User talk:Dmcq/Archive 2

irrationality of sqrt{2} and fundamental theorem of arithmetic
Hi, if by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic you mean unique factorisation, the latter relies on the Euclidean algorithm of long division and is unobjectionable constructively speaking. What's wrong with using it in the proof of irrationality of sqrt{2}? Tkuvho (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you have the start of a citation. Try putting in a proper citation please. Exactly what book and what page is this from? Have a look at the other citations to see how they are done or at WP:CITE. Dmcq (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The proof of the essentially unique factorisation of positive integers into prime numbers does not rely on Euclid's algorithm (which isn't specifically about long division anyway, but about finding the highest common factor - the original version even used subtraction), though it can be used. I have seen a proof by contradiction, based on using the smallest counter-example. PMLawrence (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was complaining about there being no citation for a constructivist proof. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And I was pointing out that his assertion ("... relies [emphasis added] on the Euclidean algorithm of long division ...") is factually incorrect. The theorem itself does not rely on that, whether or not a constructivist proof does. PMLawrence (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tkuvho is unlikely to be monitoring my page after seven months. I think I'd better start archiving this page and not waste people's time reading it. Dmcq (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link about visual calculus.
Hi, Dmcq, just wanted to say thank you for the link to the interesting visual calculus site (via the Wikipedia article). That's very interesting reading, and fits the way I like to think about mathematics. I see you are quite an active editor on Intelligence quotient. (Thanks too for reverting some recent spam there.) I wonder whether you have looked at how Levels_of_measurement relates to the several articles here and there on Wikipedia related to IQ testing. I read the book by Joel Michell (cited in that section) a few years ago, and that has given me a new perspective from which to ponder various sources about IQ testing. I'd love to hear from editors like you who know more mathematics than I do what implications the level of measurement of IQ tests has for interpreting IQ scores for individuals or IQ data for population groups or countries. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Intelligence Quotient is a minor interest, I've adopted it as one I'd leave on my watchlist and try and look after as it was heavily spammed and vandalized, never mind having various strange people with a mission interested in it. Thanks for reminding me about Visual Calculus, I've meant to go back and develop that a bit. Actually I had been wondering if there might be an absolute scale for intelligence like height rather than as currently an inferred measurement. By the way latent variable would be my entry for such things. I know there's lots of different aspects of intelligence so there couldn't be just one absolute scale. However the way people think of an IQ of 150 being one and a half times 100 definitely grates with me. If I had set it up so people compared them that way I'd probably had had a standard deviation of about 6 rather than 15, the scale has something to do with speed of solving problems but I think there is a squaring type of factor in the way it is measured in that they're faster at solving a problem and can solve more complex problems and the two are linked. I wonder how the correlation goes if one uses the same level of difficulty and simply measures speed and on the other hand remove the time constraint completely. Dmcq (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the latent variable link, the see also links there led me to some other articles read and watch. There is a rather vast literature on IQ standard score and item content correlations, more and more of which I'm trying to include in the Intelligence Citations bibliography I keep in my user space (about to be updated again this weekend). I'm trying to check how mathematically valid some of the statistical assumptions underlying that literature are. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Differential analyser
Thanks for banging that ref re Coriolis' mechanical device into the differential analyser article, almost as soon as I'd stuck a Fact tag on it! It made a refreshing change from the normal experience of seeing such tags lingering seemingly forever - I do try to find sources myself, but as you have seen I don't always succeed. Also, I notice that you're likely to have forgotten more about differential analysers than I shall ever know - I'm a historian, not a scientist, and I only came to the subject via the Reculver article, when I thought there was something fishy about info for the bouncing bomb. In other words, I appreciate having someone who might know something about differential analysers keeping an eye on what I'm doing - I've been making changes to that differential analyser article for days now, and posted updates on its talk page, without any feedback until your edit. So, thanks for that, too. Nortonius (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd guess Tim Robinson who has a link right at the bottom of the article would be the one who knows most about them nowadays and there's a video of his working in there somewhere as well as a big bibliography. I did try making a small one years ago from Meccano with my own design of torque amplifier but I never knew about things like the frontlash unit and the integration wheel was pretty naff. My project was to get two inputs multiplied together but it didn't succeed at all well. Anyway my interest is a bit basic with no scholarly aspect. Dmcq (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood - but it still sounds like you'd know more about it than me - I look at an equation, and my mind goes blank...! Anyway, thanks for further Fact tag removal, and, btw, this doesn't mean I expect you to fix them all! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference_desk/Mathematics
How do I operate it please? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You move the weights across the two bars, the bigger one first and then the small one and read the weight off the two bars. The right hand bit I believe is to put extra weights on to get to another range. Dmcq (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Would any image or table be good for the lede of Intelligence quotient?
Hi, Dmcq, I just saw your comments in the talk page for Intelligence quotient about criteria to apply to tables or images that appear up by the lede section. Would it be fair to say that by your criteria there currently isn't any image or table that belongs there? I could certainly live with the table now up by the lede section, which I put there, being moved to an appropriate lower section as long as the lede is a set of paragraphs that adequately summarizes well-sourced statements from throughout the article. As you know, I've been reticent in making extensive substantive edits to the article thus far, being a newbie and deferential to more experienced editors like you, but I think it's time to begin being more bold and to make use of reliable sources on intelligence to further improve that article and other articles on Wikipedia. I'll listen carefully to your opinion throughout that process. The pending resolution of the ArbCom case on a set of closely related articles gives me hope that a normal editing environment will resume for a while, allowing for a collaborative atmosphere of discussion of improvements in this and other articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have replied in the talk page. Basically I agree with the reasons Victor Chmara gave that it shouldn't have been the first thing people see. It should be further down with an appropriate section. Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope I don't sound like I'm badgering
I'm worried that my persistent questions may sound like badgering. I note that the talk page had lots of participants in March, but that may be partially due to the AfD. It's also a holiday weekend, and maybe some editors have lives:)

