User talk:Dmcq/Archive 1

Intent
About Intent_(software): according to former Tao Group staff there is a version of Intent_(software) that support MMU. Can you modify the page?

Also Tao Group is in administration starting June 13, 2007 (from Register).

I really should only put down what I know - I wouldn't really know what to say about supporting an MMU. I don't think I even put down what chips are/were supported. The Tao Group page says they are in administration and that's the right place I think. You can always edit a page yourself though if you like Dmcq 22:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dance floor (surface)
Please be very careful when throwing the word "vandalism" around. Remember that, on Wikipedia, vandalism is "the deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Since my speedy deletion of Dance floor (surface) was not a deliberate attempt to compromise the encyclopedia, it certainly wasn't vandalism.

Now, why do you feel that way? Did the article have some significance? The reason I deleted it is because it was three sentences long and had very little context. One of the three sentences linked to Marley Floors, an article of six sentences that was simply advertising for the company.

Would you like me to restore the "dance floor" article to your userspace? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Intent (software)
Another editor has added the  template to the article Intent (software), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a look and that one doing the prod had earlier removed another article by someone else I had found interesting. Seems he goes round doing this to all sorts of things he knows nothing about so I checked a few other related articles at the same time and he'd been doing invalid nn on them despite their references clearing showing notability. And then he's set up a few of his own rather un-notable stub artcles. I suppose it takes all sorts to make wiki. I'd have though there was enough real rubbish arond for him to spend his time on. Dmcq (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice artwork
Great job with the SVG illustration Image:Woodsprung.svg. It is very professional. --TMC1221 (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RD Regs
FYI, you're on this list   :) hydnjo talk 12:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch - thanks for the fix - now I feel as though I should be hammered or already am! -hydnjo talk 01:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Medical advice?
I removed you response to the question about anal itching. For my reason and any discussion see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

math question on reference desk.
Hi Dmcq. My answer is not shown on [] but only on []. I don't know why. Cheers, Bo Jacoby (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

Pier Gerlofs Donia
Did you know (DYK) about Greate Pier? Last king of Frisia (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Exponentiation page
Dear Dmcq, Thank you for your efforts to improve the Exponentiation page, but there are a couple of changes you made recently that I disagree with:
 * In general, I think the modern viewpoint is to require fixing a branch of the complex logarithm before even talking about non-integer powers of nonzero complex numbers. This avoids a lot of the confusion regarding "multivalued functions", which is a muddy concept at best.  So probably it would be best if we minimized discussion of it as a multivalued function and instead required a choice of branch (and say that the value depends on the choice).  (It's a subtle difference, but I think it clarifies things greatly.)  In particular, I would recommend removing mention of multivalued functions from the "failure of identities" section.
 * When you write that "powers of negative numbers are...discontinuous even where defined" whereas "powers of complex numbers are continuous", this does not make sense to me.
 * Is ii important enough that it is worth adding to what is already a long article? (Maybe, but I'm not sure.  Maybe it should be discussed on the talk page.)
 * I don't see anything wrong with 1 = (-1.-1)1/2.
 * I don't see anything wrong with the first line of the Clausen argument. What is wrong is going from the second line to the third, which assumes the identity.
 * The claim that the real number e and the complex number e+0i are different is (at best) a nonstandard point of view.
 * Qualifying the "rule of calculus" by saying it holds only where exponentiation is continuous defeats the purpose of the statement. This qualification of the statement is compatible with defining 00 = 1, since it does not require the limit formula to hold at this discontinuous point.  I still think it would be best simply to remove this "rule of calculus" sentence.

Best, FactSpewer (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To take your points in order.


 * The modern viewpoint of the logarithm in mathematics is as far as I'm aware that it is defined on a Riemann surface, this is referred to as the log function and the principal value version is called Log. Talking about a multivalued function is certainly old-fashioned but it is closer to current practice than just dealing with the single valued form.


 * Powers of negative reals are discontinuous, they are only defined for some rational and even then keep changing sign. By contrast the principal value of (-r+0i)^(p+i0) is defined as e^(p log(r) + p &pi; i) which is continuous.


 * The different values of ii have been mentioned in a number of places as the example of multiple possible values. I could dig up some reference if you like.


 * There are two possible square roots of 1 and that's what the multi-valued view says.


 * If you have a look above at the business of the powers of negative number being discontinuous you can see one of the problem with treating real numbers and complex numbers as the same. Exponentiation of e+i0 uses the rules for complex powers whereas exponentiating e as a real uses the rule for real numbers. This really only comes and bites you when talking about multiple values or the Riemann surface but logically it is just wrong.


 * The exponentiation doesn't have to be continuous at (0,0), that only has to be a limit point. The limiting process doesn't have to include the limit point.


 * Hope this clears up the various points. Dmcq (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's two articles on the web dealing with the multiple values of ii and the second has references to a couple of books and magazines.


 * What is i to the Power of i?
 * Complex number to a complex power may be real


 * Plus the wiki Imaginary unit article mentions the multiple values of i^i.


 * Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dmcq, I don't have strong feelings about i^i, so what you do with this is OK with me. As for the other points, I'll move this discussion to Talk:Exponentiation, which is probably where I should have started it in the first place. Sorry for cluttering up your talk page! --FactSpewer (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Come and hear
You're right, I could have been more explicit about the issues with this site. Jayjg (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverts
I think it's a little harsh to revert edits by Xzungg as "vandalism". Even if I disagree with the edits, I think Xzungg is trying to improve the article. I need to find a different way to try to explain the concerns I have with his text. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If he'd stuck it in other than the heading like he has done before that would have been fine by me but he has been arguing the case for a while and just stuck it in instead for the main heading and removed opposing views. Dmcq (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the edit was not very good, and I support reverting it. I'm just saying that "vandalism" is a pretty extreme charge. I think that "misguided" or something like that might be more kind. I do appreciate your comments on the talk page, which have been thoughtful and to the point. It's very hard for any one person to handle a situation like this, because it turns into just a back-and-forth. So having more editors makes a big difference for finding out which side actually has support. Sometimes it turns out both sides have support, but I don't think that's the case here. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay will try harder to avoid the V word. Dmcq (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk mathematics
Thank you for the response. Most of the properties for Novak space are trivial except I still haven't verified first countability (I will think about it and get back to it but maybe first countability is trivial).

Topology Expert (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thinking in Words
Hi there:

I read your response on the Ref Desk where you mention that you don't usually think in words. I am astonished, but eager to learn more. I am limited in that I don't know any other way of thinking than with words. Is it images you use? How might you "think about" asking someone to marry you, for example, or the advantages of different insurance policies or the merit of one ethical response over another? I am truly curious and am hoping for enlightenment. You can reply here; I have watchlisted this page. Thanks, ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I had to have a think about this. There seems to be a fair bit of literature about different modalities of thought, for instance in a model called VARK for whether people have a leaning for a visual, auditory, reading and writing or kinesthetic presentation when learning. NLP theories also seem to go in for that sort of thing. Personally I think words are mainly a way of communicating but they probably also have a role in encoding thoughts so one can remember them better. Certainly I have problems remembering things and have a whole load of not very effective tricks to remember anything like a name for instance.
 * As to specifics I don't think the human race would be here if there was a problem about finding a mate if we didn't have words! Looks nice, smells nice, like the voice, intelligent, dances, interested in children, interested in me - there was no great problem, a little checklist working in the background was happy and pulled the switch on my emotions to say that's the one. I do prepare some things in advance to say if circumstances arise as I'm not exactly fast on my feet but isn't asking to marry more about how it is done than the actual words?
 * Insurance policies are about quantities and probabilities and I'm fine with those, in fact if I think about a place for instance I don't visualize it quite visually. I feel it inside me without colours and in a way transparent but with textures and materials and with a kind of probability haze for what I don't know well. Quantities need much more gradation than words supply, words just give a summary of the final decision I'd have thought like A is more than B. Future possibilities are deal with in a fairly similar manner and directly modeled complete with benefits and probabilities though they tend to be more like stretched elastic or gears.
 * As to ethics, words and sophistry seem to go hand in hand. Being economical with the truth is a words way of covering up. You probably have already made up your own mind about the ethics, if you only worked in words wouldn't you be happy to accept the lie? In my thinking relationships or attributes are the main thing and objects are defined by their relationships - which also contributes to my problems with names! Ethics tend to be straight relationships though they also have a relationship to other ethics.
 * Sorry if it sounds a bit disjointed, I wonder if we really can see our own thoughts as we've already finished a thought when we think about thinking it. Probably why words are thought to be so essential if they really are a way of packaging it all up. I've seen some things saying we only become aware of a decision long after we've already made it and I can well believe that. A couple of times when driving for instance I've done things like braking the car which have left me wondering for a couple of seconds why I've done them. Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am confusing "thinking" with "thinking about". I analyse ("think about") a relationship, in the "I say, he says", mode, and all of that is in words in my head, before or after the fact. However, I do a lot of responding to people, situations et. al. without words, and the nature of of my response is obviously based on some conclusion ("thinking") I have reached (friend/foe being the simplest set of possibilities) without being aware of the process as there are no words involved. As for ethics, it would be true to say that I have a reaction to a scenario that I may then use words to explain, justify or befuddle. Thanks for taking the time to respond. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair division
Hi Dmcq, thank you for your comment on my talk page. I took it into account and have completed my remark on the "Fair division" page. If you have further misgivings or comments then I'll be glad to read them (of course you may also simply edit the "Fair division" page, it goes without saying). Best regards, -- Wlod (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

PST
I think this remark was uncalled for. First of all, despite initial appearances, I don't think that PST is the person you think that he/she is. Secondly, I think that PST has potentially valuable contributions to make to the encyclopedia, and should be encouraged rather than discouraged. (To me, this was always the primary reason for the WP:BITE policy.) Then again, I sympathize with your aggravation, so please don't think of this as anything but a friendly outside comment. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 01:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

About math formulae
Thanks for addressing 800x600 window size of a math formula. See my explanation at User_talk:Wikid77. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Spiderman and Brachistochrone
It's a dead issue. I will not revert.

But I am confused why a google test would be more valid than Nahin's published book... To be discussed some other time?

