help me. Now I see it's a mess. Timmy12 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I did get a message that I was defending myself too much and in too much frenzy when incidents were filed against me. (I am screaming inside my head). I don't want to repeat all that again so maybe silent is better. I just don't want you to think I am uncooperative. I guess my message refusing the cabal which you took the time to set up wasn't very nice. It took me a long time to write it but I did't appreciate your big, huge step to formally resolve all this in a neutral way. Everything else has been charges filed against me. I want to cooperate. I just don't know how to do it. Timmy12 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it can be a tricky game understanding the ropes in wikipedia, extreme reactions of any sort don't seem to work and just cause trouble. Hopefully people can just view this as a content dispute about when it is appropriate to link to to places performers has performed, an put all the past disputes behind them.

Have a break and do something else on wikipedia, find a few nice pictures to put on your user page, or write some content. I had a good time on monday writing a small article on Walter Segal a green architect, it was quite refreshing to actually write some content rather than getting drawn into endless discussions. --Salix alba (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the mediator? Isn't he supposed to say something? When I look there I see no mediator and no mediation. Timmy12 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've not heard anything from him, I left a note on his user page a week ago. --Salix alba (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for answering my question put to the Math reference desk. --Peter Kirby 16:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mattisse

I have never been informed of any mediation. Looking at 999's talk page, it doesn't appear that he was informed of any mediation either. Don't you think it a bit disingenuous of accusing us of not engaging in mediation about which we have never been informed? I suggest that that criticism be removed from your response. I was unaware of any mediation request until you added that to the RfC, which was then already in progress. —Hanuman Das 10:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

After I was blocked? How was I supposed to act on it? And you didn't inform 999: He was the one who started the RfC, and I think it is way past time for one to be opened and thus support it. —Hanuman Das 11:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

look

This is only one of many, this on Peggy Sue [13] . Along the same lines, I discovered that on one day alone, October 14, User:Hanuman Das did something to 39 articles I had wrtten. On the day before yesterday, when every article I wrote was immediately tagged with "merge" or something, I now discover it was 999 doing it. He entered into the talk pages of every comment I made. These are only a few examples. Should I bother with all this? I don't feel like it -- but if I look through their contribution histories, I see they (all three, including Ekajaki} have been constantly tagging my articles, entering into other people's talk pages to degrade ny comment, etc. (I didn't know it at the time, but BostonMA did some and questioned Hanamun Das but got no answer -- it's rediculous and I am tired.) User:JzG thinks User:999 is a sock puppet.[14] Tell me to stop and do something else! Mattisse(talk) 17:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you look, Mattisse. That's precisely what this complaint is about, you stalking someone precisely like that. You don't like it either, do you? Why is it OK for you to stalk Rosencomet and point out every flaw you think you in your opinion see in his articles? Are you surprised that people complain? But if someone does the same to you, pointing out or changing legitmate problems with "your" articles, you squeal like a stuck pig. Come on now, if there is nothing wrong with your behavior, there is nothing wrong with mine if I choose to follow you around and point out flaws in your articles. RIght? Can't have it both ways, can we? —Hanuman Das 00:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hunting sockpuppets is a horible buissness, its a failure of WP:AGF and destabilises the community. While having sockpuppets is fround upon its not against policy, only using socks to avoid blocks, vote more than once or similar activities. I'd say 999 and Hanamun are probably not socks, mainly for the reason than Hanamum spent the last two days ammassing links on his talk page, if 999 had been a sock then he could have easily used 999 to insert them into the RfC.

Stop and do something else! If you fancy something to do theres a lot of work needed in grading articles. /Project league table lists various wikiprojects and the number of unassessed articles in each project. You could pick a project and help grade some articles, it can be quite a nice task as you get to look over a wide range of articles with quite a critical eye. Wikipedia:Esperanza might also be worth a look, possibly the friendly place on wikipedia. --Salix alba (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw a TV program yesterday on Jacques-Louis David a painter at the time of the French Revolution. One of the people mentioned there was Jean-Paul Marat who saw conspiracy everywhere and sent many to their deaths. There seems to be a similarity to the mind set of sockpuppet hunters and with similar tragic consequences. Not a place you want to go. --Salix alba (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm working on several India projects, colaborating on the temples with Dineshkannambadi, plus doing rivers, dams, waterwalls, and hydroelectric projects on the side. I took time out over the last few days to write articles on songs that were on the most needed song list like Lawdy Miss Clawdy, Teardrops from My Eyes, The Things That I Used to Do, Mint Julep, Searchin', Work With Me, Annie, Autumn Leaves (song), and (ironically} Yakety Yak. Plus Rudy Toombs as songwriters never get credit, and Ralph Bass as A&R men never get credit. Plus some record labels Trumpet Records, Federal Records and Meteor Records Also, I worked with someone on an Amos Milburn article which we fixed up nicely. And did an article on KFFA where King Biscut Hour started. So it is fine with me not to waste my time on that stuff. I trust your judgment. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 19:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I was in a play, Marat de Sade, where the actor playing the lead role of Jean-Paul Marat actually said all his lines from the bathtub, looking just like the David painting! Mattisse(talk) 19:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mattisse

Hi. I've looked over the RfC and your response. While I think 999 & H.D.'s arguments identifying Timmy12 and additional sockpuppets are more or less convincing, I'd like to note that I did not participate in creating the RfC and I am not sure whether I am going to sign it or not. Thus I take exception to your point 7...

7. By perpetuating the sockpuppet allegations User:Hanuman Das, User:999, User:Ekajati and User:999 are failing to assume good faith. They are failing to attempt to seek comnsensus on the underlying content issue, instead relying on personal attacks.

I don't believe I've accused Timmy12 of being a sock since the RFCU, and I am not one of the authors of the RfC, so please remove my name from that list. Also, you've got 999 listed twice. That's 1998! :-) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[15] --BostonMA ^talk 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. (BostonMA, please read that as "since the RFCU returned a negative result", which is what I meant. The RFCU had not been processed at that point.) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks at RD talk

Thank you for helping out at the RD talk. Since I've taken a vow of silence (ignoring) on that subject, I appreciate all the help I can get.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 00:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, two votes of thanks for four words! I agree the conversation is going nowhere. --Salix alba (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

But the words do seem to go on, and on, and... --hydnjo talk 01:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And since you're not a newcomer (almost a year) please feel free to chime in with your thoughts wherever. I'll look forward to "seeing" your points of view wherever you're comfortable expressing them. Oh, and very nice user page. Call 'em like you see 'em is refreshing around here. --hydnjo talk 01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! First time! —Hanuman Das 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Admins can see how many people are watching a page? How? (I'm an admin.) Herostratus 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I was sort of mistaken Special:Unwatchedpages lets admins see pages with noone watching them. --Salix alba (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

your question

I saw that you asked how to proceed on the RFC. I just looked up an old one we had on the Fidel Castro article Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää. It was filed in early July, I believe. And nothing has happened. It's still open. So that is nearly 5 months that it has been open. Mattisse(talk) 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Starwood Mediation again

Hi, I do not believe that my discussions with Rosencomet in the Starwood mediation have very productive. I'm inclined to give up discussing with him/her at this point. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I posted a question at the Starwood Mediation and Rosencomet answered back that I should wait a couple of weeks and/or Google to get neopagan information on Jeff McBride. He appears to be a magician but Starwood has taken over his article. Where is the mediator? I put some work into asking the question, but what is the point of doing so? Rosencomet is back at work again. Mattisse(talk) 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! Check out Musart. it is waiting in the wings to have bunches of names added. Mattisse(talk) 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Check this out [16] from Answers.com If, by chance, you think this is minor. Mattisse(talk) 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you would weigh in on the Andrew Cohen talk page (a Starwood Festival speaker) as there is a discussion on what type of links to include as external links. The particular link in question may not be a good example to defend, but at least it's the start of a general discussion. Mattisse(talk) 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Homotopy groups of spheres image

Thanks for adding the S2 image, Image:P1S2all.jpg. I think it would be improved if you added a fifth sphere with the the circle shrunk to a single point. I don't think non-mathematicain readers will necessarily understand that the small circle in the last image can be collapsed. --agr 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about Correlation implies causation vote

At what point do we just move the page? Do we have to wait a certain amount of time? – Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice edit on the new page. I was going to do that later today, but you did a great job. Thanks! – Chris53516 ^(Talk) 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Homotopy groups of spheres on WP:GA/R

Hello Salix alba,

I'd like to apologize if I was excessively snarky on the WP:GA/R review of Homotopy groups of spheres. I was dealing with a nontrivial extra-Wiki stress-level (taking 4 PhD-level classes plus one 200-level Chinese course; and it's final exams/term papers crunch time). I shouldn't have let extra-wiki stress spill on-wiki, but didn't realize it at the time. A minor positive side-benefit is that I have learned from the experience.

Best Regards, --Ling.Nut 19:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a PhD in Applied Linguistics. The "Applied" bit is supposed to mean that it's half linguistics and half TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of other Languages). But since I already have an MA in TESOL, I loaded up on Ling. classes. Currently writing one paper about reduplication in Formosan languages & one about nominalization & "headless relatives" in Formosan languages as well. "Headless relatives" sounds like the name of a horror film. ;-) Finished two other papers in the past couple days. Yikes.

--Ling.Nut 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite right!

Re your last edit to Permaculture - quite right, I never said that!!! quercus robur 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Most odd I don't understand how it got in. Maybe the resurgence page has changed, since I added the link. --Salix alba (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from my response to you on the permaculture email list;

> > Strangely the reference [5 = > http://www.resurgence.org/bookshelf/burnett0805.htm], which I added, did > not support the claim. I think this critique is more of a critique of > permaculture as a synonym for forest gardening.

Thats a link to my review of pat whitefield's new(ish) book - it was certainly not intended as a critique of either permaculture or forest gardening, rather that until pat's book had been published most of the 'heavyweight' permaculture books on the market (ie, principally Mollison's Designers manual) hadn't really been oriented towards the cool temperate conditions of the UK and had principally addressed the tropics and drylands. i've always maintained (and I hope my review reflects this) that permaculture is a set of ethics, principles and design methodologies applicable to any circumstances or situations, and shouldn't be confused with techniques and strategies which are location specific.

-- Graham Burnett

Integrated Design for Local Environmental Resources

www.spiralseed.co.uk quercus robur 23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So it probably worth mentioning something along these lines. The distinction between different environments is an important one. --Salix alba (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

However my comment that some critics have argued that permaculture is best suited to tropical or desert conditions, but isn't suitable for a cool temperate country such as the UK. is annecdotal and unreferenced in that review, its a comment I've heard made for example by students on design courses or at organic gardening meetings, generally by people who misunderstand what permaculture is actually all about. Also the likes of Bob Flowerdew who seems to willfully go out of his way to fail to understand and misrepresent permaculture in his books.

And to put my comment in context, I go on to say However, all that is set to change with the publication of The Earth Care Manual, the first fully comprehensive permaculture designers' handbook specifically written for British conditions. I agree that the permaculture article needs critical inputs if it is to be encylopedic, but as a self-confessed advocate of permaculture I'm not the man to be putting that critical input in - which is partly why I tend to leave the wikipedia permaculture article alone!!! (and the vegan article - again as a blatant advocate my own POVs make it difficult to remain unbiased and consequently embroiled in edit wars... quercus robur 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, maybe I could dig through my small collection of Bob Flowerdew coffee table books and find his relevant disparaging remarks about permaculture and add these as references. But as I say, i.m convinced he willfully misunderstands and misreperesents permaculture in order to look smugly superior in front of his target audience (see what i mean?? I'm POV on the subject!!!!) quercus robur 01:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

references for scientific community

Hi Salix alba,

Please see 'this. Thanks! :-) --Ling.Nut 00:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been flagged as an inactive request set to expire shortly. Please see the request page for details. -- RM 13:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Kent alumni

Hi I've see you're a Kent alumnus. There's a userbox created for Kent students and alumni, which will also add people to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Kent. You can add the template to your user page (this will automatically add you to the category): {{User UKC}}

KENT	This user attends or attended the University of Kent.