I do think the article has problems, and may have misled some in the arbitration case, so I'd like to clean the article up. Thanks for participating in the discussion, I hope others will chime in after the weekend.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to want some dictionary type short definition in the source cited rather than the detailed description given. As far as I can see the citation explains what it is and the lead gives a good short summary.


 * You said that the sentence described scepticism more than denial. That is so opposite to anything that is in there citation or the description in the lead or what is described under denial or Sceptic that it is just weird as far as I'm concerned. However you just assert the description is wrong without any explanation of why you think it is wrong. Whatever about the citation why would you think that a sceptic would downplay climate change for financial or sectional interests? Why would they go in for rhetorical arguments rather than some reasonable ones however flawed? Dmcq (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Plus/Minus
Oh! I stand corrected. I should have known there would be a good reason for two separate plus/minus glyphs. ±-) (Is this the right way to respond?? I'm a wiki noob.) Ivionday (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems, that's fine thanks Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Napkin folding problem
I left you a comment on the talk page. Please correct your edits accordingly, or rv them if you don't know how. Mhym (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to fix other peoples edits. Big O is often used for tight bounds but I'll stick in theta if it makes you happy. Dmcq (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Surprised by your comment
I was taken aback by your claim (Talk:Climate_change_alarmism) that I'm simply "asserting myself" Ironic, as it is a bare assertion without a single example. Doubly ironic, as I'm trying to work with you, and increasingly becoming frustrated because you simply assert things. The difference is, I'll give examples.
 * I've identified a number of potential problems with the article. I don't see a single example where you have suggested alternative wording or anything other than simply asserting that the current version is fine.
 * I've asked more than once for you to point to the specific words in the source attached to the definition that support the definition. You have not cited the language which supports the definition. (Oddly you cited the definition in the article, and claims it supports the example in the source, but that has the causality arrow backwards.)
 * I cited policy for the removal of wikilinks in quotes. You reverted without citing policy. When I asked for specific examples showing why this could be an acceptable exception, you simply asserted that it was fine.
 * I cite a false statement in the article, and start a discussion about what to do about it, and you avoid the question, and accuse me of simply asserting things.

Can you look at this interaction through my eyes and see why I find it frustrating? Perhaps you think the article is fine as is, and don't want any changes. I think it is a collection of poorly sources claims, and bad sources, mixed in with some decent prose and solid contributions. I'd like to see it improved, but given the heightened tensions over CC articles, thought I would start with discussions on the talk page, rather than simply starting with bold edits. I hope you will meet me part way and actually discuss some of the issues.


