User talk:Woodstone/Archive 2

Thanks, will do, but where?

As an editor/journalist, a typo in one's own name is tres ironic. Reminds me of a famous bit on TV's The Odd Couple ("Oscar Madisoy. Oscar Marisox.") But what page is my Tebebrae typo on? Thanks! - Tenebrae 15:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Never mind. Found it. My own user page. How the heck did I do that? Cheers! - Tenebrae 15:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Linas: additive function

Thanks for your additions to additive function. Several comments: we have a specific way of laying out math articles, they tend to begin with the phrase "In mathematics...", and then proceed from general statements to specific statements. I would very much like it if your edits proceeded in this manner. Next, as to a technical detail: Can you actually provide an example of the additive function that you are thinking of when you are writing this article? The only additive function that I can think of over the reals is f(x)=x and so trying to shoe-horn in a "general definition" which holdsonly for a trivial function just seems bizarre. That is why I attempted to qualify the definition to mention group homomorphism and polynomials on fields. Is there something that you have in mind? Otherwise, I am tempted to revert your edits, since they don't make sense to me. linas 02:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All linear mappings from Rⁿ to R^m (which can be expressed as a matrix {a_i,j}) are additive. This includes for example also the function "average" over a set of reals. In another domain, for example the function "integral" or "derivative" over a real function is additive. Many non-trivial additive functions can be defined on the space of all strings of elements over a set (e.g. character strings) with the operator "concatenate" as addition. For example UPCASE or LENGTH. The "additive" property only needs addition to be defined in both domain and image. No need for a "field" or even a "group". −Woodstone 11:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Linear functions, as in linear operators and linear algebra. Yes... well... of course, OK. It just seems like an unusual usage of the term; honestly, I spent a large part of my life studying linear algebra and linear operators, and never once heard the term "additive function" used until I started reading about Galois fields and number theory. So, technically, yes, anything linear is additive; its just ... an unusual usage of the term. No matter, that's a crappy article anyway, and needs a re-write and expansion. linas 19:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You are focussing too much on fields (where linearity can be defined). In defining measures and statistics, additivity is an important distinguishing property. When you have a population, consisting of subpopulations (world/country, country/state) the same property can be calculated for each of the pieces separately and for the whole at once. Some defined measures are additive, some are not. For example the income, the number of people, the area is additive; the average income, the population density are not additive. To be honest, before I read the WP article I had never seen the term additive used in any other way then preserving addition. −Woodstone 21:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work on Equinox

Thanks for your good work radically improving equinox. --Eddie | Talk 09:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that by analyzing a few talk pages on Wikipedia, you appear to have been tidying up the equinox article and was wondering if you would like to address some of the suggestions that have been concerned at Wikipedia:Peer review/Equinox/archive1? Even though I had intended to insert information following a reading of the peer review, your contributions have made the equinox article your domain (for lack of a better word or phrase). Is there anything you want or don't want me to follow through with in order to avoid redundencies or anything of the sort? —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Eddie and Eternal Equinox, thanks for your positive words. True to the spirit of wikipedia, I do not feel owner of the equinox article. I was glad to see the additional and improved information to be added. When several authors contribute, redundancies and loss of structure are bound to appear, and occasionally someone has to take the challenge of integrating all the good additions into a more flowing article (and weed out less clearly formulated parts). Please keep adding as you see fit. Indeed the cultural aspects mentioned in the Wikipedia:Peer review/Equinox/archive1 deserve attention. −Woodstone 15:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

English language

Please stop reverting this article to Heron's version - he forgot to correct vandalism an anonymous user made to it, so each time you revert it back you're bringing back someone's vandalism. Nevertheless, I think the improvements he made are excellent. All the best. - The Great Gavini ^discussion 17:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you are talking about when you say vandalism. Most of the changes were real improvements in readability. Only a few were slightly misspelled (and corrected in later edits). Reverting a good edit as a whole because you do not agree with a few changes in wording (as you keep doing) is close to vandalism itself. You might do better by building one other people's improvements than reverting blindly. −Woodstone 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it not better to keep a version, which is the combined work of various users and administrators and has been the standard for five years, than keeping one which has been heavily edited by an anonymous user about a week ago? I think I'd put my trust in the former version, rather than one which has reworded quotations and tries to avoid using about 56% of English vocabulary. It's not even in English - rather it seems to be in some form of Anglish. Additionally, it is an eyesore: it looks out of place and there are no other articles written like it (70.243.38.185 (talk · contribs) has edited only this one article). It uses relatively obscure words like "lofty" and "lithe", and as for the phrase the ring of the English language has a middle but no clear-cut girth, well, it sounds a tad odd. It's better just to say what was actually quoted from the OED.

