User talk:Gentlemath

help me

I put this question elsewhere but maybe I should put it here?

question about totally rewriting an article There is a featured article which generates reams of heated discussion. In my naive newbie innocence I think that I could improve it and perhaps clear up some of the heated disputes. I'd like to take it and do a whole rewrite. I certainly do NOT want to then delete the whole article and dump in my rewrite.I'd like to put it out there and let the community incorporate what (if anything) they wish. Is there any way to do that? I COULD make up some other head ("the common misconceptions about x") and then let somebody merge (or let people discuss merging).

I know a revert is easy but I'm sure that my work would disappear all at once. I won't be suprised if most or all of it disappears gradually but then it will have been looked at. I think appending a rewrite at the end would probably also not be well received.

Gentlemath 06:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While we always recommend new editors to Be bold, I'm glad to see that you are approaching this one with caution. :-)  Featured articles generally have been gone over quite thoroughly, but if there is one that is causing a great deal of discussion then perhaps it could do with some major revamping.  There are two ways you might consider approaching this.  The first is to take the changes you contemplate one at a time, broken down by section, and discuss them on the article's talk page.  For instance, you could say "The article states this, but I think it would be more appropriate to phrase it thus..." and see how others respond.  The other way is to go ahead and do a complete rewrite using a subpage of your user space.  Once you have it the way you think it should read, you could then link to the proposed version from the article's talk page and ask others to comment on your proposed changes.  Either way allows changes to be discussed and agreed upon before being implemented.  Drastic changes made to a featured article would likely be reverted immediately, but changes with discussion and consensus have a much greater likelihood of remaining in the article.  SWAdair | Talk 07:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Figurate number deprod
I have removed the prod tag from Figurate number, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! PrimeHunter (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done
Thanks for spotting the copying at recurrence relation. I saw the edit but the thought that it might have been copied did not cross my mind. Well done! -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Gentlemath! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Midhat J. Gazalé -

Construction of the real numbers
Hi, your changes Construction of the real numbers are in the right direction. When you get a chance, can you source them? Who wrote that Weierstrass's construction is by means of decimals? Tkuvho (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have read the book by Rosenlicht on the construction in terms of decimals. Does he discuss the historical aspect of such a construction? I recall that Courant already used this approach, but I am not sure who did it first, as it does not seem to be Weierstrass. Tkuvho (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to 0.999....

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both  and one or more   referring to it. Someone then removed the  but left the , which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining  with a copy of the  ; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add  to your talk page.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)