User talk:Silly rabbit/Archive 3

vandalism?
I am wondering why you labeled this edit as vandalism. I don't think there is any bad faith on behalf of the editor that put it there. Could you elaborate? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The proper place for a request for improvement is on the article talk page, not by defacing the article itself. Moreover, the article includes several definitions as it stands.  The author, apparently, did not want to be troubled with reading the actual article.  I call it vandalism.  Silly rabbit (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining your views, and the comment you made in the null edit. I urge you to be very carefull about the use of the word vandal. Vandalism is meant to mean making edits aimed at harming wikipedia, or at the very least, not aimed at helping wikipedia. I don't see any grounds to think that the user who made the edit was not trying to help wikipedia. Sure, his problems or views might have better be adressed on the talkpage of the article. He might even not have properly read the article (though I think it's far likelier that he didn't understand the article, even though he read it). IN either case, I don't believe the (rather unexperienced) editor was acting in bad faith, thus not making it vandalism. We should be carefull not to bite the newcomers. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

On minor edits
„...your recent edits have been reverted because they were mathematically incorrect...”. Please give me an explanation for this reverts. Where is the mathematically error in my edits? Thanks. --Abel (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can, please see the link on the http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Helix.html where exist this text: „In fact, Lancret's theorem states that a necessary and sufficient condition for a curve to be a helix is that the ratio of curvature  to torsion be constant.” (The salience is my.) If you understand this, please revert yourself your modified. Thank you. --Abel (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * „if κ and τ are constant, then obviously their ratio is constant”. Yes, this is true, but is not necessary.
 * „Lancret's theorem (apparently) holds for helices of variable radius. If you check the article Helix, and Frenet-Serret formulas, the helices under consideration have constant radius.”. Apparently? Why? I am sure that you have don't understand the helix notion.--Abel Cavași (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

About helix

 * „Yes, it is necessary and sufficient that the curvature and torsion be constant for a space curve to be a helix.”. No! Is just sufficient and is not necessary!
 * „End of discussion. If you believe otherwise, then there is nothing more to say.”. How is possible? If I want to say something, then I don't have this right? The discussion go to the end just if the subject become clear. I am not tolerate an error for Wikipedia!
 * „There may be a theorem which states something else, but that would need to be checked. Anyway, I do know what a helix is, and you appear to be inserting misleading information into articles without providing references.”. Lancret's theorem exist. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ is not enough reference for you? Then, where is the references about the text „A helix has constant curvature and constant torsion.”? This is inccorect! You must understand that not any helix has constant curvature and constant torsion! If you don't redress your mistake, than I must revert your edit without your approbation.
 * „...and now you have the audacity to insult me...”. I say just „I am sure that you have don't understand the helix notion”. This is not an insult! This is just the true about my conviction. Please forgive me if you believe that I have a problem with you. I am your friend.
 * „Please note that I wrote most of the current article on the Frenet-Serret formulas, and I think I have a fairly good reputation on Wikipedia as an expert in geometry.”. This is very good for anyone. But this is not guarantee than you don't make mistakes. Your friend --Abel Cavași (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the site http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_04_03.html the helix is defined with „A deeper characterization of a helix is that it is the unique curve in 3-space for which the ratio of curvature to torsion is a constant, a result known as Lancret's Theorem.”
 * On the article http://www.m-hikari.com/imf-password/13-16-2006/ogrenmisIMF13-16-2006.pdf the „curve with constant ratio of curvature and torsion (called null general helix).”
 * On the paper http://www.ag.jku.at/pubs/2006kj2.pdf exist the text „Lancret's theorem states that a necessary and sufficient condition for a spatial curve to be a helix in R3 is that the ratio of its curvature to torsion is constant. The proof of this theorem uses Frenet formulas and can be found in many textbooks on classical differential geometry, e.g. Kreyszig (1991).”. Here is the proof for Lancret's theorem!
 * etc.
 * So, what do you understand by helix? Give me a definition for the helix.--Abel Cavași (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Now is clear. For you, the helix is circular helix. I am completed this on the section about types of helix. --Abel Cavași (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Big Daddy Link at Intelligent Falling
I have little reason to fight this too hard, but wanted to explain why I thought it relevant. The link was to a site, albeit a creationist comic, that made a similar claim, but about Jesus being a scientific alternative to [gluons]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.233.228 (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of disclaimer at Intelligent Design
I am concerned with your removal of a disclaimer I placed after a whole bunch of poll results in reference to public support for intelligent design. The poll results present a skewed version of reality, in that they purport to lend credence to the issue based on common opinion. If the physicians and others in the polls are working with a definition of "intelligent design" as is promoted by the current state of the article (with the "theological problems" section removed through the actions of both you and FeloniousMonk), they are surely working with a narrow perspective of the term and cannot be utilized for support. Why is it that you are against a disclaimer to explain that poll results are entirely irrelevant to the concept of intelligent design?