Cheers and thanks, M a s (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No books are normally worth more, but any old odd remark in a book doesn't make something notable. The reference in Nahin's book was just an incidental remark and the thing about google was just to show how little general interest there was. I just don't see how it came anywhere near as notable even as the reference to Mir in the Simpsons as mentioned in WP:HTRIVIA. Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Floors
There are no ads - none, I never placed any ads or attempted to place any adds on the page. Sustainable flooring is a type of flooring, not an advert, and it is relevant to the floor page. Floor page and flooring page are joined, and that means, information about ANY type of flooring is relevant. There is no sustainable flooring information available - and I made a start I hope will develop to a well informed article for all users to enjoy. Be careful about your accusations, and first VERIFY any of your concerns, then try to TALK about your issues- if you have any evidence that teh information was malicious or incorrect, not when you don't like it- that is a childish reason for accusations.WDIAROM (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The content put in ads and did no contribute to the article. I see you blanked your talk page a couple of times because of negative comments so I don't suppose there's much point replying there. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dmcq, please read through User talk:tedder too. tedder (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A lot of the references are the same as ones I'd removed before as spam. At least there was an attempt to integrate them into the article this time which I actually feel is progress. The main reason for just removing the lot though is that the whole subject is only worth one or two sentences at most in the floor article and a good citation. It really isn't about floors. The article already has bits on cork floors and bamboo things like that. If he wants to write more than that on sustainable flooring it should have its own article I feel, it possibly is notable and I wouldn't have objections with some of the references he provided. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can agree with you on that- it was undue weight. Between the user and the IP, it's getting to be close to WP:TE; note all the accusations of biting newbies, and how many times simple maintenance templates have been removed (which are very necessary on that article, even without the new additions!). tedder (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a bit of a mess. The thing I'd been meaning to do for a while is split the flooring stuff out. It was separate before but was a mess with three different articles, I think it could be put in just one with redirects cleanly now. Dmcq (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting). See here: Wikiquette_alerts. tedder (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

confusion about oxidation
please told me how loss of electron. loss of hydrogen and gain of oxygen for oxidation is same. i am confused because electron have negative charge and hydrogen having positive. then how loss of both causes oxidation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshknit (talk • contribs) 09:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Codomain
I've started thread on codomain concerning my additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123unoduetre (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Iraq teen
Please stop hounding me about that kid. I posted in several different places, in order to get different editors point of view on whether this kid is notable enough. You've given your opinion. Let others speak now. If you continue to ABF and harrass me I will report you for violating WP:CIVILITY. Thank you for your time. D rew S mith  What I've done  11:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Response at User talk:Drew R. Smith Dmcq (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for taking part in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_accessible. We'd appreciate your continued interest in the subject, as well as your opinion on the proposed merger of these templates. Debresser (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

revert of link removal (ceiling)
Doesn´t make too much sense to have nowhere links under "see also" whne there is nothing to see. Once the articles are created it´s easy to re-add the links.--Misterneu (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Red links show there is nothing to see without clicking. Have you read the section of WP:REDLINK about existing links? My reading is that if they form a topic list like that see also and have a reasonable expectation of being completed they should be left as they are. They give the user a nmmore complete picture of the subject and may impel them to fill the red link. Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It´s an old question how to deal with that. However I don´t have a problem with your view. So let´s leave it like it is and wait if someone will have compassion on the topics once...--Misterneu (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a bit on stretch ceilings but I'm probably not the person to write anything on it. Wikipedia seems to be a bit slow developing straightforward items in construction. Dmcq (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

IQ talk
No, just look there now. Thanks. V3n0w (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Pie method
I added a to Pie method; it looks like a redo of Divide and choose, with an incorrect extension to the 3-person case.

I also copied your note to WT:WikiProject Economics because I thought this deletion was at least as relevant there as in WikiProject Math.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thirteenth floor
Thanks for your note re 13th floor. Helpful.Raymondwinn (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Change to Differential (infinitesimal)
Moved the stuff from here to Talk:Differential (infinitesimal), not going to do article discussion on my talk page. Dmcq (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Excelent.Usuwiki (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Using logarithms with base between 0 and 1 to solve inequalities
You removed the lines below from the Logarithm page.

When taking the logarithm of both sides of an inequality such as


 * $$a < b^n$$,

where 0 < b < 1, you must reverse the direction of the inequality.

Thus, after taking the logarithm with base b of both sides, the above inequality becomes


 * $$log_b(a) > n$$.

Why? Were they in the wrong place? Are they incorrect? Did you mean to do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingpiko (talk • contribs) 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I should have put in a note about it as well as the other change I reverted. I simply do not think that it is notable. It is not the sort of thing that people have written about in maths books, it looks to me like something you thought of while solving some exercise. Dmcq (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. The notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. What I added was presented with a neutral point of view, was verifiable and was not original research. Wikipedia is not a textbook, so it seems inappropriate to cite the fact that you are unaware of its presence in a math book as a reason for it not to be on Wikipedia. In fact, that is actually a reason why it should be on Wikipedia: it is simply an informative a fact about logarithms.

Granted, not all facts should be on Wikipedia, but this one seems, at least to me, to be more than trivia.

kingpiko 22:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There will be something about it in one of those documents I'm not a wikilawyer. You should not stick in things people are not interested in and if you were unable to find anything about it it is uninteresting. Working things like that yourself counts as original research as far as wikipedia is concerned, verifiability means that one can find citations. Dmcq (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vishal (name)
A tag has been placed on Vishal (name) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Durova 311 23:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Appears the copy was the other way around so will as to get it restored. Dmcq (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

reference desk - oscillator
Sorry about my apparently stupid questions about oscillators on the reference desk - I totally failed to notice that the poster had said 'harmonic oscillator' - I simply read it as 'oscillator' and failed to notice or appreciate the significance of the 'harmonic' part. Hence my failure to understand.83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

MOSMATH
I found this:
 * For example the value of 4-5 is undefined if an positive integer result is required.
 * For example the value of 4-5 is undefined if an positive integer result is required.