I still suspect you're critical of my so-called "vandalism", but it does seem you might be in a minority in wanting the new version. Heron himself has said on his talk page that the version you want is "clumsy" and "erroneous". A few admins have reverted what you call "improvements", as well as myself. If you feel that strongly about it, discuss it on the article's talk page and see what others' responses are to the proposal. Thanks. The Great Gavini ^discussion 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Chart on English Spelling

Thanks a million!Cameron Nedland 16:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Solstice-equinox table

Hello, Woodstone. Good work with the {{Solstice-equinox}} table. I was just thinking of making one. Good that you beat me to it. Mine won't be as nice as yours. :-) Happy editing. -- PFHLai 20:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration request

I would like to inform about the Arbitration request concerning the long discussion on Talk:Dutch language.

[The link to the Arbitration request will follow soon, as I have to inform you before posting]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Sander_on_Talk:Dutch_language

Sander 10:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging Chord symbol and Chord (music)

Hi,

I'm about to merge Chord (music) and Chord symbol and would appreciate yout thoughts (on the former's talk page). Edits to a draft version can be made here. Thanks Andeggs 07:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Group (mathematics)

It seems like you don't want monoid to be mentioned in the group (mathematics) entry (except briefly in the context of integers)? I think having such reference would be consistent with how other notions are defined: monoid refers to magma (algebra), ring (mathematics) refers to group and monoid, field (mathematics) refers to commutative ring, only group does not refer to anything. Group is really a monoid for which all elements have inverses. Slawekk 23:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of multiplication and left/right neutral element alone are enough to define a unique neutral element. The associativity is not needed. I do not object to mentioning monoid, but to the coupling of the unicity of e to it. −Woodstone 11:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you help...

Whenever anyone replies to a question or comment I like to visit their user page and see if we may have anything in common. I haven’t unloaded a picture of myself but I think I could probably use yours! Except for having a little larger eyeglass rim and a slightly longer beard we could easily pass for doubles. How cool is that! I was born in 1946.

In addition to nearly identical looks we share the same enthusiasm for the Wikipedia and your other interests as well.

Currently my main interest is in looking for rule related and other databases to apply a dynamic classification algorithm. The algorithm optimizes the order of characteristics for the purpose of minimizing the number of queries required to perform identification.

The idea of a computer handling optimization is very exciting to me because the results tend to be superior to experts in a field. The results are truly amazing in terms of the advantage one can derive from knowing the order of characteristics according to their significance. The process does for thinking what the airplane does for travel.

Other than seeking databases my time is now spent mostly using the Wikipedia to fill in the gaps and expand my own knowledge base.

Hope we can find occasions to share other common interests as well.

-- PCE 01:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

On the order of modes

Hi! I recently added the list of modes on the scale page, and I noticed you put them by order of number of accidentals, which is interesting. I didn't explain why I put them in the order I did. I'm curious to know what you think. I had Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, and Locrian. The reason I did that was because this order represents the relationship of these modes to the major scale. Ionian uses the same notes as the major scale starting with the first scale degree, (example: C Major is the same as C Ionian). Dorian uses the same notes as the major scale starting with the second scale degree, (example: C Major uses the same notes as D Dorian). And so forth, (C Major uses same notes as E Phrygian, uses same notes as F Lydian, uses same notes as G Mixolydian, uses same notes as A Aeolian, or A natural minor, uses same notes as B Locrian).Hence, Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, Locrian. I thought I would explain why I put them in that order, and I'd be more than happy to hear your response on my talk page, if you'd like. Have a good one. EPM 19:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I realised why you put them in that order (sort of musical alphabetic). But I think the location on the keyboard is not that important. It is the inner structure that counts. That is: the intervals present in them. In my sequence they have one decreased interval more at every step (from all major and one augmented to all minor and one diminished). See the picture in article mode (music). Of course this also brings the major modes together (and consequently the minor ones). Note also that it corresponds to rearranging your sequence not ascending, but according to the circle of fifths of the starting note. −Woodstone 19:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. And I like the reasoning behind why you put them in that sequence. Those are certainly important concepts. What would you think of this idea: how about we put both lists of modes side-by-side, with a brief note for each as to the reasoning behind both sequences. This way, the reader can see both ways of how these modes are interrelated. EPM 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the "alphabetical" order does not have much musical meaning. Linking the modes to one particular scale (the Ionian) is not so meaningful. For me it is only a quick way to remember them. The intervals occurring in the modes are the important factor. If you wish, you could include the roman root numbers (corresponding to your sequence) and point to the way they follow the circle of fifths:

• Lydian (IV)
• Ionian (I)
• Mixolydian (V)
• Dorian (II)
• Aeolian (VI)
• Phrygian (III)
• Locrian (VII)

−Woodstone 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal about IPA typefaces in Internet Explorer

Hi

I've given a possible technical solution for your Internet Explorer problem at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Insert box below edit panel should force IPA supporting font.

If the solution does what you want, please let me know, or I'd suggest mentioning it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). There is IE6-specific code where an amendment related to Unicode like this could be added by the developers. Thanks. --Cedders^tk 09:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have tested what you proposed and it works fine. Thanks. Nevertheless, it might still be useful to find a solution that works for all (including anonymous users). −Woodstone 11:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Units

As you know, I have been tidying up units. But perhaps you are not aware of my handy 'Units' tab that fixes common errors. If you want to try it, simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to User:Woodstone/monobook.js. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'Units' tab and a 'Dates' tab in edit mode. You are more than welcome to copy and amend the code that makes it work. Regards. bobblewik 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried, refreshed cache, restarted, but do not see any "units" or "dates" tabs. Strangely enough I never noticed the many other tabs before! Perhaps you can see what I did wrong? −Woodstone 21:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your monobook looks correct. If you have refreshed the cache, it should work. The tabs only appear when a page is in edit mode. You should see the 'watch' tab as normal and then to the right of that you should see the dates tab and then the units tab. Are you sure you are looking *after* you have clicked 'edit' for an article and it is in edit mode? bobblewik 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I found them at the very top of the page. I was looking at the buttons (bold, italic, link, ...) immediately above the edit box. Apparently they make a proposal for substitutes. I tried it on this very page and there was a mistaken replacement of the color "#0099cc" in a style sheet by "#0099 cc". Perhaps you should not substitute if a number is not preceded by a blank. I will experiment with it some further. −Woodstone 20:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a peek at the source. I have no experience with the particular grammar for regular expressions you are using, but I guesss I can learn. I see that you are replacing "cu in" by "in³", which is still under discussion. My view is that traditional units go well with a traditional expressions for powers. So I do not see this particular replacement as an improvement. −Woodstone 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on "#0099 cc". I can either modify the code as you suggested, although this simple modification would mean that I would miss values in parentheses. My experience is that this is a very rare scenario. With rare errors, I simply choose to abandon the edit or do manual edits. We can discuss it more if you like.

As far as 'cu in' is concerned, I am happy to consider suggestions from people that are interested in using the code. So I welcome your thoughts. Alternatively, you could copy User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js to User:Woodstone/monobook.js/unitformatter.js. Then add that to your monobook.js. You can then make it suit your own preferences.

Feel free to test the 'dates' tab too. Regards. bobblewik 17:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the 'cu in' code. Please give the tabs a try. The more use they get, the better they get. bobblewik 18:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have interest in many shared pages. In almost all pages I tried, the tabs had no effect, I presume because you did them already. I will keep trying. −Woodstone 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I have done a *lot* of pages.

Try a google search of something that you would like to amend. For example: a search for '10kg'

And I use Firefox so that I can act on many pages easily.

Regards bobblewik 19:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: spacing with % in MOS

I have responded to you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Proposal for section Percentages. For the purposes of this proposal, we could have both "12%" and "12 %" as examples. —Centrx→talk • 23:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Golden Ratio editing

Please look more carefully at the history of Golden Ratio and be more careful before accusing my IP address of profanity. --130.215.16.195 21:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am awfully sorry, you are right. The other guy did both the deletion and profanity. You removed the profanity (but forgot to reinstate the deleted section). −Woodstone 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wai Wai editing wiki style guides

You said:

Hi Wai Wai. Editing wiki style guides is not the same as editing article pages. These guidelines have been established by often difficult consensus processes. You should not just jump in and change them to your personal preferences. If you want them changed, make your proposals first on the talk pages and have some patience to wait for comments and reach a new consensus. The way it is now happening will not bring any stability. I'm afraid, you should start from the beginning. −Woodstone 13:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reminder. However please read the discussion first to understand the whole issue. Originally it is mainly for copyedit and improvements on the existing major guidelines. So far they were nice. However it mixed with some other types of updates, probably due to long hours of work. Someone popped up and reverted all the changes I made later on.