Secondly, why were you concerned with the "theological problems" section?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Without a disclaimer, it appears that the statistics are being used to support intelligent design; this is a flaw, as polls, which are intrinsically mere consensus rather than legitimate evidence, should not be used to contribute to the veracity of a thought or concept -- even though the polls are about intelligent design, and at first blush, may seem to innocently be placed in the article to add to the complete collection of information regarding ID, they perpetuate random opinion rather than establish fact. Perhaps you can think of another way to disclaim the poll results.


 * And in regards to the theological problems being removed, why are you so sure that this is nonrepresentative? Two separate and independant sources make the same point and are published authors in relevance to these points, and their inclusion in the article seeks to establish a point which is otherwise left unmade!  This cannot be considered UNDUE, as its protraying a necessary controversial issue (this is the controversy section).  There will be those who choose to argue against or ignore their comments and opinions, but they are nonetheless established opinions and verified as explained above.  Should you like to add or modify the section, please do, and we can even discuss it...but to remove the section entirely is to deny that it legitimately exists.  Nonrepresentative of whom?  How many sources must I cite before I can cite?  I thought it was one.  I am not saying that he is representative of a group other than the one who shares the ideology he professes, so how can it be nonrepresentative?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to limit of a function
Your recent edits to limit of a function seem to have undone some of what I was trying to do. I like the second sentence because it captures in a very small statement what the idea of a limit is. Of course it is incorrect because "close" should be a highly qualified term, but the statement is supposed to be informal. I like the modifications to the other statement, since that is almost equivalent to the epsilon-delta definition and captures the infinitesimal distances involved. The suggestion below keeps the informality and simplicity of the first statement and afterwards offers a more mathematically correct definition:


 * In mathematics, the limit of a function is a fundamental concept in calculus and analysis concerning the behavior of that function near a particular input. Informally, a function assigns an output f(x) to every input x. The function has a limit L at an input p if f(x) is "close" to L whenever x is "close" to p. More specifically, when f is applied to each input sufficiently close to p, the result is an output value that is arbitrarily close to L. If the inputs "close" to p are taken to values that are very different, the limit does not exist. Formal definitions, first devised in the early 19th century, are given below.

What do you think? Triathematician (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief
There's no need to interrupt the narrative of the article like this when the material is given in references and the linked article. That's pressing the boundaries of WP:POINT. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Einstein family
I clicked the edit link in the article, so perhaps that is where the capitalization differs. (Shouldn't "family" be lower-case?) — DAGwyn (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "Einstein family" box adds anything unless there were links to articles for other family members. The important relations are mentioned in the article text. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: AGF
I trust your judgment. You have my permission to make the necessary changes. Please refactor the discussion in whatever way you think is best with a link to this discussion in the edit summary. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you inform me about the "editors who were involved in some rather dodgy behavior a short while ago". I am not familiar with this incident, but User:Stone put to sky refers to it on WP:AN/I.  Were any actions taken, such as an arbcom case? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look into it. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Human rights and the United States
I am concerned about your committment to engaging within the the WP consensus policy. You seem to have a strongly held pov that has lead you today to reverting a substantial block of original research relating to health care in the Human rights and the United States article. Repeatedly I have attempted to engage you on TALK for this original research, and today you seem to have expressed a reluctance to discuss this further. I might have misunderstood you, but it seems that you have stated that unless I adopt a "normal" pov (meaning yours) that you are reluctant to discuss edits with me or to engage in good-faith consensus building. Did I misunderstand you? Why did you revert OR on health care? There exists a DEBATE if health care within the US denies any human rights, I have no problem summarizing this debate. To directly or in this case imply that any human right has actually been denied, does the Reader a diservice and violates NPOV (if not supported by a reliable source). WP is not the place to push a pov. May we now begin fresh, make a good faith attempt to collaborate to improve this article? I value your insights and I appreciate your committment to your pov, and I would enjoy a more productive collaboration with you on this topic.

