User talk:Silly rabbit/Archive 8

Adminship
Hi Silly rabbit. Would you be interested in candidating for adminship? I see you're doing a lot of good work, and having extra buttons may be of help. If you are interested, I'd be very happy to nominate you. Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to do this, Silly rabbit, you would get my vote tooBilllion (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Oleg, Thank you for the generous offer. I'm not sure I want to go through the nomination process just yet.  The tools might be useful sometimes, but I have no real need for them at the moment.  I will let you know if I change my mind.  Thanks,  silly rabbit  (  talk  ) 23:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. :) I'd very very happy to nominate you at a later time, if you become interested in adminship. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Topology Expert
Dear "Silly Rabbit",

I am the creater of the page on local finiteness and have noticed that you have edited some things. Thanks for some improvements! I think that the page looks much better now. But also, I have noticed that you have removed some things. For example, I created a new section called "Exercises" so that readers can check their knowledge of the article. These exercises are also parts of the article in some way. Even if someone doesn't prove these facts, these are still facts and are useful enough facts to be presented. Could you please not remove them? Or at least tell me why you are removing them. I just think that, as I said, they need not be viewed as exercises but viewed as information. No one needs to prove them if they don't want to. These exercises are for the interested reader. Is there some rule in Wikipedia, that you are not allowed to add exercises to articles? Thankyou for your help once again.

Topology Expert

Note: Also, I am just posting this message as a temporary message. Am I allowed to do this on other people's talk pages? I am not intending this to be vandalism.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit replied to that on User talk:Topology Expert. Oded (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A bit of the chronology is off here. It's not a big deal, but when I first removed it, I think I was under the mistaken impression that I had already removed the exercises section, citing WP:NOT.  Apparently not, but the second WP:NOT edit summary and administrative template and reply on Topology Expert should have been a big clue not to re-insert the exercises.  I think I made the mistake here of not giving a sufficiently descriptive edit summary on the first pass.  Hopefully this is all a misunderstanding, and we can get past it.   silly rabbit  (  talk  ) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt that Topology expert reads the edit summaries and even if he/she does see WP:NOT, it is not clear that he/she would follow the link and bother figuring out what it is about. Oded (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Silly Rabbit,

Please understand that my intentions are not bad. I recently created an article on local connectedness and am very happy with the changes you made. I think that you really improved the presentation of the article. I also don't mind that you have removed the exercises section on "Locally finite collection". Please don't delete this article. I am sorry that I was a bit misunderstanding at first but I will try to collaborate with you from now on. Also, I just think that with the article on "locally connected space", perhaps we could change the name to "Local connectedness and components" because this is a more appropriate name for the article. I added a section on components because I think that it is much related to the notion of local connectedness. I would like to have your opinion on this. Once again, thankyou very much for your help.

Topology Expert (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Circle article
I just wanted to introduce myself and say thanks for helping with the Circle article. My goal is to bring the article up to GA standard or better. It's a highly visible article for non-mathematicians and it would be nice to have a strong lead section for a general audience before delving into theorems. I'm currently researching topics for several other articles as well, so the pace of my contributions may be a bit slow. Let me know if you have any advice or suggestions on this projects. Thanks.--RDBury (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Integrable system
Hi, I readded the WikiProject Systems tag on the Integrable system talk page. Your welcome to discuss the scope of the WikiProject Systems on its talk page. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Derivation of the heat equation
Silly Rabbit, I can see that you contribute a lot to wikipedia, and I appreciate that you corrected my derivation of the heat equation.

I was curious though, for my own understanding of the problem, if what you found was a mistake in my derivation, or if you just like the integral approach better than the differential approach.

regards Johnsarelli (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonvandal
Just want to say gracias. Thanks for the assist, and keep up the good work! --146.95.25.173 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
That is exactly why I made those edits and rmeoved people that a category that they did not belong in. You are the one who wants to keep biased, unsourced information included. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Politicians in ID category
Politicans should not be placed in ID cateogry, especially since none of them are sourced as ID advocates. If they took a political stance on the issue one way or the other, it is irrelevant to their notability. To place any politician that has expressed some support or voted in favor of intelligent design in the advocate category would mean you'd have to place those that voted against it or expressed opposition to it in an intelligent design opponents category. I am trying to clean the category of these very dubious inclusions. If you did this for every issue, you'd have to put every Congressman that votes pro-life into the pro-life activist category and every congressman that votes pro-choice into the pro-choice activist category. These people that I am removing deal with many issues and the issue of ID is one which none of them are notable for. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk
I have left messages on your talk page. You claimed to want this to be disscussed, so I would like for you to try discussing it now. Or are you too business adding Pro-life activist and Pro-choice activist categories to every single member of Congress? 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The talk page of the article. k thnx bye.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 02:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Major proponents
The intelligent design advocate category is only for major proponents. Currently, you are abusing the category by trying to add people to the category who are unnotable in relation to intelligent design. You are attempting to decieve people into thinking your itelligent design cause has more major proponents than they actually do. Please try not to edit articles in a way which unfairly favors the intellient design movement. If you continue to add unsourced information to pages to promote your pro-intelligent design bias, you could be blocked from editing. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design advocates
Will you remove the people who I had previously removed from the Intelligent design advocates again? You've had time to read my reasoning and should understand why none of them belong in the category. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I think it is important information to know which politicians have taken a stance advocating intelligent design.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is against wikipedia policy because it was decided a long time ago, my friend, that you cannot place politicians in categories for every single issue. There used to be categories for Pro-life politicians and Pro-choice politicians and they were deleted. If politicians were placed in categories for every stance they took, then they would be placed too many categories. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)