User talk:Lethe/archive3

The Above Saturn Picture

 * moved weird accusation that I am a child murderer and rapist to User:Lethe/sarfatti. -lethe talk [ +] 03:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

THAT WAS NOT SARFATTI! IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE WHO THINKS YOU'RE A CREEP! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.47.190 (talk • contribs).


 * This harassment (or stalking) by whomever bothers me (who am not a victim of it).--CSTAR 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

SINCE LETHE IS ANONYMOUS, HE IS THE STALKER HERE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.47.190 (talk • contribs).


 * I'm just thankful that this stalker (based on previous attacks he's made against me based on that picture, I assume that this is Jack Sarfatti) doesn't know my real identity. I probably wouldn't edit here if I didn't have anonymity to protect me, and this is exactly the reason why.

ANTIGRAY SAYS YOU ARE PROFESSOR SINGER AT A COLLEGE IN NORTH CAROLINA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.47.190 (talk • contribs).


 * Anyway, I really like that painting, and I have a print of it hanging in my kitchen (apparently de Goya originally painted it on his kitchen wall). Yeah, the painting is a bit morbid, but the inference that I'm a murderer or a child rapist seems like a bit of a stretch.  I do not appreciate the allegation, though as long as I'm not getting called by the dept chair into his office to defend myself after Sarfatti calls my uni (something he's done to others in the past), I don't care too much. -lethe talk [ +] 04:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

THAT IS A FALSE RUMOR. SARFATTI NEVER DID ANY SUCH THING. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? IF YOU ARE A PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS AT A UNIVERSITY THEN YOU SHOULD NOT BE WASTING YOUR TIME ON THIS NONSENSE. YOU SHOULD BE DOING YOUR JOB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.47.190 (talk • contribs).

Hey Lethe, sorry about not just deleting it, and moving it here instead. I thought it was just one of those random anon comments. --C S (Talk) 04:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I've been receiving these for a while, and I have a special place for Sarfatti's attacks, but you couldn't have known that. -lethe talk [ +] 04:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

adminship
Yes, please! —Keenan Pepper 05:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Proof Of Concept Requested
I would like something proved. GeMiJa 19:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to make the proposition offline? GeMiJa 17:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

reverts
Hey, just wanted to let you know that the list of variables you reverted on Schrödinger equation had new information as well as new format. It would be much better if you could see what should and shouldn't be kept when you revert something - I put back the new info if you want to revert that too ; )  Fresheneesz 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does indeed seem to be the case. I apologize. -lethe talk [ +] 20:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Help:Contents
hi, i was just wondering if i could remind/ask you to reply to my reply at help desk links? I'm hoping it sounds sensible/good to you. Much thanks :-) --Quiddity 04:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem?
Why did you so quickly revert my additions to the math article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.178.82 (talk • contribs).

I just wanted you to know that I appreciate what you do for Wikipedia. May the rest of the users help us build consense on this going forward. Regards.
 * Thank you for your courtesy and your consideration of wikipedia policy. I am confident that the community will come to a consensus quickly. -lethe talk [ +] 07:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA comments
Hi there, I just noticed your edit summary restore comments by SwatJester deleted by Asterion in an edit marked minor and summarizes as a typo. Well, I assume good faith on your part, nevertheless it was quite obvious that this was a simple mistake after I had to edit an old version to rescue my comments. The point being SwatJester was agreeing with me on the matter, as I had already replied to these two people on their talk pages (VKokielov and Zmaj). Have a nice day! --Asterion talk to me 11:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. No offence taken. As you possibly know, the RfA comment area is meant to be related to the RfA only. Therefore, I left a message on the user's talk page and removed it from the RfA comments, as a) it was an Ad Hominem and b) it was unrelated to HRE. I had previously informed the bureaucrat too. Just for the record, Zmaj *did* apology. Regards, --Asterion talk to me 20:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did remove that on purpose, but then somebody else restored it and I just could not be bothered to edit war about it, so I copied my reply from their talk page for the record. Now I see why you thought I was sneaking a delete in my edits ;-) --Asterion talk to me 20:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to worry, this sort of things happens on the Internet. I am sorry for any misunderstanding too. --Asterion talk to me 21:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I saw you on the RfA page of FloNight and felt like saying you a big and nice hello. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 16:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

