User talk:Toby Bartels/2011

Set of things
You have moved Real matrices (2 x 2) to 2x2 real matrix. If you had read the Talk page you would have seen that the MOS allows plural names when the subject is a set. The article has one section lower down that speaks of a typical matrix, but that is only after the full context has been set, that context being a set that displays three types of subrings, each associated with a type of complex plane. The dialogue with another editor on Talk had prevented this unfortunate Move. Please put the article back under the correct title or explain your reason for over-riding the MOS.Rgdboer (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I will reply at Talk:2 × 2 real matrix. —Toby Bartels (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your move
Happy new year! If you're going to move Fourth Chinese domination, why don't you also move the other three? Badagnani (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Because I didn't notice them! I've done it now, and also created a disambiguation page at Chinese domination. Hopefully it all makes sense. —Toby Bartels (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Are you sure there were no other "Chinese dominations" of other areas of the world, called such in English? Badagnani (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I used Google, and didn't find any (which surprised me a little). But I also created a redirect from Chinese domination (History of Vietnam), so it can be easily moved there if it turns out that another meaning exists. —Toby Bartels (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Nabla.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nabla.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.

Jesus christ, has it comes to this? Fine, whatever, destroy your encyclopedia by a thousand cuts, it is irrelevant to me. —Toby Bartels (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking
Your edit summary "But also rescue one item from the comments on the grounds that the following sentence is an example of it (and provides its own citation, which is what was needed)" for Proof (informal) was great, thanks for that. I'd have made that point myself were it not so far down on the list of fires I've been having to fight that unthinking editors have started by putting cn tags on nearly every sentence of the article without looking around. As things stand now the article is ridiculously oversourced. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Better than ridiculously undersourced! It's a nice article, and a good one to have; hopefully people will look at it and improve it, even it never gets moved to Proof. (It probably needs links from Mathematical proof, etc.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks again. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ncat lab
Hi Toby Bartels. I was having a read at your article fully formal ETCS in ncat lab and there seems to be a mistake. It says every epi admits a section (axiom of choice), but the formula (∀ g,h(s(g)=s(h)∧t(g)=t(h)=s(f)∧f∘g=f∘h)⇒g=h)⊢∃ i(s(i)=t(f)∧t(i)=s(f)∧f∘i=t(f)) says f is monic. Right? Money is tight (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, thank you! I have fixed it.

The article nlab:fully formal ETCS isn't really mine; I was just the last person to edit it. It was mostly written by Todd Trimble.

If you have any questions about a page on the nLab, you can edit the page yourself and just put the question there. (We don't separate out talk pages the way Wikipedia does). We also have a discussion forum; I made a discussion about your correction. And of course, you can edit the page and fix it if you wish.

—Toby Bartels (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nearlyfreespeech.net
I made some changes to the article, but there is material that states that the pricing structure will change as of 2009. I shudder to think of what it will become! Do you have any info as to what it might be?--John Bessa (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

They made this change, see the update of the cited reference. They now charge all non-static websites 1 cent per day, and they sometimes charge for support. I'll edit the article to reflect this (linking to a more current reference). —Toby Bartels (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We will be able to take off the multiple issues template soon(!)--John Bessa (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

PHP script new features listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PHP script new features. Since you had some involvement with the PHP script new features redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). PleaseStand (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I know, cool URIs are not for Wikipedia, which must be kept pristine, lest somebody disrespect it. —Toby Bartels (talk)