 * You just say things are wrong without saying why. You just quote policy for a change when there is no such policy, you read too much into it. I have seen no discussion from you about reasons for anything. If you would actually discuss reasons ratyher than just trying to quote policies and doing so badly then perhaps there might be something I can see that is behind your complaints. How about for starters explaining why you thought the description at the start described skeptics rather than deniers? I really can't see that you have a halfway decent idea about the topic when you say things like that about something so basic to it. Dmcq (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last question - it is a fair question. I see it as tangential, but if it will help, I'll work on an answer. It isn't a trivial question, so it will take me some time, and I'll post it on the talk page. Regarding your other points - I don't follow. If I make a change and cite a policy supporting the change, I don't agree I need to additionally explain my reasons. We have policies for a reason. We aren't supposed to slavishly follow them, but they are the default. If someone makes a change, the onus is on the one objecting to the change to give a good reason for violating the policy. If the reason is good enough, and a consensus agree, it can be done. The policy is to remove wikilinks from inside quotes. While there is a bit of wiggle room, and unfortunately the wiggle room isn't fully explained, I checked prior examples where exceptions were made, and I don't think the present example qualifies. The onus is on you to find comparable examples where it has been discussed and allowed. Misapplying an Einstein quote isn't sufficient. Check the history of this issue - in general, the preferred solution, when someone wants to wikilink a term, is to find a way to include the term outside the quote. That's generally easy, and the allowed exceptions are often when that would be close to impossible. For example List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry where there are quotes in a table. But in other examples, Featured article candidates/Brad Pitt/archive1, suggestion is made and it is just done.--  SPhilbrick  T  15:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing links within quotes is not policy. It is simply recommended unless there is a good reason otherwise. Please do not say things are policy when they are not. Dmcq (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See the top of WP:MOSQUOTE, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". WP:POLICY explains the distinction between policy and guidelines. If you can phrase something around the quote leaving the Wikipedia advantage over a paper encyclopaedia or say why you think the links are unimportant then please do so.
 * Thanks if you can explain what you were up to re skepticism. Dmcq (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I was using the term "policy" loosely, and did not check to see if it was a guideline or a formal policy.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Support your remark about plagiarism Talk:Irrational number
I've added a comment on the talk page about the quality of the section 'History'. I do agree that there seems to be an editor copy-pasting out-of-date stuff (possibly from the public domain 11th edition Britannica?) on the prowl here and related pages and he/she needs to be discouraged. Rinpoche (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo (2nd nomination)
Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ghostofnemo (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan
User:Jrkso has once again removed the numbers of the polls, and posted in a totally irrelevant quote. Besides that, he is turning the whole thing into a "Tajik issue", although Tajiks are just one group among many. He is not reacting to the discussions and he is not interested in what others have to say. Any advices?! Thank you. Tajik (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Conservapedia mainpage aug 5 2010.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Conservapedia mainpage aug 5 2010.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh well I tried. That was me putting in a reduced quality version for copyright reasons but someone has now stuck in a later version with high fidelity. Best just to let both now get deleted for different reasons I guess and perhaps the message will get trough. Dmcq (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Raised Floor Merge Help
Thanks for straightening out the links. Someday I might get the hang of all this! Adabhael Talk 22:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan
Hi. Could you please take a look at the "languages" section of Afghanistan. I have described on the talkpage why the current version is POV, selective quoting and source picking, leaving aside the fact that some of the sources do not even support the claims made. The POV edits were made by User:Lagoo sab. I reverted twice, each time explaining why. Now an IP has shown up, reverting to version of Lagoo sab. I won't revert again, but someone else should take a look at it ... Tajik (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Took out the neutrality template. Think it is fairly balanced now. Am getting fed up with percentages and people unable to read and understand sources. Chartinael (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you look at Talk:Afghanistan and here, and give your thought on that. Thanks.--Lagoo sab (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial
Hello. I'm sorry if you felt offended by my edit - I did not mean to imply you had committed a copyright violation. I merely meant that the previous version of the article is preferable; we should say 'Peter Christoff, writing in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science.' rather than just 'climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science.' The latter isn't a copyright violation, but I think it has issues with neutrality, in that the exact relationship between 'denialism' and 'skepticism' is a matter of some dispute. I hope that helps. Robofish (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)