help:contents
Just wanted to request/remind your input at 4 Alternatives and the 2 sections directly underneath it. (man it's quiet around here. darned summer.) -Quiddity 18:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Lower case links
You wrote:
 * I urge you to consider Michael's suggestions, and use lowercase links in the middle of a sentence. -lethe talk [ +] 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I do use the appropriate case letters in links. The capitalized portion of the link you pointed to is a non-viewable portion of the link - the piped portion is what is seen and is appropriately capitalized. Why would a non-viewable letter matter? - Dreadlocke 03:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I shouldn't capitalize even a non-viewable in case a newbie spots it and thinks the link word has to be capitalized all the time - like with the undescores...  Forgive me, I'm dense.  Thanks for the urging.  Someone should probably add this information into the style guideline, just to be clear. - Dreadlocke 03:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for adding that to the manual of style! I feel like I really contributed to something today! (Even if only peripherally!) - Dreadlocke 03:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to see that you adopted Michael's suggestion. And thanks for prompting the addition to MoS.  And also for doing the busywork of all that disambiguation bypassing.  It is appreciated!  -lethe talk [ +] 02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks! It’s nice to get a pat on the back!  I’m sure you meant "busywork" in its finest sense… :) - Dreadlocke 18:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Energy level and indented list
Gah Lethe why!? The way it is now, the variables are thrown around haphazardly, some not even described. At the very least, the variables should come after the equation - to have some sort of consistancy with other equations. I'm never going to revisit that page in all likelyhood, so I'll let you think about fixing it. Fresheneesz 04:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely you're wondering about my reversion of your variable name list at Energy level this edit. Relevant discussion can also be found here and here.  I guess my reason for reverting the list is the same as it has been since I first saw it: I think it's ugly, unencyclopedic, and lacks consensus.  I don't see any problem with just a standard text mention about the meanings of variables before or after equations, at the author's discretion. -lethe talk [ +] 05:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cat
Can you please add Category:VoA scripted admins to your monobook. Fixing bugs and finding people who are not using JS correctly is a lot easier when things are categorized. I just want to keep track. My RC patrol JS cat has 80 member, many which I check up on and fix redundances/JS errors. Thanks. Voice -of-  All T 04:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I couldn't make it work. -lethe talk [ +] 15:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

9/11 edits
Hi Lethe, it seems someone added personal information on a Wikipedia administrator to the 9/11 article (as well as multiple other articles), John tried to remove the relevant diffs from the database per Wikipedia policy and it seems that the article needed to be redirected to an alternate dummy page while that was being done. Hope that clears up the confusion. TheProject 07:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, see ANI. I just did the same thing for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hope that clears up the confusion. Johnleemk | Talk 07:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Disappointment
I'm very disappointed in you. Yeah, Avillia really deserved that unblock. What exactly does someone have to do to get you to realize they're not good for the project? -- Cyde Weys 17:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I consider repetitive vandalism and obstinate refusal to acknowledge consensus (like, after weeks), good reasons to ban (and have done so in the past). I do not consider bad behaviour on IRC reason to ban.  Nor do I consider making a cynical response (like the one you link) to people who've banned you unfairly and then deleting it (out of consideration) to be some kind of proof of ban-worthiness.  Frankly, I probably would do the same.  I think perhaps some people are too trigger-happy with the ban button.  Are you really disappointed with me?  Do you really only want editors here who've taken oaths of loyalty to the Wikipedia party line?    -lethe talk [ +] 17:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We do want editors who believe in consensus and not in wheel warring. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad we're in agreement about some qualities which we do like to see in Wikipedia editors. Nevertheless, your comment strikes me as a non sequitur.  Nothing you've said rebuts my claim that IRC fights are reasons to permban.  Furthermore, wheel-warring is something that only admins can do, and so is not relevant.  -lethe talk [ +] 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly it's relevant. If you are unblocking people without consensus, then that's wheel warring.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Manboobies user/talk page
As per our discussion on the question page would you mind terribly locking my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Manboobies&oldid=52193600

talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Manboobies&oldid=52192526

