Misplaced Pages

User talk:Linas: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:06, 12 August 2006 editLinas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled25,539 edits orthomolecular medicine: stop behacing like children!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:55, 2 June 2024 edit undoNickps (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,400 edits Notification: listing of User:67.100.217.179 at WP:Redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle 
Line 10: Line 10:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |}<!--Template:Archivebox-->





Line 37: Line 46:
Hmm, thanks for the links, I'll have to prowl around there a bit. My other bit of patrol paranoia is that it is easy to review only the most recent change; thus a "bad edit" could be hidden in the history and overlooked. Thus, I'd prefer to see *all* changes since I last looked. ] 04:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC) Hmm, thanks for the links, I'll have to prowl around there a bit. My other bit of patrol paranoia is that it is easy to review only the most recent change; thus a "bad edit" could be hidden in the history and overlooked. Thus, I'd prefer to see *all* changes since I last looked. ] 04:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


== Perhaps you could add ] to your watch list ==
==Original documents for Principle of Least Action==


Since you wrote a fairly large amount of material in this area, I think your participation in some discussions would be very valuable. Having seen articles like ] degraded, I empathize with ]. In ] it appears that a sufficient number of expert editors have formed a ], so that ]s don't have much luck in degrading most Math articles. Despite what the official policies might say, ] is often a game of numbers. Even though the talk page of a basic article like ] is pretty depressing given the amount of human resources that have been wasted in ], some actual improvements did come out of the discussions there. Thanks. ] ] 09:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi ], it's ] again. I added three of the original documents (along with their translations) in the development of the principle of least action to their respective Wikisources; see my userpage for more details (under "Inter-Wiki stuff"). They still need proofreading by others, but I think they're more-or-less OK for reading, and thought that you might enjoy them. It's strange and interesting how vehemently Euler defends Maupertuis' priority in 1752, when it is clear that Maupertuis asserts his principle in 1744 only for ''light'' (not matter) and does so with little justification. Maupertuis' one interesting argument is that space and time should be equivalent but, in the refraction of light, time is minimized (]) but not distance. On that basis alone, Maupertuis asserts that the principle of least action is more fundamental than ]. Euler, on the other hand, is the first to assert the principle for material particles, and the first to note its requirement that speed be a function of position alone (i.e., that the particle's total energy be conserved). Euler's later misrepresentation of Maupertuis' achievements is really odd, and almost makes one wonder whether Euler was being blackmailed or trying to gain some professional benefit. But perhaps we're still missing some documents that might shed more light on the story. ] 11:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


:Hi, thanks for the invite ... I see from your page that you are "semi-retired" ... so am I. I plink on occasional articles but hardly have a "watchlist" -- too time-consuming/exhausting. ] (]) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:I'll have to digest this slowly. At you indicate "trouvé à Gallica", but there's no URL ... did you go to the library? Similar remarks apply to the other texts. Lovely picture of the knitter, by the way. ] 00:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


== September 2009 ==
Hi, ], I like the Bouguereau painting, too; there aren't so many flattering pictures of us knitters!
] This is the '''only warning''' you will receive for your disruptive comments. <br> The next time you make a ]{{#if:User_talk:Pohta_ce-am_pohtit#Watchlist|&#32;as you did at ]}}, you '''will''' be ] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-npa4im --> ''We do not call editors idiots; "vandalizes" and "subtle vandalism" are not the term, see ] so you can learn what vandalism actually is. Also, see ] regarding "brazen" as the only intent was to improve an article that still has referencing problems. Inline citation preferences aside, the existing citations are not uniform in format and even Misplaced Pages requires that, as does every academic journal I know, and that was the root of the problem.'' ] (]) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


:Fuck off, asshole. You did not act in good faith, you vandalized the article. People like you need to be outed and kicked out. ] (]) 14:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I translated the part of ] that concerns mechanics (the first two parts concern proofs of God's existence) and was dismayed to find several things. Maupertuis takes credit for having invented the principle of least action as a ''general'' principle, although it's clear that he proposed it only for light in 1744. He cites Euler's 1744 book and thanks him for his "beautiful application of my principle to planetary motion". Even worse, when Maupertuis tries to apply "his" principle to elastic and inelastic collisions, and to the equilibrium of a lever, he seems to mis-apply it. When you get a chance, could you please look over the latest article and see whether you agree? Perhaps I'm being unfair to Maupertuis. I confess, I'm even beginning to suspect that he didn't know any calculus (e.g., what an integral is); if so, it would be a strange quirk of history to credit him with a principle that relies so much on an integral. ;) ] 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:24 hours|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} for {{#if:For strong personal attacks.|'''For strong personal attacks.'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:yes|] (]) 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 -->
:I think that perhaps you want to start thinking about writing an essay on this topic. I'm not sure where to put it: on some blog somewhere, where you can try to generate interest? At a minimum, you may want to post to ], and stir it up there. If you find your essay starts gaining length and heft, then publication is some journal of history starts becoming an option. Anyway, I shall try looking at the translations -- but again, I ask, will I be able to find the Latin originals online? ] 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:Linas, you've been here a long time, you've been blocked once before for such behavior. I know that you know the guidelines of Misplaced Pages, including ]. Please heed them. ] (]) 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


::I've never been blocked before. Let me be clear: Mr. ] vandalized an article. Then he attacked the editor who fixed the article. Then, for good measure, he attacked me. Then I called him an asshole. Then he got you to block me. And your were sucked right into his game. So to summarize: Fuck off tedder. You are part of the problem, and not part of the solution. The sooner we get rid of fucking asshole admins like you, the better wikipedia will be. ] (]) 00:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:I copied this to ]. Oh, and so the pressing question seems to become "why did Euler go ballistic in Maupertius defense?" Was he really that forceful? ] 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Wow. Surely you're going to undo these last couple comments, right? You can't expect to talk like that and remain unblocked. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">] ]</span> 00:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


:::FWIW, you (Linas) were blocked on 6 December 2007, for "Persistent incivility and personal attacks over a number of talk pages, was warned." Good times. I'm hoping you can settle down, ], and help us build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 05:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:You might also try "google scholar" to see if anyone has written about Maupertius or lest action recently, and then contacting them for an opinion. I'm trying it now:
** Fee, Jerome , The Scientific Monthly, Volume 52, Issue 6, pp. 496-503 (1941)


::::No, you are wrong. I was never blocked on that date. The use of blocks by powerful admins against defenseless users is a highly uncivil, anti-social action. There is no way to interpret your action against me as anything other than a personal attack, by you, against me. You are wrong in every way, and it is well within my social rights to respond to you by using swear-words: you have already committed the far greater anti-social evil here, and you deserve all the opprobrium you can get. ] (]) 15:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
** Penha Maria Cardoso Dias Archive for History of Exact Sciences Volume 54, Number 1 April 1999 Pages: 67 - 86


I am planning on asking the above admins to issue an apology, to voluntarily relinquish their powers as admins, and to take a leave of absence from Misplaced Pages. I have started a formal complaint at ], but that appears to be the incorrect forum. ] (]) 01:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
**IOAN-LUCIAN MUNTEAN,
:Seem like yeilds some good hits.] 20:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


:Formal complaint filed at: ]. ] (]) 03:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
== No personal attacks ==
::I can see no abuse of power here by any of the involved admins to be honest, but as I mentioned on my talk page, you are free to initiate my ] procedure if you feel I should have my sysop rights revoked. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 03:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


:::You have violently abused your power, and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself. You should be ashamed to even post such nonsense as that above. You are ruder than any swear words could ever be, and yet seem to be utterly unaware of it. Please leave. I have asked you to leave me alone before, in very simple and , but you don't understand. I now ask you once again: please leave: please leave me alone, please leave my talk page, please leave Misplaced Pages. You are a pox, you do not belong here. You should go away. ] (]) 03:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding ]: Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks --> ] 14:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I apologize if you feel that way. Insulting you was certainly not my intention. You are free to remove this post once you've read it, but I respectfully ask that you withdraw your attacks against me so we can work together to resolve this dispute. You seem like a constructive contributor, and I don't want to see you blocked further. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 03:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
::Just to let you know, Linas, that DrL deleted most of the comment you wrote on the AfD...and moved your opinion to the talk page. Apparently stating one's opinion of what Misplaced Pages should be doing is "libel" now. Funny how none of the abuse poured upon me (about which I complained to no-one) was removed by these kind, concerned, people who are "not personally involved" in the saga, isn't it? ] 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


== WQA ==
::It is not a personal attack to call someone crazy when they are actually crazy. It is called "telling the truth". Which, by the way, some people seem to find difficult. The political pressure of "being polite", "nice", "avoiding personal attack", etc. is trumped by the need to be truthful and honest, which is more important for the healthy function of a society. ] 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:WQA-notice--> Thank you.] (]) 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:<s>Having looked over the sequence of events, I find that the language used by Linas is completely and utterly unacceptable. A block for personal attacks would already be justified -- any continuation of this pattern will certainly lead to a block. ] (]) 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)</s> I was not aware that Linas had been blocked when I wrote this, and I apologize for giving the appearance of "piling on". ] (]) 18:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
::This is all my fault- sorry, the block message should have automagically gone in before this thread. ] (]) 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


:::Fuck all of you. We need a fucking lynch mob and get all of you fucking admins driven off of WP. We need to put edit blocks on every fucking single article on WP and shut you fucking assholes out. I'm tired of cleaning up all the fucking vandalism out of the fucking articles, and I'm tired of getting attacked by fucking assholes, like you, who don't have a fucking clue of what the article is about to begin with, and, because you're a fucking admin, should know fucking better then to fuck with none of your business. Fuck off all of you. 00:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
== Photovoltaics article ==


I've blocked your account for 3 days for unacceptable personal attacks. You may contest this block by following the instructions listed at ]. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 00:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Great edits, much appreciated.] 09:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