I changed it to this:
 * For example the value of 4 &minus; 5 is undefined if an positive integer result is required.
 * For example the value of 4 &minus; 5 is undefined if an positive integer result is required.

Does 4-5 really look to you like 4 &minus; 5? On my browser, the difference is very conspicuous. Notice two differences: a hyphen differs from a minus sign; and spacing precedes and follows the minus sign. See WP:MOSMATH. This usage is standard in Wikipedia articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Took a while for me to figure out what this was about. It seems I made a formatting mistake in the Defined and undefined article some time ago. I normally try to put in proper minuses but sometimes forget. It sounded from the above that I'd changed his edit in the WP:MOSMATH article or somewhere else from a minus to a hyphen which I hadn't. Dmcq (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation for WikiProject Economics Guidelines
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, LK (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's come to this, but edit warring continues on the project homepage. LK (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Have signed agreement. Not really what I want to spend time on but let see how it goes. My betting is it'll all fail and eventually go to arbitration but I seem to have a thing for trying to save things which look doomed. Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Vision Thing -- 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Complaint about an edit the complainant was not involved with and has shown no support for and the other editor hasn't raised as a problem even though very capable of standing up for self. This mediation looks like it will be interesting in the Chinese sense. Dmcq (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. He just put in a different edit of his own on something different and was trying to warn me off but somebody else has now gone and reverted it as against policy. Yep better wait for mediation before doing much there. Dmcq (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

feeding reference trolls
In general, I think it is better to avoid feeding reference trolls. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was assuming good faith as it didn't look designed to provoke argument in that position. I think Coneslayer was quite correct in moving it to the talk page though. Dmcq (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was talking about the Kurt Gödel article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 09:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry. I've just had another look at his user page and yes I agree he looks like a low level troll. Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I don't get it ...
I don't get your "Come back Gaddafi, all is forgiven" reference. Just for personal edification, can you explain? thanks LK (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was just thinking of people like Gaddafi at the UN taking up ones time with their personal bee in a bonnet, ignoring any agreed rules of conduct, alleging conspiracies and having strange points of view. Actually looking at it again I think Gaddafi's speech could almost be transcribed wholescale into some wiki talk pages without looking out of place. Dmcq (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I've never actually seen any of Gaddafi's speeches, but I can image. Some people just like to hector. I wonder how they get that way. LK (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He spoke for an hour and a half last month when it supposed to be only a quarter of an hour. Fidel Castro seemingly was worse Dmcq (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
Given a couple of your recent remarks, unless you indicate that you actively wish to be included in a remounted Mediation, I am going to infer that you would rather not participate, and would respect a decision (if any) that came out of such a Mediation. If you'd prefer to be included, then please add yourself to the list at “New Mediation”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 11:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have declined saying happy to abide by result. Dmcq (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Godel's theorem
You wanted a short version of the proof of Godel's theorem: given an axiomatic system S which can talk about computers, write the code SPITE to:


 * 1) Print its own code into a variable R
 * 2) deduce all consequences of S looking for the theorem "R does not halt"
 * 3) if it finds this theorem, halt.

S cannot prove "R doesn't halt" without R halting. So if S proves "R does not halt", R halts, and S also proves "R halts" which means that S is inconsistent. So a consistent S does not prove "R doesn't halt" and this statement is also true.

But S could prove "R halts" without contradiction (this is subtle! S proves a falsehood in thsi case). To show that such an S is still incomplete, write the program ROSSER


 * 1) Print its own code into a variable R
 * 2) deduce all consequences of S looking for a) "R print something out" or b) "R does not print something out"
 * 3) if it finds a), ROSSER halts without printing. If it finds b), it prints "Hello", and halts.

Now S cannot prove "ROSSER prints something out", nor the negation, "ROSSER does not print something out".

This presentation is the original addition I made to the Godel's incompletness page. It was two paragraphs, but it got deleted, and the row started.Likebox (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence quotient revert
Hi Dmcq,

Well, I didn't notice there were other edits in this ocean of spamming activity. It looked like way clearer to me to revert the page back to 17th of October just before the beginning of Mr. Duong Khac Cuong's (User:Vietnamiq, and other vietnamese's IPs) appearance in the history page.

Kind Regards, Xavier. Xavierjouve (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problems and thanks. I wonder if he'll be back again tonight! Dmcq (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact I notice he actually fixed one small problem himself which is quite surprising. Dmcq (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Image vs. range
Hello dmcq, thank you for leaving a comment on my talk page. The guidelines for using the merge template seem to have changed. Up until now no one except you has ever complained about me using it in articles - and having a look at Template:Merge does not mention that a discussion on talk pages has to be done to explicitly give reasons why the two or more articles should be merged. Anyways, it's obvious why I put up the merge proposal to the articles Range (mathematics) and Image (mathematics): Common practice at Wikipedia is that when two articles are identical in definition or explanation, then merge them. If the definitions in the articles seem to be identical, but are actually not, then clearly correct the definitions given in all articles AND additionally explain in all articles what differentiate the two or more lemmata. As you're saying on my talk page that you don't think it is a good idea to merge the articles as they can be different, then you seem to have good reasons. Therefore please let me and other participate in your knowledge and edit the two articles to explicitly state their differences. Otherwise I will put up the merge proposal again in a few days, starting a discussion on their talk pages and giving reasons. Cheers, --Abdull (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Image article just says Some texts refer to the image of f as the range of f, but this usage should be avoided because the word "range" is also commonly used to mean the codomain of f.
 * The Range article says Sometimes [range] is called the image, or more precisely, the image of the domain of the function.


 * See WP:MM section on Proposing a merger. I'd have set up a talk page section myself except I considered it obvious a merge shouldn't go ahead.
 * Range is an ambiguous term. It can refer to either the image or the codomain. It also has some other meanings. It should not be merged with either codomain or image which are different from each other and unambiguous terms. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:POLICY
Just checking ... our discussion at WT:POLICY seems like a reasonable choice for this Monday's WP:SIGNPOST Policy Review section ... but if you'd like to add to your comments, or add or subtract to the summary of your or anyone else's comments at WT:POLICY, please feel free. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:EDIT
I'm just starting the November update. You added Wikipedia principles to the bottom ... I'm not sure if it's out of place or not, but since that's been on the bottom of pages such as WP:5P and the page where Jimbo talks about his principles, I'm concerned that it might give people the wrong impression about this policy page ... you never know. Would you like to add it to a number of policy pages, or should we keep it on pages that have been described as principles? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by the November update. I put the principles template there so people looking up the editing policy would find things like the 5P easily. When people start editing they should also learn some basic principles I feel. What kind of wrong impression were you thinking of? It doesn't say the page itself is a principle. After all the policies template is just below it. I'd be quite happy if the two templates were amalgamated into a nice overall box in fact. Dmcq (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If all the policy pages had that on the bottom, it would give the impression that those are important principles people should refer to. (I'm not sure if all Wikipedians would like the idea of putting Jimbo's take on the same level as 5P and policy, but I don't have any feeling about that one way or the other.)  But if it just appears on some policy pages, it may give the impression that those pages are closer to our "immutable principles" than other policy pages.  The update I'm referring to is WP:Update; a summary of "November so far" will be in my column in tomorrow's Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * People must have a desperate need of hierarchies of importance I feel if they're going to infer things like that from the templates on the bottom of a page. I was thinking of putting that template on the bottom of a few more policies as well which I though were the main ones new editors would come across and read. Just ploughing through policies isn't I feel a good way of bringing people up to speed quick. It isn't as though the principles have any direct immediate force in of themselves, that's all done by the policies and guidelines, but they give people a way to align themselves so it isn't all just a thousand random rules. Dmcq (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see, fashions change. It used to be that when people started inserting things the Foundation and/or Jimbo said on policy pages, they got an earful.  I never understood the big deal, myself, but that's because I wasn't around for much of the fireworks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, I think your idea is good, but we shouldn't do it without consulting Jimmy ... he may be uncomfortable with inserting his name at the bottom of policy pages, I'll go ask on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

De Moivre's theorem
why are you not accepting my amendments?

I have supplied u with the proof...What's the big deal now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsislife (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The proof is wrong. See the section "Failure for non-integer powers". Please do not make up proofs. Dmcq (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well state a wrong thing in my proof.

If you can't Please accept it.

And what you are referring me to see the Failure section, I say that the failure section is wrong because according to the concepts in Functions, the Square root of a real or a complex number is strictly taken as a positive, be it have two possibilities ,but if you are taking the roots of any number, the root functions restricts us to take only positive roots. More over the definition of Functions says that if we have 2 sets namely A and B, then function f is defined as  the elements of A which uniquely  relates to elements in set B. If we are talking about functions, no solutions can have two ways which violates the definition of Function itself!!! Here is another proof regarding n=rational numbers. I dunno how to write precisely in BB codes...so I will not be using any BB language.

Suppose n= p/q where p,q are integers and q is not equal to 0

we can write cos x + i sin x = cos (q/q)x + i sin (q/q)x

put x/q = a => cos x + i sin x = cos qa + i sin qa

=> cos x + i sin x = (cos a + i sin a)^q [using De Moivre's theorem for integers for q]

Decreasing the power by q on both sides, we have (cos x + i sin x)^1/q = cos a + i sin a

Increasing the power by p on both sides,

(cos x + i sin x)^p/q = (cos a + i sin a)^p

Now we know p/q is n, so

(cos x + i sin x)^n = cos pa + i sin pa [Again using De Moivre's theorem for Integers for p] Now we can write a= x/q,so

(cos x + i sin x)^n = cos (p/q)x + i sin (p/q) x

Since p/q is n,

therefore,

(cos x + i sin x)^n = cos nx + i sin nx

For n belonging to rational numbers...

This might calm you down and support my editing.

See it on http://www.dsprelated.com/dspbooks/mdft/De_Moivre_s_Theorem.html

NOTE:- the link is a supportive, not the basis of my argument —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsislife (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing wrong with your proof is that the power laws don't apply straightforwardly to imaginary numbers. See the talk page of the article for other people having the same idea as you. For anything except integer powers they are multiple possible values. I would also like to point you to No original research forbids people putting in their own proofs into articles. Any proof must be some sort of restatement of a proof in a peer reviewed source. Your proof is not peer reviewed. The reference you gave was not a peer reviewed source. Dmcq (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But e^anything is positive real numbers.Always! And in the failure of non Integer section, u have written e^ipi =-1


 * See Euler's identity Dmcq (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That proves it that E^x is always non negative,in the function f(x) = e^x the value of Range of the function always remans in  the first 2 quadrants of the coordinate plane, as suggested by the graph.!!!!

I can give you more proofs regardind n = rational numbers where you use Eular's formula to prove that n can be rational number, in fact any complex number!
 * See e (mathematical constant)

this contradicts your amendments of $$ e^ipi = -1 $$ I will give you a proof tomorrow. And don't think these are original ideas, these are what we are taught here!!! Till tomorrow find a thing wrong to the proofs I already supplied you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsislife (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not want any of your proofs. Your proofs are Original research which is forbidden on Wikipedia. You have to give a cite to as peer reviewed publication if you're going to try proving that mathematicians have been wrong for the last few hundred years. None of your own proofs please. If you want to do your own proofs you need to get them into a peer reviewed publication. Wikipedia is not the place for your own proofs. I am not going to debate with you about your proofs or bother trying to show anything about them. If it isn't in a peer reviewed publication I won't look at it and it isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia it is not a publisher of original thought. Anything in it must be verifiable as checked and in a reliable source. I hope I'm clear. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

These all proofs are a part of our curriculum Dude!

If I show all these in a book., would you accept it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathsislife (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Falcon8765 (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

List of origami societies
This should probably be re-merged back into origami. I was about to perform the merger and then I saw that the article was just recently created. I don't think it's long enough for a spinout article, nor does it include any information that couldn't be covered more succinctly at the original article.  Them From  Space  22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd delete it instead of putting it in that original article but you can do as you like. I don't see the problem with the smallness of the list. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I merged it back since I managed to squeeze a line of content out of the list. It's at the end of the "History" section.  Them From  Space  23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. I better remember about trying to do things that way. Dmcq (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Predicting number of items in a set
See Reference_desk/Archives/Mathematics/2010_January_6.

Bo Jacoby (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

khayyam the first person who created the the triangle of numbers
I do not why you do not want to accept the reality and the fact.i accept that pascal's triangle is more popular than other names but we must respect the scientists and the one who was the first. ya this page is an English page in wikipedia but it is not a good accuse for destroying the history and a great scientist.last time i added these terms to this page khayyam-pascal triangle and Tartaglia's triangle for respecting the scientist and the nations but again, you refuse to accept it and i got depressed because you as a mathematician do not respt the father's of mathematician and mathematics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roohollah1988 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will put my answer on the talk page of the article. Putting things on a talk page makes things personal and any discussion should be about improving the article and not directed at editors unless there is something personal to talk about. Dmcq (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Dmcq (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Using pov labels for categories
Thanks for recently proposing the deletion or merger of a pov category. I wish we had an admin patroller who did that routinely. Another annoyance for me is the category "fraudster" apparently a word in use among some English dialects, but another label, rather than the objective category "persons convicted of fraud" or whatever. But anyway thanks for this nomination. A step in the right direction. Student7 (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever
Infantile threats are unwelcome, especially when accompanied by false accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.49 (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

written about this diff Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Roscrad
Just fyi, I've reported Roscrad to AN/I. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominen attack
Just because you disagree with another editor, this does not give you licence to accuse them of POV pushing. Despite our disagreements, please assume good faith: the fact that I am discussing the issues with you does not indicate that I am not "unwilling to follow the dispute resolution process". In no way is a constructive discussion "fruitless". I think you will find that if you "invoke administrator intervention to stop you on those grounds", you will be told that accusing me of "Civil POV pushing" is in itself a contravention of WP:CIVIL. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If only you would assume good faith, perhaps you would realise that I am engaged in the process of dispute resolution by discussing the issues on the talk page of the article conerned. Simply changing the forum in which the discussion takes place makes no significant difference to this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously not willing to follow the dispute resolution process. Oh well on to the next step. Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you are not assuming good faith. I am happy to follow any dispute resolution process you care to name.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would have been great when I suggested ways to proceed before. Now however General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement is current and I'm just going to wait and see how that pans out. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you did suggest some form of dispute resolution before, I don't recall objecting to it. In fact, I have initiatied a call for a third opinion in the past. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No you didn't object, you just completely ignored my repeated requests that you raise it at an appropriate noticeboard as per the next step in WP:DISPUTE because the consensus was against you on the talk page. That's what I was saying at the request for action and perhaps you'd better address your remarks there rather than my talk page. Dmcq (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW I just had a look at your profile and you have done over 15000 edits to wikipedia in the last couple of years so if anything it should be me asking you how to proceed with disputes. Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of any procedural or moral obligation that your requests seem to have imposed upon me. But in any case, was there anything to stop you from doing it yourself? Its one thing to accuse me of not being willing to follow the process of dispute resolution if you yourself were not.
 * WP:DISPUTE says "If the previous steps fail to resolve the dispute, try one of the following methods. Which ones you choose and in what order depends on the nature of the dispute and the preferences of people involved." You are obligated to stop or to proceed, not to just fill the talk page with the same old stuff again and again. I have no dispute with the contents of the article but I do have a conduct dispute with you and have raised the issue to what I believe is an appropriate place. Now please take your comments to that discussion. Dmcq (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It takes two to tango. These arguments could just as easily apply to you. The only difference is that I have not resorted to personal attacks. Refering to my reasonable arguments as "same old stuff again and again" is a matter of opinion, and little more than a veiled personal attack. as WP:DISPUTE says, "The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Take your comments to the discussion about this. Dmcq (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a pointer to that discussion about these additional comments. Dmcq (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

