User talk:Salix alba/Archive 4

Image:Nuvola Firefox icon.png

Hello, Pfafrich. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Nuvola Firefox icon.png) was found at the following location: User:Pfafrich/userbox-20060125. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Vivani.svg

I thought that picture was very helpful. However, can you make a version with a dotted line representing the altitude of the triangle, labeled h? I don't know, I just thought that would be even more helpful. I don't know how hard this is to do, and I don't want to burden you too much. Just wondering. Thanks. =)--Mostargue 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish football players

Hey there, I thought you might like to know that I quoted a paragraph you wrote in the recent CFD for Category:Jewish mathematicians in the current CFD for Category:Jewish football players. As a compromise, I've proposed a new way of handling such categories -- in this case by keeping it as a sub-cat of Category:Jews by occupation, which seems consistent with your remarks. Please consider adding your comments in the CFD, which is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_30#Category:Jewish_football_players. Regards, Cgingold 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

go away

As usual, you have a soothing influence on me, even though I am semi-angry with you. I seem to go astray when you are not around. You are my only friend left, as Zleitzen and BostonMA have left forever. --Mattisse 20:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, it still nags at me that I cannot really account for the sock puppets. I have not seem my daughter since. --Mattisse 20:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ek, not seeing your daughter is way more important than wikipedia. --Salix alba (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but like here, it became way more complicated. Very much like here, extraneous issues all became linked in my mind. --Mattisse 22:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

JB

'tis I! Johnbibby 19:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right!

I am still here. I don't know why I couldn't find myself before. I'm here, therefore I exist. With thanks, --Mattisse 15:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as you thought you were then away you go to the archive! --Salix alba (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Truly, thank you for straightening out my thinking yesterday. I am now on a better track, hopefully. --Mattisse 16:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Law

Do you know anything about the law, or know anyone who does? I am having a terrible time with my newest article, Settled insanity! --Mattisse 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Further reflection on "Arc vs. curvature"

Did you ever see my formulaic reply to our Arc vs. curvature discussion? On subsequent reflection, I would say that O would definitely be considered both "radius of arc"/"arcradius" and "transverse meridional radius of curvature". ~Kaimbridge~14:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

I had wondered where those little "edit" things had gone and assumed that wikipedia software had changed. Thanks for the tip. Things are much easier now. --Mattisse 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No one expects a Pigman admin!

Sorry for the roccoco announcement below but I got carried away. Thanks so much for your comments on the RfA. I like to think I handled the Starwood stuff well but feedback such as yours helps me with perspective in checking whether I have a realistic view on the matter. Best, Pigman^what?/trail 05:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

		Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
		My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigmanwhat?/trail 05:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.

Question

I put a little bit of your suggested monobook.js script in mine (the one you just put on your user page). Now suddenly a box popped up asking to install Greasemonkey and showing lots of js code. My believe is that I already have Greasemoney. (I have that little symbol in the right bottom corner.) Was it O.K. that I added one line (the one on templates) to my monobook.js? Should I take the Install box offer, and install in my monobook.js the huge amount of code it wants to put there? Mattisse 16:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am very glad Pigman became an admin and would have voted for him if I had known about his RfA. A good guy! Mattisse 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd, I've no idea why the Greasemonkey window came up. I would be cautious about including the huge amount of code. You can paste the code here and I'll tell you if its OK if you want. --Salix alba (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I decided to do nothing, as I got my Greasemonkey from the Firefox site, and was cautious, as you suggest. But this is an example of how confusing things are for people like me, because it says at the top "Click to install".

(I pasted into the monobook.js that portion of your script on your user page that is supposed to show templates. How does that work? I don't see the templates anywhere.)