:I am unable to locate this discussion. I am pursuing actions against the admins involved in this drive-by shooting. ] (]) 01:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
== Why did you twice remove the engineering stub from ] ? ==
::I found it, it is located at: ] ] (]) 01:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


== Hi, I am a "completely uninvolved" (though quite possibly still an arsehole) Administrator... ==
Linas, this isn't a big deal but I would like to know why you removed the engineering stub from ]. The first time you removed it, your edit summary called it "link spam". It is neither a link nor spam, so I reverted it. Now, you removed it again and this time your edit summary called it an "inappropriate cat". It is not a category, it is an engineering stub which asks for people to help expand the article. Are you unfamiliar with the use of stubs? Would you please explain why you have now removed the stub twice? Thanks in advance. - ] 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


You may be aware that there is a discussion relating to you at ANI. Are there any points you would like conveyed there? I would point out that any comments along the lines that have recently been deleted are not going to be forwarded (and will likely be removed from here - though not by me - again), but if there are genuine gripes behind the avalanche of swearing I would be happy to either note them there or even review them to see if there is some underlying grievance I can address. I will watch this page, but as I am a Brit (as you can see by the way I spell arsehole - which does not seem to get the same reaction as ''"mule-pit"'') I may be a while in responding. Anyhow, the offer is there. ] (]) 21:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)<br>
:Sorry, I recated several hundred articles yesterday, some of them multiple times. The "link spam" comment pertained to the removal on an ergregiously horrid link farm. The "inappropriate cat" referred to ] and/or ] which contained all manner of uncategorized/miscategorized stuff. In this particular case, ] does not in any way even remotely resemble a "stub", so I am not sure why you ask about that. Stubs are articles which have only a few sentences to them; any article that is longer than a few paragraphs is not a stub. Now, pick any article on WP, and someone has probably written a book about the topic -- and so, for any article on WP, one could expand it to book length. That does not mean the article is a "stub". ] 16:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much a dumbass to boot, too - I didn't check whether you are able to edit this page. You can email me if there is anything that you wish me to do for you, in this matter. ] (]) 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


:You have not committed any offense to me, I have no anger towards you. I choose to rain insults only upon those who have acted in unprovoked malice against me. Thank you for inviting me to the discussion. I appear to now be unblocked, and can participate in it. Where, exactly, is it? ] (]) 01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for your response. At least now I understand your reasoning. I would only say that the length of an article is really no indicator of whether or not the article still needs work or expansion. As one who has helped to design gasification plants, the ] article still needs quite a bit of work in my opinion. If tagging it with an engineering stub is inappropriate, what other tag should one use to ask people to continue work on the article? - ] 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


::Never mind, I found it, I think what' you are referring to is here (right?): ] Pretty darn cowardly of them to organize a "nuclear attack" on me from the shelter of their obscure little corner of WP. ] (]) 03:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't know. You might ask over at ]. My personal opinion is that of the 15 thousand math and physics articles on WP, 99.9% of them are inadequate, damaged, stilted and incomplete, and need a whole lot of work to whip into shape. I assume similar percentages apply to the engineering articles. But tagging all of them achieves no particular purpose: the only editors who could expand ] are those who are both knowledgable, and who are interested, and these editors are presumably rare birds. But if one of them happens upon the article, and chooses to work on it, it won't be because the article was tagged. In WP, one assumes that if its not a ], then of course it needs work and improvement. ] 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:::That indeed was it. I made the original offer in ignorance of you being unable to edit this page - so by the time you were able to respond the matter refered to had been archived. Nevertheless, if you wish to use the services of an admin who has no previous interaction with you (perhaps as a sounding board or similar) then feel free to contact me. Cheers, ] (]) 12:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


== ] ==
::::Gadzooks, ] is a red link !!! You may want to start this beast, and model it on ] or ], which have hundreds of participants, and have very lively talk pages debating such issues. See also ] and ] and ]. Its high time there was one for engineering. Or perhaps you are just intersted in ] ] 18:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


ANI thread regarding you at ]. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: Times New Roman;">] ]</span> 03:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Thanks again. I agree wholeheartedly with you that the great majority of technical articles on Misplaced Pages are incomplete or inaccurate and written by people with no experience in the subject matter that they contribute. I am a retired chemical engineer (visit my ] page). In the 6 months that I've been in Misplaced Pages, I have created 20 new technical articles, completely revised and expanded 17 technical articles and significantly revised and/or expanded 28 other technical articles. I am completely amazed at how few engineers with '''real world experience''' contribute to Misplaced Pages. I can only assume that they are too busy earning a living and raising a family to become involved. - ] 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


:For those of you who are English language impaired: "Fuck off" means "leave me alone". Don't believe me? Google it. What part of "fuck off" don't you understand? What is wrong with you people? Jeez. Go jump off a cliff. Go fly a kite. Get lost. Leave. Stop harassing me. ] (]) 04:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Its the "chicken and the egg" problem: no one contributes until there is something to contribute to. So at first, growth is slow. WP math has more than 10K articles, originally written by lay writers and grad students. Its gained recognition and critical mass, and now there's a number of full professors who are (semi-anonymously) active on WP. I say semi-anonymously, since they still want to make sure they don't look foolish in front of their colleagues, and thus avoid the limelight of having "famous person so-n-so is working on WP". However, the number of WP authors is growing at something like 10% a month, so you may well start finding your colleagues active here in a few years. ] 20:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


::If I may kindly interject; please, linas, calm down. There's no reason for the attacks. I understand that you feel wronged, but you can't beat these guys with harsh language or make them reconsider. All you're doing is inviting more abuse. The more you justify it, the more you ask to get gang-banged. Let me suggest, perhaps, a short break from Misplaced Pages to take a breather. If you don't feel that necessary, at least stop the profanity. Please? ] - ] 04:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
==]==
Hi Linas, I replied to your comment on the talk page, you might be interested in reading it. I think we can remove the tag now. What do you think? ] 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:1 week|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week'''|You have been temporarily ''']''' from editing}} for {{#if:continued ], as discussed at |'''continued ], as discussed at '''|repeated ]}}. Please stop. You are welcome to ] after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below. {{#if:true|<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 -->
:Ugh. I slapped a delete tag on that page. Based on a quick look at the reference that you gave, this article appears to be "not even wrong". I'm hoping you won't contest the deletetion. This sort of stuff is an embarrasment to WP.] 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Please understand that we have a ] on Misplaced Pages, which applies to you as well. If you have a grievance against others, swearing at them and telling them to "" is not acceptable under any circumstances. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC) (Diff fixed, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC))
::As you may have noticed, I am puzzled by your comment and I am most certainly contesting the deletion. I'm looking forward to hearing some details. -- ] (]) 02:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


:I can't say with honesty that I agree with this block, but I'd like to let you know that my offer still stands, Linas. I'll keep a watch on your talk page for any replies, or you can email me if that's your preferred method. Please keep my offer in mind as an option! ] - ] 05:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
==]==


{{unblock reviewed|1= ::Thanks for the offer, I didn't know I could edit anything when there's a block on. I honestly do not understand how these awful people got into these positions of power. From my point of view, I have been "gang raped" by four admins now. I fail to see why the "code of conduct" applies to me, but not to them. Worse, the infractions they are committing are far more severe than mere swearing/blue language I'm accused of. From my point of view, it would appear that a there's a lynch mob running around in Misplaced Pages, attacking inactive editors (you will see that my activity has been very low for the last year), and that the lynch mob acts with complete impunity: when I complained to the arb, they basically dismissed the case. They are either blind to this rather serious problem, or are unwilling or unable to deal with it. This is all going to be to the detriment of WP -- these wild and lawless gangs of admins are going to drive away editors who are knowledgeable and capable, while encouraging crazy editors to be more bold in their bizarre defacement attempts. I don't see any good coming out of this. ::In my case, I stopped being active a few years ago, due to this pernicious lawlessness and misbehaviour, and the lack of any workable mechanism to maintain article quality for any articles that are far off the beaten track. I felt that my time was being wasted; honestly, I have many projects I'm interested in, and WP became a loosing proposition; I simply found more important things to work on. I know I am not alone, and I am now saddened that the arb committee seems to also have lost its power and vision and simply cannot/will not control the mob any longer. Oh well. ::Anyway, you don't have to remove any blocks, its not like I'm going to increase my activity as a result. Maybe in a few years, after these admins have been driven out, and some sort of order has been restored. I dunno. Good luck till then. ] (]) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC) |decline=No reason given to unblock outside of manifesto. ] (]) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)}}
Hi, Linas, IIRC {{user|Tim Smith}} also threatened ''you'' with blocking, so you might be interested in this. ---] 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


==Request for mediation not accepted==
:I read somewhere (slashdot?) of a study that purported to show that communities with a good police force and policing policies tend to have a greater number of freedoms, a greater excercise of those freedoms, and a larger range of acceptable and accepted set of behaviours, than communities which are poorly policed. I found this idea fascinating. (A simple, naive example is the ghetto: due to a lack of policing, the residents are fearful of going out, fearful of overt expression in public spaces). Thanks for the note. ] 02:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
{| class="messagebox" style="width:90%"
|-
|]
|A ] to which you were are a party was ] and has been delisted.<br>You can find more information on the case subpage, ].</center><br>
::''For the Mediation Committee,'' ''']''' 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
|}
<div style="text-align:center; font-size:smaller;">This message delivered by ], an automated bot account ] by the ] to perform case management.<br>If you have questions about this bot, please ].</div>


== Please see... == == Take-down request ==


Please take down the blatant personal attacks on . Thank you. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: Times New Roman;">] ]</span> 16:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
RFC: ] (unsigned note from ])


:Please stop your personal attacks on me. ] (]) 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:Sorry, can't help. That stuff makes my eyes water and my head spin. I have a different manner of understanding this stuff, whereas ], who wrote most of the current version, followed a distinctly 19th-century presentation which I find painful to digest and understand. I am not sure of what the correct textbook definition would be, as the few textbooks I still have on mechanics that weren't lost in a flood present this material in a radically different way. ] 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