{undent} You need to back off of Gaving Collins a little, comments such as this are not civil and are inappropriate at this point. He is pursuing options specifically suggested by the board here. If he causes disruption after OR/N and NPOV disagree with him then you can petition for a topic ban for him. But harrasment of another wikipedia editor is not ok and what you are doing is bordering on harrasment. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand by what I said. If you wish to pursue this further then please file a complaint at WP:WQA. Here is a recent example why I said that . Dmcq (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop the ad hominen attacks, as these are hurtful and unecessary. If you disagree with what I have said, that is fine, just say so and leave it at that.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never attacked you. I see no useful result coming from what you are doing and it takes up a bit of my time. I would like you to go and do something useful instead. Dmcq (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Floors
About flooring:

I'm not really impressed with the WHO's definition of absolute poverty -- just like I'm surprised that anyone believes that a person has a true human right to force his neighbors to educate him at their expense (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, section 26) or to paid holidays away from work (section 24) -- but if you take the definitions as markers, rather than direct proof, it's probably right. Most earthen floors in the world are poorly constructed, badly maintained, and their existence increases the likelihood that the occupants will be exposed to needless dirt and insects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with cslearn.netne.net
I've put my responses on User talk:Josh1983 Dmcq (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change denial
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log, a recently started discussion on these notification messages to which you may want to contribute. Perhaps the wording needs to be made clearer so as not to mislead or even drive away new editors. --TS 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: COI on climate change denial
I was referring to THF, who if i'm not mistaken, was a fellow of the AEI at that point in time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was just affirming that probably yes it would be better to keep the section on the evidence shown. I don't suppose THF will be too happy with my opinion they are thoughtless rednecks rather than deniers! Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you convinced me
Please look over Talk:Climate change denial. I've changed my mind and have some ideas for adding back the information, but I don't want to do it without getting some feedback. When you get a chance, please look it over. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note
Concerning the article Climate change denial,  has opened an enforcement case against me at    Wikipedia:General  sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests  for enforcement. As someone involved with the page, I thought you should be informed. ► RATEL ◄ 06:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tesseract talk
Let's discuss your opinion on tesseract animation in the talk of that page.Jgmoxness (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

exponentiation
Please stop call it an "original research". Simple mathematical results obtained from common definitions are not to be considered as an original research. I stick to Wikipedia guidelines, not less than you do. HOOTmag (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop inserting that rubbish against consensus. Dmcq (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop calling other editors' edits "rubbish". It's not a proper way for treating arguments. HOOTmag (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What you inserted was rubbish. Dmcq (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And I asked you to stop calling it rubbish. It's not a proper way to refer to other editors. HOOTmag (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not referring to an editor, I am referring to the content inserted into the article. Please discuss the content on the talk page if you wish to try and defend it. Dmcq (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia
Thank you for your intervention at talk:Conservapedia. Discussion over the entry's main points of contention was delayed due to a 7 day RfD#RationalWiki and the same issues debated on other pages. Incivility and personal attacks are continuing to disrupt good faith efforts to discuss some of the articles problems talk:Conservapedia. nobs (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the other editors there that you should make a specific suggestion rather than just stick a POV tag on. I don't like isn't a good argument especially when non-specific. Dmcq (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

re Greatness
hello and thank you for your comment. I can see how you might have gotten the 'rag bag' impression, but what I've done is to simply make links from greatness to articles on individuals who were specifically mentioned on that page in relation to a specific aspect of social scientific research re the topic of 'greatness'. Einstein and da Vinci, for example, appear twice in the 'greatness' article. I have only made 8 such links and have another four or five to do. that is all. if I were reading the Einstein article, for eg, and came across a link to an article which discusses major social scientific research done on the topic of 'greatness' in which Einstein was considered, I would follow it up with interest.

if that's not appropriate, please let me know as I'm new to wiki.

again thanks for contacting me about this.

AgRince (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, link backs are not appropriate. See also is for things that are relevant to the article. As I said on your talk page a category is the most appropriate way of classifying an article which is what you were doing. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks again for coming back re this. I followed your suggestion and read the wiki 'categorization' page. the example there re cities in France, in relation to settlements and geography, immediately triggered a parallel categorization for greatness, with various subcategories which would like those of cities, towns, villages, etc have their own defining characteristics, and which at end of the day would have far far fewer members, and no less trouble in making the categorizations. but I am virtually totally new to wiki and the editorial policies and as such am more than willing to take your advice re this.

I'll go back and remove the 8 or so 'see also' links I made between 'greatness' and particular individuals, eg Einstein and da Vinci.

thanks for your time and suggestions.