Timrollpickering 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Wharever happens, I have been poking around (and learning more), I want tho thak you so much for the genuine kindness you have shown me. Your are truly a generous person and I want to say that I deeply appreciate you for that. You had faith in me, and I have tried to live up to it and be the best editor within my capabilities. It is in your tryig to be just to me that I appreciate so much. You are a good person. I don't know how to express it. Your honesty I have taken it to heart. I beelive you are a wise perrson. You have taught me so much by your behevour. Thank you with deepness. Sincesly, Mattisse 03:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 01:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Should I use your advice from last time on this one too? You were right before -- you said you thought they would shoot themselves in the foot. Maybe that's what is happening. Sincerely, --Mattisse 03:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

CFD on Category:Animal rights activists

Hi. If you are interested or can find the time, could you please comment on this CFD? I value your informed opinion, regardless of the outcome. —Viriditas | Talk 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to the discussion. I think it's safe to assume that supporters of this CFD would be in favor of your proposal (perhaps with some modifications by others) as subcats of Category:Animal rights activists so that we can sort and cross-reference the Activists cat. Would you be interested in specifying your comment as just a comment or adding support with the proviso of the following subcats or something similar? I think supporting the creation of the parent category will help implement your proposal, which I view as subcats. Your idea is not only a good one, but will help make the categorization process more accurate. —Viriditas | Talk 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lquilter has initiated a discussion on Category talk:Activists; Your participation would be greatly appreciated. —Viriditas | Talk 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass

He is doing this again. Point of reference: this delete discussion. Would you like the honors to propose deletion? Mhym 18:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Current article, is a big improvment on previous versons which had more spin than you could beleive. As he probably notable for the Zariski surface work I'm happy to leave it for now, although I'm watching it closely. --Salix alba (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of knot theory

Hi Richard. I noticed you're quite involved in efforts to improve articles and all that. You've also managed to keep up on the stuff about citations and so forth. If you can take some time to look over my rewrite of Knot theory, I would greatly appreciate any comments (please put them on the draft's talk page). Thanks. C S (Talk) 18:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Bad Bill Tucker pointed you out to me. There is a huge hole in Wikipedia articles related to Mental Health, but not necessarily psychology. These are from more of a peer perspective. Would you be interested in Wikiproject Mental Health if I started it? Thanks for your response, NinaOdell | Talk 04:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

PIOTR BLASS

DEAR SALIX ALBA THANK YOU FOR NOT GOING ALONG WITH MHYM. AS FOR SOLIDARITY LINKS:I AM A POLISH JEW FROM HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS FAMILY. I GREW UP WITH ADAM MICHNIK AND FOLLOWED HIS MOVEMENT FROM VERY EARLY AGE. ON MARCH 8 1968 I PARTICIPATED IN THE STUDENT PROTEST THAT WAS THE STARTING POINT OF MAJOR OPPOSITION IN POLAND. SOLIDARITY AROSE IN DUE COURSE AS YOU KNOW. MY PICTURE APPEARED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT JUST AFTER MARCH EVENTS OF 1968. I WAS EXPELLED FROM WARSAW UNIVERSITY AND FORCED TO EMIGRATE. FROM 1968 TO 1989 I SUPPORTED THE FREEDOM MOVEMENT IN POLAND THROUGH LECTURES,PETITIONS AND A DIRECT VISIT AT THE HEIGHT OF MARSHALL LAW. A LOT OF THIS WAS DONE QUIETLY FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. IF YOU NEED IT FOR WIKIPEDIA I CAN SUBMIT LETTERS FROM JANUSZ WEISS AND THE MICHNIK FAMILY. ALSO THE WORK WITH THE PILSUDZKI FOLLOWERS CAN BE SO DOCUMENTED PLEASE LET ME KNOW. THANKS BEST REGARDS PIOTREK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.163.189.9 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I took the article to AfD -- please chime in. Looks like I may be in for some all-caps messages, though. Please do let me know if I was wrong to do so! best, bikeable (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) As for solidarity from WP:AUTO If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. while a letter could confirm things it does not meet the rules on relable sources. If there was a book published on the history of solidarity where your name was mentioned then this would be OK, if there was some newspaper article then that would also be OK. Both would indicate a degree of importance. I know its tough, there are a lot of protest which I took part in, and organised, which have not made it to the history books. We do these things for the cause and not for the fame they bring. --Salix alba (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Polar coordinate system