to those versions? I wish to leave wikipedia but I do not wish the user who is currently harrassing me to continue posting at me. I also do not want continued talking on my talk page regarding my decision to leave. I'm fed up of being harrassed and brow beaten (as another user put it). I am convinced he is nothing more than a troll trying to save his own skin and i will not dispute resolution with him, or give him the attention directly that he so desperately wants. I cannot honestly believe half the stuff he has typed at me given his maliciously worded and over the top language and RANDOM USE OF CAPITALS TO SHOUT at me constantly. All this because i dared to compare staley to cobain in an unfavorable light to cobain. Ugh.--Manboobies 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that I need a say in this matter, but I think the content I wrote speaks for itself. I tried to explain my actions in as much detail as possible.  Manboobies keeps insisting that I'm trolling him or harrassing him, but, again, my response should speak for itself.  Feel free to read it in his User Talk history, as I believe he's removing it under other motives.


 * If he's leaving because of my actions, I think that's a shame. But I think I have every responsibility to encourage users to understand Wikipedia guidelines, particularly those who have ignored them on repeated occasion. -- ChrisB 23:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Tony_Sidaway
Please read the above message I posted to my fellow mentor Tony Sidaway and consider lifting the block you placed on Coolcat. - Mgm|(talk) 10:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted to WP:ANI as you suggested. The reason I contacted you, was that I wanted to see the block lifted without causing a wheelwar. I could've done it myself, but I figured asking you first was better. I fail to see how nominating this particular category can be considered disruptive and already people are jumping to bad-faith conclusion and votes just because he nominated it. I find voting based on who the nominator is the one of the most disruptive things I've come across in Wikipedia. I'm unblocking unless someone can show how the nomination is disruptive. I'm also going to ask Ed for inclusion clarification. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel the blocking is not justified, then go ahead and undo it. I'm not going to get my back up for having my blocking undone. -lethe talk [ +] 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Have a flower for your friendly and timely responses. - Mgm|(talk) 10:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well He's requesting an unblock so he can participate in the conversation . I've no opinion on the source matter pertaining to this subject, as I am not qualified to make decisions on it. However, I've no doubt Cool Cat acted in good faith. Proceeding a look over his thesis for the proposed deletion, I observed there's quite a bit of strong feelings on this subject, but not disruptive. I'm advocating an unblock as to allow an explanation from his view on ths situation. -ZeroTalk 15:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

math on Hebrew Wikipedia
Replied on my talk page. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Many-worlds interpretation
reverted again in spite of your warning --DV8 2XL 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi ,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Lethe/list of categories
As per the email discussion I have made few edits to this page and also created User:Lethe/list of categories/template. I was wndering your thoughts. -- Cat out 18:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jack Sarfatti and the Bay area pacbell.net anon
"As some day it may happen that a victim must be found." Mikado, Gilbert & Sullivan.

Hi, Lethe, I've compiled a little list:

IPs possibly used by Jack Sarfatti as the Bay area pacbell.net anon to edit Jack Sarfatti and its talk page include:


 * 1) 67.124.118.41   adsl-67-124-118-41.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net       San Francisco  NOT Sarfatti
 * 2) 68.121.150.197 adsl-68-121-150-197.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net      San Jose  Not Sarfatti - he would not be caught dead in San Jose ever!
 * 3) 68.122.1.180   adsl-68-122-1-180.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net        "
 * 4) 68.123.40.112  adsl-68-123-40-112.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net       "
 * 5) 68.123.140.70  adsl-68-123-140-70.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net       "
 * 6) 68.123.180.254 adsl-68-123-180-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net      "
 * 7) 68.124.23.153  adsl-68-124-23-153.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net       "
 * 8) 68.124.78.243  adsl-68-124-78-243.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net       "
 * 9) 68.125.78.83   adsl-68-125-78-83.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net        "
 * 10) 69.104.60.117  adsl-69-104-60-117.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net       "
 * 11) 71.139.55.87   ppp-71-139-55-87.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net         San Francisco
 * 12) 71.139.62.252  ppp-71-139-62-252.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net        "
 * 13) 71.139.113.54  ppp-71-139-113-54.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net        "

In fact none of these are likely to be Sarfatti's - from 68.121.151.58 (The Real Sarfatti) Beware False Sarfattis! LOL

The pacbell.net domain is registered to SBC Internet Services, Inc.

An anon editor using 71.139.97.67 mentioned "my book Destiny Matrix", which is rather unambiguous. I do know of some Sarfatti associates who have been mentioned by him in the talk page and who live in the Bay area, however.

Regarding Sarfatti's occasional threats to report us as "terrorists" to the Department of Homeland Security, did you know that another crank, William A. Dembski, said on his blog that he has actually done just this? See Mims-Pianka controversy and Talk:William A. Dembski. I still don't really understand this, but so far as I can tell, Eric Pianka did not call for the extermination of mankind, he warned that unrestrained human population growth and travel patterns would seem to make deadly pandemics a biological inevitability. Nonetheless, it seems that the FBI has actually harrassed him! What a world, hey? ---CH 04:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sure the anon who made most recent edit to Talk:Jack Sarfatti is Sarfatti himself. I was just having a little fun with him, since he misspelled his name "Sarfatt", the very mistake that was was (falsely) accusing me of enforcing on the page, and threatening to call his buddies in the government to find out my identity and sue me or whatever.  Frankly, I think it would be kind of fun to get a visit from the FBI to talk about Jack Sarfatti.  I got a visit from the NSA when I was in college when my roommate applied for a security clearance job with them, and that was fun.  But I guess not everyone would think it as fun as I might, and obviously I wouldn't like to get sued, even if it were completely frivolous.  That sort of thing stultifies free speech, something I guess Dembski counts on.  Anyway, here are some more IPs for your collection: 68.124.31.188, 68.125.8.213, 68.124.23.189, 68.123.141.112.  These are some of the IPs that have vandalized my userpage with the legal threats.  I guess they could all be added to Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of JackSarfatti.  -lethe talk [ +] 05:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You have a strange concept of "vandalism". It's Calton who is the vandal here. Sarfatti never threatened to report you as a terrorist. You are imagining things. On the other hand your use of that horrible picture by Goya sure makes you look like that German cannibal who ate a guy who apparently wanted to be eaten.

"Stultify free speech"? What's wrong with you people? You are denying Sarfatti free speech about himself! You make it appear that he renounced Uri Geller for example. That is not true. In fact Sarfatti and Geller work together as the photo on Sarfatti's page shows. Calton keeps removing factual information about that topic - blatant hypocrisy. Your concept of free speech is your freedom to slander and libel.

You guys think you are above the rule of law. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.141.112 (talk • contribs).


 * And what "law" would that be?


 * Here's a free clue for you, Jack: this site has rules, and you've frequently and unapologetically violated them. For that, you've been banned. Those rules are the ones you think you're above.


 * Sarfatti never threatened to report you as a terrorist. Not merely a lie, but an obvious and incompetently told one. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Calton you need stop eating so many transfatty acids. It's clogging your arteries and your neurons are misfiring. LOL.

Smile!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
 * Dear Lord, this reminds me of those feel good emails which you must forward to at least 10 other friends in order for some poor child to get healed. Hope this smile thing won't last. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks


Hi Lethe - it is simply impossible for me to accept that reasoning. If others can raise all sorts of issues regarding the candidate, I am entitled to point out to Ardenn his folly. Further, I cannot allow people to misrepresent me. A lot of people voted without the slightest sense of my record. This was a poor compromise of Satya, so it became unacceptable to me. I don't covet adminship at all, so it wasn't a difficult decision.