I suggest that we start fresh, and that we focus first on identifying where we disagree? This seems to involve when (or if) international human rights standards may be applied to the US? All that is required to establish these is to provide reliable sources. The source needs to establish specifically what right was recognized, and the authority that recognized it. For example, these might be a USSC decision or a US Supreme Court opinion. Do we agree that all human rights applicable to the US have been recognized by the UN or the US? You seem to dispute this, but have never directly stated where other rights might derive? May we agree that a source calling for the recognition of a human right is only a source that establishes that there is a debate about that issue?

Best regards Raggz (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply at Talk:Human rights and the United States regarding "Normal." I was suggesting that you bring you approach to editing more into line with the usual interpretation of Wikipedia policies.  To see how Wikipedia editing "normally" goes, you might want to edit some page that you don't feel strongly about.  Try Duck or Garage, or some other such innocuous and uncontroversial subject.  I think a newer editor such as yourself might find it easier to see how to edit a page if you start with some less contentious subjects.


 * The section that you deleted was one that we already talked about. I already reverted it once, and responded to your reasons for deletion.  I have reverted your removal again.  Silly rabbit (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should seek mediation? Implied above is the suggestion that we cannot work together on the article that we are working on? I'm not offended by your use of "normal", but it suggests that we have communication difficulties. Perhaps these are primarily issues that I would need to deal with, perhaps both of us would. Mediation might be a good idea?


 * A mediation topic might be: "The source needs to establish specifically what right was recognized, and the authority that recognized it. For example, these might be a USSC decision or a US Supreme Court opinion. Do we agree that all human rights applicable to the US have been recognized by the UN or the US? You seem to dispute this, but have never directly stated where other rights might derive? May we agree that a source calling for the recognition of a human right is only a source that establishes that there is a debate about that issue?"


 * Mediation on the topic above would likely unblock the consensus process. I am quite willing to accept all of the human rights recognized by the US judiciary and by the UNSC. You seem to include other unspecified human rights, but have yet to engage in any serious discussion of how and where these other human rights derive from. We are at an impasse? If we take this question to mediation and then resolve it, I believe that we will be much better editors for this article. Raggz (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As a biologist, I do have a bit of expertise with ducks, and you were correct, I was able to edit a bit of useful information into that article. Garage however did not offer a similar opportunity. Raggz (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply at Talk:Human rights and the United States regarding "Normal." I was suggesting that you bring you approach to editing more into line with the usual interpretation of Wikipedia policies. To see how Wikipedia editing "normally" goes, you might want to edit some page that you don't feel strongly about. Try Duck or Garage, or some other such innocuous and uncontroversial subject. I think a newer editor such as yourself might find it easier to see how to edit a page if you start with some less contentious subjects.


 * The section that you deleted was one that we already talked about. I already reverted it once, and responded to your reasons for deletion. I have reverted your removal again. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If we review the volume of discussion in TALK and also consider the fact that none has resulted in consensus, we appear to have a problem. The primary problem is that there is no consensus that the Article is accurate or even useful for the Reader. You often do not appear (to me) engage in good-faith efforts to reach consensus. You insist upon your pov as "normal" and do not engage with discussions that are not "normal". You insist upon your original research and reject the need to offer reliable sources.


 * You have just reverted original research, and have done so without consensus. This has made the article less accurate and less useful to the Reader. You have been asked to offer a reliable source for the implied human right to universal health care, but you have only offered sources that there exists a debate if such a right exists. Medicaid meets this need within the US, and yet your original research never even mentions the key US health program that meets the US right to health care. I can offer a reliable source that Americans have a right to travel freely, that a private vehicle is required in many parts of the US to do this, and that every American has a human right to a government supplied vehicle. There are many debates about what is and what is not a human right in the US, and we may cover these if we want. We may not imply that because some commentators believe that vehicle ownership is a human right, that there is such a recognized right.