Read this:

This page is a style guide for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.

It is at the top of the page. Copyedit is clearly not major changes. And if every change has to be discussed first, the page would be locked up.

Later I have requested others to state the problematic areas, so I could modify my edits. People stated there were consensus problems, I fully realise, but they need to specify where and in which part. I waited for nearly a week, but no one responded. How could I improve my edit if no one cares to respond or specify the particular problems?

Please read the following rules too:

• Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism. -- Help:Reverting
• Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. -- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
• Does the editor do is something very similar to vandalism? Even the update has some big problems, it is not the excuse to revert it. In the case of NPOV, people usually do it wrong by using: "lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" Quoted from NPOV (its philosophy applies): Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly. -- NPOV
• Unless what one writes is near to completely non-sense, or useless or rubbish. Revert is not something which you should be taken lightly. The bold policy does not apply. We are bold to create/improve it, not bold to destory/delete it.
• Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything similar to the effects of vandalism.--Wai Wai (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The way this process commonly works for wiki project pages (not regular articles) is that the proposals are placed in the discussion page, and only effected in the project page after consensus has been reached. If you are serious in wanting to cooperate, please follow the process. If you make substantial changes without consensus, the only fast way to restore order is to revert. You should not expect people to clean up after you every time. Discussing first is the solution. −Woodstone 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is just your opinion. One one hand, you state we should follow rules and processes. On the other, you disregard any rule I state here which prove the reverting is wrong: "Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism". Wikipedia has stated: "Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes." It is stated at the very top of the page.

I don't know if you have followed all the discussiones before you make your decision. "You should not force people to clean up after you. If you make substantial changes without consensus" is clearly wrong. I just ask people to point out the problematic parts (so I can fix it). Never ask them to fix the problems for me.--Wai Wai (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

IPA for English (vowels)

word	RP	AmEng	AusEng	broad
full vowels (/ː/ not realised in US)
bid	/ɪ/	/ɪ/	/ɪ/	/ɪ/
bead	/iː/	/i/	/iː/	/iː/
bed	/ɛ/,/e/	/ɛ/	/e/	/ɛ/
bad	/æ/,/a/	/æ/	/æː/	/æː/
pod	/ɒ/	/ɑ/	/ɔ/	/ɑ/
father	/ɑː/		/aː/	/ɑː/
bud	/ʌ/	/ʌ/	/a/	/ʌ /
bought	/ɔː/	/ɔ/	/oː/	/ɔː/
toe	/əʊ/	/o/	/əʉ/	/oː/
good	/ʊ/	/ʊ/	/ʊ/	/ʊ/
booed	/uː/	/u/	/ʉː/	/uː/
diphthongs
bay	/eɪ/	/e/	/æɪ/	/eɪ/
boy	/ɔɪ/	/ɔɪ/	/oɪ/	/ɔɪ/
buy	/aɪ/,/ʌɪ/	/aɪ/	/ɑe/	/аɪ/
cow	/aʊ/	/aʊ/	/æɔ/	/aʊ/
rhotacised vowels (/ɹ/ silent in non-US)
bird	/ɜː/,/əː/	/ɝ/	/ɜː/	/ɜɹ/
beer	/ɪə/	/ɪɹ/	/ɪə/	/iɹ/
bear	/ɛə/,/ɛː/	/ɛɹ/	/eː/	/ɛɹ/
bar		/ɑɹ/		/ɑɹ/
bore		/ɔɹ/		/ɔɹ/
boor	/ʊə/,/ɔː/	/ʊɹ/	/ʊə/	/ʊɹ/
reduced vowels
roses	/ɪ/	/ɨ/	/ə/	/ə/
runner		/ɚ/		/əɹ/
bottle	/l̩/	/l̩/	/l̩/	/əl/
button	/n̩/	/n̩/	/n̩/	/ən/
rhythm	/m̩/	/m̩/	/m̩/	/əm/