Here is the code to install:

// This is a bundled version of wikEd.js with diff.js and wikEdDiff.js for use as a Greasemonkey script // Install by opening http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cacycle/wikEd.user.js // Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd for more details

/*

 */

// version info
window.wikEdProgramVersion = '0.9.51';
window.wikEdProgramDate    = 'November 15, 2007';

/*

Program description and Greasemonkey metadata

wikEd is a full-featured JavaScript in-browser editor for Wikipedia and other MediaWiki edit pages.
The program works currently ONLY for Mozilla-based browsers (Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, and Mozilla SeaMonkey)
The code has to be saved as UTF-8 in your editor to preserve Unicode characters like ♥ (heart)

// ==UserScript==
// @name        wikEd
// @namespace   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/
// @description A full-featured in-browser editor for Wikipedia and other MediaWiki edit pages
// @include     *
// @exclude
//
// @homepage    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd
// @source      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd.js
// @author      Cacycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle)
// @license     Released into the public domain
// ==/UserScript==

== Installation on a certain MediaWiki wiki (using monobook.js) ==

1. PLEASE DO NOT COPY THE WHOLE PROGRAM (in order to get the frequent updates and bug fixes and to save disk space)
2. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cacycle/wikEd for more detailed instructions
3. Copy the following short block of code to [[User:YOURUSERNAME/monobook.js]]
4. Click SHIFT-Reload to update to the newest version
5. Optional: customize the program by adding user settings to your monobook.je page

// ---- START wikEd INSTALLATION CODE ----

// install [[User:Cacycle/wikEd]] in-browser text editor
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cacycle/wikEd.js'
+ '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"></script>');

// ---- END wikEd INSTALLATION CODE ----

== General installation for all MediaWiki wikis (using Greasemonkey) ==

1. Install Greasemonkey for Firefox and SeaMonkey from:
			https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
2. Install wikEd by opening this address:
			http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&title=User:Cacycle/wikEd.user.js
3. Optional: customize the program by adding user settings to the Greasemonkey customization section below
			(these settings will be overwritten by updates!)

*/

//
// Greasemonkey customization section: add customization settings here
//   example: window.wikEdAutoUpdate = false; window.wikEdAutoUpdateHours = 7 * 24;
//

Mattisse 19:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Are the wikEd looks safe, basically a editor for wikipage. If your happy with your current editor , no need to install it.

The code I have does not do much. If basically adds some custom links to pages in the toolbok just under the search box. With the code I now have three links to Help:Formula,

Wikipedia:Template messages and WikiProject mathematics. Links I frequently refer to. It just makes it easier to get to one of these pages from anywhere. --Salix alba (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I found the button for the templates (templates)! Very very neat. Thanks. Mattisse 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Polyhedra T

A few templates you created, Template:Polyhedra T, Template:Polyhedra O, Template:Polyhedra I, Template:Polyhedra H, and Template:Polyhedra D, have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Another question

In the Che Guevara article (which we are all so careful about doing anything to, since the incident last summer and the leaving of User:Zleitzen forever), User:Polaris999 says that there is a problem with the cite.php and that the references and cnotes are off by 5. He has read User:CitationTool and thinks that it has to do with having a named footnote as the first one -- that it disrupts the process somehow.

I have gone through the first two sections of the CG article and parts of other sections, and I do not see the problem. (But then, I never know what is happening.) Do you have an opinion or solution to this issue/problem?

Is that better. there was a </ref>tag missing in the The "Cult of Che" section.

Also, since here I am on your page, I thought I would ask you about http://en.veropedia.com/ and Veropedia and User:Angr/If? (I think I know your answer). Ever hopeful, Mattisse 21:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think its anything to worry about. They are entitled to use wikipedia content under GPL. There have been promenient fork of wikipedia before: wikinfo (Note the founder!), and Citizendium, causing little trouble but a lot of hot air. The Wikipedia:The Core Contest is being run by one of the people User:Danny who set up Veropedia, I see no hint of bias there just encouraging the development of our more basic articles. --Salix alba (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So the missing ref is all you found? (Because that was put there only a short time ago, so it can't be what Polaris999 meant.) Apparently you saw nothing else wrong? Regarding the other, I thing Danny is a straight arrow, as I think I know who he is in real life. Glad you don't see a problem. Thanks! Mattisse 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

constant article

As you have mentioned, the constant article is one of the "core topics", and I have been working on it recently. Could you give me a hand? Randomblue 16:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

