User talk:JackSchmidt/Archives/2009/01

Thank you
For fielding that comment on my talk page while I was engaged in the imbibation of good ale. Algebraist 23:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Hi Jack,

I did not intend my edits to Taku's user page to be harrassment. I had a read of it, noticed one grammatical error and decided to fix that up. The other edit I made was merely a correction which Taku liked and did not want undone (i.e, after your rvv, he rv'd on of your rv's). But please understand that my edits were not intended as vandalizm or anything else; I just wanted to fix up a grammatical error (could you please have a look at my change perhaps because I am very sure that I fixed up a grammatical error; not introduced one). --Point-set topologist (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm, you rvv'd my change (please have a look once more) which Taku actually wanted (please see this). The original sentence was "The range of my interests is ..." which I corrected to "The range of my interests are ...". This edit was definitely not intended as vandalizm on my part (and neither was the other one which Taku actually appeared to want). --Point-set topologist (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

Could you please reply? I just want to know whether you still think that what I wrote was vandalizm (in any case, I stopped editing his user page but as I said, that edit was done purely with good intentions). If you still do, I would appreciate it if you tell me.

Thanks!

PST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist (talk • contribs) 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I notified Taku (please see his talk page). I just want to confirm that I am not considered a vandal because of that. Let Taku respond and we will see what he says (whether, in his opinion, my edits were done with bad intentions). --Point-set topologist (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jack,

Please have a look at this: it seems that Taku did not consider my edits to his user page to be vandalizm. I guess we can move on now (although I would have appreciated a reply from you; at least saying your current view on the matter, as long as Taku is convinced that my edits were not vandalizm I am not too worried about what you think).

PST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist (talk • contribs) 2009-01-12T16:55:29Z

Jordan–Chevalley decomposition
Hi, I have posted a question regarding your recent edit at Talk:Jordan–Chevalley decomposition, can you please respond there. Thank you. Jmath666 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at page and user talk (JM6 added correct and important content that was already in article; I removed the copy of that content that was easiest to remove; happy to try and merge it in if it needs to be more prominent or otherwise improved, but assumed JM6 simply had not seen the other copy). JackSchmidt (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Picard–Lindelöf theorem

 * i'm not so sure it's all that cut-and-dried. the two sections seem, contradictory, showing McCain-Feingold with a dash and a hyphen as both correct.  --emerson7 18:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no contradiction. Did you read the words between the examples? The usage McCain-Feingold bill is given as one recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style, which has a rather restrictive policy on en-dashes compared to some other style guides, such as that used by Wikipedia. Algebraist 20:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (moved to Talk:Picard–Lindelöf theorem) JackSchmidt (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

More dialogue about Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion
Jack, see my Talk page for a bit more dialogue ... about the claimed "conflict of interest". mbeychok (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-breakable spaces
In this edit you replaced all the "nbsp" characters with breakable spaces. Is there a reason for that? Non-breakability serves a purpose. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the nbsp entities are replaced by non-breakable spaces. Try shrinking the window and watching the equations.  The spaces are unbreakable both on the article's normal display and in the edit box while editing the article.  It replaces 6 bytes by 2 bytes (note that in this 58k article, over 1k of it was entities spelled out) and makes the formulas easier to read in the edit box. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I the non-breaking spaces to entities, adding 1304 bytes to the already lengthy article, and making the math equations much harder to read in the edit box.  This should make it easier to verify that the two rendered versions are identical, and that one can fairly easily switch between the two representations during editing (I have a button to change entities to their actual values and another button to change non-breakable spaces into their spelled out entity representation).  Here is a sample that might be easir to check.
 * X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X space X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X
 * Feel free to revert the non-breaking space to &amp;nbsp; conversion if you agree with me that the non-breaking spaces are prettier than the spelled out entities, or feel free to leave the edit in if you prefer the spelled out version. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)