However, I cannot tell you how greatly joyous I felt when you changed from oppose to support after a respectable discussion. Your comment tells one more than anything that to make a helpful, positive contribution one doesn't have to be an admin at all. I don't know how hard it will be to understand that your supports means extremely a lot to me. I thank you from my heart, and please let me know if I can ever be assistance or help in anything. Rama&#39;s Arrow 20:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I only responded to Ardenn for the stated reasons, and Knucmo2 - who I believe was misrepresenting my record. The rest of my notes were responses to you. Rama&#39;s Arrow 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was happy to switch, because after conversing with you, I decided that I truly did get a bad impression of you, and that you truly are not a POV pusher. Our debate may have put some people off, and I'm sorry for that.  I think you should consider going again in a few months, and let me just suggest that you refrain from replying to oppose votes.  If you think you have some important piece of information, then give it to them (like you did with me), but if you simply don't agree with them, it's best to leave it alone.  Especially in cases like Ardenn, the closing bureaucrat is likely to discount Ardenn's input entirely, since it isn't about you.  -lethe talk [ +] 20:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
I just have a moment, but contributed a tiny bit to your fundamental group question. Thank you for the welcome. I love the Goya painting, and look forward to building with you. MotherFunctor 02:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Well I hope the wine is good.--CSTAR 04:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes: A New Proposal
Hey, I've noticed that you've been active on the Userbox deletion page, either strongly FOR or AGAINST the use of the new T2 for deleting userboxes. I have noticed that most of the community is strong in their opinions on this issue; for that reason, I created my own proposal which attempts to create a middle ground for the two groups, and finally get this debate settled once and for all. I welcome your input into the proposal, as well as your (non-binding) vote on the straw poll. Thanks! // The  True  Sora  01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

SPV
Yeah, I'm an SPV alumnus too. I was in the 2000 batch. Later, deeptrivia (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so.. I didn't know most people senior to me. deeptrivia (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess her name is Shahana Goswami, and the name of the movie is Yun Hota To Kya Hota. Don't know her though. deeptrivia (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Avillia
Hi Lethe. Avillia is playing mind games and I fell for it. I get fed up with stupid people sometimes, especially frivolous comments/votes (not harsh comments though). It's discussions like User talk:Avillia that remind me to not take everything so seriously. I don't try to be an ass, really! ~MDD4696 21:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Avillia again
How was there insufficient cause to ban Avillia indef? As far as I know, he made a legal threat towards us. SushiGeek 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about, but if you've evidence to bring up, then do so, and we'll see. -lethe talk [ +] 23:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you know what I'm talking about. That's a clear and present violation of NLT. SushiGeek 05:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll sue you for pointing that out! That's slander, or libel, or something that makes me angry! A thousand lawyers will be out for your head by morning! You don't see how they get when they haven't been fed their daily dose of human flesh and old summary judgements! --Avillia (Avillia me!) 04:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolute Value Revert
In the absolute value articale, I don't understand how my corrections were incorrect. abs(z) = sqrt(x2), and x^2+y^2 doesn't equal (x+y)^2. (If that were true, the Pythagorean Thorem would be true only for triangle of 180, 0, 0, which clearly aren't right triangles.) So wouldn't it stand to reason that $$|ai+b| = \sqrt{\left( ai+b\right) ^2}$$? The formula used in the article is sqrt(Re(z)^2+Im(z)^2)He Who Is 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)(Although the revert on my second change doesn't matter; That one's true either way.)


 * The formula $$|z| = \sqrt{z^2}$$ is not correct. The formula in the article is correct.  As you yourself note, the two formulas are not the same.  The correct formula uses the Pythagorean theorem to give the positive radius from a complex number to the origin.  Just as the formula $$|x|=\sqrt{x^2}$$ gives the distance to the origin for real numbers.  Both your formula $$|z| = \sqrt{z^2}$$ and my formula reduce to the right formula for real numbers.  However, your formula gives a distance of √–1 to the origin for i.  This is not correct, i is 1 unit from the origin, and √–1 is not a valid distance.   -lethe talk [ +] 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So then, technically, the formula should be the squared root of the sum of the squares of the real and imaginary parts of a number. I think that should be mentioned in the article.He Who Is 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But it is already in the article. It's the formula you tried to change. -lethe talk [ +] 00:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I should have worded that differently. What I meant was that it should be mentioned that the absolute values of real numbers is a special case of that of complex numbers, but the absolute value of complex numbers is not a direct generalization of that of that of reals. I had been confused because I thought that the absolute value of complex numbers could be found by plugging it into the formula for the absolute value of reals numbers as it had been mentioned in proposition 1. The fact that the difference is not explicitly stated could lead to more confusion. He Who Is 19:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should write $$|x|=\sqrt{x\cdot\overline{x}}$$ instead of $$|x| = \sqrt{x\cdot x}$$. Since $$\overline{x}=x$$ for all real x, the two formulas are identical, and the former formula generalizes correctly to the complexes.  But actually, I don't think it's a good idea to start talking about complex numbers when you're only dealing with real functions. -lethe talk [ +] 19:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But the absolute value for complex numbers is a direct generalization of the absolute value for reals &mdash; it is the distance from the point to the origin, that is, it is the square root of the sum of the squares of the coordinates of the number. This further generalizes to all of Euclidean space. Paul August &#9742; 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the formula for reals does generalize directly to the complexes when written properly, Paul. But the definition as stated in Proposition 1 does not. And at no point is it mentioned that one cannot simply use that formula for the complexes. This is what led be to believe that the complex definition was simply incorrect. See what I mean? He Who Is 20:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (I also wish to mention that Lethe's suggestion is already in the section on complex numbers. I agree that a complex definition is not befitting while still in the real section, but merely thinkthat the defference should be explicitly stated at the beginning of the complex section.)
 * Perhaps adding something like "for every $$a \in \mathbb{R}$$" next to proposition 1 would help? This is somehow redundant, but it may clarify the confusion. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That is indicateds by the name of the section, "Real Numbers," but it still might make for good clarification.He Who Is 20:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

