User talk:Mathsci/Archive 8

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Atlante-Aix-license.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Atlante-Aix.jpg. The copy called Image:Atlante-Aix.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:Marche-Richelme-Aix.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Marche-Richelme-Aix.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. Rettetast 20:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to click the link, as you might have guessed. It's quickly fixed. Why use so many words? --Mathsci 20:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I worked out for myself that CC Attribution and CC Attribution-ShareAlike licenses are what is required for flickr images. Mathsci 21:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a standard template when doing new image patrol to save time. Great that you found so many images you could use. A tip; you can upload flickr images easily by using this link. All you need is the flickr url and a bot does all the work. Rettetast 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the link. I will feel less like a BOT next time. :-) Mathsci (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Index n+1 free subgroup of rank n in free group of rank 2
Howdy, how do you show that a free group of rank 2 has a free subgroup of rank n and index n+1? JackSchmidt (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference is on the free group page or in page 43 of the French edition of Serre's book on trees or on page 104 of Magnus, Karrass and Solitar (Schreier's theorem). The method in Serre cited on the WP page uses group actions on trees. The numbers I put down have not yet been checked properly, and in fact - as you doubtless noticed - it should be n-1 not n+1. Thanks for pointing out the slip: I hope all is OK now. --Mathsci (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for such a quick response! You've turned a stub into a nice article in under a day from its creation. JackSchmidt (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates
If you want harv to link to the references, you need to use the citation template rather than cite book etc. (This is probably a bug.) Conversion is easy: you just change "cite ****" to "citation", and use "first" and "last" parameters instead of "author". R.e.b. (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom Questions
I noticed that you voted in an Arbitration Committee election without elaborating on your question to said candidate. It's not too late, I think many are curious. HydroMagi 05:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now provided the http link to the relevant section of his seventh archive. Mathsci 06:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to your comments
Please visit here as I have some questions and comments for you. Thanks! bloodofox: (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have replied there. --Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Mathcsi, I have responded to the rest of the diffs I wasn't able to do so before here. bloodofox: (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Europe
Well, we seem to have ironed out the history section to excellent quality. Which section should we turn our attention to next? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My only thought is that a timeline or chronology of European history like this might be quite useful and interesting on WP, if someone had a suitable source. I couldn't find anything on WP that does this at present. Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, might be handy. But would that go better in History of Europe? I think our history section's fairly comprehensive and I don't want to get into giving it too much weight over other sections of the article. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant a completely separate article giving the timeline. Mathsci (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh! Okay, that sounds better. If you get it started I'd be happy to help. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would first have to find one or two published first approximations, which I don't have at present. In the near future, it is not clear what I can do, as at this time of year I usually migrate westwards and after that back to one of the larger islands in Europe where I will teach for a term (a course slightly related to some of my recent mathematical WP contributions). A more realistic current project is a rewrite of Andromaque which I may even see in Marseille. Sorry not to be more help at present. Mathsci (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) Thanks for your help with the history section; I'll try to find sources on other sections in Europe such as Economy or Religion but I might not have a chance to do much of anything substantiative for a month at the least. Safe travels! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:614px-Heawood graph.svg.png
Thanks for uploading Image:614px-Heawood graph.svg.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Per request
Hello! Just wanted to let you know that I've provided the diffs that I believe you are looking for:. bloodofox: (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I have replied there. Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Prime Numbers
Hi. I thought the removal of the trivia would be open-and-shut and uncontroversial, but as it's not I've put a section on the talkpage outlining my rationale. Happy to discuss any of the related minutæ with you! Lankiveil (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. It's been there for ages and, because it is trivia, is not subject to the same very exacting rules as the mathematics in the article. And it might also be there for feel good reasons (math phobia), since this is probably one of the most read introductory mathematics articles on the WP. BTW you should have posted to the talk page of prime number, not here. I will transfer your post and my answer to the Prime number page, where the discussion can be continued with other editors. Mathsci (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing R&I
Hi. Please revert your last change to R&I and discuss it first on the talk page. Although it is a minor change (which I support) it sets a bad precedent of making undiscussed changes. The benefit of the minor tweak outweighs the precedent. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Kevin. I think it might be a good idea if you actually made a general statement about editing on the talk page of the article about the consensus on editing. I could not find anything. I think if you started a new section with such a statement, that would be helpful. Then in the spirit of that statement, you could revert my two words yourself, but not the three wikilinks which have all been discussed. Mathsci (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Twin Towns
Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. Wikipedia should reflect that rather than French ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.79.215 (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh really
I have read the talk page extenisivly. The changes I made are extemely minor and merely intend to make the lede conform to the english language. And what are these "remarks" I have made! Lobojo (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You appear not to have read the talk pages at all and also seem to have no intellectual grasp of the subject. Your edit summaries show a fundamental misconception concering psychometric tests. The consensus on the talk page was that all edits should be discussed there. You seem to be an edit warrior and, judging by the comments on your own talk page about the French, seem to have racist tendencies. Please read the talk page of Race and Intelligence more carefully. Continued edit warring will probably result in the page being blocked yet again from editing by the administrator MoonRiddenGirl, due to the return of a non-productive atmosphere. Mathsci (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How dare you accuse me of being a racist. How dare you. Apologize at once. Lobojo (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You wrote this on your own talk page:


 * "Take a step back and you will see, that the kind of company you keep when you believe in this kind of thing is composed of the dregs of western civilisation, radical Islamists, far right neo-nazis, skinheads losers, vagrants, far left splinter groups, Satanistsunreconstructed Stalinists and the French. Is it really worth the pain?"


 * It was extremely offensive, unintelligent and racist to include "the French" at the end as the "dregs of western civilization". Please explain yourself and apologize to me. Then stop posting on my talk page: I will report you if you write anything similar in future or attempt to harrass me on my own talk page. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are an imbecile, I was clearly making a tongue in cheek remark and you are well aware of that. To call me a racist on that basis shows you to be a truly misanthropic character. Shame and disgrace. Lobojo (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merci d'utiliser des « smilies » si tu plaisantes. 82.225.212.194 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

possible sock
I wouldn't bre surprised - some edits seem deliberately trollish. Here is what you need to do: put together a sample of edits of his that are VERY similar to edits by MortizB. Indicate when MB was banned and when this guy started editing. The request a checkuser, it is the only way to be sure. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also find Centrum99 edits surprisingly familiar but maybe they all think alike. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --User: (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

your comments
I am not being deliberately disruptive. I have every right like other editors to tag material that needs closer scrutiny. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See my comment on your talk page. Expressing you personal opinion that a section on the "Sights of Marseille" (describing the ancient monuments of Marseille) reads like an advertisement was inaccurate, unhelpful and disruptive. You should have written at least a sentence or two on the talk page to justify why you had tagged the section. That is how WP functions. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * maybe I should have written an explanatory statement but in no way is it intentionally disruptive. that is a refusal on your part to assume good faith. Please read the policy. comments such as "If you have no special knowledge of French or France, why not avoid pages covered by wikiproject France?" is a sign of WP:OWN. see typical comment of this Are you qualified to edit this article? or Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit. {{{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] }}}Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Marseille| on Marseille}}. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}. I will assume good faith of you one last time otherwise do not contact me again. Michellecrisp (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments are noted. However, you should not try to dissuade others from tagging or otherwise because you feel you are more qualified or have a close connection to the article. that is WP:OWN. for the record, why I tagged "Advertisement" was that it read like a travel brochure. I am not questioning its factual accuracy. I have done this in a number of locality articles which sound like advertorials in parts. I have received no opposition from any contributor for this action. However, I have encountered WP:OWN on occasion. the accusation of "intentionally disruptive" is a serious one by you but I am prepared to let it go. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my previous comments. Anyone can edit any Wikipedia article, things may be removed if they don't fit consensus. I have edited numerous locality articles for places I have never been, for example, Cardiff where I have been awared a barnstar for my edits. you are definitely displaying WP:OWN in trying to dissuade me from editing. If you don't agree with my edits that's fine. WP:OWN also includes trying to dissuade other editors from contributing by claiming you are more qualified. You do not set the parameters on who can or can't edit on certain article. If you continue to assume no good faith I will take this matter further. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not contact me again as it is clear that you are only interested in limiting who can edit specific articles and arguing this point endlessly. I gave you one last chance to assume good faith which you have failed. Furthermore, Wikipedia is an open edit encyclopaedia, if you want to write special Marseille encyclopaedia articles, create your own website. otherwise you are violating the philosophy of Wikipedia. It seems you take offence when non French speakers try to edit French subject articles. I draw attention to Wikipedia policy here WP:OWN An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether.  Michellecrisp (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative to unproductive and time-wasting discussion with trolls
You may wish to consider using the following warnings with disruptive trolls rather than entering into unproductive discussion. Attempts to join issue with such persons can escalate into unedifying feuds; the problem is exacerbated when the troll has difficulties with English (which makes one wonder why such a person attempts to edit English Wikipedia articles, particularly those dealing with subjects as to which he or she is ignorant) and is unaware of the proper use of scholarly apparatus, in particular as to when citation is appropriate and when it is superfluous.

