User talk:Topology Expert/Archive 5

Tube lemma
I appreciate you concern about lack of much input from mathematicians in your AfD of tube lemma. However, generally if an article's content is total crap but the article's topic is worthy of an article, then the right procedure is to replace the content with different content, rather than to delete the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the AfD, and my comment was already on there (twice). AfD is mostly to get rid of topics, rather than content.  The tricky part about deleting an article is that it also deletes the contribution history, which generically is a bad thing.  Completely rewriting an article (especially section by section), is definitely preferred if the topic itself is notable. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sequentially compact space
Howdy, looks like you are getting the hang of things. Sequentially compact space looks pretty reasonable, and it is sort of silly not to have an article on it. Anyways, just wanted to mention I had in fact gone over this article, but didn't see anything desperately in need of fixing. Of course the article still needs *lots* of improvement, but we have several thousand math articles in more desperate need of improvement, so I think you've made quite an accomplishment on this one. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Tychonoff in Tube
Why mention some proofs of the Tychonoff theorem in the tube lemma article? If the reader is interested in the proof of that theorem, surely, they will follow the link. It does not seem relevant to the tube lemma, and besides, the Tychonoff theorem page deals with this topic in details, and if you write anything in the tube lemma article it must be incomplete. Oded (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect space looks good
There is only one issue (though a large one) for the subject expert: the article is unreferenced. With so many facts, each should have an inline citation. As a start though, just providing the references where they could be cited would help.

There were a number of minor style issues, but they were not severe. Usually Michael Hardy fixes these on all new articles. The WP:MOS issues were mostly: Then the WP:MSM issues were also minor:
 * Topic must be bolded in first sentence (and no other bold in the first paragraph or so)
 * Section headings must be lowercased except for first word
 * Don't address the reader, or order them about
 * I'm not sure what the consensus is on bolding "Theorem" etc. For now, I think it is ok.  It might catch on.  I think they look silly as section headings, and the general way to avoid section headings while still looking similar is bolding as you have done.

Your tex notation and wikilinking were very good. You avoided overlinking, while providing a number of useful links. It definitely shows a lot of improvement.

I may not have a chance to check the other article soon. Let me know if you had specific questions about it. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Topology Expert for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Oded (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Topology Expert, maybe you want to come clean and admit that you have created Expert in Topology? We are not angry at you, and I don't believe your intentions were bad. I am sure you will not be blocked. I hope to maintain good relations with you, and I hope that you can get along well with others on WP. Oded (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi; would you mind striking out your last comment on the case page? I'm sure you were upset at the time, but it doesn't come across very well and detracts from your case.
 * While I don't believe you are the "sock-master" behind User:Expert in topology, if you are then please follow User:OdedSchramm's advice above; whoever the sock-master is has already demonstrated remorse and stopped using his sockpuppet, so I'm sure he won't come to harm. If it's not you and the sock-master is reading this, please consider it.
 * I've proposed leaving the case for janitor attention for the time being, since it's been open for over two weeks now. Please comment on the case page if you think that's a good idea. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have clarified that. By "striking out", I meant to do this to it: this is an irrelevant comment .  It's a useful way to indicate that you want to retract a comment, without disrupting any conversation that already refers to that comment.  The bit that was concerning were the hypothetical comments about Oded; it is useful to refrain from commenting on other editors in this way, as it tends to inflame situations.  Adult editors are free to reveal as much or as little of their real-life identity as they wish &mdash; Oded gives his real name, for instance &mdash; so I have no problem with that part.
 * I think it's OK to make mistakes when writing in a wiki, even an encyclopaedia one; the fact that anyone can fix mistakes is part of WhyWikiWorks, after all! I wouldn't let it bother you, as long as you're making a reasonable effort to be verifiable (N.B. being "correct" isn't actually the standard around here, although it's clearly desirable), the effort is all Wikipedia really expects.  I'll mention it to Oded as well, but if you two still aren't seeing eye-to-eye then I'm afraid I'm not very good at dispute resolution, so you should check with someone on WP:DR if you need help.  I hope this was useful!  :-)  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 07:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rlevse closed as "possible, but no action taken" (or words to that effect). I hope you two are still friends! :-) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 12:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)