== orthomolecular medicine == == ANI notification ==


Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 17:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think that orthomolecular medicine is not pseudoscience? What's the evidence that large doses of vitamins cure cancer and schizophrenia like its proponents claim? -- ] 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
:Really, Linas, when you've been blocked for personal attacks before, running around to multiple noticeboards complaining about incompetent/corrupt admins is unwise at best. Might I suggest you retract the comments before someone comes along with a 1-month block? I won't ask you to do anything more at this point than just take them down quietly. --] (]) 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:: and need to be taken down/refactored as well. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: Times New Roman;">] ]</span> 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::: I've refactored the userpage to remove the names. Linas, whilst you're perfectly allowed to criticise Misplaced Pages, its admins or anything else on your userpage, when you start naming individual editors, you cross a line. Equally, I've deleted the sub-page - calling people "fuck brained idiots" also crossed the line. Thanks, ] 17:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


::::I've removed the section of your user page which violates ] against five fellow admins. You are strongly cautioned not to restore it or your user page will be reverted and protected so that you can't edit it at all. ] (]) 17:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:Please stop. I am not sure why you are on this crusade, but this whole style of argumentation is inapporpriate. A casual review of the literature will indicate that real doctors and scientists have been carrying on real research on this topic, and publishing on this topic in real peer-reviewed journals, for the last 50 years. Just because you seem to dislike this topic does not mean that it is pseudoscience. Its OK to be dubious or disbeleiving: this is the nature of science. If you don't beleive it, go perform a study, get it published in a journal. But don't just walk into wikipedia and randomly label ] as pseudoscience. I don't see any evidence that it is, and it seems highly unlkely that such evidence can be produced. ] 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


:::::I've restored it for now. Give me a bit of time on this, please. --] (]) 17:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::Um, except I did produce such evidence that mainstream medical organizations have criticized OM as pseudoscience. You deleted it from the article. Nowhere on the talk page do you identify a single incorrect thing stated by my sources. -- ] 01:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


::::Figures. I think you have it backwards. Can't you see that what you are doing is far worse, far more offensive, than anything that I've done? Don't you think that deleting random user page content is more offensive, and crosses a far more serious line, than using swear-words, or naming admins? (I certainly do: I believe you have committed the greater sin/moral wrong.) How am I supposed to tell people that "these are the admins who are abusing their power" when I am not allowed to use their names? How can I ask for a change in leadership without indicating which leaders are the ones that need to be thrown out? How can I even have a conversation when I get blocked from editing?
:::The ref I deleted is already listed on the ] page. It does not claim that orthomolecular medicine is pseudoscience. It takes a critical view -- which is very differnt than calling something pseudoscience. FWIW, it also sounded distinctly cranky to me, and not at all unbiased. This guy has it in for orthomolecular medicine. I also note that it is posted on an anti-quackery webste -- in case you haven't noticed, the anti-quacks and debunkers are often as nutty and twisted as the things they are trying to debunk. ] 00:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I don't understand why you admins feel that you are immune to criticism, can do anything you feel like, can cross any line you wish. Why am I held to a higher standard than you are? Shouldn't it be the other way around? The gag is a far greater crime then a few swear words. The gag is a far greater crime than a public naming and outing of the WP admins who are abusing their power. If Wkinight94 was innocent, and a good guy, he wouldn't be sitting here, attacking me ... again. ] (]) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::It's not "random" user page content, it's content that consensus has agreed ]. I want to help you here, Linas, but if you're going against established standards, that will be hard to do. --] (]) 17:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


:::::::Why should I back down? You are the ones provoking this argument. Stop provoking me, and I will stop being provoked. You can't kick someone in the head, and then say "quiet down now, and stop fighting", and expect them to respond in some cool-headed, coherent manner. You can't threaten someone with a block, and then say "hey don't feel threatened: cool down, act rational". But, hey, it seems that just about none of you guys seem to get this. So, if you feel like being a bully today, then block me for a month or whatever. Either that, or just stop bullying me. ] (]) 17:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry you feel that my sources are cranky. They include the American Cancer Society, NIMH, the AAP, the Canadian Pediatric Society, ACSH, etc. Quackwatch is a highly recommended site for this sort of information. I fail to see why these sources are inferior to "orthomed.org", a cheerleader site. -- ] 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Ok, I tried. Sorry you didn't want the help. --] (]) 17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::I'm quite fine with personal attacks on your userpage. The forumshopping? Not so much. Please continue the conversation at ANI. ] (]) 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::@Linas: You can raise whatever issue you want in the proper venue and manner. You did that at ] and were soundly rejected. Your own advice in such situations is to . <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: Times New Roman;">] ]</span> 17:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


::::::::Why should I? You started this attack, why should I be the one to submit to it? Why can't you just leave me alone? Why do you need to bully me? ] (]) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::I appreciate your recent contributions re:orthomed. The above, who manuevers through admin pages better than I do, is crying foul & while screaming certain epithets. I am not sure of your interest level in this situation or orthomed subjects generally, but I would appreciate any informal mediation or pointers that you would offer. Thank you.--] 05:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)(previously 69.178...)
::::::::: These people are actually trying to ''stop'' you getting blocked, as was I. But seriously, if you launch multiple attacks on people in your userspace, you shouldn't be surprised when they object to it. They will "leave you alone" when you stop doing it. ] 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, its really hard to tell who is doing what. The last block expired recently; I cleaned up my user page, and *whammo* within an hour, the beehive has been stirred again, and I'm getting stung from all directions. ] (]) 18:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::Medicine is far off my beaten track, but I stumbled across this, and it seemed particularly egregious. The WP process for dealing with such abuse is very slow, and mostly consists of waiting for the controversy to die out on its own. ] is interested in the general topic of how to curtail the non-science and irrational pseudoscience/quackery edits, but has little in the way of concrete proposals. Its hard to see what to do except on a case by case basis. ] 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
: I think if you remove the attacks on named editors from your userpage, this will all die down straight away. It's got to be the best course of action, no? (Edit: I see Sarek has removed it anyway. If you say that you won't re-instate it, I think we can close this right now). ] 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


== Disagree with proposal ==
::::::: Please note that I am '''not''' "POV-pushing," as you repeatedly accuse me of. I have no objection to Nautilus et al. including their pro-OM claims on the OM page; I recognize that ] requires this. I merely request that, as ] requires, that the mainstream view of OM as pseudoscience be included with the prominence it deserves as the majority viewpoint. I think the majority viewpoint is correct, but I recognize that this is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages, since the standard is ], rather than truth, but everything I've added has been ] from an established and legitimate source. Please ].-- ] 18:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


I have read your complaint on the maths project page and had a look at what caused the argument. I completely disagree with you. You should count to ten and think to yourself before any new outburst "Misplaced Pages is the encyclopaedia any idiot can edit". There's no point in insulting good faith editors, you should explain the problem in a clear and coherent manner. There is no point insulting trolls and vandals, they feed on other's unhappiness. You're investing too much feeling into it all. ] (]) 17:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have yet to see anything that implies that there is a majority viewpoint that OM is pseudoscience. Not even the few critiques of OM that I've read go so far as to call it pseudoscience. Furthermore, please stop quoting wiki policies at me. Its rude and insulting. ] 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


:It wasn't a good faith edit. You are right about the trolls, but apparently, a whole bunch of them are now admins, and that's a problem. Word of caution: someday, they will attack you. ] (]) 17:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:Sir, I find your attacks on me to be rude and insulting. How about the Canadian government? Are they neutral enough for you? I didn't pull the idea that orthomolecular medicine is pseudoscience out of thin air. -- ] 12:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


::If not good faith then see my remark about not feeding trolls. ] (]) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::Doesn't sound neutral at all. The opening sentence is blatently false: "vitamins don't cure any disease"? Oh please, they cure deficiency diseases, such as ], etc. That is inane non-sense and discredits the rest of the page, however weighty the rest of the page may sound. It's like opening a physics tract with the sentence "Einstein was wrong...". All I get from that URL is that a total nutball has access to a Canadian webserver. ] 14:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I also looked at the situation. I got the impression that it probably started as follows: Aboutmovies searched for the string "beyond words" on Misplaced Pages to look for references to this new age publisher. Somehow he managed to miss the fact that he was messing with maths articles, and made his 3 silly edits. (Some things to consider: monoid is originally a philosophy term and may well be abused in new age; a large part of the general population will be unable to identify "Springer Verlag" as a publisher's name.) When he was reverted, he understood why and accepted this, but was in a bad mood. When you called him a vandal this was technically incorrect because he had done it because of inattentiveness, not bad faith. But of course it wasn't a good idea of his to template you for that. It was also a bad idea to discuss details of citation formatting etc. in such a situation, and there was a series of misunderstandings. I must say that I strongly disagree with the extreme escalation that happened in this case. This includes the silly blocks, but also your running to Arbcom and mediation and the words you used when doing so. It looks as if once you were blocked you lost the ability to see the situation with someone else's eyes. ] ] 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Since doesn't say ""vitamins don't cure any disease," you're clearly not interested in a good-faith discussion about this, and I can now assume your edits reflect a bias against mainstream medicine. -- ] 14:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:Vandal and "idiot" - let's not forget that: . <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: Times New Roman;">] ]</span> 19:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:"a large part of the general population will be unable to identify 'Springer Verlag' as a publisher's name." This hit me like a sledgehammer between the eyes. You are, of course correct. You are equally correct that linas seems not to see things through the eyes of others, but I think this started because many didn't see it through the eyes of linas. Can there be people who don't recognize "Springer Verlag"? Of course, many. How many of them ought to be editing a mathematical article carelessly? Probably none. Can anyone with a clue take a look at ] and think it is a New Age topic? I doubt it. While "vandalism" might be too strong a term, I sympathize with Linas. Am I the only one recalling the move Rambo as I plow through this incident?--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