One more question

Is there a rule about modifying another user's user page? Someone asked me to modify his, and I am not sure of the rules regarding that. I don't want to fall into one of those wikipedia traps where the next thing I know I am banned as a sock puppet or something. (His page has been userfied and he wants me to make changes to it.) Thanks! Mattisse 16:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no rules preventing it, indeed User:Jimbo Wales specifically says You may edit this page!. In practice a lot depends on the individual user, some will apreciate it others less so. If the user in question is OK about it then I don't see a problem. --Salix alba (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

ICD-9

Perhaps you should know ICD-9 is out of date, deprecated, and its use in that context (Psychopathy) is misleading and confuses the already confused and misleading picture. I don't like you anymore. Mattisse 23:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?

Hi Salix alba. Me again, to bug you about the same thing. :) Would you be interested in candidating for adminship? You've been a very consistent presense for the last two years, and I think you have the knowledge, experience, and temperament to use the tools for the good of the project. If you agree that I nominate you, I'd like to note in advance that when voting some people may complain that your activity is "low", e.g., you don't rake in edits by the thousand per month, but I'd argue that that argument is weak and such people will be a small minority. Anyway, hope you say yes. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK why not? --Salix alba (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, here it is: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salix alba. You would need to

• Sign the acceptance and answer the questions
• Edit the ending time to be exactly one week since the time you are ready to candidate, and transclude the nomination at the top of WP:RfA.

I would suggest that you take great care in answering the questions and filling in the nomination, as in my view that can make or break a candidacy (you can try to look at some of the other mathematicians who candidated to see what they said, if you wish).

I'll make an announcement at the math wikiproject when I come from work tonight (it is morning here now), but either you or somebody else could make one too in the meantime (or, if you want to show me the nomination before you transclude it, that's fine too, whatever works for you).

Good luck! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll need to wait a day before completing it as I'm away this evening. --Salix alba (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

::Humm. Will I still like you if you go over to the dark side? Mattisse 02:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Should know better than to post a joke on you page. Forgive me Oleg Alexandrov. I will not post on this friend's page anymore. Mattisse 14:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You're nomination would have my fullest support. I look forward to you signing the acceptance. Good luck! Geometry guy 20:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Salix alba will go to the dark side, where Geometry guy already resides in a sininster solitude, together with a good chuck of other Wikipedian mathematicians, me including. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've finally got round to completing the RfA and its now live. I guess it probably best is someone else mentions it on math wikiproject. --Salix alba (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the "dark side" comment in the nomination acceptance may cause problems for the folks whose sense of humor may not be always up to speed. Just to let you know. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will not be commenting anymore. Mattisse 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

M, feel free to comment here. I think Oleg was commenting on me using it in my RfA rather than your comments here. I think he gets the joke. --Salix alba (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Typo: "once or twic editing". Tyrenius (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sandbox

Hello! Just to let you know that I have removed Image:Kellogg's.svg and Image:PabstBlueRibbonmm.jpg from your your sandbox because they are non-free. Note that such material is not permitted outside the mainspace. Thanks and Merry Christmas! Chris.B (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions drop me a message at my talk page. Best wishes, WjBscribe 16:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!! Merkinsmum 17:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as above, well done! I removed your RFA notice on your userpage. :) Rt. 12:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Felicitations and warm regards to you on the occasion of the successful ending of your RfA. Be thou of good cheer and rejoice, rejoice, rejoice at the return of the light. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC) PS: "return of the light" does not necessarily refer to you, although if you want to take it that way you will hear no naysaying from me.