WP misbehavior by Jack Sarfatti
Hi, Lethe, I have felt for some time a continuing need to document Sarfatti's most flagrant misbehavior, so I have done so. I tried hard to maintain WP:NPOV but would like a second opinion. If you have chance, you might drop by, take a look, and comment in my own talk page.

It has not escaped my attention that unfortunately, simply trying to document Sarfatti's behavior is likely to send him over the edge again when he notices the new page, which would certainly be unpleasant. Still, I have been noticing a pattern of bad edits to wikibios of people he apparently doesn't like, which suggests a continued need to track and document his misuse of WP. ---CH 02:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Lethe, looking over this section of the talk page, what about just deleting that whole section, not just the bit added by the anonymous Sarfatti sock? I already have a link up above to the evidence page which might be less likely to attract Sarfatti's attention. While Sarfatti misspelling his own name is funny, the whole section does now seem to me rather likely to set him off if he sees it there, which is inevitable unless one of us removes it (with a brief comment in edit line that you and I jointly decided to delete this section). Since Sarfatti is not very wikicompetent, it is possible he might overlook the fact this section ever existed. If he does notice the deletion, he might overlook our later comments. Either way, in this case, he will no doubt try to suggest that we were doing something underhanded and "cyberterroristic" :-/  But since he thinks we are all conspiring against him anyway, I guess we can live with that! What do you think? ---CH 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed some comments from the preceding section and then archived the remainder. He will surely notice the archiving but hopefully won't notice the comments or fly off the handle. We'll see. ---CH 03:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, now, here is a bombshell: while routinely checking for new links to known cranky websites, I discovered that the pltn13.pacbell.net anon signed someone's talk page as Bernard Haisch. This person soon after registered as. I have found multiple edits which show that "the" (?) pltn13.pacbell.net anon has edited various articles to promote Haisch's new book, The God Theory. See Talk:Zero-point energy.

I am not yet convinced that all instances of edits by the pltn13.pacbell.net anon represent Haisch and not Sarfatti. AFAIK, they could very well both be using the same domain. The edits I found earlier certainly seem to be very similar to Sarfatti's rather distinctive style. Sarfatti and Haisch do know each other IRL and live in the same area (Sarfatti in San Franciso and Haisch in Redwood City) so its not even implausible that they might share a domain. In fact, it is not implausible that Haisch has given Sarfatti an account at Digital Universe.---CH 08:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Haisch as a Sock Puppet for Jack Sarfatti?
This is hilarious! And you say Sarfatti is paranoid? The fact is that Haisch and Sarfatti are in intense competition and would never collaborate on anything! Just look at Sarfatti's books and that will be obvious. LOL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.121.151.58 (talk • contribs) 03:40, June 13, 2006.