 * Your initial response would be that I should edit another article, and that this would resolve the issues. My response was that we really should seek mediation, a suggestion that you have not replied to. I am reluctant to continue to attempt to engage you within the consensus building process if you remain committed to only discussing what from your pov is "normal". I expect that the mediation process might help us both to learn to stretch our povs, to expand our thinking about what is "normal" and how to integrate others povs to create better articles that better comply with NPOV. I now ask again, are you willing to engage in mediation? Do you have an alternative idea? Best regards Raggz (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, Raggz. You are welcome to seek mediation, and I shall participate in the process provided that other editors from the page in question are also invited to weigh in, since it seems that the subject is one of whether there was consensus that the material in question should be removed.  Please note that I have already replied about what I meant when I said "Normal editorial process," and that you continue to misrepresent this phrasing in terms of a POV dispute, which it is not.  Please stop using straw man tactics.  I have already objected to this on several occasions, and it really does make it difficult to engage in any productive discussions with you.  I find it very aggravating and would appreciate it if you would make an honest effort to understand my side (and that of the other editors on the talk page.)  Thanks, Silly rabbit (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good. Mediation it is then.


 * As for other editors, I suggest that we inquire from the mediator if that is the best approach? I am concerned about your rising aggravation level. This concern is an important reason for seeking my mediation. Raggz (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you intending to participate in the mediation process, or are you withdrawing? Raggz (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Multiplication
SillyRabbit, first, I'll explain the last revert; then we have to have a bit of a chat.


 * Note that 13 = 1 + 4 + 8. The list of doublings: once gives 21, four times gives 84, etc, parallels those summands. That's the algorithm. The section exemplifies that ancient algorithm; it does not need a list of 2^n * 13 for all values of n.

More importantly is that this is the second time I've reverted you here. The first one you resisted at first, and counter-reverted, but then figured it out and restored the correction. That's good, we all make mistakes and not all of us admit them, so you are ahead of the game. However, you seem to be too hasty, and this article, because it is on such a fundamental subject, is very high profile. So please, before making hasty changes, ask on the Discussion page first. The history of mathematics can be doubly tricky, becuase the language and techniques are archaic, and theoretical math itself is already tricky. So please be patient and mention things on the Talk page first. Thanks! Pete St.John (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How did the ancient Egyptians compute, say, 5 times 642783056120365? Didn't they go through the stage of doubling 642783056120365, followed by doubling the result? That is what our article Ancient Egyptian multiplication states, and has stated since its creation as a translation of fr:Technique de la multiplication en Égypte antique, which also has had this since its creation on November 30, 2003. Are these articles wrong? Do you have any sources giving more details about Egyptian multiplication? --Lambiam 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedu
speedy-non notable is only for articles about people making no assertion of notability at all. Stephan Morals was asserted to be CEO of a significant company, so I've declined the speedy. I do not know if he is notable enough to pass Afd, but that's a different and higher standard. DGG (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wondered if it would pass the threshold for speedy. If I have time later, I'll put it up for AfD.  Thanks, Silly rabbit (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Communication
Hello Silly rabbit. I again extend my invitation to participate in mediation. It might help. Raggz (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard
Yes, I sincerely believe that you regularly ignore policy. As you suggested, I outlined my concerns at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:Silly_rabbit

There is nothing personal here, perhaps I am in error and will now be corrected. Perhaps you will be. When we get this resolved I will look forward to resuming collaberation, perhaps more productively. Raggz (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked over this too. I don't see anything too disruptive here. User is clearly a legit contributer.-Gwandoya (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly rabbit, I have responded to your issues on my discussion page. Raggz (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