Hi Salix alba. Polar coordinate system is up for FA at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polar coordinate system; if you'd like to help out with the complaints there or !vote, now's the time :-) —Mets501 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass palm beach post article

Write-in gubernatorial hopeful takes an Einstein approach By Will Vash

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Sunday, August 27, 2006

BOYNTON BEACH ” Surrounded by a champion chess player, a bored teen reading a book and a businessman scrawling appointments in his calendar, Florida gubernatorial candidate Piotr Blass stood out as the most animated figure sipping coffee at the Barnes & Noble cafe on a recent afternoon.

The professor's salt-gray hair flopped across his brow as he gyrated his arms around the small oval table, scribbling phrases, mathematical concepts and formulas on a sheet of printer paper to explain why a write-in candidate from Boynton Beach deserved to be taken seriously in November.

"I am a self-actualized person, like Gandhi. My goal is to really make a difference," Blass said as his campaign aide, a 17-year-old North Broward Preparatory student Blass mentors, looked on. "The rest of them seem to be bureaucrats wearing suits."

The 57-year-old's enthusiasm for virtually any subject, from his love of Israel to the corruption he believes pervades the political system, comes out in a tide of emotion. He has always had strong convictions, he said, and his experiences in 2003 teaching troubled teens at the Bay Point Schools in South Florida compelled him to run for political office.

An early proponent of the Internet who formulated what is believed to be the first high-level online math journal, Blass may be the first state candidate to openly base his platform on Albert Einstein's statements on politics, which Blass said explain how the political system is rigged toward the major parties. That makes new technology the key to his campaign.

"The Web is a perpendicular vector," he said, lapsing into the world of mathematics. "The Web is my best hope."

Robert Watson, associate professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University, said Einstein had plenty of views on politics.

"Einstein had the sense that individuals would encounter great opposition from the mediocrity and the status quo of the dominant institutions," Watson said.

Long-shot campaigns can serve a purpose, said Susan MacManus, a University of South Florida political scientist who studies voting patterns in Florida. Often they are the first to push environmental and health issues that ultimately gain popular support, she said.

Filing as a write-in candidate is surprisingly easy and costs nothing. Fighting for attention with the major parties, who have loads of money and plenty of volunteers, is nearly impossible, she said.

"I always applaud anyone who decides to run," MacManus said. "The death knell of our democracy is not having a choice."

Born in Poland on Sept. 13, 1948, Blass' father was a finance professor in Warsaw, his mother a lawyer and diplomat. He left in 1968 for the United States, where he attended the University of Michigan and Harvard University. Blass said he served in an artillery unit of the Israeli army in the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and fought to keep Egyptian tanks from crossing the Suez Canal.

He began his professional teaching career at the University of Michigan and now teaches computer math at City College in Fort Lauderdale and a free advanced math seminar at FAU.

This is Blass' second write-in campaign. He ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 2004. He received 16 votes, according to the Florida Division of Elections.

Since he registered to vote in Florida in 1988, Blass has voted in all eligible elections through 2002. Blass, who is the father of three sons, said he did not vote in the 2004 elections because of some family matters.

When it comes to the state, he has some definite goals.

"Florida needs to become the center of world space travel and colonization," Blass said.

