User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (18)

Old talk in archive: User talk:Dysprosia/Archive -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (2) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (3) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (4) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (5) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (6) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (7) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (8) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (9) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (10) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (11) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (12) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (13) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (14) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (15) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (16) -- User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (17) (most recent)

MathWorld
First, I apologize for putting this in what I am betting is the wrong place. I wanted to be sure you saw it, but wasn't sure where the right place for it was. About the MathWorld dispute, I definitly agree with the NPOV dispute issue you've raised. Even if MathWorld was factually inaccurate, that paragraph had ought to be seriously toned down. I added the accuracy tag because I thought you were also questioning the accuracy of his claim (as I do as well). I think there is little chance that MathWorld is significantly in error since the CRC Press also publishes MathWorld in a book format and they have a vested interest in protecting their reputation and verifying MathWorld's content. On the other guy's talk page (sorry, I can't remember his name) I requested some links were there were errors. If none are found, I think we ought to seriously press for the paragraph about quality. But anyway, thanks for paying attention to the MathWorld page and such. Always good to have another set of eyes paying attention to important articles when they're updated. =)

Hope you have an excellent day and happy editing, -SocratesJedi 01:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fourth dimension
Hello there!

Would you like to have a look at fourth dimension (which I added as it was redlinked on Recent Changes). I am no great mathematician and would like any obvious howlers corrected. But please don't make it so rigourously correct that non-mathematicians can no longer make any sense out of it.

Cheers Jeff Knaggs|Talk 11:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. However, the way it looks, it seems to be taking more of a physics-related bent, and I am unfortunately no physicist. But I will try my best :) Dysprosia 12:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have added a lot of stuff and tried to introduce the concept of a dimension by linking space to a vector space, very very gently. There should be a bit more, but for the moment, I hope it looks suitable. Do let me know if it isn't or there's something wrong. Dysprosia 13:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well done! I can even understand most of it. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 13:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dysprosia Hi

I could do with some advice on layouts

I spoke to you a while ago re The Duke of Wellington's Regiment. I have uploaded some images of the Regiments colours and laid them out in a specific way with text. However a user with the name hammersfan changed the layout and messed up the webpage having changed them back to they way I wanted them I put a message on the other users talk page asking him why it was done. instead of having the courtesy to reply the user has gone in again and changed the layout a different way which is not the way It should be (as the regiments photoarchivist at the regimental HQ I know how I want it to look). is there any way I can stop the user from adulterating my work? Richard Harvey 16:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HI, Ik managed to find your comment. Yeah, i was separating the images in the text cos it made it clearer which was just text and which was the image. it's OK though. :) SpookyMulder 10:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rouché's theorem
I replied on Talk:Rouché's theorem. Oleg Alexandrov 00:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Q.E.D. thing is not odd, it is a standard way of ending articles, same as the hollow black square you used to put at the end. I think we need to go back either to Q.E.D., or to the hollow black square thing (I leave it up to you). My point is only that they way things are now is worse than either option, because it is hard to understand why those simple words "which was required" have to be a link. Oleg Alexandrov 17:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I know it's not odd, that was poor wording on my part, but I didn't like how it looked, nor it providing yet-another-acronym. Even the QED article itself says it's not commonly used. I tried to do the pipe as a compromise, but I think I'll switch back to the square, as it's a little more subtle. Dysprosia 23:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. The lesson of the day is compromises are wonderful, but sometimes going one way or another is better. :) :) Oleg Alexandrov 23:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trans: Buffalo Bill
Thank you. I stand corrected. Ray Foster 00:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Big Thanks
Dysprosia Hi Thank you for your input re my problems on page layouts being altered. Would you mind looking at my message to hammersfan on his talk page and the reply I received from him, which I feel is out of order. I don't think I could be classed as a bully but would appreciate some independant input. Also if you have the time could you review the changes he kept making to our layout and compare them to the way we did it and then let me know if we as a group are wrong and he is right and we should change the layout. Richard Harvey 18:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Software Template
Nah? After removing the caption attribute, I've edited all the pages that uses the Infobox Software template. Also, I'm the one who raised it on the template talk page. I've also talked to Ed g2s. Probably someone reverted my edits again. Maybe you should check the page history before complaining to me... minghong 08:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Crossword: THANKS!
More than thanks! that is really really grand... How'd you do it? I know you said you were building a pl script, can I have a copy (plus layman's descriptions on how to work it?)

It has made quite a few waves in IRC; people think it looks really great, and they're all trying to solve it now... (it's gotten quiet!) - Amgine 16:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)