Level 1 warnings

 * First offence overall (no other warnings on record): apparent edit test, vandalism, or content removal which the user may have made in good faith.
 * First offence of type: apparent edit test which the user may have made in good faith.

Level 2 warnings

 * First offence of type: nonsense vandalism or content removal which was probably made in bad faith.
 * Second offence overall: apparent vandalism or content removal which the user may have made in good faith.
 * Second offence of type: apparent edit test which the user may have made in good faith.

Level 3 warnings

 * First offence of type: insulting / vulgar vandalism or content removal which was obviously made in bad faith.
 * Second offence of type: nonsense vandalism or content removal which was probably made in bad faith.
 * Third offence of type: apparent edit test which the user may have made in good faith.
 * Third offence of type: apparent vandalism or content removal which the user may have made in good faith.
 * Third or fourth offence overall: apparent vandalism or content removal which the user may have made in good faith.

Level 4 (final) warnings

 * Second offence of type: insulting / vulgar vandalism or content removal which was obviously made in bad faith.
 * Third offence of type: nonsense vandalism or content removal which was probably made in bad faith.
 * Fourth offence of type: apparent edit test which the user may have made in good faith.
 * Fourth offence of type: apparent vandalism or content removal which the user may have made in good faith.
 * Fifth or subsequent offence overall: apparent vandalism or content removal which the user may have made in good faith.

Level 4 (only) warnings

 * First offence of type: hateful / threatening / prejudicial vandalism.

Place user on administrator's list to be blocked (after level 4 warning)

 * Second offence of type: hateful / threatening / prejudicial vandalism.
 * Third offence of type: insulting / vulgar vandalism or content removal which was obviously made in bad faith.
 * Fourth offence of type: nonsense vandalism or content removal which was probably made in bad faith.
 * Fifth offence of type: apparent edit test which the user may have made in good faith.
 * Fifth offence of type: apparent vandalism or content removal which the user may have made in good faith.

Place user on administrator's list to be blocked (without warning)
Masalai (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First offence of type: grievous hateful vandalism (such as placing insults on an article about someone who has recently died or celebrating their death).

Homeopathy as "pseudoscience"
Instead of polluting the homeopathy discussion, and because you felt that my points didn't help that discussion, I'm posting here. I initially replied to a user that said, "some homeopaths themselves reject the scientific method - surely evidence of a pseudoscience". I happen to agree with the conclusion, that homeopathy is a pseudoscience, but not the basis for it. My implied analogy was "some mathematicians themselves reject the scientific method - surely evidence of a pseudoscience". I implied this analogy based on my experience in mathematical research - namely, analysis, i.e. trying to find a path from a potential theorem to what is believed to be the potential starting point; and also synthesis, upon finding the aforementioned path, trying to go the reverse direction, i.e. proving the theorem by starting from the starting point and finishing with that which we meant to prove in the first place. I assume that you have much more experience in these matters than I do - and I'm sure you could describe how you do research in a better way than my sad attempt. Nevertheless, "the scientific method" doesn't seem to apply.

It is important to read my statements and realize that I was specifically referring to proofs. This is key, since "evidence" is used in the scientific method to "prove" theories like evolution and the like. In fact, to disagree with this proof, is to be labeled a crackpot or a quack. On the other hand, in most of mathematics, evidence is not sufficient in a proof. Instead, we use rigor.

Beyond the overall point regarding the scientific method, note that I said that in mathematics "experiment proves exactly nothing", along with "theorems require rigorous proof", and "experiment may support a conjecture - but it will never prove a theorem". I noticed that you characterized my comments as a "complete misrepresentation". In that light, please explain why these specific points are wrong. I would appreciate it, and I'm sure I'll learn something I hadn't thought of. Thanks. Tparameter (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply, in evolutionary biology, evolution is widely considered a fact. It is proved. It's over. You're a crackpot if you disagree. In math, evidence is not sufficient in the equivalent, a theorem. That's the big difference, that the scientific method doesn't settle it. Mathematical rigor is necessary. After hundreds of years of trial and experiment, Fermat's last theorem was still an open question - until it was rigorously proved, as one out of many examples. By analogy, there would be no need to prove it if it simply depended on observations/evidence. Modern computers allow for the accumulation of mountains of evidence in these matters. I'd guess that no published theorem in mathematics is settled in this way - at least I have not heard of one. Tparameter (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Final warning
Why not revert all my Marseille edits as well. You are again violating WP:OWN An example of an edit I did was properly reference: ''Current archeological excavations in the Ville des Tours, a medieval suburb of Aix, have unearthed the remains of a roman amphitheatre. ''

And I properly renamed Notes heading to References as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions you obviously want to attack me over official Wikipedia policy. These edits do not require discussion on a Talk page. This is clear evidence that you reverted purely based on me not on the actual edits.