His priorities also are alternative energy, universal health care and a free college education. Everglades restoration and political corruption are issues.

Mike Razar, a retired math professor who also taught at the University of Michigan, met Blass in the 1970s when both were students at Harvard. They worked on a couple of high-level math problems together and have kept in touch. And he said Blass' love of Einstein and Gandhi are not campaign ploys €” he's been touting them for 30 years.

"Piotr is a highly compassionate individual with a great sense of honesty and fair play," Razar said. "He's always been an idealist."

Trial category intersection

You participated in an old thread about this at the assessment project. Please see here for a suggestion to use the trial category intersection to combine article importance and ratings. Carcharoth 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwood Arb: Thanks for the AGF and Civility note

I think your AFG and Civility note under proposed principles in the Starwood Arbcom case is quite good. I'm the first to admit I've had lapses through frustration with the principle parties in this matter but I most certainly support it and have tried my best to stay calm and reasonable. I particularly hear clearly your comment about losing focus on the central issues of this case. I'm currently trying to recapture that with simple, extremely well supported findings of fact and proposed principles. Of course, it is difficult to separate some personalities from the issues. The conflict of personalities is, I believe, a distraction from the basic and ongoing violations of policy. It may be that when all the folderall is stripped away there is less of a case but I don't think so. Thanks for your contributions to the discussion. They are usually down-to-earth, deal with the basics of the issue, and advance the process. I sincerely desire this matter be resolved. I dislike the time and energy it has taken from myself and so many other editors. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 16:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New category for Organic gardening/farming/horticulture

hi, i saw you merged two categories before. i was wondering if we could have one that involves all way of growing food organically. I would like you be part of the discussion here: [[Talk:Category:Organic_agriculture]] ( i have also replied your comment here: Category talk:Organic farming but it would be better if you continue talking in the page i mentioned first), thanks, --Cacuija (my talk) 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotr Blass canvassing

Can you post a comment in this in the AfD with evidence? Thanks, trialsanderrors 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

World's Smallest Political Quiz userbox

You may be interested in User:Audacity/Userboxes/WSPQ, which is a replacement for the old Political Chart userbox. The new userbox takes the two variables (economic and personal freedom), calculates which political alignment they place you into (Statist, Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative), and links your userpage to the appropriate category.

Please reply to User talk:Audacity, as I will not be watching your talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 07:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice change on topic: Correlation does not imply causation

To change the term "negation" to the word "converse" is much more clear, though the typical Wikipedia user may still not understand what "converse" means either. Thanks for your attempt to make the first paragraph more clear and easier to read.

4.240.183.161 14:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Starwood arbitration update

The case was originally filed based on the actions of editors involved in the Starwood links issue. A second issue involving a dispute at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism was added in the evidence phase in the belief that it was a continuation of the same alleged harassment. However, the two cases have very little overlap. Arbitrator Fred Bauder [17] has decided to consider only the Starwood matter at this time. I have trimmed the workshop page to remove material related to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism matter. That matter may be placed before the arbitration committee at any time by filing a separate request for arbitration. If the case is accepted, evidence and analysis may be copied from the page history and used there. Thank you. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi! Thanks for helping with the IP user on Correlation is not causation. I'm sick of dealing with him/her, especially since the IP address keeps changing. Would you mind taking the reins on this one, or helping me find someone who would like to help? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 05:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi Rich. It's been more than a year since you've been around and I've seen only good work from you. Would you like to candidate for admin? I'd be more than happy to nominate you if you do. Note that being an admin does not involve much, one should not misuse the tools and one should try to be nice to others. So what do you think? You can reply here. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I've though about it. Firstly I want to wait before Starwood arbitration is over before considering running. A little uncertain over whether I really need the tools, I've only felt that a need to use them a couple of time. --Salix alba (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to ping you in a month or so, until then the arbitration case will probably be over. About needing the tools, once you have them you realize how handy they are every now and then. :) Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

About Permaculture concept & practice

Hello. I'm in western Canada. I saw a bit that you added to the discussion in the Permaculture Discussion page. I clicked on your page and liked the intelligence conveyed in it, so I decided to write a note to you.