== A better place for you? ==
::::As of this point in time, that page states: "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth) Which, in plain english, is nothing more and nothing less than "vitamins don't cure any disease". Don't state a bald lie, and then accuse me of bad faith. I will support the actions needed to block you from further editing on WP. ] 14:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Linas. Your contribution to WP is really great; and it is really a pity that it will be somewhat spoiled, inevitably. However, what about ? Isn't it closer to your dream? (I write a little both here and there). ] (]) 19:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments like yours above are looked down upon as incivility Linas. Treat others with respect, or it is you who may face a block. ] 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, Citizendium isn't so bad. It's an excellent place for creating new content without too many distractions from other editors. Unfortunately this includes the pleasant ones, too. ] ] 21:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::Oh yes, CZ has serious drawbacks. This is why I write "a better place for you?" rather than "a better place for us all!". And this is why I am trying both wikis. Unfortunately, the approval mechanism of CZ is nearly idle. Worse, it should remain nearly idle (I would be glad to be wrong in this prediction). But anyway, if someone wants his writings to either stay constant or monotonically increase in quality, he/she should think about CZ. ] (]) 21:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(u/i)Don't go to Citizendium. Despite this recent setback, you have been such a driving force for Misplaced Pages's mathematics and physics articles that it would be a dreadful shame if you left. The high profile of Misplaced Pages does bring in a lot of idiots and drama ensues, but it also brings in more experts than even Citizendium, and a lot of high-quality articles, even very specialized ones, are the result. To respond directly to Boris, "constant" would seem to characterize the quality of Citizendium articles a little more than "increasing": they are by and large written by one (or in rare cases two) individuals. In the ideal scenario, Misplaced Pages is obviously a much more powerful paradigm: rather than being based on "I know this...", it seems to be based more on "I know this and you know that..." with the view that an article written by a mathematician, an engineer, a physicist, and a philosopher, might ultimately be superior to one written by any individual who is a self-proclaimed (accredited) "expert" on something related to what he or she is writing about. Freethinking characterizes Misplaced Pages, and to me you are the archetypal free thinker. ] (]) 22:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


In spite of the above approbation, I do disagree with some of the finer points of your edits overall: Informed disagreement is, of course, part of the Misplaced Pages cycle. Nevertheless, Misplaced Pages is obviously a better place for you (in my mind). There is a difference between informed disagreement and "cranks". Unfortunately the lovely bureaucracy that is Misplaced Pages (]!) is generally unable to distinguish between these two things, and it is quite frustrating. It is now, apparently, required that most editors here must consume "alphabet soup" lest they succumb to the barbarian hoards. A better course of action, I would like to think, is to report directly to a WikiProject. (This is similar to the adage in academia that the only way to get something done is with departmental backing... or somesuch.) I personally think that the way forward is to strengthen ties among project members. ] (]) 23:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:First, I was not being incivil. Follow the link to the canadian URL. Read the first sentence. It really does state "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth) This means that Cri du Canard is a bald liar. If you believe that telling the truth is "incivil", then go ahead and block me.


I'm dreadful at writing so Citizendum would be bad for me but for someone who's work will just degrade on wikipedia it could be better. This company I was in once had everyone in the company doing some tests on their own and then in groups. My manager said afterwards how this showed that together people did better and called on me to say how I had done. Actually I'd done second best in the whole company on my own and far better than any of the groups so perhaps I wasn't the best choice, I had to think quick and dissemble to get out of the position. I had been quite unable to get my group to agree with what I said and they'd done some really silly things. I though it was a pity and checked it out with the person who did best, what he had was he was much more diplomatic than me in dealing with people, and his group had also done better than mine. So overall I'd say if you're good enough the wisdom of the crowds isn't actually true. I like to try working with people and helping them do things better but you have a definite forte for getting a good article written. ] (]) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:Furthermore, I have had it with this dispute. I never heard of the topic until a week ago. I tried as best I could to mediate, and now I am accused of incivility. Stop this nonsense now! ] 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


:About "the lovely bureaucracy": leaders that are (say) mathematicians is an Utopian idea, be it in Misplaced Pages or in real-world politics. ] (]) 06:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
::There's a material difference between "vitamins" and "orthomolecular therapy." The OM supporters would surely be upset if their page was merged into ]. So I'm not lying. -- ] 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


== Category:Reliability interconnections ==
:::You choose to twist what I say, and you choose to imply that I said something I did not. Please don't do that. I have made no proposal to merge the OM article into "vitamins", and I do not deny that there is a material difference between "vitamins" and OM. What I am claiming is that the sentence "Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease" is false. That it is false is easily demonstrated. The "orthomolecular therapy" of administering vitamin C for the treatment of the disease ] is a scientifically accepted fact. Thus, scienctific research ''has'' found a benefit from orthomolecular therapy, and, if you read the page about scurvy, you will see that science accomplished this feat 200 years before Linus Pauling coined the term "orthomolecular medicine". ] 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Linas. I proposed to merge ] to ]. You could comment it ''']'''. ] (]) 09:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::Orthomolecular medicine holds itself as opposed to conventional medicine. Therefore, a conventional medical cure that happens to involve vitamins is not "orthomolecular medicine," any more than astrology is validated because the moon affects tides. If all orthomolecular medicine was "nutrition" there wouldn't need to be a separate discipline for it. -- ] 03:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


== MfD ==
Cri du Canard, I am unable to find any statement in that reference that says that OM is opposed to conventional medicine. Is there a specific sentenence in there that states that? ] 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Linas, Have you seen ] and another below that I have not looked at yet? It looks like the nom did not advise you. Cheers, --] ] 02:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::Wow! This discussion is incredible. Linas, you admit that "Medicine is far off my beaten track, but I stumbled across this...." Why then are you so adamant? You're dealing with other editors who may know far more about this than you do. You risk making the same mistake that Pauling did - he claimed expertise in another field than his own. The point has been made several times above that OM is not just the use of vitamins. In your reasoning, you seem to often equate them. You even misquoted Cassileth, and then personally attack a fellow editor, thus failing to ], calling him a liar, when it was you who misquoted and twisted the meaning of a noted researcher. Here's what you wrote:


:Thanks for bringing this to my attention. ] (]) 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::"Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth) Which, in plain english, is nothing more and nothing less than "vitamins don't cure any disease".


==] of ]==
::::::Your interpretation of Cassileth's quote is very simplistic. (1) "Orthomolecular medicine" is far more than (2) "vitamin supplementation for documented deficiency diseases," something that modern medicine recognizes. The two are treated very differently by the scientific, nutrional, and medical world. They treat OM with suspicion, and classify it as "unconventional." . The BC Cancer Agency page is a summary of the medical literature, and the summary doesn't deal with approved and well-documented vitamin supplemenation for deficiency diseases at all, but expresses complete doubt for OM and megavitamin therapy:
]


The article ] has been ]. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
:::::::"Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." (Cassileth)


While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].
::::::That is the modern medical view of OM, and is not at all contradictory with modern medicine's own viewpoint on the need for effective vitamin supplementation in proven cases of vitamin deficiency.


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
::::::I don't know if I have just wasted my time, but I hope you'll stop accusing other editors of lying and of twisting what you say, like you stated here:


Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> will stop the ], but other ]es exist. The ] can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:PRODWarning -->
:::::::"You choose to twist what I say, and you choose to imply that I said something I did not."


:Uhh, Who proposed this? Who posted the above to my talk page? Where is the discussion of the deletion? Jeez. ] (]) 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::Your accusations above ring pretty hollow, since this discussion reveals that you are the one doing the twisting and that you actually did misunderstand and misrepresent the quote by Cassileth. Calling other editors "total nutball," and liars is unbecoming conduct. An apology is in order (or have I just wasted my time?). -- ] 11:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


== re ] ==
Fyslee, all I can say is that you appear to intentionally misunderstand the nature and the content of the conversation. You, also, appear to twist what I say, as I believe the record of the conversation above is pretty clear. I assume you are trying to muddy and spin-doctor the issue. I am assuming bad faith based on your part, as evidenced by your posting immediately above. Good grief, folks, stop behaving like immature children! ] 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Please don't be paranoid. We have never met in wikipedia so there is no personal hidden agenda. I run into this page while doing word search. I do dislike the fact taht some people are turning wikipedia into a tool for socializing and self-promotion, which was not hidden in the nomination. However after reading the bottom of your user page I understand why you were so jumpy. Don't worry, I am quite far from evil "wikipedia leadership" and any other MMORPG. ] (]) 03:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
==Thanks==
: Or not. See ]. ] ] 15:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
for this...(diff) (hist) . . List of pseudoscientific theories‎; 19:04 . . Linas (Talk | contribs) (→Physics - rm steady-state theory from the physics list. This was once an accepted and even popular theory; it is now a disfavoured/obsolete theory, and not pseudoscience)
::Dang. Thanks for the notice! ] (]) 20:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


== Temporary password emails ==
I was going to do that, but since I'd been disputing it with another editor, I thought it best not to. Cheers. ] 00:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi Linas. I have left a message for you at ].
:You are welcome. ] 00:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


--] (]) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
==Cool!!!==


== Networking ==
cool, KKK was funded by the democratic party http://en.wikipedia.org/Ku_Klux_Klan ] 13:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi there,
:And why, exactly, is that cool? ] 02:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


read a couple of your stuff on Wike(m/p)edia policy and partially agree. I am mainly active on the German version, so not so well known over here. I suppose, you don't read German, but if you do, I invite you to read and contribute to ]. If you don't, let me know, if you are interested in an English version, if I ever get to one. I suppose you also know ]?
==A Better Way to Search for ETI Signals?==


Cheers, ]] 07:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Not directly related to Misplaced Pages, but instead concerning
your ideas at http://linas.org/theory/seti.html
(A Better Way to Search for ETI Signals). I just wonder:
Does it spoil your scheme, if the pseudo-random noise bit
sequence associated with the PSK-modulation is palindromic
(e.g. like 1011001001001101) or "complementarily palindromic"
(e.g. like 1011001010110010) in one of its rotations?
If not, then the quadratic residues (or non-residues)
of a prime (padded with an extra zero or one), might
provide a very natural pseudo-random binary sequence
associated with each prime. (Maybe not so random as various
LFSR-sequences, but probably random enough.)
Please contact me at my-firstname.my-surname@gmail.com
and I will explain more. Yours,
Antti Karttunen.


