User talk:Vikvik

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Paul August &#9742; 17:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Mathematics edits
About your recent edits to Mathematics: I am not one who carefully watches that article reverting anything that changes it in a major way, but I can tell you that your edits did not improve the article in my opinion (in other words, there were major problems with the content) and were rightly reverted. Paul August's edit summary "(reverting two large undiscussed edits which completely rewrote the the lead and history sections)" was not trying to justify the revert on the basis of the size of the edits, he was just describing what kind of edits he was reverting. While reverts might sometimes be applied merely on the basis of the size of the edit, in my opinion that is not what happened in this case. Also, please note that there is a Three-revert rule which might come into play if you continue to revert back to your version. - dcljr (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Vikvik, regarding your recent edits to the Mathematics article, it is a good idea, if you intend to make large edits to an article like this (long history, lots of editors and much debated) to first discuss your intended changes on the articles talk page here: Talk:Mathematics. In fact it would be best if you read through that page, and some of its archives (listed at the top), to get an idea what has been going on in this article. Please don't be discouraged or offended by the fact that your first edits were reverted. It might be that many of your ideas can be included in the article, but for such extensive and drastic changes, you will probably have to gain a consensus for them on talk pages first. You might want to begin by saying what you find wrong with the sections that you deleted. Anyway I encourage you to bring your ideas to the mathematics article's talk page. You also might want to consider joining our mathematics project: WikiProject Mathematics. So again, welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Paul August &#9742; 17:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you can start by pointing the flaws in the mathematics article on talk:mathematics . Let us see what people say. I understand that this does not sound very as a great beginning, but if we just write articles without talking, you will write your version, then somebody else will rewrite it, and this will go on forever.


 * It is not about first-comers, is about the most reasonable ideas and compromise.


 * We are a rather friendly communty in here (unlike what you may think). So give us a chance. :) Oleg Alexandrov 23:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I can repeat my critics in talk:mathematics, but I thought it is better to suggest an alternative. And then it got such an overwhelming rejection... I believe sometimes it is impossible to move by making minor improvements, we just have to choose between this or that author's position. So it would be interesting to know: do you personally (disregarding procedural questions for a moment) like the current version better then mine? vikvik, 20 July 2005


 * I find your version of the introduction rather abstract. You are basically trying to say that math is only about relationships between objects and using logic. While that is true, I find this too heavy-handed for an introduction.


 * The current version (not your version) also talks about abstraction, but below, and shows how it developed historically, and takes it one step at a time. I think more could be added there from what you wrote.


 * Your second part, about history, is OK, but seems to be rather complicated for an entry article about math.


 * In conclusion, I think if some of what you wrote is a bit shortened and simplified, it could go in the history section. And I'd like to keep the current introduction the way it is.


 * What if you post a verision of the history part on talk:mathematics, we can hack on it, then integrate in the main article? Oleg Alexandrov 00:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Definition" of Math
Hi Vikvik. Thanks for your post on my talk page. I've replied there &mdash; Paul August &#9742; 03:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC).