User talk:Jitse Niesen/Archive2

Continuum Spectrum
I had put the category:scattering into Continuous Spectrum in order to inprove the value of the scattering category because operators with a continuous spectrum are playing a central role in scattering theory. Look at Reed and Simon, Scattering Theory, Academic Press 1979. Best regards, vb.

Continuous spectrum
OK I did what you said. About Reed and Simon : I haven't read it either :-)

Srebrenica massacre
Here's the situation. The Serbian media has made much fuss about the "3000" Serbs killed by the ABiH (Bosniaks) in the Srebrenica region. After that video of 6 Bosniaks came out, the Serbian media (among other things) released a list of names of these 3000 Serbs. However, the Hague has stated that the majority of these aren't considered "victims" (as they were portrayed by the Serbian media) because among these 3000 are a large number of military police officers and Serbian soldiers killed in combat with Bosnian troops. According to data provided by Republika Srpska's Comission on War Crimes, in the Srebrenica region there were 995 Serb civilian victims. All of this was what I was trying to sum up. I hope I've made myself a bit more clear. ¨- Asim Led

p.s. Since the anniversary is tomorrow do you think there is some way that the article could be temporarily protected for a day to prevent last minute POV vandalism?

List of functions
Hi Jitse. I've replied to your question about List of mathematical functions on my talk page. Paul August &#9742; 13:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jitse Niesen has made a logical fallacy
I would like to remind Jitse Niesen who claimed the facts below that he has made a logical falacy called "Appeal To Widespread Belief" http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#bandwagon

For example, in the 1800's there was a widespread belief that bloodletting cured sickness. Now we know it to be wrong. Thus, whether it be institutions such as NATO, the Red Sross, or individuals, their mere opinions about an issue cary little force when it comes to making a logical argument. In fact, the use of this falacy in an argument renders the arguemnt invalid; the author who uses Appeal To Widespread Belief is never taken seriously.

Jitse Niesen wrote:

"I don't think dividing the sites in "supporting genocide theses" and "opposing genocide theses" is helpful. What you call the Bosnian/NATO point of view, is in fact also the point of view of the UN (including the ICTY), Japan, Indonesia, Red Cross, and pretty much the whole world."

(preceding unsigned comment by 212.102.129.250 12:24, 14 July 2005)


 * I agree that it is indeed a logical fallacy to conclude the truth of some statement from the fact that most (or even everybody) think it is true. However, I don't see where I have committed this mistake. In the second sentence of the fragment quoted to above, I say that the "Bosnian/NATO point of view" is far more widespread than the Serbian one, which implies that it should get more attention since "[i]f we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties" (quoting from WP:NPOV). What I do believe to be the case, though I am not saying above, is that widespread belief strongly suggests truth. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Truth
Jitse Niesen wrote:"Do you have specific suggestions on how we can improve the article?" Yes I do. I'll send you some articles on that topic when I have time, because I'm occupied preparing for some exams right now. Also you may take a look at www.ogrish.com, it you have membership credentials. I have some video materials too, showing the torture and death of Serbian civilians but have no way how to send you, but what I can do is to gather, or to write, something on Serbian history and culture that may change views because Serbs are often considered as "occupators" of the Bosnia, but the fact is that they are natives there and the "Bosniaks" are not a nation as they try to represent themselves today. They are merely Serb or Croats converted to Islam during the period of Ottoman Empire reign on the Balkan. Their language is Serbian. But as I said, the picture we have today is a result of politics and lobbying. The same thing is with Kosovo today.

(preceding unsigned comment by Theodosias 16:30, 15 July 2005)


 * Hi Jitse Niesen. First of all, thank you for your request to protect the article from vandalism. I am Bosniak from Sarajevo, but as you can see, Serbs will deny my right to be, what I am, and that is actually the main explination what had happened in Srebrenica inferno. Serbian propaganda is very strong, as Carla del Ponte said, so we should just stick to the facts. The fact is that ICTY had reached the verdict about the Srebrenica genocide. It is the fact. The fact is that 10 years after the genocide, the war criminals Ratko Mladic, and Radovan Karadzic, are on freedom, and they are heroes for Serbs, because they killed so many Bosnikas, who "are not a nation as they try to represent themselves today. They are merely Serb or Croats converted to Islam during the period of Ottoman Empire reign on the Balkan. Their language is Serbian.", as your guest said above. Denial of genocide (as denial of the holocoust) is the last stage of genocide. Emir Arven 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You make a terrible mistake, my friend. Nobody's denying your right to be what you want to be, but that doesn't make you a nation. The fact is that you ARE Serbs or Croats converted to Islam. Until 1974 you were considered either Croats or Serbs living in Bosnia and Herzegovina, when Josip Broz Tito gave you status of nation (similarly as he did with the Macedonians and Montenegrins earlier), and you were "Muslims" until approximately 1990, when you started considering yourself as "Bosniaks". The irony is that in Turkey you are considered as "Turkish Serbs" (“poturice” in Serbian) and not as "Bosniaks" or “Muslims”. The same would be if I state myself as a “Christian”. Well, I am Christian by religion but I can’t be considered as Christian by nation! I spent last summer in south Turkey, and I often went to the Bazaar where I met a shopkeeper from whom I bought some Turkish pillows. We talked for a while and when I mentioned that I am from Serbia, he said that his grandfather came from Bosnia! I asked for his name, and he said Srdjan Petrovic! His name is Srdjan Petrovic, he doesn't speak Serbian and found himself more Turkish than Serbian. He even spent some time convincing me that Srdjan is an Turkish name! Well, what can I do? You are free to be whatever you want, so am I, so is everyone, but if I state myself as a Penguin, that doesn't mean that I am really one, nor I do live in Penguinia nor I do speak Penguinian language! So, once again, be whatever you want to be, but stop twisting the truth!

Let's go back on topic. Independent international Srebrenica Research group has finished their report. In the text written on more than 200 pages they state that the number of Bosniak victims is highly over-estimated, and that the number of the Serbian victims is equal or even higher! They also mention moving and destroying Serbian mass graves by Bosniak troops and lot of other things among that. I'll try to find some useful links and paste it here. Theodosias


 * Although it is not a report I have mentioned, I think this article is a good point to start.It's from 1997 and probably some of you may have read it before. Thank to all good people who take their time to read it now. You should consider including it it the "Alternative views..." section on page about "Srebrenica massacre".

I have moved the article to "Srebrenica massacre" talk page. Theodosias

what sources we should consult to find the truth about Srebrenica
Mr Niesen, you have just contradicted yourself by admitting that the truth is independent of what people believe to be true and how many of them there are, on the one side, and by asserting again that non-NATO and non-NATO-friendly folks have to have as little  attention as their view is popular, on the other side. While you admitted that logic is supreme, you again relied on descriptive statistic instead of logic to make your point. If we are on a fact-finding mission here, what does it matter whether only a tiny fraction of the world (incidentally, it is untrue since the Russians and the Chinese, for example, are not negligible) favor the Serbian side of the story. Logic also dictates that we must not take into account the official story of a body or entity with a long criminal record such as the country that has never posthumously sentenced the perpetrators of the atomic genocide in Japan (yes, THAT was a genocide as the extermination of the population of the two cities was planed and was done indiscriminately, and the U.S. criminal record list is virtually inexhaustive) The current U.S. government need not admit that the atomic bombing was a genocide, of course, but without that admission they, and their subordinate agencies, and all those who are funded by U.S. money,  cannot have any judgmental credibility as far as war crimes are concerned.

That is why, Mr Niesen, for the purpose of finding the truth about Srebrenica we must consult only independent annalists such as Chomsky and Herman. Neither of the two thinkers depends on either Serbian or U.S. money, they are truly independent. While the mainstream media and other U.S.-funded agencies serve the interest of their owners in order to survive, Chomsky and Herman do not depend on them for survival. What we are going to claim to be true always depends on two motivational forces: the desire to be liked vs. the desire to be right. Chomsky and Herman would rather be right than liked – the media, however, along with all those who depend on U.S.-government money for survival (the Red Cross, ICTY) can never afford to be right if that’s going to conflict with the U.S favored worldview. Both the Red Cross and ICTY must be liked by the enemy of 1990-1999 Yugoslavia in order to survive; Chomsky and Herman need not be. That is why they are the ones to listen to.

(preceding unsigned comment by 212.102.129.250 20:06, 15 July 2005)


 * It seems you misunderstand the nature of this project, Wikipedia. Trying to find the truth is original research, and we do no original research. Instead, we describe the opinions of others, according to their prominence; this is our neutral point of view policy. If you don't like our principles, I suggest you go somewhere else. If you want to improve the Srebrenica massacre article in line with our principles, you can leave your suggestions on Talk:Srebrenica massacre. Incidentally, you may be interested to learn that Chomsky and Herman are professors at U.S. universities and hence paid by the U.S. government, while the Red Cross and the ICTY have many other sources of income. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Perfects
Did you like the new material I added to the Perfect numbers page ?

Had you heard of all the new material before I had added it ?

Now I have a question for you please:

You have rearranged some of the material I have added to read as follows...

Since any even perfect number has the form 2n−1(2n − 1), it is the sum of all natural numbers up to 2n − 1. This follows from the general formula stating that the sum of the first m positive integers equals (m2 + m)/2.

The way you have written it, it seems to imply that each fact is related in some way, can you please show me this relationship, i.e. any intermediate steps that would help make it more obvious ?

thanks,

kindest regards,

ericswebber@gmail.com

Srebrenica (to Niesen)
If we are describing the opinions of others as you say, then why don’t we have phrases like these (so we get the complete truth): “according to NATO, which sided with the Albanians and was engaged in a war of aggression against the Serbs”, or  “according to the Muslim Government officials”,  or  “…according to the ICTY whose legality and legitimacy is disputed and is controversial..”, etc. It is lying if you omit the fact that many intellectuals regard the ICTY  as illegal. It is lying if you, every time you mention NATO aggression on Yugoslavia, omit the fact that this military alliance violated its own charter and the UN charter in their act.

Secondly, I said that Chomsky and Herman do not depend on U.S. government money FOR SURVIVAL. They have lived on the money they made from their creative work, the books, speeches etc. They both have held professionals jobs, and those kinds of jobs are, least about money. In other words, they are financially independent of U.S. government income, even though they rightly receive their salaries.

In contrast, neither the Red Cross nor the ICTY would last a day without U.S. money. That is a fact. Sometimes U.S. money is disguised (George Soros), but nonetheless is it still U.S. money, whether it is used as a reward, bribe, or bait.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.102.129.250 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 July 2005


 * I am sorry, but I don't want this page to become a general discussion forum. So, I won't response unless you make an explicit proposal on how to change the Srebrenica massacre article, which you should do at the discussion page Talk:Srebrenica massacre. Yours, Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me Niesen, but guy is right. You should use phrases like "according to NATO sources", "according to the Muslim Government officials" and etc if you want Wikipedia to stay neutral. By doing this, you'll sigificantly improve the article. Theodosias


 * If you are saying that all statements should ideally carry a reference, especially for controversial statements (and almost all statements in the Srebrenica massacre article are controversial), then I agree. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Theodosias

Perfects followup...
Very nice, and very simple, substitution. Sweet. Thanks for that.

Have you seen this:

13 = 1 = 1

23 = 3 + 5 = 8

33 = 7 + 9 + 11 = 27

43 = 13 + 15 + 17 + 19 = 64

53 = 21 + 23 + 25 + 27 + 29 = 125

And so on....

kindest regards,

ericswebber@gmail.com

Changes
So, when will you start considering to make changes in "Alternative views..." article? Have you read the articles from the links I put above? How can I upload video footages and pictures so you can include them as part of the article? Regads, Theodosias

See you over at my talk page?
Hi, thanks for your comments--- looks like you have an awful lot on your plate, but if you have time, I would like to talk about that issue.---CH (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Changes
Hello. We have a lot of things to discuss and the time is irrelevant when discussing about that kind of topics. First of all, let me make myself clear: I'm not denying that something happened in Srebrenica. All I'm trying to say that something did happened for sure but but we can't speak of genocide if we don't have solid evidences for that. Indeed, many details indicate that Srebrenica was a well planned set-up by Bosnian Muslim government to provoke NATO assault against Serbs and all I want to do is to include these evidences in the Alternative views section, or to erase it completely from Srebrenica massacre page or start a new page on this topic. As I wrote before, we must include section about Serbian history and culture at these territories  because Serbs are often considered as "ocupators" of Bosnia which is not true because we are natives there since a very, very long time. As you may know, same problem we have with Kosovo which has always been Serbian territory but because of strong Albanian propaganda and lobbying, you (and by saying "you" I mean people from western countries mainly) have a completely distorted picture of situation in Kosovo today. As a Serb I feel that my duty is to fight this kind of false informations and political propaganda, not for the sake of the Serbs only, but for the sake of whole mankind. I'm not going to run into edit war, as you said, and what I'm about  to do is to show you the proves and you should decide (or whoever decides) whether  will you include it in one of Wikipedia pages or not. Fair enough?

P.S. My English isn't quite good enough, but hope you can understand me.

Regards Theodosias

edit: Unfortunately there's been a misunderstanding and I posted this text at CH talk page. I thought that someone else is interested to help. Sorry, I've made a mistake. Theodosias

Lorentz Group
Hi,

Actually, I was unaware that I'd upset Chris Hillman. He seemed bright, capable; he'd already written on a number of topics far more advanced than the Lorentz group. Since he was a newcomer to WP, I'd hoped only to help make him aware of possibly related articles on WP (which can be time-consuming to discover independently). The later comments, perhaps too-harshly titled "non-standard treatment", was meant to be a list in the sense of "oh by the way, more stuff that should be mentioned, but gosh aren't we all busy", rather than an attack/critique. Unfortunate, since I found CH to be fun and pleasent to be around, and a good fit to the WP community. (Something I can't say for certain others). Sigh. Extend my apologies to him; in the meanwhile I shall read his user page. linas 15:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow. I am reading User talk:Hillman and am rather shocked. I can only reiterate that my intent was to be friendly, helpful and suggestive; his angry response is unexpected, and I am scrambling to understand why. I have no ill-will to him, and am saddened to have caused him pain.  linas 15:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

TD
LOL. I "found out" by checking Special:Newimages - and clicking through a few pages. Saw a couple curious photos, and wondered if they were being used, used in an NPOV way, or just added for sensationalism. So, I had to read up a bit on it, and was more than happy to see you and others had already started on it. Someone also vandalized Image:camera icon.gif, and I took care of blocking them too. -SV|t 15:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Geometric integrator
(Reply to comments at User_talk:Mat_cross).

No, knock yourself out by all means. I'm familiar with some of your work, and you seem reputable enough :)

(Thesis is approaching a first draft; pendulum example comes from its introduction, in case you hadn't guessed...) mat_x 12:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Manifold
As I wrote on Talk:Manifold/rewrite, I think it is best if we let it rest for a week and calm down a bit. It would take me quite some time to react on the points you and KSmrq raise with the required care and I am afraid the situation would get out of hand before, so please take a rest and work on something else. See you in a week, Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I will. Markus Schmaus 23:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

re: Arc sine
Hoi Rudy. Ik heb erg weinig tijd op het moment, maar ik geloof dat je er verkeerd aan hebt gedaan om dit artikel op VfD te plaatsen., Wat ik in zo'n geval doe, is de tekst vervangen met "#REDIRECT Trigonometric functions". Als iemand protesteert, dan kun je er altijd nog over denken om naar VfD te gaan. VfD is al druk genoeg.

In feite raad ik je aan om nu het artikel te vervangen met een redirect en op VfD te zeggen dat je dit hebt gedaan. Iemand met ervaring op vfd kan dan beslissen wat er moet gebeuren.

Groetjes, Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Okee, ik heb van Arc_Sine en Arc_sine een redirect gemaakt? Maak zou dit voor de consistentie ook niet moeten gebeuren voor Arcsin, Arctan..? --R.Koot 14:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ik ben het ermee eens dat is de aangewezen oplossing opnieuw richt. Waarom dragen de mensen bij Duch tot Engelse Wikipedia? Babelfish kon niet dit beantwoorden. Oleg Alexandrov 15:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Whaha.. :D

The "proof"
hey Jitse, I really appreciate the backup. Thanks. I can't believe how much time I've wasted on this. I've actually been wondering about that paper for years. I came very close to crossing the boundary of decent behaviour back then; maybe I even crossed it. Dmharvey Talk 13:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre
What do you think of arranging data chronological in the article, like I tried in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=20267126 You can see that version of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=20332217 is not chronological (in the period 11 aug - 13 aug), first some things which happend on 12 aug, later some things which happend on 11 aug. There is something about I wrote in the talk page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#removed_from_the_article_because_it_is_not_in_ICTY_judgment