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Instead, assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Finally I have an interest in geography articles, nothing you say will dissuade me from improving these articles.. Michellecrisp (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't me
Hi. I didn't make those changes to MWE (although I do check once in a while). You can verify that from the IP address. I did ask FF a few weeks ago to stop editing the article. I prefer not to get involved nor have my name mentioned. TIA ZA GG (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I asked FF to revert his changes and he did. Unfortunately, he didn't do it correctly and accidentally signed it. User:Charles_Sturm mistook this attempted revert as vandalism. This can be verified by comparing the diff ZA GG (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Final Warning
Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will give you one chance to display civility and assume good faith, check my contribution history, I have no issue with reporting users and having action taken who repeatedly try to put me down and be rude to me. I'm sure you don't want to be blocked so stick to improving articles rather than commenting on users. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not trolling. Wikipedia is not about solely expert contributors. Anyone can edit and contribute. I am not at all dissuaded by your comments. I will continue to edit French articles. If you have any further issues with me, please report this is an incident. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kindly stop harrassing me or I will have to report you on WP:AN/I. You so far have added faulty information to the WP on French pages and apparently seem to have no access to academic literature on France. Why are you harrassing editors that have access to this literature? Your actions do not seem to be aiding the WP project. Mathsci (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:KETTLE The warnings are appropriate and justified. you have every right to report me but you have again failed to assume good faith. Please create your own private website if you wish other people not to edit articles you contribute to. If I am not aiding Wikipedia why was I recently awarded a Barnstar? Michellecrisp (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't the slightest idea why you got a barnstar, but it probably wasn't for your ability to discuss the content of articles on their talk pages. BTW, since you now seem to be doing this on a fairly regular basis, when you report people on WP:AN/I it is normal policy to leave a courtesy note on their talk page. Mathsci (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again, masalai was the first person I've reported to WP:AN/I in my 20 odd months of being on Wikipedia. You're the second. the vast majority of editors I deal with display good faith and never WP:OWN. Do you deny not assuming good faith? Michellecrisp (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think tagging is a very good idea, particularly if it is unjustified on the talk page of the article. Someone without any training in higher mathematics could in theory go and tag any number of WP mathematics articles: it would have absolutely no meaning. Articles like Kazhdan's property T or Bruhat-Tits buildings or Orbifolds or Differential geometry of surfaces or Fundamental groups, etc, etc, are usually written by people with some expertise in university level mathematics, contrary to what you claim at the bottom of your user page. Perhaps that is what lies at the root of this misunderstanding. Mathsci (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly, mathematics require a higher level of understanding but I don't agree the same standard applies to general geography articles which should be able to be read by anyone with a general interest. Tagging is a legitimate part of the Wikipedia process. Otherwise why else do tags exist. I'd rather tag than delete because I think it's uncited. I've seen editors remove large chunks that haven't been uncited before (not that I agree with that approach). WP:PROVEIT The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You rarely justified your tagging. For Aix-en-Provence you tagged: the climate, the population, the clocktower, details of the 2G, etc. In Marseille you tagged much of the history. You added very little; indeed you removed details of the free bicycle system in Aix and the fact that the Vieux-Port now serves as a marina and has a daily fish market (neither added by me). This was arbitrary. Most of the history that you tagged was correct, even Francois I and the rhinoceros. The tiny additions you made were often wrong (gare TGV at l'Arbois) or poorly sourced (use of encarta for the history of Marseille). But what was unacceptable was that you chose not to justify your tagging on the talk pages. That would have required some effort on your part and a careful explanation of why you had doubts. This I believe you would have been unable to do, simply because everything you had tagged was actually citably correct. I have not had the time nor patience to find sources for the statements about the economic decline/revival of Marseille, where you have left large numbers of tags, again with no justification on the talk page. This might in fact suggest that you actually had no basis for doubting the statements. The tags on the economics section remain. For all I know, you might decide tomorrow that you doubt that there are 3 universities of Aix-Marseille and that they are distributed in Aix, Marseille and the countryside, who knows. You apparently could do this without adding any supplementary justification on talk pages. The articles on Aix-en-Provence and Marseille are not geographic: they cover all aspects of these ancient towns that wikipedia editors have decided by consensus to add. Why did you call these "general geography articles"? That is quite incorrect. Mathsci (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)