AgRince (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Albert Einstein Picture
Hi, why did you change my recent edit of Albert Einstein - the United Kingdom, is more formal and official than England. Thanks


 * Because that's what he did. He wasn't making an official visit to a country as a head of state or diplomat. The Pope may still be visiting the United Kingdom despite the eejits in its Foreign Office but Einstein visited as a private citizen. Dmcq (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Babbage
Yes, Babbage was cranky. One would have to be. But he wasn't too cranky to have got invited to present to the Royal Society, or to get several fortunes in grants, or to design stuff that worked. (Different people will be impressed with different clauses of that sentence.) The fact is that building even a Difference Engine turned out to be extremely expensive and difficult, for the time. The Analytical Engine was as sound a design, logically, as Eniac's, but there's no way anybody in England, however cranky, could have raised the money to build it. It has turned out, in light of modern analysis, that the gears would have broken when they turned it on, because metals of the time just weren't tough enough.

Did it not get built because Babbage was too cranky? He raised enormous amounts of money, but not enough. Did it not get built because of the primitive state of machining and of metallurgy? That was what made it so expensive. Maybe if he had been more brilliant, he would have designed simpler, more readily-built machines, but he was as brilliant as England, indeed all of Europe, was capable of producing in his time.


 * Please sign things on the talk page using ~


 * Babbage failed to build the Difference Engine because he abandoned it to do the Analytic engine. He had been paid money to do the Difference Engine and did not fulfill his obligations. The Difference Engine when built recently worked and could be turned by hand. He designed bits into it which smoothed out the effort and which were not fully appreciated until it was built. I know of nothing saying that his designs for the Analytic Engine were less ingenious or that he had designed without considering the strength of the materials. He drove off the engineer who was working on the job and overall just wasn't a good project manager. Anyway the main point is that one should only put things into Wikipedia which aren't absolutely obvious if there are sources supporting it. Anything else is WP:Original research. He failed to build it and that's a straightforward fact supported by sources. What you said is not. Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

BEND TEST
PLS. CLARIFY 0T,1T,2T ETC TYPE BEND TEST IN REFERENCE OF GALVANIZED COLD ROLLED COILS AND NEEDOF THIS TEST TEST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshknit (talk • contribs) 11:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

i actually think it is the reverse of what you state
As someone who has witnessed this from the beginning I think probation/enforcement has ecouraged tribalism and not provided a separate venue where fanatics can air their views in any way. Polargeo (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The articles weren't okay before. They are now. That is my primary concern. What they do there is of far less concern to me. Dmcq (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your intervention in Supta_Virasana
Dmcq, since you replied to and took issue with my statement on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(summary_style) you have intervened in a long-term project I am undertaking by reverting a simple, good faith edit on a low traffic stub. Your revert edit summary says "...onlyinclude is for templates", however there is a much wider discussion of this utility on pages such as WP:transclusion, which by no means implies it is exclusively for templates. Please reinstate my edit, which I am using while building a replacement page for a whole array of stubs. Thanks,  Trev M   ~   19:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay will do. It is probably a good idea to put a comment in when doing unusual things so people like me know why bthey are there. I guess here since you were looking at the summary style page you're experimenting with using transclusion to produce a page of lead bits as a summary. Dmcq (talk)


 * Many thanks. I usually do put a note - but I guessed that one wasn't worth it in terms of edit traffic!  Trev M   ~   20:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer
I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you have any use for the "rollback" tool to revert vandalism, please let me know; I can enable that as well. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, watch out Wikipedia neah ha ha Dmcq (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Youtube
Your comments are exactly why such a guideline (or maybe just essay) is needed. Self-published sources can be used if done right. Offline sources can also be used. This often comes up in discussions but WP:SELFPUB and WP:VERIFY have the info. I totally agree with you that it wasn't clear enough. I have made some comments at the policy page and expanded the proposal (might need to be copyedited) diff. Thanky you for the feedback and it would be cool if you had any other thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul Helmke
The edits on the paul helmke page referring to the brady campaign as an extremist hate group are accurate. Please refer to the US Supreme Court cases of District Of Columbia Vs. Heller, and McDonald Vs. City Of Chicago, then reference the laws relating to hate groups, and discrimination, as well as there definitions. Since the brady campaign clearly meets the definition of a hate group, one that seeks to deny fundamental Civil Rights to others, referring to them as such would be accurate. I also invite you to research the racist origins of "gun control" laws in The United States, which are sited well in the above referenced Supreme Court Decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Small Arms Collector (talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * An editor that is quickly heading towards being banned because they can't follow basic WP:5P principles for editing the encyclopaedia but wants to publish the WP:TRUTH. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For telling the truth? In what way is telling the truth grounds for a ban? It's a hate group so I call it such, just as I would call the kkk a hate group because it is, or can we recognize that A is A, because it might hurt someones feelings? I suspect that you are letting your own political bias get in the way. Do you have any argument that what I post is somehow wrong?Small Arms Collector (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedia not a forum for your personal opinions. Whether you are right or wrong is immaterial. What is important is that you use reliable sources and edit with a neutral point of view. Please read WP:5P if you wish to continue editing instead of getting banned. Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They're indef banned. So much for my advice. Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After a long discussion and numerous declined unblock requests, I think Small Arms Collector is still clueless . Oh well.  Davtra   (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps I should have pointed them at WP:SYNTH or WP:OR instead, I don't think it would have made much difference though as others had tried explaining things which may be why I didn't try harder. Dmcq (talk)