MedCab case
Hi, I have recently decided to mediate the case Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Human rights and the United States. This is my first case, so if I seem like I don't know what I'm doing, (it's probably true XD) please point it out. Anyway, since you mentioned in the discussion section that you would discuss as soon as a mediator was found, I just thought I'd let you know. All I need is to hear what you have to say about this dispute and I can start coming up with a good way to solve this. Thanks, -- 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and, on another topic, I get slightly confused about Raggz's views with all those paragraphs he's written. I've already left a message at his talk page, but just in case you know more than I do (which is probable), can you enlighten me? -- 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. So, basically, I have to dig in the dead discussions (some buried alive) to find the actually useful ones from which I'll get a wider clue about what's been going on about Raggz. OK, I guess I can afford to do some deep research. Up to now, though, I have to say that I'm going with what actually seems like a very obvious answer to me: delete anything that is questioned by anybody if it does not have a very reliable source to back it up. But then, I have to ask, what is generally considered a reliable source by Human Rights in the U.S. regulars? -- 03:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, also, I need your views on the mediation page whenever you get the time. -- 03:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I got Raggz's views from him. In the light of suddenly realizing that it's either gonna be "the right isn't there because the U.S. doen't enforce it" or "human rights apply to all humans, it has to be there", of which both are POV's, the most reasonable option is to mention neither of these possibilities, but instead, mention the debate in the section occupied by this subject, as long as reliable sources can be placed for any assertions about said debate. -- 03:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds completely reasonable to me. I need to have a go at it tomorrow.  See if Raggz is willing to agree that if the section can be phrased in such a way that it explicitly disclaims Universal health care as an existing human right in the US, then he/she will otherwise be willing to consider keeping it in the article. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, I'll still keep the status as researching until I can get your views from you, but I think that this solution will be quite satisfactory to all involved parties. Thanks, 03:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time trying to understand in what aspect Raggz disagrees with my proposal, and even understanding what his view is. Apparently the summary I came up with in "Mediator's Notes" was wrong. You've known all about him in these discussions you've been having in the talk page of the Human Rights in the U.S. article, could you maybe explain the concept of my solution to him whenever you get the time? I feel like I'm just screwing things up every time I try to explain. Thanks, -- 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Silly rabbit, I am not an idealogue. I only want to help the article comply with policy. Try to trust me, even if it is hard. Raggz (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is my position which I have also posted on the MedCab page:
 * If we are being mainstream and encyclopedic we should stick to the mainstream sources rather than getting 'philosophical' about what rights are.
 * The Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines the universal human rights that all people, regardless of nationality, are entitled to. Subsequent treaties and UN pronouncements elaborate further on this.
 * Health care is established as a human right in the UDHR and many subsequent treaties and pronouncements - it therefore should be included in the article. A discussion of universal health care is also a welcome addition as it is one of the proposed solutions by which this human right should be realised, though arguments against universal health care should also be included to maintain NPOV. Pexise (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Response
That first quote you mentioned was quoted from Raggz's talk page (it says so right before it is stated). If you disagree with it or strongly dispute it, talk with Raggz. I just pasted it there to show Raggz's views. Anyway, it does nothing to affect the proposal, because, as you said, human rights are not things that either exist or don't exist. Therefore editors can't turn opinions of "I think that this right exists" into facts, because there are no facts of the sort. And I completely agree that both sides of the debate should be covered. When did I say otherwise?

Anyway, out of what I understand, the problem isn't the proposal anymore (I think that what I stated in mediator's notes more or less coincides with your views). According to the latter part of your message, Raggz's, um, attitude is the problem. To my understanding, he's been trying to completely remove the section. And that paragraph you quoted does remind me of WP:GAME. In fact, now that I think of it, it sounds a lot like example #3 (turning policies against each other).

So, you believe Raggz is underrepresented. You're right. I mean, I put the proposal there, I might as well follow it. I'll find out what Raggz's side of the debate is. Thanks, -- 14:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive
Saw your message about my recent archiving on another users page. If you look through Archive 4 and Archive 5 and see something you need diffs for, just go to the main talk page history and search for the timestamp in the sig of the comment from talk. This is not my preferred method of archiving but there was no other way due to the failure of previous archives. In the future, talk pages should be archived by page move, so that the edit history is left intact with every archive. Contact me if you need help finding diffs and I'll lend a hand. Sorry for the inconvenience I've caused you, but the 300+ kilobyte talk page made it impossible to read and edit. 150 kb is typically the recommended maximum. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you need diffs, go to the archive links I gave you above, pull the timestamps and user names (signatures) out of the comments you need, and I'll personally dig out the diffs for you. Ok? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but if you don't need diffs, why did the archiving bother you? I'm just curious. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, sorry about that. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, did you see my note about Reginald Wilson? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture at Differential equation
Hi Rabbit. Just a note. My view is that the picture at Differential equation looked better the way it was before you moved it. It was larger (so easier to see), and fit a hole in the TOC to the right. Can you explain why you moved it? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied on my talk, to keep all conversation in one place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive wikilinking
Hi, Just so you know, the Wikipedia manual of style suggests only to make links that are relevant to the context. I have noticed that many of your recent contributions to Wikipedia are creating wikilinks to isolated words which are irrelevant to the context of the article. For example, at manifold, you linked point rather than to the correct point (geometry). It is important, when wikilinking, to consider not just if the word can be linked, but if it should be linked, and if so how. I would ask that in the future you please exercise more discretion in your choice of words to link. Regards, Silly rabbit (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry
Hi rabbit, you are definitely right and I apologize... as for manifold I am studying category theory and I thought about setting point instead of point (geometry) because I was just following my train of thought... But okay, I will try to pay more attention in the future... Thanks for your time. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