Thanks to all above, typically with xmas I've been away from the computer for a few days, so not been able to do a propper thankyou. --Salix alba (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seashell Surface

Thanks for your developments on the Seashell surface page last week. I was wanting to get as many surfaces out there as possible with what I know about them. I didn't realize there's a subfield out there regarding seashells in mathematics. I created the article with an expert tag which was later deleted stating "no reason (for tag)". If there is anything you or anyone else could do to the article to make it more scientifically accurate please do! Plynch22 (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see

Comments directed to you in Talk:Plame affair re: request move proposal. As a new administrator, you apparently acted in some way upon that proposal; it appears to me that you did so prematurely, given that there was a poll (not a vote) going on over Christmas, but it is hard to tell if you are referring to your own conclusion or to that of another administrator. Please do not close down the discussion on this requesst move proposal. Please comment on the talk page of the article and not on my own talk page. I have been away for some time and will be too busy in next month to deal further with this, but I am trying to make it possible for others to comment on the request move proposal on the appropriate article talk page: Talk:Plame affair. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Farsi

In the Dari language article I thought that focusing on "Eastern Farsi" rather than Dari would make the discussion more focused, but all people want to do is discuss the various things that Dari means to them. Any suggestions on how to focus on a proper title that is not ambiguous? --Bejnar (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It would help if there was a section labeled requested move, with a poll for support or oppose.

It may be worth trying to distil the content of the discussion as there does seem to be some dispute in academia as to whether these are distinct languages or not. In cases such as this I find it better to document the dispute rather than try to resolve it.--Salix alba (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:ASCII

Hi Salix. If you had voted a few minutes earlier, I probably would have closed it as "no consensus" - as it is, it took me ages to fix all the double redirects, so unless you really do object, it can stay at ASCII (per HTML, XML, XHTML, NASA, etc) - is that okay with you? Neıl ☎ 11:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes fine. --Salix alba (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Neıl ☎ 11:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Plame affair

G'day! I probably should have dropped you a line before this.

I don't know where NYScholar got the idea that I'm not an admin, but he's wrong! And your closing of the earlier WP:RM was IMO quite in order. Maybe the closing comment was unwise in hindsight, but we do have regard to arguments and policy, not just votes, so it was quite in order, and it's not always obvious what will be helpful. Andrewa (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Metalogic

I am pretty sure de-populating the category, and removing it out from under mathematical logic was not what you had in mind when you voted to keep it. That is what certain people are planning, now that they cannot kill it. Just thought you should know what's going on. Thank you for supporting the category. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review and explain your use of edit summary to characterize editors

Greetings Salix Alba,

Regarding the edit summary you used for "WP:NPA Warning to xxxxxx and yyyyyyyy"

In the context of the unfortunate environment there, I would like to understand your interpretation of WP:NPA that justified including my username (xxxxxx) in your edit summary, permanently associating me with WP:NPA.

Context:

1) I am dealing with one of Wikipedia's most notoriously difficult, incivil and implacable editors.

2) The context in which I am attempting to engage in discussions with this editor is represented here., please bear this in mind.

3) This editor has been attacking me, including on my talk page, virtually since day one, the two most grivious instances occured when, through no one's fault but his, it is discovered that others are more familiar with sources he himself attempts to introduce. Twice now his sources have been found to refute, rather than support his argument against my analyses, both times my argument was in favor of WP:NPOV, while the counter-argument was infavor of unjustified pejorative language, and I asserted "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". This is a repeat behavior, and the conflicts, Straw Man attacks, and "smoke screen" tactics used against me begin at the instant my opponent has made an embarassing mistake. Both times have resulted in massive disruption and consumption of tremendous amounts of Wikipedia administrative resources.

Outside the context of my own interactions with the editor, there have been probably six or more related administrative incidents with this editor in the past month in which I have not been involved. The editor is also on "civility parole", invoked "right to vanish" when blocked, reappeared immediately on the expiration of the block, and continued without any improvement in behavior.