:I had not seen that essay on "gaming wikipedia" before. I have no desire to play these kinds of political games. I want to be able to tell the truth, and to collaborate in a constructive manner. I am very disappointed to note that this kind of gaming seems to be implicitly/explicitly approved by Misplaced Pages management/admins -- many editors here seem to actually ''want'' to play this game -- its very nearly enshrined in "policy" on various policy pages. Culturally, its the wrong path to go down -- it consigns honesty and integrity to a low level of importance -- and allows asshole admins to fuck whomever they please. Perhaps its unavoidable for certain classes of articles -- but it is pointless and stupid with regards to science articles. ] (]) 17:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
:I see no reason why anything palindromic would spoil things. The only requirement is that the polynomial be prime. I have not thought at all about what polynomials might be considered "interesting"; I suppose palindromic codes could be interesting. Also notable might be anything that has importance to math or relevance to physics. For example, ]s are particularly notable, because of their relation to the ], the ] and ]. They're a bit short for this purpose, but maybe something longer can be cooked up. Of course, in the end, every possibility must be tried, and that's what makes this hard. Anyway, this is exciting ... I'll try to write tommorrow, or you may reach me at work at my WP user name at austin ibm dot-com. Although I now get too much mail there too :-(. ] 03:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


:: I see that you are a mathematician, and the ideology of the natural sciences is "to tell the truth", as you put it. There are philosophical reservations to the "truth", which I am sure you are aware of. But suppose you want to tell the best model fit for reality (call it "the truth", if you wish), then you will not get around "playing games", that holds true for both wikipedia and science. Have you heard about ] and/or ]? To get to the "truth", social networking and "playing games" is absolutely indespensible. The Misplaced Pages establishment does exactly that, but does not admit that it does play games. ]] 12:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
== your modular groups artwork permission request ==

:::Yes, well, sure, but some games have better/more appealing rules than others. The rules of the current wikipedia game puts too much power in the wrong kind of people. Alas, I do not read German; maybe someday ... ] (]) 13:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

:::: I completely agree with the poor rules and the wrong people at the important decision-making positions. The question is only, what to change first: The network or the rules? I suggest, it's easier to first change the network first, but for that the right people need to be recruited into the network. Only with the "right" type of people at important network places you will be able to change the rules. In any case, I will in the future write everything bilingual, so count on you being bothered again. ]] 16:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

==Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Electric power distribution systems==

]''']''', which you created, has been nominated for ], ], or ]. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you.

== HELP! ==

] needs your help! ] (]) 02:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

== Question about old edit to ] ==

Hi Linas, in (differences from previous version ) you added the sentence "If the observer is lowered very slowly, then, in the observer's frame of reference, the horizon appears to be very far away, and ever more rope needs to be paid out to reach the horizon" and also the sentence "if the rod is lowered extremely slowly, then it is always too short to touch the event horizon, as the coordinate frames near the tip of the rod are extremely compressed." These sentences have survived basically unchanged to the present...but what was your basis for them? You seem to be saying that in some sense the distance to the horizon is infinite, but p. 824 of the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler textbook ''Gravitation'' says:

:The divergence of <math>g_{rr}</math> at r=2M does ''not'' mean that r=2M is infinitely far from all other regions of spacetime. On the contrary, the proper distance from r=2M to a point with arbitrary r is <math>\int_{2M}^{r} | g_{rr} |^{1/2} \, dr = ^{1/2} + 2M \, ln |(r/2M - 1)^{1/2} + (r/2M)^{1/2} | </math> when r > 2M ... which is finite for all 0 < r < ∞

The "proper distance" found by integrating the metric ] along a ] path with constant t coordinate and varying r coordinate (analogous to the "]" which is found by integrating the metric line element along a timelike path) can be understood like this: imagine we have a chain of observers who are each hovering at some constant r-coordinate, each with only an infinitesimal distance to their nearest neighbors and with the chain stretching from infinitesimally close to the event horizon out to some distance R. Suppose that at a single t-coordinate each observer measures the distance between themselves and their nearest neighbor closer to the horizon, using a short free-falling ruler which is momentarily at rest relative to themselves. Then if we add up all these little measurements, the total will be the "proper distance" from R to the horizon, and as mentioned above it will be finite. It seems to me this notion of "proper distance" is also the best answer to the question of how long a rope lowered very slowly from R would need to be to reach the horizon, is there some other way of answering the question I'm not thinking of, or were you thinking that the distance as measured by a series of very short rulers (each instantaneously at rest in Schwarzschild coordinates) would actually be infinite? ] (]) 20:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

:Hi, sorry for the delayed response, I don't get on WP very often any more. The sentences were trying to describe the differences between an adiabatic maneuver to get all of those observers in place, and free-fall. So, yes, if one just "uses a short free-falling ruler" to measure the distance between observers, one does indeed get the finite proper distance <math>\int_{2M}^{r} | g_{rr} |^{1/2} \, dr</math>, as you point out. Rather, this was an attempt to address the question: "what is the length of an accelerated ruler?" Now, rather than measuring the distance between observers using free-falling rulers, one attempts to perform the measurement with rulers that are stationary with respect to the horizon, i.e. are being more and more strongly accelerated as they approach the horizon (the acceleration being provided by the tug of the rope). I believe that the right answer is that such rulers get strongly contracted, so much so, that this distance becomes infinite. Put another way, this is an attempt to explain why, in one frame of reference (the free-falling, proper-time frame) there is no singularity at the event horizon, while in others, there is. In particular, the amount of acceleration one needs to hover at the event horizon is "infinite" -- more properly speaking, "unbounded" as one approaches the horizon. This is the infinity that the dangling rope is trying to illustrate: the tip of the rope must undergo ever stronger acceleration as it approaches the event horizon, and the accelerated rulers become ever shorter. Unfortunately, I cannot give a reference for this.

:BTW, there is a similar but different phenomenon for freely-falling observers. Suppose one observer, far away from the horizon, drops a blinking light into the black hole. This external observer would never see the blinker actually cross the event horizon! It would take "forever" to even approach the horizon. Basically, the external observer would perceive the blinking to get slower and slower, and the light to be more and more red-shifted, as the falling blinker approached the horizon. The red-shift, and the blinking become infinite as the horizon is approached; the external observer cannot ever see it being crossed. (Of course, the falling blinker hits the singularity in finite proper time). The dangling-rope thing is an attempt to illustrate the space analog of this time-based divergence. ] (]) 19:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

::I copied all this to ] which is a better place for this discussion. I also re-edited my reply there for more clarity. ] (]) 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

== Question ==

I do not understand you idea : . '''As such, Legendre polynomials can be generalized''' (In what way?) ''' to express the symmetries of semi-simple Lie groups''' (not SO(3)?) ''' and ]s.''' (not euclidic ?) ] (]) 12:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

:Hi, Sorry for the late response, I do not get on Misplaced Pages very often. This is not "my idea"; rather, there are papers, books and conferences on the topic. Simply-put, whenever one has a space with a continuous symmetry, one also has a symmetry group describing the symmetry; these are essentially the Lie groups. One may define a ] on such spaces, and then study the eigenfunctions of the laplacian on these spaces. These solutions can be considered to result in "generalizations" of the ]. ] (]) 21:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

:BTW, moving further discussion to the talk page ]. ] (]) 21:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Dear Linas,

your edit summary noted having trouble imagining why the ] was previously rated "high". I suggested "high" per the criterion "has an important impact in other fields, outside of mathematics" (paraphrasing from my fallible memory), because of the conceptual importance of the result in ] and ]. I have not reverted and do not object to your change, but just wanted to explain why I suggested "high". In fact, after viewing the other "B-Plus class articles, I agree that the Shapley-Folkman lemma's importance fits better with the other "Mid" priority articles.

In contrast, I rated its importance as only "mid" in economics, per the economics criterion that this subject is encountered by graduate students but not by undergraduates or by the general public, in contrast.

Best regards, ] (]) 23:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

:Sorry, I ranked it "mid" only because ranking it "low" would be rude .. but seriously, this is of low importance to mathematics. To be "high", it would have to be covered in hundreds of textbooks, fill the pages of the various pop-sci books and magazines on a regular basis, and maybe the topic of a few best-selling books by Nobel-prize-winning authors. The topic fails miserably in this criteria; I don't even see how it deserves "mid" importance. ] (]) 00:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
::The criteria you mention have no basis in WP policy, particularly in its mathematics project. However, the SF lemma appears in the 2 best (and only standard) microeconomic textbooks, which are listed (Mas-Collel, Green, and Whinston (?) and Varian.
::'''Exercise'''. The Shapley-Folkman lemma generalizes ], which is a prototype for MSC 52A35, geometric transversality theorem.
::For a humility-check, the SF lemma has inspired work by some mathematicians like, e.g. J.W.S. Cassels, Roger Howe, Lloyd Shapley, Jon Folkman, Ivar Ekeland, besides the probabilists and econonists mentioned, some of whom have already won the Nobel prize in economics---there being no Nobel prize in mathematics. ] (]) 01:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
:::As far as I know, the topic of ''every'' WP math article, including those ranked of 'low' importance, appears in multiple textbooks; I think its fairly safe to say that pretty much every such topic has inspired work by distinguished individuals, however humble or acclaimed they may be, as well as having served as the foundation for homework exercises. ] (]) 01:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Well said. ] (]) 23:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