HEY! TRIX ARE FOR KIDS!
I'm sorry. I just had to do it!   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  17:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

context!
It's really inappropriate to begin a Wikipedia article by saying


 * Let X be a locally compact Hausdorff space

just as if you could assume the reader is a mathematician. You need to give some initial context-setting first, informing the reader that mathematics is what the article is to be about. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Response
You're right, that´s the reason I not only can't come to an agreement with Raggz, but barely understand how he tries to relate his still unclear views with Wikipedia Policy. I'll talk to him about this. Thanks, -- 17:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Anywho, I modified my proposal to see if Raggz agrees with it. It's in the "mediator's notes" section on the mediation page, if you're interested. -- 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Press conference was scripted

 * Contents moved to Talk:rationale for the Iraq War

Criticism of Religion edit war
Can the war between you and User:M_jccc be brought to a less-disruptive resolution? Discussion of the edit war --Cybercobra (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychohistory
FYI this is my vote at the AfD: Comment I agree with DGG, Edison, and Silly Rabbit. But the article that Wikipedia has is not that article on that topic and as long as it is here, it is an embarassment to the encyclopedia. I find it hard to vote "delete" because we ought to have an article pon psychohistory - the psychohistory DGG, Edison, and Silly Rabbit refer to. But I find it hard to vote "keep" because this AfD is not referring to that (as yet hypothetical) article but a changeling that is unencyclopedically pushing a fringe POV. If DGG, Edison, and Silly Rabbit want to blnk the page and start writing the article they are imagining, I would definitely be for keeping it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Howdy
Howdy. I believe that we're on the same "side" on most issues and that if we disagree, we're disagreeing about tactics and rhetoric. Or in other words, we should be able to sort out any disagreements fairly easily. Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Peter J Hancock
I was already handling it, and in doing so I was judging each edit on its merits, reverting and rephrasing as necessary, and opening a reasonably friendly dialogue. Your heavy-handed blanket reversion of every one of his edits is a horrible example of biting a newb. Hesperian 10:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your leaving that extra message at his talk page. Happy to let this drop for now, but some time in the future, when you're at a loose end, you might consider re-reading the conflict of interest policy. Try taking in both the words and the overall feel/attitude of that page. I think you'll find that "promotion of ones own work is expressly prohibited under the conflict of interest policy" is untrue. Hesperian 00:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Albert's Talk Page
I updated Talk:Albert Einstein to use the "archive banner" template again. I think you'll like the improvements I made. Thanks for your suggestion. Timneu22 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Torsion field
Jeez, I don't know. Try AfDing it, I guess. It doesn't seem notable to me, but someone will probably complain that Jack Sarfatti supports it. Yikes. Notice that there are about a dozen other articles that link to Einstein-Cartan theory which are all equally absurd. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Boubaker polynomials refcheck
Howdy, I worked on this a bit, and I confirm most of the provided references did not support the claims made. I think the original author just misunderstood what the ref tag was for, and should have just wiki-linked to various articles. Since there are quite a few references to check and the original authors probably feel attacked by all the deletion proposals, I thought it would be a good idea to ask for help on WikiProject Math. I mentioned you by name there before I saw you were taking a wiki-break. I don't think anything needs your attention, but I figured it would be polite to tell you about it. JackSchmidt (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Statute of Rome
" In the 21st century, the US has actively undermined international treaties and mechanisms such as the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court.[15]" is clearly text that the source does not support. This makes it original research. You have reverted original research without including a supporting source, please do not do this. The US has not "undermined" anything relating to the ICC. There are many reliable sources that establish that the US has supported the ICC. The US has strongly resisted the application of a treaty that it has not ratified, there are many reliable sources to support this fact as well. If you want to accurately describe the US ICC position, fine. You just don't get to insert OR.

There are many topics within the LEAD the do not have any support in the article. These violate WP:LEAD for this reason. If you want these in the LEAD, you need to carefully produce a supporting section because presently opinions are presented as though they are facts. WP:NPOV makes these ineligible for inclusion, even in a supporting section, unless all of the significant opinions are properly addressed. The ICC language is a good example, only one opinion is offered, and it is presented as fact. This opinion is not even supported by the citation, making it orginal research that denies NPOV and LEAD policies. You have just reverted this text. Please stop reverting the necessary edits. Raggz (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected.
The google search you did was with the words torsion fields in quotes. Mine was not. Your way was more appropriate. : Albion moonlight (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)