Not talking to myself (this time anyway)
My Ryan Delaney, admin par excellence (I know WP:ELP or something - English Language please) - deleted this piece for "trolling", I should have put it back where it was, not at the bottom. Didn't think of that. (Alles klar?) Wallie 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keine sorge. -lethe talk [ +] 20:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bitte schön. Uf wiederluege! Wallie 22:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Troubling patterns of edits and what to do about them
Hi, Lethe, could you drop by my user talk page? User:ObsidianOrder and User:Omegatron are very upset by my recent activity correlating anon IPs with (apparently) a single individual and in some cases suggesting a real life identity in connection with concern about a possible conflict of interest. ObsidianOrder is threatening to ArbCom me and Omegatron seems to think I posted personal contact information (i.e. street address, phone number, valid email), which is absolutely not true. Somewhere hidden in this heated discussion are valid concerns, which I think we both appreciate, about the need to balance privacy/anonymity with the need for WP editors to disclose any personal connection with a particular controversy if they are editing an article on the controversial topic in question!---CH 22:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said; thanks! ---CH 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The epsilons you just put into Grothendieck universe
The epsilons you just put into Grothendieck universe do not show up in Internet Explorer. When I use IE (instead of Firefox), I just see square boxes for them. JRSpriggs 04:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom Petty etc.
Was that just a cameo though? Jooler 14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the thing about I Was Monty's Double and To Hell and Back is that they were biographical portraits of the person/actor and Being John Malkovich had one of the lead characters as a version of the actor playing that part. I guess it was thing kind of thing I was thinking about when I posed the question. Jooler

Every episode of the Ricky Gervais show Extras features an actor playing him or herself. -lethe talk [ +] 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I know. I've added a section to List of actors who play characters with the same names Jooler 23:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Inaccessible cardinal axiom
Not sure this is a standard name. Personally I wouldn't give it a name but would just call it "there exists a proper class of inaccessibles". The hierarchy of axioms is too finely divided to give every axiom a name (hard enough just keeping track of the large-cardinal properties). Anyway I've never heard this usage among set theorists. --Trovatore 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

email
I wish to contact you via email for a more private conversation. You will know who it is as I will tell you in the email. Is this possible? are you willing to do this? I feel stalked on wikipedia and would like a private atmosphere.--88.105.109.0 06:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to contact me at any time via email. Follow Special:Emailuser/Lethe to send me an email. -lethe talk [ +] 06:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not that easy, someone must be logged in and have an email address to email someone. If an ip is blocked the IP can not register to send emails. Mineralè 06:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

cross product
Talk:Cross product seems bad to limit information simply cause its too detailed...it would be smart to set some of these pages up (especially math/physics) with hierarchical content based on difficulty..so derivations could be ajax-expanded...simple simple proof, but worth inclusion for beginners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wilfordbrimley (talk • contribs) 08:31, May 30, 2006.

From IRC
I was asleep when you mentioned: I'll try to clarify this, I requested the article to be brought back so that a) people on DRV can better understand the subject matter and b) so I could work on it. This means that if the DRV fails (which is unlikely) the article would be deleted. See my comment on DRV Mineralè 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 03:14 so uh
 * 03:14 minerale: you there?
 * 03:14 I guess we're now in the awkward position of voting to undelete an article that is not deleted?

Rascism controversy
Fair enough, I was OTT, SqueakBox 16:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Get on IRC and message me.
--Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA alerts
I noticed that you wanted to see new RfAs appear in the Signpost. I'm working on a proposal for a personalized opt-in alerts system for receiving alerts. In brief, it would work by you making a list of users you were interested in (ones that you've been interacting with) and being "spammed" if one of them comes up for RfA. It could be done for RfCs or RfArbs too. To express interest, you can sign up here. :-) TheGrappler 05:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious
I do really need to be more aware of what's happening around here (I tend to be be unaware of my environs, at least that's what my wife tells me.) The cell phone incident you pointed to was hilarious. --CSTAR 15:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah. it had me chuckling heartily for a while. -lethe talk [ +] 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A haiku of thanks

 * Thanks for your support
 * In my RfA, which passed!
 * Wise I'll try to be.