Inline audio link pop-ups

What it would look like to hover over an audio link

As you're one of the people who commented about formatting/clutter on the {{audio}} template, I'm wondering what you think of my proposal for a javascript popup instead. I fixed the "clicking on the icon goes to the image page" problem a while ago, but there is still the "overloaded interface"/"too many click targets" problem, and I'm proposing we use javascript to hide the extra links until you hover over it. You can try out the mock-up yourself by adding this to your User:Woodstone/monobook.js:

document.write('<scr' + 'ipt type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/audiopops.js'
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></scr' 
             + 'ipt>');

This would be a site-wide change, so everyone would see it, and it safely falls back to the current design with several links on browsers without javascript. I would be happy with any kind of support, suggestions, or criticism; right now I feel like I'm talking to a wall. — Omegatron 18:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried. Clicking on either speaker or text loads and executes the audiofile as should be. However on screen I see no difference. The visual overload was my major complaint. If you can solve that, I will be happy to try again. −Woodstone 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you add the above code to your monobook.js (which you haven't done, on this account, anyway), and bypass your cache, you should see only a single link for audio files, which goes directly to the downloadable file; the help and info links will be removed. When you hover over that link, a box will pop up explaining that it's an audio file and directing you to media help and the file's description page. — Omegatron 22:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I had added it (and refreshed cache) already, but something must have gone wrong. Most likely I did not enter an "edit summary" (which I made compulsory) and did not notice the warning. Anyway, I tried again and it works nicely. No clutter and still full information. Perhaps it would be better to link the pop-up only to the loudspeaker symbol and not to the string as well. −Woodstone 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think it is better to use the link to signify what the audio file is about. Also, that would make the clickable area much smaller, and there is no easy way to link just the speaker and have it go to the sound file. We would need a software upgrade. Figuring out how to make the speaker clickable without going to the image description page was hard enough... — Omegatron 19:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Golden rectangle

A golden rectangle has an aspect ratio of φ:1, thought by many to be the most pleasing ratio for a rectangle. This one uses the most accurate approximation possible in square pixels for its size, a ratio of successive Fibonacci numbers.

Metrication

Your recent edit to say that the metric system is legal in all but two countries is not supported by an appropriate citation. The best reference I can find, the CIA World Fact Book says at the beginning of Appendix G

Note: At this time, only three countries - Burma, Liberia, and the US - have not adopted the International System of Units (SI, or metric system) as their official system of weights and measures.

This quote does not clearly state that the metric system is not legal in Burma or Liberia, only that it is not the official system of weights and measures. It is possible that it may be allowed as a secondary system, or allowed side-by-side with some other system. I can't find a good reference to reveal the real situation. --Gerry Ashton 19:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, but I just removed the USA from the statement, because it is definitely legal there, and even compulsory in government contracts and preferred in commmerce and trade. It is just not practically implemented in many cases. I did not change or endorse the situation in Myanmar and Lybia. −Woodstone 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning

I do not care what you think of me, but be warned that I will not tolerate anymore remarks similar this one. Rex 13:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Bourbaki as tie-break

Hi, Woodstone!

You just reverted a minor edit of Natural_number of mine with the remark (Not important enough for first sentence.) in the history, but no comment at the talk explanation I gave. Thus, it seems like you would not like to discuss it there. I admit this is really a small matter; and I do not intend to squibble over it. However, in my opinion, the bourbakists have created a kind of standard; not universally recognised, but certainly enough to merit mention whenever mathematical terminology is disputed. (They certainly have influenced word choices in my research articles.) Do you share this opinion?

Actually, I first thought of making a second sentence with a reference to the Bourbaki usage, but decided that that would put more emphasis on it than just adding a clause to the first sentence. I didn't want to do that, since (as I wrote on the talk page) I believe the page now is fairly balanced, and I didn't want to unsettle that. I still think so; but if you think a reference in a separate second sentence is preferrable, I'll do it. If you're die-hard against mentioning Bourbaki at all, I think you're wrong, but shall not pursue this minor issue further. JoergenB 19:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, in the introduction it is enough to mention that there are two distinct usages of the term and in which fields they dominate. Which people support which view is not really of importance for definition. Mention of that level of detail might perhaps be included in the history section. However, in a mathematcis subject, there is rarely much importance in who invented something. I must confess I did not read your statement before my edit. But I surely do not agree that in general "N includes zero", as you state. That is the whole point: opinions and usages differ. −Woodstone 21:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not notice you had answered until the Dutch language note appeared to-day; seemingly, the "watch-list" doesn't work exactly as I thought.

As I said; this is not a very important issue. The idea of referring or not referring to Bourbaki in general is slightly more interesting. However, I think you still didn't read my Talk:Natural_number note carefully. I do not say anything that should be possible to interpret as claiming that everybody considers 0 as a natural number. I am very much aware of the opposite. I have been teaching courses using several text-books, where I've had to explain to the students that the words natural number were used in different meanings in their books.

What I was writing was something entirely different. The Bourbakists decided to define the natural numbers as including zero, and that means that "0 is natural" in all their work. As you hopefully know, they e.g. did write fairly influential books on various aspects of algebra; and their terminology influences many algebraists, and is one contributing reason why many of us use this convention in books and articles. (For sure, not all do. One of my colleagues once got an ultimatum from a referee to the effect that he must not call 0 natural in his article. He solved it by introducing "the set $N=\{0,1,2,\ldots \}$" as part of the article notation, without giving any specific name for the set members.) In fact, almost all Swedish mathematics text books I've seen include 0, including books in calculus.

I did not find this worth discussing in detail; but since seemingly the Bourbakists' choice influenced much of the usage of 0 as a natural number in many fields today, I thought it worth mention.

If you never looked up Bourbaki, please do! Note, that they never got around to their planned volumes on number theory. I do not claim that to be the reason 0 is usually not considered as a natural number in articles on number theory (at least not as the only explanation :-).

With that, I think this subject is fairly exhausted. I won't try to include a reference to Bourbaki usage. However, if you want to criticise what I write, please first read it carefully.

Yours sincerely, JoergenB 17:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dutch language

They've relocated Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Europe now? ::grin:: ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 15:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am totally lost as to the drift of this comment. Did I write anything relating to that? Have they not always been part of Europe? −Woodstone 21:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

English -ize or -ise

I'm afraid I'm neither British nor Australian. Thus as a European non-native speaker, reader and writer of English, I do not feel an urge to support or oppose the American spelling convention, but clearly hate to deviate from the Oxford English Dictionary preference that I was once taught: [1]. To me, -ise feels awkward and I do not assume to be the only one in Europe. In this respect, one might consider a change from -ize to -ise as instigated by nationalist motives. Even then though, I'm quite convinced that such is unintended, and you might be correct regarding younger Europeans – though I would not take that for granted as the OED is probably still used as a standard at high school today. — SomeHuman 24 Sep2006 02:32 (UTC)

See discussion at American and British English spelling differences. −Woodstone 10:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is consistent with the link to the OED I gave. Please note from your Wikipedia link: "Worldwide, the use of -ize in combination with British spelling is common in academic publishing (e.g. used in the science journal Nature, the WHO's ICD and ISO standards)." and we are writing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Especially outside Britain, one understandably teaches that upper level standard to Europeans, and according Wikipedia guidelines it follows that this spelling should then be used in articles like Dutch language. — SomeHuman 24 Sep2006 15:18 (UTC)

It is my impression that wikipedia considers "iz" to be AmEn and "is" "BrEn". This has been discussed several times in the style guides. You may want to check for example the article United Kingdom, which follows this convention. Besides that, however enlightening it may be, I would not qualify wikipedia as an academic work. −Woodstone 18:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You've been defrauded, SomeHuman. The part of the page you quoted is smack-dab wrong. The science journal Nature comes from a UK publisher, and both ISO and the WHO's ICD use -ize. I've made corrections to that article, and added citations to back up the corrections.

You point out that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Well, American and British English spelling differences isn't even newspaper. It's GeoCities crap. When you see content that isn't backed by a citation, you should

1. find a reliable source backing it up
2. delete it, or
3. add a {{cn}} or {{dubious}} tag.

Otherwise, you're allowing someone else to be hoodwinked, just as you were today. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 21:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am lost at the drift of this comment as well. The quote seems to be only slightly wrong and your update does not change the overall facts. How is SomeHuman defrauded? And surely not by me. −Woodstone 21:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you were the one who defrauded SomeHuman. I have no idea who entered that misinformation into WikiPedia. But yeah, it's only partially wrong; if you say "in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" instead of "worldwide", and delete two of the three examples, it suddenly comes fairly close to reality. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 00:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not deceived. I'm not the one who mentioned that article on Woodstone's talk page, I simply quoted from that Wikipedia article that was brought up by him. If user A states A' by making A' changes in an article, and user B says B' on the talk page of A, and then user A references to A" and finally user B quotes from A" because it actually proves B', there is no need for B to double-check A". In fact, I had brought up an external reference earlier in that section, one from a reliable source (unlike Wikipedia as ClairSamoht pointed out): the website from the Oxford English Dictionary. That source already had shown B'. For all clarity, B' is that European authors with the possible exception of British newspaper journalists and other contemporary everyday writings and the British government that may prefer a young image these days, generally use -ize and not -ise; that such usage of -ize is not simply American English spelling (statement A') – but actually high level British English spelling.

Now ClairSamoht, you made the sentence even worse. It first stated "Worldwide, the use of -ize in combination with British spelling is common in academic publishing (e.g. used in the science journal Nature, the WHO's ICD and ISO standards)." I was not surprised of WHO or ISO, as I consider both rather mainly American than British, to use the American -ize; and Nature, British, to use the high standard, traditional, British spelling -ize. I was rather surprised that it claims the WHO and ISO to generally use the British spelling. This would then have meant with respect to other issues, e.g. 'colour' instead of American 'color', but that was irrelevant for -ize/-ise in this discussion because all three use -ize, be it possibly for different reasons.

ClairSamoht, your change at least has the advantage that everyone now recognizes it as gibberish, but still does not tackle what you called the defrauding ... GeoCities crap: "Worldwide, the use of -ize in combination with British spelling is common in journals published by British publishers (e.g. used in the science journal Nature) but the ISO and the the WHO's ICD use "-ize"." In fact, you added external sources, such indexes are not desirable because these would belong inside the Wikipedia articles that are linked. Unless, of course, the particular external link would prove the spelling claim. This is not the case for Nature (not once -ise or -ize occurs in the linked text and nothing is said about the spelling). Also the external link index behind 'Nature' contains the http-address twice (a typo I corrected here above, though in this talk page without <references/> tag, those links cannot work) and the sentence shows -ize at start versus "-ize" at the end (uncareful style). The other added external links both show American spelling other than '-ize', and also -ize. An assumedly more correct version would still simply strenghten my point: "Worldwide, the use of -ize in combination with British spelling is common in journals published by British publishers (for instance, used in the science journal Nature), whereas publishers elsewhere and international organisations (such as the ISO and the the WHO's ICD) also use -ize, usually as part of their generally applied American spelling." – I have put this in the article.

ClairSamoht, you also put in an 'original research' tag with edit comment 'Appears to be mostly Original Research'. I find this quite amusing. On the -ise/-ize matter, the article has precisely the external link to the OED that I have provided in my initial comment in this section of Woodstone's talk page. Furthermore the article references several dictionaries, British-English ones and American ones, thus all the samples in the article are not some original research but can be found in the dictionaries. There is absolutely no need to put on each line, five-or-so indexes to the separate pages and line numbers in the references; unfortunately the burden of checking the given references by looking up facts one by one if you feel that need, can not be overcome that easily – because it would make every article unreadable. In case there is a particular statement that is insufficiently sourced (as possibly though I did not carefully verify: "The -ise form is used by the British government"), you should simply add {{fact}} at that place, not tag the whole article as if it were original research.

The latter is a false accusation towards its contributors. Also, your definite statement that I had been defrauded, implies either a personal attack against Woodstone (who delivered the source – after preparing this reply, I just read now that you did not mean him) or against other honest contributors who wrote that article: there is no reason to assume defrauding. Even if your interpretation of the sentence and facts would have been accurate, I might merely have been misled or misguided at most. And if I would be really shorttriggerish, I might see it is a personal attack against myself, as it implies shortsightedness or stupidity – which is amplified by your advice how I should read texts; fortunately, as explained, your assumption was incorrect and I had already earlier given a very good source that was backed up by the quote (and thus the other way around).

If one would genuinely want to improve the American and British English spelling differences article, one might look for sources that show which British spelling (OED -ize or contemporary news style -ise) is used in British and Australian recent top level literature and in British (English, Scottish) and Australian Law. That information is not explicitly in the article. Of course, most laws date from a time the OED style prevailed even in newspapers and that style is likely to be maintained in recent modifications. Thus one should not look into the laws themselves, but in recently written authoritative law papers and reference works. As non-British, non-Australian, and not being a legalist, I cannot reliably verify this myself.

In fact, the link to Wikipedia article 'Nature' again supports my B': it uses -ize which as I always keep telling, is also preferred by myself, by non-British European authors, and as shown here: in an encyclopedic article on a serious British topic (or at least topics like serious British texts as produced by Nature).