As a relative newbie, I am taking your warning very seriously. And as an indelible mark on my record here on Wikipedia, I am also taking your use of my username in the edit summary, and statement of "pure" WP:NPA equally seriously.

Of course there is a heated debate, one in which my opponent is refusing the unanimous consensus of all others involved to accept mediation, while including edit summaries such as "(rv POV pushing. There will be a ten-thousand word criticism as the lead by the time I'm finished with WTBDWK. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!). Yet I sincerely believe I am doing the best I can under the circumstances. In response to the name-calling I have endured, I have been careful to criticize the behavior and the arguments of the editor as opposed to calling the editor "names", as you will see.

As such I am requesting that you thoroughly review all of the above and the entire exchange that led to your warning in the context of WP:NPA. Please do ask me any questions you like, there is much more evidence I can provide on request, but please note that I am expecting a thorough and careful reply, including your analysis of the entire exchange, your assessment of the relative weights and seriousness of whatever personal attacks you find, and if appropriate, a retraction or apology.

FYI, I have reviewed my comments on the talk page, and several possibly relevant topics prior to posting, including this, and this -- speifically, "Now there are cases where this strategy does not work. There are users who simply cannot and do not want to write NPOV articles, users who want to delete relevant information, users who are notoriously anti-social, and so on. We think these are the types of users we do not really want on Wikipedia..."

I look forward to reviewing additional Wikipedia guidelines or policies you think may be applicable, and I look forward to your candid assessment of my edits in context.

Thanks, riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the discussion had got out of hand, and that ScienceApologist's behavior leaves a lot to be desired. However the way to deal with it is not to engage in a name calling match. That is a sure fire way to escalate the situation. One of may favorite WP essays is Wikipedia:No angry mastodons which might be worth a read at this point. The more you can keep your cool the better things will be. The mediation case is the place to take further disputes.

The message was addressed to both of you, and I am quite prepared to use my newly acquired blocking powers on either of you if I see this level of incivility persist. --Salix alba (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I read the essay some time ago, but WRT: "name calling match", I am expecting a reply from you on where, exactly, you believe I contributed with name calling. It's not that long a discussion that you would be unable to review it in less than two minutes. Please, as my reputation here is at issue -- this is a sincere (and firm) request. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And fyi, all of us agree that mediation is the place (as you say), except ScienceApologist. [1] riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole discussion from 3) onwards really amounted to nothing more than disparaging of each other. I've just been looking at Arb Enforcment archive. And the whole incident seems to be six of one and half a dozen of the other. Provoking his bad behaviour been mentioned in unfavorable terms. If your concerned about your reputation I would advise being on your best behaviour as there is a high chance this could go to arbitration. --Salix alba (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Salix, thanks for your reply. I just sent you an e-mail in an attempt to resolve this.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Curious to know if you ever recieved my last e-mail? WNDL42 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: GFDL history of MfD'd article

I was asking for the history of Fish out of water comedy film to try and work on it in userspace as a draft, if that's acceptable per WP:USER. --Solumeiras (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, but it was actually the article with history which was what I was asking for! Nice try though!! --Solumeiras (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had it deleted per WP:CSD#U1 - it was simply to create a film watchlist in my userspace. Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the absurd warning message on your talk page

Hello Salix alba, I just realised that my first experiment with Twinkle, more than two weeks ago, had left an absurd message on your talk page. I only noticed because I came to your talk page by accident now, and I am very sorry for this. There are some serious usability issues with Twinkle, such as "cancel" buttons on a comment prompt that cancel the comment but not the commented action, and now that I have seen the message that Twinkle left in my name I will uninstall it entirely. Again, I am very sorry for this silly incident, and now I wish you had told me about this. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I suspected that the cause was something like this. --Salix alba (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD ZHLT