I think that you are neutral in this issue and that some other people will agree with me, so you might consider to put data chronological. --Oldadamml 13:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * At first sight, I agree that it is best to put the events in chronological order. Of course, if that means to shift various parts of the text around, than the text might need to be adapted. May I remind you to please include references stating where exactly you have copied the text from (if you did indeed copy them from the ICTY website)? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Krstic judgment
http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/index.htm other documents: http://www.un.org/icty/cases-e/index-sre.htm

Krstic judgment
http://www.un.org/icty/krstic/Appeal/judgement/index.htm other documents: http://www.un.org/icty/cases-e/index-sre.htm --Oldadamml 14:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

re: Four Color Theorem
I looked over the article again, and I agree that it's not much lacking in links (the history section is particularly well-done). I added the wikify notice because I would add more, particularly in the sections not for map-makers and false disproofs, which currently have none. I would also add more wikis in the introductory paragraphs (e.g., plane, map, computer, proof); but that may be a case of me being overzealous in linking. I'll remove the wikify template and come back to the article with a more reasoned sense of what should be linked. JPB 18:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC) (talk)

Thanks for your support
Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

RFA
Ok Jitse, ready or not, here it comes: Requests for adminship/Jitse Niesen ;-) Paul August &#9742; 16:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Picture for friends and strangers
Yes, I shall appreciate your helping me to lift the two pictures that I have. They are simple line diagrams. If you can tell me the steps by which I can myself load them that will help me in my future postings also. I do not want to give my e-mail id here. What is the alternative way for us to communicate? I am new to Wikipedia. --Profvk 14:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Current activity program change?
WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity suddenly has a bunch of new entries for today. Did you change the program? Paul August &#9742; 01:36, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's my fault. I starting methodically listing all mathematicians in the List of mathematicians (read: mathbot does the work). I barely finished with the Duch and American mathematicians, and you already complain. :) A lot more are to come. Oleg Alexandrov 01:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Check out User:mathbot/Changes mathlist for a version without mathematicians. Oleg Alexandrov 01:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. I Just wanted to make sure Jitse's code hadn't gone haywire (in case you two non-native englishers aren't familiar with this word it means: amiss, askew, awry, balmy, bananas, barmy, bats, batty, beany, bonkers, broken, buggy, bughouse, bugs, cockeyed, convulsed, crackers, cuckoo, daffy, deranged, dippy, disarranged, discomfited, discomposed, disconcerted, dislocated, disordered, disorderly, disorganized, disturbed, dotty, flaky, flipped, freaked-out, fruitcakey, fruity, gaga, goofy, in disorder, in disrepair, inoperative, just plain nuts, kooky, loony, loopy, misplaced, nuts, nutty, off the hinges, off the track, off the wall, on the blink, on the fritz, out of commission, out of condition, out of gear, out of joint, out of kelter, out of kilter, out of order, out of place, out of repair, out of tune, out of whack, perturbed, potty, roily, round the bend, screwball, screwballs, screwy, shuffled, slaphappy, turbid, turbulent, unsettled, upset or wacky ;-) &mdash; Paul August &#9742; 03:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course I'm sure Jitse's code could never do any of that! Paul August &#9742; 03:12, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course Jitse's code can't do that! Mine can do all that though, and much, much more! Oleg Alexandrov 04:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is good. I log in in the morning and I see that I've been asked a question, and that it is already answered! Perhaps there are too many bots around... Anyway, I split the "new articles" sections in articles that were newly created and articles that were created some time ago, but are only now admitted to the walhalla of mathematics articles. I hope that is helpful; I'll monitor how it pans out. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

On splitting off new math articles from new mathematician articles
Hi Jitse. I wonder if you think it would be a good idea to split in the current activity page the new mathematics articles from the new mathematician articles. This because (as remarked above) I gradually plan to add all the mathematicians to the list of mathematicians, and the huge number of newly added articles might obscure the much fewer number of articles added to the list of mathematical topics. So, I wonder what you think.