I live on rural land in a mountain valley in British Columbia, and have for a long time. I'm not a formal Permaculturist, though I've met a few, and I respect the research and practice that the Permaculturists are doing. What I can't really understand is the lack of much mention of animals (mammals, birds, fish) in the food-production systems described and alluded to in the current Wiki Permaculture article. It's acknowledged that the starting point for Permaculture was a critique of modern "industrial" agriculture, and surely this would include the methods of raising animals. And if Permaculture offers a viable alternative, it must address the diets of billions of people who eat fish, fowl, and red meat - not to mention addresing the fertilizer value of manure.

The skimpy little mention of chickens in the current article (under the sub-heading "Animals") is clearly inadequate.

What do you think? Joel Russ 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Elliptical coordinates

You can sort of think of Polar coordinates as being a limiting case of Elliptic coordinates. From the definition of

$x=a\ \cosh \mu \ \cos \nu ,y=a\ \sinh \mu \ \sin \nu$

if we let $\mu =\ln(2r/a)\,$ then $a\cosh(\mu )={a \over 2}(e^{\ln(2r/a)}+e^{-\ln(2r/a)})={a \over 2}(2r/a+a/(2r))=r+a^{2}/(4r)$. In the limit as a tends to zero, this becomes simply r. The same holds for $a\sinh(\mu )\to r\,$, and hence the the equations become those of polar coordinates. --Salix alba (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Circles are actually a subset of ellpises (i.e. a circle is an ellipse), so anything having to do with ellipses in general will also apply to circles. So yea, its a safe bet that the polar (circular) coordinate system is a special case of elliptical coordinate systems. Brentt 09:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Per our discussion

and the difficulty of getting articles on mathematics accepted: See [18] and the reasoning of the person removing the request for a reference source. The point of requesting a reference is not to indicate that it is a stub. Many people go to an article hoping to learn more through the references. It means that to anyone coming across that stub (like me), unless they are in the "mathematics club", have not a clue what it means and don't even get a reference where to go for more information, except to click on the links in the article like geometry. It is not welcoming or helpful to a person seeking to learn. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome to the joys of the maths articles. There are something like 15,000 maths article the majority of which are very short, stub or start class with no or very minimal referencing. In theory it would be possible to mark all these as unreferenced or needing attention in some way or another. In practice its not really going to result in much action, other than being added to the end of Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics. You'll see from this the amount of work we've got to do! Schiffler's theorem is one of the more obscure the mathematics article, it seems to be the same as Schiffler point and dates from 1985 so isn't one of the more important results and falls pretty low down the priority scale. --Salix alba (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am interested and have tried to read Wikipedia mathematics articles but they are too obscure to penetrate. I tried for a while to connect some of them meaningfully but it is like an endless circle -- one obscure term leads to another. It's just odd that you (collectively) spurn the involvement of others. I rarely edit articles in my field and in reading the fallout from the Essjay incident, many editors are saying the same thing. How else to learn but by branching out? I've learned a lot about scientific issues by editing articles and having to figure out and understand what was being said, looking up references, straining my brain. It was the welcoming attitude of the India article people that drew me to edit there and their appreciation, Dinesh's being patient with my lack of understanding of religion, temple architecture, India history, that allows us to work together so well. (Dinesh's latest article received FA status and is in the queue for appearing on main page as of yesterday. Today I'm working on his latest DYK which will appear on the main page within the next few days.) I've worked on, in fact even created, engineering articles and other science-related articles, and the experts in those fields are not like you mathematics people! Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You might like to cast your eyes over Addition its hopefully one of our more accessible articles and to me seems to be of fairly high quality. I'm considering putting it forward for the Maths A class review. Yes I guess your right about the lack of welcoming. I have been trying to improve matters through grading page which identifies our most important and higher quality articles. Still I did take on your comments and rewrote a lot of Eleven properties of the sphere to try and make it more accessible. --Salix alba (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Just read your Infinite monkey theorem and the mind-numbing Wikipedia:Featured article review/Infinite monkey theorem. Shouldn't the history come before the solution? If the reader knows the history, then the solution seems more relevant. Also, I know the FA editors jump all over editors for pointless links like monkey in the first sentence.