-- Nataly a 04:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

linear maps
Well, wait, they don't correspond to linear maps -- they define linear maps on infinite-dimensional spaces. And the correspondence is not natural; I didn't add that. I added only that it depends on the choice of basis and that it can be used to disassemble a transformation -- that is, there exists an algebra isomorphism between matrices and transformations from a finite-dimensional to a finite-dimensional space, after you choose a basis. --VKokielov 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're referring to my reversion of your edit to linear transformation, I presume. I objected to the the text "their addition and composition) correspond naturally to matrix algebra".  Linear transformations correspond to matrices, but not naturally.  Additionally, the text "matrices yield examples of linear transformations (whether or not the spaces in question are finite-dimensional)" seems incorrect to me; matrices never give linear transformations of finite-dimensional spaces. -lethe talk [ +] 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. I should send a letter to David Lay.  (Yes, Lay, believe it or not.)  What is more precise to say is that every linear combination gives rise to a linear transformation.  But that's not the same.  --VKokielov 00:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is David Lay? -lethe talk [ +] 01:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. :)
 * Mind, besides the advanced mathematics textbooks I sometimes understand, I also have to complete a college degree. :)  David Lay.  --VKokielov 03:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

balanced product problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Mathematics/March_2006

Hi,

please tell me if this is not the proper place to ask questions personally.

on march 24/25 2006 you helped me out on  a problem with balanced products.

What i wanted to prove was that the tensor product had to be generated by the tensor product of elements.

I wanted to do this in the way my professor told me :

1) prove that the subgroup itself is also a tensorproduct 2) conclude that the subgroup is the full group

I have lost track of that because of many other exams at university, but I really don't wanna give up on this problem :

a) Is it possible that you didn't use step one? That you just went ahead to step 2 immediately? b) You concluded there by saying pi =id must be proven in another way. But how, THAT would require knowing that the smaller generated abelian subgroup is also a tensor product. c) why would you need that, if i p = id, then i must be surjective, and when an embedding of P into Z is surjective, we already know P=Z

Thanks for all the many times that you have responded to my sometimes trivial math questions. As I said earlier, it is my ambition 'give back' to Wikipedia after my exams, mainly in the field of incidence geometry, because that is in my opinion the only area where a lot of things still have to be added,and coincidentally one of my study interests.

Evilbu 09:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's take it step by step. Suppose M is a right R-module and N is a left R-module, and that Z is a tensor product of M and N, which necessarily has a biadditive map f: M×N → Z (together these make a balanced product according to your prof's notations).  Let P be the subgroup of Z generated by the image of f.  We want to show that P is all of Z.


 * For any function k: A → B, if R is the range of k, we have the factorization A → R → B, where the first arrow takes each point in the domain to the corresponding point of the range, a subset of the codomain of k, and the second arrow is the inclusion function of the range R into the codomain B. Apply this principle to f: M×N → Z, and call the first map φ and the inclusion map j.  Then f = j∙φ.  Since j is an inclusion map, it is injective.


 * Now, P is an abelian group, and φ is a biadditive map from M×N to P. The universal property of tensor products guarantees us that for any abelian group with biadditive map, there must be a unique map from the tensor product which factors.  Thus there must be a unique map k: Z → P which satisfies k∙f = φ.


 * From these two equations, we have a map j∙k from Z to itself, and it satisfies j∙k∙f = f. Another map Z → Z is the identity map, which also satisfies the equation.  Since there can be only one such map (by the universal property), I must have j∙k = id.  Since j has a right-inverse, it must be a surjection.  Thus j is an injection and a surjection, and so it is an isomorphism.  The range of f is all of Z.


 * A more concrete way to see the result is as follows: the tensor product may be defined concretely as the quotient of the Cartesian product by some ideal. The map to the tensor product is simply the canonical projection onto this quotient.  Since projections onto quotient sets are always surjective, we have our result. -lethe talk [ +] 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that is totally clear! So basically it's still faster to prove P=Z than to prove that P is a tensor product itself. I'm happy anyway, I understand it now :) Evilbu 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I started out saying I was going to show that the subgroup satisfied the universal property, but ended up showing that it was isomorphic. Whoops.

Talk:Axiom of choice
Is there any objection to moving the part of Talk:Axiom of choice between the horizontal lines to a subpage? I think I've been repeating myself, and I'm sure Ben has (been repeating himself). &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. In fact, I was thinking of doing that myself. -lethe talk [ +] 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving Pages
Hi, thanks for your note. I'm sorry I didn't check for double redirects, it was because i had to leave almost directly after I moved the page. I was about to do it when I got back at home. When I got home, i got ur message. -- Luigi-ish 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)