I have addressed many of the points raised in the ZHLT AfD as best I can, and would appreciate it if you took another look. Thanks. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Mattisse (Talk) 14:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

HistoryHouse

Hi,

I'm just querying the reinstatement of the historyhouse link. While I admit the Tiptree link is better than most on that site they seem intent to get a link on every Essex article they can find. They came to my attention with some pretty low-grade ELs around various villages such as Battlesbridge and Hullbridge that I can't see any justification for. Then I saw the edit history for adding them such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=86.137.184.18 and the next day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.136.203.165 and it sent a red flag that led to more research. The link has been removed by others from various other articles and flagged as spam, plus they're listed on the URIBL blacklist for webspam. Even looking at the better pages they feature, the only real value they seem to have are the historic land details which are mainly transactions and I didn't feel added enough to be worth keeping around. The photos are reproduced from another website so the original source could be given instead (in Tipree's case http://www.footstepsphotos.co.uk/Essex/Essex%20T/esstp6.htm).

I won't remove the link again myself however I do ask that you reconsider the reinstatement. The domain looks to have scattered itself across the section blindly, and personally I feel they don't add enough to merit inclusion especially given their general behaviour/attitude to ELs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caomhin (talk • contribs) 12:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the one-on-one. As usual, it did wonders. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 23:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination)

I have nominated Philip H. Farber for deletion. You previously contributed to an earlier AfD on this article and it was suggested that I notify you of the current AfD. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cheers, Pigman☿ 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

systolic geometry

It took a while but I finally added an explanation of the figure, please let me know if it helps. Katzmik (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice one, it definitly helps. I know little of the subject so much of the article is still over my head, but it does seem intreguing. One point I note is that in the flavor section you refer to $\mathrm {sys} \,$ and then later to $\mathrm {sys} \pi _{1}\,$ are these one and the same? --Salix alba (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this discrepancy. The answer is, as usual, yes and no. The notation syspi1 always refers specifically to the original systolic invariant, namely the least length of a noncontractible loop. The notation sys can (and does, in the literature) refer to this invariant, but also to other related invariants such as the homology 1-systole, the k-systoles, the stable k-systoles, etc. Katzmik (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Knot theory FA proposed

Hi, have you seen this discussion? --C S (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Systolic geometry for a beginner slated for deletion

Hi,

A few months ago you expressed an interest in more detailed explanations concerning Systolic geometry. I created a page called Systolic geometry for a beginner with a slower-paced approach than Systolic geometry, and addressed to a non-mathematical audience. The article has been nominated for deletion. If it survives the nomination, we could discuss in what ways it could be improved. Katzmik (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

contested PROD (please reply on my talk page)

I see that you marked Sally Eaton as wanting to have her article removed from Wikipedia. In accordance with her wishes, I have marked the article for {{PROD}}, but the article author wants some evidence of her request to be removed. My only interest in the article is that I think that semi-notable and non-notable bios. should be removed upon request. Did WP:OTRS receive such a request, or did you have any communication with her? Thanks. Bwrs (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So I will have to ask User:BostonMA? Bwrs (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the history of the article, and could find no request by Sally Eaton to have the article removed, though there are a few items she has wanted deleted in the past, and at least one of them I might delete since it has been tagged for a citation for a long time and I could not find a source. I also contacted her myself, and she does not want it deleted (though she would like to see it updated). I've added a few items I could find (primarily to the discography) and deleted both the prod and the category about the sunjec requesting removal. If it was ever true, it was a long time ago before many changes were made. I'm certain both you and Bwrs were just trying to respond to what you thought were the subject's wishes, and I hope you are both satisfied with this result; I am not trying to be contentious about any of this.Rosencomet (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm fine with keeping the article. If there was a case of user requested delete its grown stale now. --Salix alba (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Salix alba/Bios theory

User:Salix alba/Bios theory, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Salix alba/Bios theory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Salix alba/Bios theory during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you here?

I have a javascript question that no one can help me with. In my monobook.js I have imported " importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');"

This script works for everyone except me. I get the tabs the script provides, but clicking on them has no effect. User talk:Gimmetrow even used my monobook.js and it worked for him/her. (See my talk page.) I am using Firefox 2.0.0.16 and have removed unnecessary addons, in case they interfere.

Do you have any suggestions? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm here from time to time. But I'm putting my time into a few programming project which actually provide an income.

As to your problem I've no idea off the top of my head. I would suggest upgrading the firefox 3 http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/ maybe it will work then. Quite an easy and quick install. --Salix alba (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured it out. If I disable wikEd, the script works just fine. I am reluctant to go to Firefox 3.0 as I have heard there are some problems. Glad that you are earning money. Hope all is well! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

citation

Hi,

Thanks for your edit at differential geometry of surfaces. The truth is that I am not completely happy with this format, since it does not agree with the standards in the mathematical literature. Namely, the standard format as represented by Math Reviews citations and followed by virtually all math journals, is as follows:

1. author name

2. title of article

3. name of journal

4. year of publication

5. page numbers.

Now I am not arguing that there is anything intrinsically better about such order, merely that this happens to be the format used in math publications. I find the other format confusing. The other format happens to be the format used in the physics literature and is appropriate to articles in physics.

I frequently get confused by the physics format and come away from a citation thinking that it does not provide the year of the publication, as it does not appear in the usual space.

I raised this issue once at WP math but the discussion quickly degenerated into a debate whether manual entries are better or automated entries are better. The following points were obscured in that discusssion:

1. the proof of the usefulness of any automated system is whether it can be easily adapted to new situations. Thus, if the citation format cannot be easily equipped with a flag that would switch from the physics format to the mathematics format and back, then there is something wrong with the citation format.

2. there are not twenty or so formats. Rather, there are two main formats, one mostly used in math and the other mostly used in physics. There are variations in italization, punctuation, etc., but for the most part math journals use the Math Reviews format. Katzmik (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I do take your point,and personally I would prefer a mathematical style. The advantages of the citation template seem to outway the stylistic differences, in particular the ability to use hyperlink in the document. The page in question has generally used the citation template so its more consistent with that page. In theory it would be possible to produce a new citation template with a mathematical style it woulf hen be a case of changing {{citation|...}} to {{math-citation|...}}, it might be worth mentioning this on WT:MATH to see what people feel about this. --Salix alba (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of introducing a new template {{math-citation}}, perhaps it would be possible to modify the existing one by outfitting it with a flag? I would suggest the "up" position to be math, the "down" position to be physics, but we might be outnumbered here :-) Katzmik (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Converter

Hello, I've read, that you've a tool to create a Movie from a sequence of single images. If that's correct, please tell me, where I can get that tool. Cäsium137 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really, I've played with a few: CamStudio, Fraps, AVIEdit but I am by no means an expert. You might want to have a look at Category:Video editing software probable the simples to to use animated gifs which most image software can create. --Salix alba (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Cäsium137 (T.) 00:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

reformatting citation

Hi,

How would reformatting work? If one wants to add an article to the bibliography, would one have to do all the reformatting again? If so, this approach would not seem to practical. Are you still in favor of looking into a style parameter for citation? Katzmik (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to give it a try edit User:Katzmik/monobook.js and add the line

importScript('User:Salix alba/mathcite.js');

and Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. References elements will appear in a different order. You may want edit the script to your liking. The script is incomplete misses some attributes, second author etc.

I don't see much willingness in the maths community for a different citation style. Maintanance is a big problem as these are tricky things to write and require periodic maintanance. --Salix alba (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Among the people who expressed themselves at WP math I think there is actually a slight majority in favor. Those in favor of maintaining the status quo will probably will be in favor of maintaining one even after it is modified. Katzmik (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)