1. History
2. Solution
3. Applications
4. Real monkeys

#Popular culture pointless trivia - scratch

Meaning to be helpful, --Mattisse 23:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See this

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse and compare it to your version of events. --Mattisse 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep a mistake, happen many moons ago. --Salix alba (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might desist from revising history. Just a suggestion. Sincerely, --Mattisse 22:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Maths acd

I have no idea how {{Maths acd}} works, or I'd try to help. Anyway, the (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) links currently attach to the wrong page. Melchoir 08:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed now. --Salix alba (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! Melchoir 09:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

• Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
• Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mug and Torus morph.gif

Ok, I changed them. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. --Salix alba (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seven Bridges of Königsberg

Hi,

I saw that you removed the Seven Bridges of Königsberg form the List of important publications in mathematics since it was a chapter of a book and not a publication. I agree that we should refer the exact publication form. However, I think that Euler's solution was important whatever why it was published. Do you happen to know the name of the book it was published in?

While we are talking, May I interest in the Science pearls project? A person that knows how Euler's solution was published can contribute a lot to the project.

Regards, APH 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be nice to list the publication its in. The Euler Archive has details on the publication, although the prior talk may have been more influential. --Salix alba (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the reference. I think that I should return the entry and add the correct publication details. What do you say?

What do you think of the science pearl project? APH 11:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree with adding it with correct publication details.

The science pearl is an interesting project with some merit, but inherentially problematic as its so open ended and subjective. It difficult to decide what goes in and what does not. For example we could get into a big argument about whether the Königsberg paper should go in or not. Yes an important result, but not highly cited or particulary well know today, in its time it was probably a curiosity. I've taken a bit of a hatchet to the list removing some of the cruft. --Salix alba (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics help?

Mattisse mentioned that you might need some help with some of the math articles. I glanced at your exchanges further up the page but it would be helpful to me if you could point me in the right direction. My caution: Anything above simple algebraic equations are beyond my meager skills. I can, of course, copyedit and clarify, wikilink, organize, etc. Cheers, Pig^man_dialogue 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we have had a lot of problems getting maths articles through the FA process, copy edditing being one of the main concers, along with differences in opinions over inline citations and the dificulty in make complex topic accessable. Currently Addition is the focus for improvment, its currently going through an A-class review and could no doubt benifit from some copy edditing and a lay persons view. --Salix alba (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely math dumb. My advanced degree required a fairly sophisticated understanding and application of statistics (not the same thing, I know) but I don't understand the first paragraph of Addition without effort. Can't it be written in English? Sincerely, Mattisse 22:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at Addition. I will say, like Mattisse above, I was astonished at the complexity and impenetrability of the first para. There must be a simpler way of describing the process. (I'm undoubtedly setting up unreasonable expectations and will fail miserably. We'll see.) --Pig^man_dialogue 23:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, firsts paras in maths are notoriously difficult and contentious. Being both precise and concise without resorting to mathematical notation is tricky. That something as simple as addition proves problematic seem indicative. I'd be interested to see what can be done.

Encarta has The arithmetic operation of addition is indicated by the plus sign (+) and is a means of counting by increments greater than 1. For example, four apples and five apples could be added by putting them together and then counting them individually from 1 to 9. Addition, however, makes it possible to add, or compute, sums more readily. --Salix alba (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweak

Thanks for adjusting the link on my talk page. My usurpation came through and I'm still not entirely sure if there are other things to change. I got my signature right off the bat but obviously there are still a few links to adjust. (Usurpation sounds so... I don't know, nasty. Makes me think of fratricide in a royal dynasty or somesuch.) --Pig^man_dialogue 01:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)