Also, I wonder if you saw my question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity about adding a section containing several random articles. But now if I think of it, it might be not a good idea, as you already have lots of sections in the current activity. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 19:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ad 1) The change I mention in the previous section probably avoids most of the problems. Ad 2) Interesting idea, easy to program. However, as you say, there are already a lot of sections, and I want to add more, so it might not get much use. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * PS: I hadn't seen your question. Turns out I didn't have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity on my watchlist, but I did have WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity on the list. Weird. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
You're an admin! Please check out the free advice, have fun, and utilize your new capabilities to build a great encyclopedia. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Now go and use your super powers only for good, and don't be seduced by the darkside of the force … because … er well …  it's dark. Paul August &#9742; 17:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Congrats from me too. How about writing a bot to automatically delete articles listed on VfD? (Er, that seems to be the dark force Paul is mentioning.) Oleg Alexandrov 19:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed. Don't forget to go and delete Stikman and it's talk page, where you closed the VfD as a delete. -Splash 00:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Being careful is always good! Oh, and talk pages get deleted too because otherwise they'd still be around in Talk: space, and be orphaned from their former article. -Splash 01:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

List of mathematical topics (A-C)
Hi Jitse. You mentioned a while ago that my dummy updates of List of mathematical topics (A-C) and its cousins clog your watchlist. My reply was that alas, the Perl module I use for uploading things to Wikipedia can't submit empty edits which would triger the above lists to be refreshed without showing up on the watchlist.

Now that you starting using a Python bot (and since as we all know that Python is superior to Perl, at least syntax-wise) can you check if the Python bot framework is able to do empty edits? That might solve the problem.

(And no, protecting List of mathematical topics (A-C) and its cousins from my abusive bot is not the answer.) Oleg Alexandrov 03:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look, but probably not anytime soon, as I'll be abroad and restricted to a modem connection in the coming week. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I had a look. It seems Python can do empty edits, but for some reason, the empty edit trick stopped working. However, I have another trick up my sleeve: if you access the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_mathematical_topics_%28A-C%29&action=purge (this is the same as the URL for editing the page, but with action=edit replaced by action=purge), then the cache is invalidated so the next time that somebody goes to List of mathematical topics (A-C), the server will transclude the latest version of List of mathematical topics (A). I can do that in my Python script if you want, but you can probably also do it yourself. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I knew about purge, but it did not do the trick. I see now, one also had to visit the page again. I will give it a try later today. The Cruise business is answered on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov 18:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Javascript
On Lupin's RfA, you said that you had some Javascript that reminded you if you hadn't used an edit summary. That sounds really useful, could you please give it to me? I'm no good with Javascript. Thank you. --Celestianpower hab 10:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not good either (this is the only thing I programmed) and I've no idea whether it will work for other people, but you are free to copy from my script. You need to go to User:Jitse Niesen/monobook.js and copy the part between
 * /* Part 3  */
 * and
 * /* Part 4  */
 * to User:Celestianpower/monobook.js. Then, do a hard reload (see the note on top of User:Celestianpower/monobook.js) and it should be installed. By the way, the script doesn't just remind you, it refuses to save your edit if you don't fill in the summary. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

XML-safe WP for MathML
Congrats on admin-ship. Dmharvey says you're the point man for the mathematics-writing community's efforts to have WP generate valid XML so that MathML can be enabled. It seems like a good idea for other reasons as well; I'd really like to see this happen. How's it going? Anything you could use help with? --KSmrqT 23:36, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

Citing the arXiv
Hi, Jitse, I have been trying to find a citation template for arXiv eprints, but apparently none yet exists. I think we need one! I would like to see an easy to use template which can be used to cite an arXiv eprint which has not yet been published. The citation should look like


 * Burinskii, A.; and Kerr, R. P., Nonstationary Kerr Congruences. arXiv eprint server. Received January 13, 1995.

Since I can obtain this using

*Burinskii, A.; and Kerr, R. P., Nonstationary Kerr Congruences. arXiv eprint server. Received January 13, 1995.

and alternatively can almost obtain this using an existing template



why bother? Well, using a template helps ensure a uniform appearance (avoids different people using different spelling like "arkiv", "Arxiv" or using different spacings and punctuation or order), and

*

is signficantly easier to remember than

*

Also, for the arXiv, "access date" is useless information, but "reception date" is useful, so I like citing the reception date, but if one omitted that one could even have

*

which is even easier to remember. I'd like to make it much easier to cite the arXiv to encourage math editors to do that, and after I've done enough on WikiProject GTR, I'd even like to form a group to systematically add good citations to all existing math articles. I also feel that adding good citations is a very beneficial part of creating a good stub, because this can help a later editor expand the article. Any comments/suggestions?---CH (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Homogeneity
Hi Jitse, Thank you for your mail. You're right and I'll redirect this entry to homoscedascity. I would like to elaborate on it, but the homoscedascity entry was started by Michael Hardy and, frankly, I am affraid of him. If you are interested in this topic, go to www.vstat.net and look into my textbook in the pdf format. I talk about the Welsh correction and other issues connected with the linearity, normality, and homoscedascity assumptions of the general linear model of statistics.

Best Wishes,

David Cruise 16:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Continuity, Singularities
Thanks for your comment. If you remove the origin from the domain, 1/x is continuous. But I thought in complex analysis you leave x=0 in and call it a simple pole. The function is then not continuous at that point. I never heard that poles, branch points, and essential singularities are deleted from the domain, but maybe I am out of date. It does also seem to me odd to talk of a (real) step function being discontinuous, but if you make the domains on both sides of the discontinuity open (delete the discontinuity point) then is it continuous. Furthermore, the idea that you delete the poles to make a rational function continuous supposed that the "user" (hapless fellow) has to go to the labor of finding the poles before he can, in a sense, define the function, yet he has to define it in order to find the poles. Worse, suppose you consider 1/zeta, where zeta is the Riemann zeta function. No one has catalogued or given a simple prescription for finding the poles of that - it is a chore followed by many. Of course you can say that to find the next pole along the line Re=1/2 all you have to do is compute. As I read it, X. Gourdon and P. Demichel catalogued 10^11 such places by the year 2004. So for 1/zeta, you can tell the hapless "user" (someone wanting to understand the domain of the function) to cut out 10^11 places in the domain of real part 1/2 and "watch for news." Pdn 16:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * OK - I thought of that (your latest comment on my page) - you can study the behavior of a function near a pole or branch point, or essential singularity. I personally think it is illogical to remove all those points from the domain, rather than to leave them in, especially because in some cases you cannot find them all (or else you would have solved the Riemann zeta hypothesis and located those zeros, too); I would leave them in but call them singular points or points of discontinuity.  Nevertheless, I'm not a mathematician and sometimes mathematicians have reasons not obvious to ordinary mortals to define things a certain way, so I will drop this issue. I do note that Michael Hardy, who edits Wiki-items in math. and seems quite expert, left my change in, making a minor edit, so I assume it made some sense to him.  Anyway, if you want to change it back or make some other change I'll chalk it up to experience. Thanks for the cmments.Pdn 02:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

John Fox and stubs
Thanks very much for your courteous message. I take a stub to mean that the article is short and definitely needs substantial additions. RachelBrown 12:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Re : SFTPPlus
Hi Jitse Niesen,

Yes, the VFD template should be removed. I actually assumed it's gone when someone replaces it with the copyvio template, but I guess this isn't the case! =P Thanks for letting me know! :)

Cheers, Mailer Diablo 22:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:WPUS
Thanks for deleting that script... have you considered joining? All the best, Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 00:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

re: combinatori(c)al
I believe the correct spelling is indeed combinatorial. I would appreciate it if you could rename this category. --R.Koot 13:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Pi/crank
The link to Crank (person) in pi is useful because the other things he claimed prove (right before I put in the link to crank) show that he was a crank, and therefore probably wrong about pi being 3.2. Bubba73 22:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Shoulda linked "crazy people" a few paragraphs later.linas 23:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I put it right after the mention trisection and cube doubling because they are the classic mathematical crank claims. Bubba73 (talk) 23:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Scattering states
FYI, I noticed an old discussion with anonymous; what mathematicians call "continuous spectrum" are what physicists call "scattering states". (So for example, for the hydrogen atom, the discrete spectrum corresponds to E=-13.7 eV/n^2 for n an integer (notice negative sign). The continuous spectrum starts at n=infty (and is positive). The discrete states correspond to classical planetary elliptic orbits; the limit point to the parabolic orbit; and the continuous spectrum to the hyperbolic, escaping, "scattering" orbits.) So the article continuous spectrum probably does belong to Category:scattering (I haven't read the article yet, or looked at the category; this is an a priori remark). linas 01:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thâbit ibn Kurrah
I certainly have no objection if you want to combine those articles. I am working through the articles in the Maths7 list of missing math articles, and all three articles about Kurrah are my attempt to add articles whose title appears in the list. I have also deleted from the list a large number of articles that are in Wikipedia except for the captialization in the title, and am working on doing the same with Maths6. Rick Norwood 19:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoinverse
Jitse, why did you remove Pseudoinverse from the Linear Algebra category? Please note the corresponding Talk:Pseudoinverse entry. --RainerBlome 21:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Answered at Talk:Pseudoinverse. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Root-finding algorithm
Hello Jitse. Thank you very much for your comment on my root-finding algoritm. Answered at User talk:Bo Jacoby. Yours truly Bo Jacoby 07:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

popupLiveOptions
Hi, it should be a lowercase p at the start of popupLiveOptions. You can enter javascript:void(popupLiveOptions=true) in the address bar (of firefox) to turn it on without affecting your monobook.js if you prefer. Lupin|talk|popups 00:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've implemented a feature which I hope is more like what you wanted. Check it out in the latest popupsdev.js by setting popupsUnsimplify=true.

Wikisource
Thanks so much for fixing the Wikisource link and slogan that appears on the Main Page!

There was one slight error however. The link should be to s:Main Page or even to simply just s:. But not to s:Main Page:English. If you could switch that one small thing too it would be great. Thanks!Dovi 15:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, now fixed. I don't quite remember why I put in s:Main Page:English; sorry about that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks again.Dovi 19:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

CarlHewitt
Jitse -

Thanks for your help with the erroneous deletion attempt of Pdn. I also appreciate your offer to help with things.

Right now, the general relativity editors are in a conflict with user:CarlHewitt. He is trying to get his actor model listed as a part of general relativity. As part of that effort, he has created category:Relativistic Information Science which is the subject of a current deletion attempt. And now I have just discovered that he has created Category:Information science (relativistic) which duplicates the other one!!! Maybe I can get a speedy delete on that one, but this guy needs to be watched by someone.

In addition, all of his contributions reek of self-promotion. I do not see that this is grounds for their removal, but I do think that people who can competently judge his work should be asked to revied it for additional noelogisms (such as "Relativistic Information Science" itself), and other original research. --EMS | Talk 05:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my botched attempt to delete the category. I was indeed aware that deleting a category was different (just ask Aristotle) and I had two or three pages open trying to click on the right links. I will remember your offer of help the next time.Pdn 12:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments on Category talk:Relativistic Information Science.--CSTAR 16:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

List of mathematical topics (A-C), yet again
Hi Jitse. First, welcome back. :) Second, I don't dislike so much anymore that exclusive cabal of arrogant admins, because now I am in myself. :)

Third, to continue our converstation started a bit above, that purge thing followed by downloading a copy of the page, does not seem to work at refreshing the "what links" feature. So I wonder if you would be willing to use the pywikipedia framework to produce empty edits to that list. Otherwise, if you think you won't get to this in a while, I will go back to my silly daily edits to that page to refresh the links. Wonder what you think. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 23:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How dare you run for admin while I am away? However, now that you're in, you should learn not to mention the C-word. :) One bit of secret knowledge, in response to your reply on Paul's talk page: if an admin is blocked for editing, he can still (un)block other people, including himself (of course, he shouldn't).


 * Did you try recently whether empty edits still work to refresh the "what links here" list? I seem to remember that they don't. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I was not clear enough. Empty edits work if one opens a browser window, edits an article, and clicks "save page" without actually editing anything. That causes the "what links here" to be refreshed with no mention in the history, and not showing up on the watchlist. And yes, empty edits with my bot fail to do that, 'cause the mediawiki perl package I am using refuses to submit empty edits. And that's where the whole point is. I hoped that the pywikipedia framework will allow one to do true empty edits exactly as if one opens the browser window, and so refreshing "what links here" without showing up on the watchlist. If you think it does not allow empty edits that way, I will pollute your watchlist again. :) Oleg Alexandrov 21:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Assuming that you mean "related changes" when you say "what links here", you were perfectly clear, but I thought you were wrong; of course, I was wrong in thinking you wrong. Empty edits indeed refresh the "related changes" list, even though they do not refresh the article. I'll have a look soon whether I can prod my script into doing something useful for you. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I had it all messed up. The "what links here" feature is sort of the dual (in some unspecified space) of the "recent changes". And of course the latter is what we care about. Oleg Alexandrov 00:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Jitse-- Thank you for your support on my RfA. To answer your concern, No there have not been any personal attacks since then (I think. No one has ever had a real problem with me since then). If promoted, I won't let you down. Cheers. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  14:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)