== Periodic Zeta function ==

Hi! Here you added expression for periodic zeta function using polylogarithm. Are you sure it is not a type, since in the reference provided it's polygamma.--] (]) 12:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
:Yeah, I just removed the mathworld ref just now; the polygamma is clearly wrong.] (]) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

== bug in Bernoulli polynomial diagram ==

Hi -- the diagram of the Bernoulli polynomials that you contributed at ] is wrong because the constant terms of the even-numbered polynomials are truncated by gnuplot's integer arithmetic. The values of the even-numbered polynomials at x = 0 and x = 1 should be the Bernoulli numbers; in your diagram they are 0. You need to calculate the constant terms with floating-point arithmetic (e.g. by adding a decimal point). Can you upload a corrected version? I don't have gnuplot running here. ] (]) 00:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

:Huh. Indeed, you are right. Although .. I changed to flt pt, and there was no discernible change to the image, because the the values at 0,1 are so tiny compared to the y-axis scale. I changed the x-axis scale to graph only between zero, one; I should have done this off-the-bat, as it helps enmphasize the convergence to sine, cosine. Due to image caching, the change might not be immediately visible, though. Click on the image to get the new version. ] (]) 18:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

:: Thanks for making the change. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier, but now that the plots are right I noticed that the colours are extremely difficult to tell apart -- the two shades of green and the two shades of blue look almost the same on my screen. I think you can change the colors by adding 'lt rgb "#RRGGBB"' after the linewidths. ] (]) 05:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:::Yeah, the colors bugged me too, but I didn't know how to change them. I found a pink & ochre that seemed to contrast ... ] (]) 14:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

::::Much clearer now. But you didn't change the gnuplot code :-) ] (]) 15:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

== Zero mass particle ==

Good day! I can not to understand some thoughts. What is relativistic Lagrangian?

When relativistic effects are significant, the action of a point particle of mass ''m'' travelling a ] ''C'' parametrized by the ] <math>\tau</math> is
:<math>S = - m c^2 \int_{C} \, d \tau </math>.

If instead, the particle is parametrized by the coordinate time ''t'' of the particle and the coordinate time ranges from ''t''<sub>1</sub> to ''t''<sub>2</sub>, then the action becomes
:<math>\int_{t1}^{t2} L \, dt</math>

where the ] is
:<math>L = - m c^2 \sqrt {1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}</math>

If the m=0 (for instance ''photon'') its proper time τ is also 0. So ''S==0''. For all ''L''.

Am I right?

So Lagrangian for photon must be '''indefinite'''.

But we know that Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is:
The resulting Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is:

:<math>\mathcal{L} = - \rho \phi + \vec{j} \cdot \vec{A} + {\epsilon_0 \over 2} {E}^2 - {1 \over {2 \mu_0}} {B}^2 .</math>

First and second term is interaction between photon and other particles. But other terms we can consider as Lagrangian for photon.

I see the contradiction. From the one hand we can not define it, but from the other we can!!! What is real Lagrangian for photon!!

Thank you very much for explaining me!! ] (]) 12:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

:Hi, Yes. The first lagrangian that you give is for a "classical relativistic point particle". It looks correct to me. In classical mechanics, point particles are always massive, there is no such thing as a "massless" classical point particle. Now, the photon is a ''quantum mechanical'' particle, and as a ''particle'', the only correct way is with a quantum field Lagrangian (which you did not write down). There is no such thing as a "classical photon". The second Lagrangian that you wrote down is for the ''classical'' electromagnetic field, and not the quantum field. In what you wrote down, E and B are classical fields, not quantum fields, and j and rho are classical currents and charges, and are not particles. So, this is wrong:
::''First and second term is interaction between photon and other particles.''
:No. It is the interaction between the classical electromagnetic field, and classical charges/currents. There are no particles here.
::''But other terms we can consider as Lagrangian for photon.''
:This is wrong; there is no photon here. In order to talk about photons, one must quantize the fields; the full second-quantized field theory is a lot more complicated; see ] for basic details. The ] that describes the second-quantized electromagnetic field (i.e. "photons") interacting with a ''classical'' current j is
::<math>Z(j^\mu) = \int DA \exp(\frac{i}{\hbar} \int d^4x j^\mu A_\mu + \frac{1}{4\pi}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu})</math>
:Note that the integral DA is performed over ''all possible'' field configurations of the ] A. This is a ] and is very very "large". Only in this way is it possible to get "photons". The <math>F_{\mu\nu}</math> is the ]. ] (]) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Thanks a lot! Now I totally understand all my errors! ] (]) 09:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

== Autopatrolled ==

]
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the ] permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting ]. Please remember:
*This permission does not give you any special status or authority
*Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
*You may wish to display the {{tl|Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{tl|User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
*If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
:If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! ] 14:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

== Casimir invariant ==

You wrote, "Superficially, topological quantum numbers form an exception to this pattern; although deeper theories hint that these are two facets of the same phenomenon." What deeper theories? ] (]) 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:I probably had in mind results from string theory/knot theory/M-theory/calabi-yau/quantum lie groups but can't easily/quickly remember whatever it was that prompted this edit. Sorry :-) ] (]) 21:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

::I realize that the above is a horrible answer; for which I doubly apologize. It has been a very long tie since I've thought about such things. Probably the easiest/most direct readings where these ideas would occur would be in the calabi-yau texts, in quantum lie groups, and in non-commutative algebra. Strictly speaking, one is no longer dealing strictly with Lie groups any more, but with various generalizations or similarly-behaved structures. Again, sorry. If something pops into my head later on, I'll try to put it down. ] (]) 22:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

==Young Symmetrizer==

"image of a_\lambda" The image of a_\lambda is one element, one endomorphism of a tensor power of V. That is, the image of a_\lambda under CS_n -> End (VxV...xV) is an endomorphism of VxVx...xV.

Do you mean the image of that? I guess you probably do. The wording is just slightly confusing, should explain it in 2 steps. I'll bet that you were thinking 'the image of the image of a_\lambda' but it is unfortunately a bit elided, which is going to confuse a lot of people....at least it confused me until I thought a lot about what you meant by that cryptic phrase.
] (]) 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

:Not sure, I'd have to study it again. ] (]) 01:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

== Satisfiability ==

In the article on satisfaction, you added text about a theory being convergent, but you linked it to ], which describes a proeprty of rewriting operations, not a property of theories. I left some other comments on the talk page of that article. Could you make sure that the language you add to the article is formally correct? &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
:OK. ] (]) 22:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

== July 2011 ==
] Please do not add or change content without ] it by citing ], as you did to ]. Please review the guidelines at ] and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-unsourced2 --> — ] ] 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

:I would appreciate it if you discussed your concerns on the talk page of that article. Blanking it whole-sale, as you did, and in particular, blanking the primary section, which provides the main narrative, is wrong. This folklore is a common topic in children's textbooks, and is central to American mythology. To just blank it out, leaving nothing but an uninformative shell, is bad.

:An article about John Henry should actually explain the myth, the folklore, itself. As it is, your edits left only a section that offers some poorly-grounded, vague historical speculation. The speculative grounding in history is utterly unimportant to the myth, its just some boring pedantic footnote! It shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog! ] (]) 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

== August 2011 ==
] Please do not add ] content, as you did to ]. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. If you continue to do so, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-unsourced3 -->

''The material in question has been tagged for some time, and editors have been bringing their concerns about it to the talk page for some time, but you have not seen fit to chime in on those discussions except to say that uncited material should be retained and that the cited material needs to be deleted because it's drivel.

''The ] policy is really a very easy one to comply with, and I hope you'll take the opportunity to do so. '' — ] ] 20:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

:Here's a brilliant opportunity for me to be uncivil to another asshole editor who makes wikipedia such a bad place to work in. Let me put it plainly: you, Mr. bdb484, represent the very epitomy of what is wrong with wikipedia. You are exactly the kind of person who makes this a shitty place to do editing. So let me get to the uncivility fortwith: fuck off, asshole. Leave me alone! I do so wish that the wikipedia admins would ban you, but, alas, they will ban me. Oh well. ] (]) 03:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

== Unification ==

Respect for your important addition about partial orders on the Unification article.
And for leading me to the John Henry article where I've left my discussion on how condescending the article is. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Carlson's theorem ==

Hi,

I am sorry, I do not really understand the statement in ] (which you wrote). Could you please formulate it more precisely?

Thanks,
] (]) 20:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

:I guess I don't understand what you don't understand. Are you asking for a proof? ... Ahh, I think see the source of confusion. Imagine a counter-example: for example f(z) sin(&pi; z): then all finite differences vanish, but of course f(z) is not zero. ] (]) 17:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

:: Well, I do not exactly understand the statement. What I more or less understand is that if ''f'' is a function that obeys some conditions (e.g. the conditions of Carlson's theorem), then it is equal to its Newton series, if it converges. Is this what you mean? I am not sure ''uniqueness'' is the best term for this statement, but I won't insist on this.
::I tried to reformulate it myself, but I was not sure that I do not change the meaning (and I did not find a good reference), so I thought it is easier to ask you.
:: Thanks, ] (]) 23:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

== ANI notice ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:The ANI thread has been archived ], in case you didn't see it, Linas. I have also rewritten ], restoring much of what was deleted. &mdash; ]'']'' 16:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

::Thank you very much! The article looks very much like what I'd expect it to be; the lead paragraph in particular being a model of clarity and conciseness.] (]) 17:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

==New Page Patrol survey==
{| style="background-color: #dfeff3; border: 4px solid #bddff2; width:100%" cellpadding="5"
| ]
<big>'''New page patrol – ''Survey Invitation'''''</big>
----
Hello {{PAGENAME}}! The ] is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
*If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
*If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
'''Please click to take part.'''<br>
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
----
<small>You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see ]</small>
|}

