User talk:Chetrasho

Revert
Hello, I have reverted your edit to Absolute convergence. I believe the part you have remove shows an important property of alternating series that does not converge absolutely. I believe, based on your edit summary, that you might have not completely understood the article. It is mathematically correct and it does not imply "ln(2) = ln(2)/2". What it implies is "changing order of an infinite series that converges conditionally will change the sum". I have made minor wording changes to make this more clear. If you have time, you can read that article again to see if it makes more sense. Thanks, Rockvee (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Reordering the terms of a series creates a different series.
No, I understood the article completely. A series is an ordered sum. If you change the order, then you have a new series. It is false to say that a series can converge to different values depending on the ordering. The ordering is a fundamental part of the series.

In particular, the series that you exhibit converges to ln(2). If you change the ordering, then you have a different series which may converge differently. But it is wrong to say that the "series converges differently depending on the ordering". If you "reorder" a series, then you have a different series from the one that you suggested. You're saying that this series converges to ln(2) and ln(2)/2. This suggests ln(2) = ln(2)/2 which is a very big problem.

All of this is correctly summed up on the absolute convergence page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_convergence#Rearrangements_and_unconditional_convergence

ps Thanks for getting back to me though.... I'm going to re-edit that stuff out of there...

Alternating Series
Yes, the original version with "series can converge to different values if ordered differently" is pretty bad. Your edit made it much better! I don't get notification unless you post on my talk page, so most people just keep posting on each others talk page. I have to say it is not good for keep conversation threaded... Rockvee (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Monetary Sovereignty


The article Monetary Sovereignty has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No references, very short article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —> εϻαd ιν  ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 17:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Hello, and welcome! Although everyone is welcome to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Debt crisis with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Thank you! ~ Arjun  14:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hacker
Hi. The list of real people at Hacker is supposed to be people *called* Hack or Hacker - it's not a list of general scientific investigators -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sustainable Economics
Hello, Chetrasho, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Sustainable Economics, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! Sparthorse (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What did you think about the deletion notice you received?
Hi Chetrasho,

In November you received a message about either "Nomination for deletion" or "Proposed deletion" of an article you created. I'd like to ask you a few quick questions: You can feel free to answer on my talk page or send me your response by email (mpinchuk@undefinedwikimedia.org). (I won't quote you or link your answers to your username if you don't feel comfortable with that.) Your feedback is incredibly useful for improving the content of deletion notifications, so please take a minute to think about and answer these questions. Thank you! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Was the message helpful? Were the instructions clear and easy to follow?
 * 2) If not, how do you think the message could be improved?
 * 3) What do you think about the deletion process in general? Do you understand how to contest a deletion?

Re: Help on Phil Schneider
Re your message: You are welcome to write an article about him with the necessary sources. I only did a technical deletion of an orphaned talk page, not a deletion of the main article itself. I recommend that you write a draft article in your user page and then either ask the admin that protected the article, Stephen, to unprotect the article for you or ask for a deletion review. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Monetary Sovereignty
Dear Chetrasho

Just a quick note to let you know a discussion is underway on the talk page of the article you created, Monetary Sovereignty. We are discussing whether or not monopolistic prerogative over money issuance and management is a charactestic of monetary sovereignty. If you have a valuable opinion to contribute it would be appreciated.

Cheers

Alfy32 (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Monetary sovereignty
Your recent editing history at Monetary sovereignty shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

I have left comments on the talk page. Please read   Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  15:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

TP Good practice
Chetrasho, please consider the guidance in WP:SHOUT. Your undue emphasis does not help further the discussion. In fact, it detracts from your message. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Talk:Monetary sovereignty. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! – S. Rich (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Forum shopping
Discussion is going on at the Talk:Monetary sovereignty page perfectly well for some of the issues you have raised. It was highly inappropriate to go forum shopping to try to find others to support you by posting messages on several wikiproject pages (History, Politics, Law) and Talk:Bitcoin that might only be tangentially related or interested in that article. The only project currently watching that page appears to be the WikiProject Economics. That is really the only board that it would really be appropriate to post. Not necessary now, though, since other people are starting to comment. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really forum shopping. The projects are not noticeboards. Alerting editors involved in related projects is acceptable. See WP:CANVAS. – S. Rich (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it just looked at first like the user was posting to projects not really related. I am striking my original comment, then. After reading the article more while editing some for formatting fixes, etc. I see where the article could relate to some of those projects. I apologize, Chetrasho, for jumping the gun on that warning, it just seemed like spamming various projects since those weren't tagged on the talk page at the time. Thank you for clarifying S. Rich. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are most certainly welcome, JoannaSerah. And your integrity is appreciated. To Chetrasho, you might collapse this section or remove it entirely IAW WP:OWNTALK. – S. Rich (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Support (comment C&P'd from userpage)
I added a comment to Monetary Sovereignty supporting you today.99.117.61.154 (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Index sets in Series (mathematics)
Hej Chetrasho, Just to attend you on my post in Talk:Series(mathematics). I read through all your attempts of July 27, 2011, but at the end I cannot find any substantial content. Do you have references on the link between index sets and serieses (and limit numbers)? Cheers, -- Hesselp (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Scientific racism, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. '' User:Volunteer Marek has reverted your changes to the article, and for good reason. While Jefferson (and others) may have had "scientific" views about race, Wikipedia cannot set forth his ideas and say they were the product of "scientific racism". The actual term refers to the idea of racism that is improperly bolstered by pseudo-scientific thinking. When Jefferson (and others in his era) made their observations, they were using the best science available. This was perfectly proper for them to do, even if mistaken. In order to describe Jefferson et al. as scientific racists, we need scholarly WP:RS which says so. We (Wikipedians) cannot set forth our own views in this regard. Thanks. '' – S. Rich (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)