— SomeHuman 25 Sep2006 02:16 (UTC)

Woodstone, I think the usage of -ize by British scholars is sufficiently demonstrated (the OED reference, 'Nature' itself, the Wikipedia article on 'Nature') and the Dutch language page was probably for a significant part created by Dutch and Flemish contributors, of whom I was only a most minor one. I do not think someone ran through the article to change lots of -ise towards -ize before, thus it seems reasonable to respect -ize for an encyclop(a)edic article on Dutch. I just undid your switching -ize/-ise by an -ise/-ize revert (and respected edits done since yours). Our friendly discussion however, seems to have caused havoc on American and British English spelling differences to which you had provided a link. Funny thing, this Wikipedia. Perhaps then, the ise/ize is a rather hot topic for some in Britain. It may explain the spelling in the UK article and why ClairSamoth claims the currently heavily disputed article to be POV. Anyway, until Britain rolls entirely into ise, in other European countries one will remain conservative (OED) and teach scholarly style English (so as to easily read and even to be able to contribute to Nature etc). Since there are also many scholarly American texts, the -ize is probably going to stay for another while in continental Europe, hence my Dutch language intervention. — SomeHuman 26 Sep2006 21:40 (UTC)

I guess you had not noticed that my edit was not a global style change. Before my edit there was mix of is/iz. I made it consistent using a choice compatible with the wikipedia style guide. What you now did was a global pointless change of style. That is rather impolite and not wiki like. −Woodstone 19:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That is an utterly false accusation, and you should have known this by my edit comment:"(rv to best recent version, 2006-09-22 12:22 by Picapica ['-ize' is NOT just American: also very proper British] + then 'related', more recent 'very closely related', now 'closely related' + bot's vls)". You should compare versions so as to avoid making false claims. I reverted to the version that existed immediately before your edit and just put the 2 minor contributions meanwhile done by others back in, as proven here. Thus what I did (after discussion) cannot possibly have been more or less global than what you did (without any discussion). If it were a global style change, it would according to your standards, have been pointless and rather impolite of you. That thought had crossed my mind but you will not see such in my discussion. If it were not global, since you say you had spotted a mix of is/iz, Dutch language must still contain some '-ise' which should then be '-ize'd for consistency. Indeed, I just found 'standardisation', 'derecognised' and 'recognising', and a moment ago made these 3 words consistent in style — far less work than the 23 switches you had made. I can't immediately see anything else, but please be my guest. — SomeHuman 29 Sep2006 03:48 (UTC)

Equinox and Solstice

Before you do any edits on each of these two articles, please don't forget also edit the other one. Thank you. Yao Ziyuan 14:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Insulting the king

You said their was no doubt as to the illegality of insulting the king in Thailand. Yet, doesn't the very fact that the question was raised disprove that statement?Lehi 22:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thai linguistics

My wife is Thai and she swears "gaw gai" is voiced. She's from Issan, however, might that explain the discrepancy? KristoferM 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the Royal Thai General System of Transcription, the rendering of "ko kai" is "k" (not "g"). Much confusion is caused by the distinction between voicing and aspiration. The plosives can be voiced or unvoiced and aspirated or unaspirated. In many Indian languages all four combinations exist, in English (in initial, not clustered position in a syllable) only the combinations voiced/unaspirated and unvoiced/aspirated occur. Therefore English native speakers have great trouble pronouncing an unvoiced/unaspirated consonant like ko kai (to tao, po pla). The confusion is compounded by the fact that in Thai the voiced/unaspirated combination does not exist for the gutturals (unlike do dek, bo baimai). To my knowledge, there is no difference between Isan and standard Thai in this respect. The pattern is as follows, giving IPA and some Thai spelling:

	unaspirated		aspirated
	voiced	unvoiced	unvoiced
dental	[d] ด	[t] ต	[th] ท
labial	[b] บ	[p] ป	[ph] พ
guttural	[g] not present in Thai	[k] ก	[kh] ข

The voiced guttural does not occur in Thai. Ask your friend to exercise the relations in the table and judge again. The Thai letter ก is pronounced unvoiced and is thus systematically best represented by "k". This is consistent with both IPA and the Royal Thai Institute guideline. −Woodstone 21:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

ı and ɪ

Hi, I changed ı (dotless i) to ɪ (small capital I) in one of your comments. I hope you don't mind. :) --Kjoonlee 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

ok & thx (it does not look different in my font settings!) −Woodstone 17:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)