==Circle map==

Hello, I believe you created the ] (also known as the Arnol'd family), where you state that this family was introduced by Kolmogorov. Do you have a reference for this? ] (]) 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:No. Its likely a typo. I first saw it decades ago in a book by Kolmogorov, and am mis-remembering what I read (with Kolmorogorov presumably explaining work by Arnol'd and I just didn't notice the credit at the time.) ] (]) 17:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

::Ah, that is helpful. Do you remember which book this was? ] (]) 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:::No. It would have been an English translation of a Soviet book, I think from the 1960's, maybe later. It was big & fat, maybe even two volumes, on mathematical physics. A variety of chaotic systems were explored: rotors with weak springs attached, etc. I thought Kolmogorov was author/editor, but a google search shows no such results. It was a reasonably well-known book in the heyday of chaos theory (i.e. the 1970's/80's). ] (]) 17:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification==

Hi. In ], you recently added a link to the disambiguation page ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
:Argh stupid bot. ] (]) 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

== Inclusion of text in ] ==

Dear Linas, I would like to know whether you are still interested in ] and whether you would like to include text and reference describing my work published in the open access article . Please check ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

:I responded there. Including a short 1-2 sentence summary seems appropriate. ] (]) 18:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
:: Dear Linas, I provided a short 3 sentence entry. Please check if it is OK to be inserted in the main article. Thanks, ] (]) 07:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
::: I couldn't find the entry anywhere. I skimmed over your paper; you are not actually doing Feynmann sum over histories, you are doing classical sum over histories (i.e. you are doing first quantization, not second quantization). Technically, you should call this ] sum-over-histories, or, if you really insist, Bohr sum-over-histories, but since you don't even have a factor of hbar anywhere in there, you are not actually doing a quantum calculation, you are doing a classical calculation using quantum notation. So I don't know what to say... all this is just adding pointless confusion to an already confused topic. ] (]) 22:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

== Electric power transmission systems ==

] is a discussion, which articles should be included in the ]. Your opinion is appreciated. ] (]) 06:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for March 19==

Hi. When you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
:Corrected. ] (]) 15:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

== Minkowski function ==

Hello Linas, you don't know me, but I happened upon some of your work on the Minkowksi ? function, which I believe to be excellent. I am nearing completion of a result which is directly related (and I am certain you will find interesting), and I'd like to be able to hear your thoughts on it upon finishing. However, you are difficult to contact (by design; I'm the same way :) ), and so I am choosing to plan ahead. Perhaps you can contact me at my e-mail address, chri5ayre5 (note: these are 5's) at yahoo dot com? Also, if you'd like to, check out my website at www dotttt chrisjayres and then com; I have a wide variety of interests, as you seem to, and am finishing a PhD at UC Davis in Economics (specializing in the least-ridiculous subfield, Micro Theory/Game Theory), so your visit would likely not be a complete waste of time (no promises though ;) ). Chris 25 March 2012 ]

:OK, i just spotted this on front page. ] (]) 17:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for April 10==

Hi. When you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

== Hello Linas, The electron is now shown to be ==

Hello Linas, The electron is now shown to be gravitationally confined however, gravitational collapse is halted at the photon orbit orbit radius, so it is not a black hole, though it has a specific relationship to the Planck mass. See, http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/discussionpost/Electron_as_a_ring_singularity_56595
] (]) 13:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
:Whoopie!!] (]) 04:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

== JSD/Fisher info metric ==

Hi there, just started a discussion on ] re your edit there just for some clarification really, hope you can help. Thanks, ] (]) 21:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, its proportional. ] (]) 21:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
==Category:Introductory physics==

''']''', which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 09:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

:Linas, the wording of your notification at ] is an example of ]. Although I understand your frustration, you should use more neutral wording. You could use {{Tl|Cfd-notify}}, for example. ] (]) 05:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

::Wow. That is a whole lot of bull-hockey. The disruption of drive-by deletions is far greater than, far more dangerous, and far more detrimental to wikipedia, than any amount of canvassing ever could be. The canvassing policy is wildly misguided, and completely misses the point. The entire deletion process in wikipedia needs to be redesigned from the ground-up. ] (]) 02:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Canvassing is more likely to undermine your efforts to save the category (by alienating experienced Wikipedians) than support them. Remember that these CfD's are determined by the best arguments, not the number of votes on each side. ] (]) 03:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

::::Only one problem with that: the non-experts who are voting to delete are WP newcomers with little experience in WP or in the damage done by deletion; nor are they advancing any credible arguments. They are simply "voting". By contrast, the folks at the physics project are, for the most part, old-timers who have been here 5+ years, or more. I've been here 8+ years, and I've seen large numbers of top-notch, absolutely excellent, smart, highly qualified editors driven out by ugly, nasty, power-hungry administrators who enjoy inflicting pain and suffering, and using wiki-lawyering, quoting inane and assenine policies, such as the "canvassing" policy, to wreak their damage, and revel in their power. I myself quit editing for 3-4 years; its not rewarding when I have to deal with assholes, while all the good guys leave. I only came back this month, and why lookit -- already I'm embroiled in yet another stupid argument over an issue that should never be an issue to anyone who has ever even thought about it. And then to discover your polite-yet-still-insulting reprimands on my talk page!? What, exactly, is it that you think you are going to accomplish by making these remarks here? My admiration? Or do you get off on watching people squirm in pain and anger, and just can't help yourself from poking just a wee bit more, to see the spectacle continue? WTF. Bah humbug. ] (]) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for July 20==

Hi. When you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

:Fixed.] (]) 01:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

==About GnuCash==
Hi, I was just replying to one of your clarification requests on ], where I found a link to your biography mentioning you as one of the lead developers of GnuCash. As a user of ], I take this opportunity to convey a "Thank you!" for your development of a great and useful product. ] (]) 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you! (It's been a decade since I touched GnuCash, but the web server is still here, 3 feet away...) Back on topic, so, reading further down, it looks like the Lipschitz functions give weak convergence (they are explicitly mentioned in the 'weak convergence' section), and perhaps is it the case that the Radon ones are equivalent to strong convergence? Is it possible to spell out a specific relationship to the ]? Any clue if anything can be said from the ] point of view? I'm thinking that all this must be some variation of so inverse limit over some categories, but I don't know what these might be. (and I have been too lazy to google so far...) ] (]) 18:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for August 24==

Hi. When you recently edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ], ] and ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

== Carlson's theorem ==


Hi Linas, Hi Linas,


I have previously erased the section at Carlson's theorem because as stated what is written there is incorrect (and also unreferenced). I can more or less guess what the correct statement is, but I could not find a reference -- that's why I have left several notes at your talkpage long ago.
i discovered your wonderful modular group artwork.

As you correctly wrote, all the forward differences of <math>f(x) = \sin \pi x</math> vanish at zero. So if you want to make the statement at least approximately correct, you need to assume that ''f'' satisfies the conditions of Carlson's theorem!

Next, it is completely unclear what you mean by 'exists' and 'unique' (in fact, I think you use the terms opposite to standard convention).

So please reformulate and add sources.

Best regards,
] (]) 17:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
:PS I have not erased your sine example from the article, just moved it to the "sharpness" section. As there is no reason to have it twice, I have reverted your last edit (not the previous one discussed above, since I hope we could agree first). ] (]) 17:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
::OK, yes, the last edit and its appearance in the 'sharpness' section is OK. For the other statements, I don't understand what it is that you think is wrong, or why the usage of 'exists' and 'unique' are unclear... I am sometimes guilty of being very fast with edits, and thus, I sometimes introduce errors, but I just don't see what they are in this case. ] (]) 17:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
:::I am sorry, I really do not mean to be annoying, I honestly do not understand the statement. Do you mean to say the following: if ''f'' and ''g'' are two functions that satisfy the assumptions of Carlson's theorem, and have the same Newton series, then ''f''=''g''? ] (]) 17:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes. I think I see what the confusion is in the article, let me edit it to fix this. ] (]) 18:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
::::: perfect. Then I won't touch it until you are done. ] (]) 18:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::OK, I added a lot of extra details, I hope its clear now. ] (]) 18:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::No objections now, looks both readable and rigorous. ] (]) 19:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,

I noticed that you made edits to ] to remove the two examples, and to make the notation more dense and complicated. In general, we like to keep mathematics articles accessible, and so like to keep the notation as simple and direct as possible; this tends to help beginners with understanding the concepts in the article. Thus, for example ] notation is easier to read and understand than the more fussy and verbose statements about bounds and limits. Likewise, removing examples is also a bad idea. One of the examples that you removed had an edit summary of "mathematically incorrect", yet it is possibly the single most common actual application of Carlson's theorem. If you believe its incorrect, you should probably bring this up on the talk page; better yet, a quick review of the edit history would show that I'd created this content, and you could have asked me directly. Anyway, I restored the examples, I did not revert to the simpler big-O notation. ] (]) 17:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

: I am sorry if I made the article less readable, this was not on purpose. Still, correctness is also important, so let us try to agree on a version which is both correct and readable. My objections to what you wrote are listed above. And I did leave more than one comment at your talk page before making any changes, see ]. ] (]) 17:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::My apologies, then; I really did not understand what you were talking about, and I admit, that was a rather busy point in my life, and so I did not spend much time thinking about it. The article as it currently stands seems reasonable; if you still have issues, let me know.

::As to duplicating examples: that is OK, it can sometimes make an article more readable. Thus, in the beginning of an article, it is best to have a semi-informal "general idea of it all" section, explaining the concept in high-level but not quite precise terms. The following section can then give a detailed, formal definition that is mathematically precise. This allows the reader to stop reading early on, depending on what they were looking for, instead of hitting a hard wall of dense algebraic formulas. ] (]) 17:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

== Some follow up ==

Some follow-up on our previous discussions. You said to compute
:<math>\exp(\vec\tau\cdot\vec x)</math>
and
:<math>\exp(i\vec\sigma\cdot\vec\theta)</math>
which respectively give
:<math>\mathbb{I} + \left(\vec\tau\cdot\vec x\right) + \vert x \vert^2\mathbb{I}/2 + \vert x \vert^2 \left(\vec\tau\cdot\vec x\right) /6 + \vert x \vert^4 \mathbb{I}/24 + ... </math>
and
:<math>\mathbb{I} + i \left( \vec \sigma \cdot \vec \theta \right) - \vert \theta \vert^2 \mathbb{I}/2 - i \vert \theta \vert^2 \left( \vec \sigma \cdot \vec \theta \right) / 6 + \vert \theta \vert^4 \mathbb{I} /24 + ...</math>
However, I don't see what's particularly interesting about that.

Also, when you write <math> = L_3</math>, I am correct in assuming refers to the commutator? <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:Let me reply on your page. Hint: what is the expansion for sin x? For second question, yes, commutator. ] (]) 23:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
::Ah, I was trying to see some particular pattern common to <math>\exp(\vec\tau\cdot\vec x)</math> and <math>\exp(i\vec\sigma\cdot\vec\theta)</math>, if we're just focusing on the <math>\exp(i\vec\sigma\cdot\vec\theta)</math> expansion, then it's
:::<math>\exp(i\vec\sigma\cdot\vec\theta) = \cos(\vert \theta \vert) \mathbb{I} + i \sin (\vec\sigma\cdot\vec\theta)</math>
::As you said, it does look like Euler's formula (not very surprising considering it's we're taking the exponantional of something), but I don't see what's particularly interesting about that. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 18:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Ah, you want the form
::::<math>\exp(i\vec\sigma\cdot\vec\theta) = \cos(\vert \theta \vert) \mathbb{I} + i \frac{\sin (\vert \theta \vert)}{\vert \theta \vert}(\vec\sigma\cdot\vec\theta) = \cos(\vert \theta \vert) \mathbb{I} + i~\mathrm{sinc} (\vert \theta \vert)(\vec\sigma\cdot\vec\theta) </math>
:::Which is ''much'' more interesting. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 18:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yes. You are mixing x's and thetas. Also, a better place to divide might be here: <math>\hat\theta = \frac{\vec\theta}{|\theta |}</math> is the unit-length vector.

==Disambiguation link notification for August 31==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

:] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])
::added links pointing to ] and ]

:] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])
::added a link pointing to ]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 17:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

== Recent AfDs and ANI ==

There's an ANI thread: ] that is relevant to your recent comments on the AfDs. ] (]) 19:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

== Invitation to comment at ] RfC ==

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

''']'''

--] (]) 17:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

== Comment Moved ==


I have moved this here from the MHP RfC because of the following instruction in the RfC:

'''Note: Because prior attempts to resolve this conflict have resulted in long discussions with many endless back and forth comments, please place any responses to other editor's comments in your own "Comments from user X" section and limit your comments to no more than 500 words. If you wish to have a threaded discussion, feel free to start a new section on this talk page but outside of this RfC or on your own talk page.'''

Feel free to move it back to one of the allowable locations. --] (])

:Don't confuse counting arguments with frequentism. The 'simple' explanations here are counting arguments, not frequentist arguments. This has nothing to do with Bayesianism; there's no need to invoke 'priors' or 'ill-explicated pre-conditions': if something is 'ill-explicated', then turning it into a Bayesian prior doesn't magically make it 'well-explicated', nor any less 'hidden'. There is nothing wrong with using this problem to illustrate Bayesian-style reasoning, and indeed, the article already has an (opaque) section on this; none of the proposals are suggesting its removal. ] (]) 18:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

== Monty Hall problem RFC ==

Hi! Over at ] I assigned '''Proposal #1''' to your comments. If this is incorrect, please indicate "Proposal #2", "Neither", or "Abstain". Thanks! --] (]) 20:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

== Question for you at talk:MHP ==

Hi - Just to make sure you don't miss it, I've asked you a question . If you could respond there I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- ] <small>(])</small> 03:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

== September 2012 ==
] Please ] other editors, as you did on ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> ] (]) 21:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:Why don't you just fucking stop attacking me, you asshole? Did that ever occur to you as a reasonable position to take? Share the love, I say. ] (]) 03:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
::I see that you are an admin. You have a bad attitude, and you should certainly not have the privilege of being an admin. People like you are what make WP such an ugly, unpleasant place to be. Please take this personally: think about how you can be less violent, more constructive, and take on a more positive attitude. ] (]) 03:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

== October 2012 ==
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for persistent personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}, but you should read the ] first. ] (]) 03:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->
:Beeblebrox, you appear to be a personally involved admin. That at a minimum does not look good. Please consider reversing your action and bringing it through a more impartial channel. --] (]) 08:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
::I acted in my capacity as an administrator to warn Linas that personal attacks are not acceptable. (Now that I have had a look at his block log it is clear he was already very aware of that anyway) His reply was a very nasty personal attack. That I happened to be the target of it does not mean my block was a violation of the ]. I don't recall ever having interacted with him before issuing the above warning. Of course if Linas wishes to appeal this block a different admin will review that request. ] (]) 08:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm not talking legalities, per se. It doesn't look good. Take a day, think about it; I think you'll see that. --] (]) 08:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I thought about it ''before'' I did it. I don't need to run to another admin for help to block someone for behavior this blatantly unacceptable. If I warned him for vandalism and his reaction was to vandalize my userpage that would not mean I was suddenly involved, it would mean just what it means here, that he deliberately ignored a valid warning to stop engaging in behavior that the community has deemed unacceptable. I don't see any ethical dilemma there. ] (]) 09:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me. Beeble, you are the one who "personally attacked" me first: why would you think that I'm going to bend over and take it, and not complain? Why should I give you that pleasure? To stoke your self-image of a powerful individual, free to behave in any manner that you wish? There are bounds to reasonable, rational behaviour and you've certainly crossed one just now. ] (]) 16:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed | 1=Admin is out of control. He shows up out of thin air, accuses me of something I did not do. When I tell him off, he blocks me. This guy should not be an admin; people like him are ruining the general camaraderie of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC) | decline=You were engaging in personal attacks at ], you were properly warned about it, and you responded with a personal attack on the person who warned you. This is your fifth block for making personal attacks, so I'm not surprised it was made indefinite. But you can still get yourself unblocked if you commit to stop your attacking approach and do so in a convincing manner. In the short term, I suggest you walk away for a brief time and calm down. -- ] (]) 17:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed|reason=False accusations. I did not attack anyone on the wikiproject math pages. Those people are my friends; I work well with them; my editing on WP is almost exclusively limited to math pages. The accusation is ludicrous and fabricated. I believe that the the true reason for this block is retribution for a controversy arising from the serial AfD of dozens of math articles. These all ended with a speedy keep; this event was noted on the WP math project discussion pages. The nominator was an admin; his behavior is clearly a misdemeanor. In fact, that admin is known for this kind of behavior; there have been multiple proceedings against that admin; yet he remains an admin (which is perfectly shameful, BTW, you guys cannot control your own.) Beeblebrox is another admin, presumably a friend of the first, drunk on power, and eager to throw his weight around. This whole episode is a waste of my time, and of your time. Beeblebrox, and his buddy, should not be admins. Adminship should be reserved for people who are stable, capable of basic ethical judgments and able to carry out their duties in an impartial way. ] (]) 17:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
|decline=I see a systematic problem with civility, bad temper and a total lack of AGF from you. And your attempts at denying it just prove it further. Since you abused your right to appeal by posting more insults - this time against Beeblebrox, I've withdrawn your ability to post further unblock requests. ] (]) 19:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
}}
:In my view, , , and are personal attacks - incorrectly accusing someone of vandalism and of drive-by attacks, and calling them a "snot-nosed punk" are not acceptable in my view. Your response to a reasonable warning was also a personal attack too, in my opinion, and your latest unblock request also contains personal attacks. Adding to a long-closed RfA was also inappropriate. Having read the entirety of this talk page, together with some of the disputes you have been involved in in several other places, what I'm seeing here is another bout of anger. You're clearly a great contributor, and I'd hate to see you suffer further because of short term anger - so I really would strongly recommend a day or two away, and then come back in a more collegial and friendly mood. -- ] (]) 18:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
::Oh, by the way, for when you get unblocked (which I hope you will), if you wish to report an admin for what you believe is abuse of power, the usual places are ] or ] -- ] (]) 18:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
:::What it seems like we have here is a user who makes good content contributions but has an inability to control their temper when they see something they don't like, coupled with a bit of a persecution complex. When I asked him to stop with the personal attacks, which he very clearly did make, his response was "stop fucking attacking me asshole" as if this was part of some prolonged campaign of harassment by me when in fact as far as I know it was the very first time I had ever spoken to this user. plenty of users have (irrational) grudges against all administrators but they manage to express their concerns without throwing a screaming fit and accusing anyone who asks them to calm down of attacking them. Frankly the whole situation is quite ironic in that Linas' comments apply more to his own attitude than to those who he is so angry at. ] (]) 18:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Oh, and in response to the accusations of croneyism in the latest unblock request:I have no idea what AFDs he is referring to and no clue what admin he suspects me of acting on behalf of. ] (]) 18:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, ] is clearly misbehaving. That is what I say , which you take as a "personal attack". Saying that someone is mis-behaving should not be considered a "personal attack". It's not in doubt that he was misbehaving; clearly, he engaged in behavior that scandalized the rank-n-file. So I'm miffed that a statement of fact is taken as a "personal attack". In the second remark, where I say that he is engaging in "drive-by deletions": well: this guy had just nominated a dozen or so articles in a very short space of time; all the articles were kept with a speedy-keep. What else would you call this, if not a "drive-by deletion"? This guy does not edit math articles, and shows no interest in the topic, except to create AfD's. That's textbook vandalism. If the guy was not an admin, we'd all nod our heads and say "yup", and move on. But instead, we have this ruckus: I point out its vandalism, and it becomes a personal attack. As to the last one: , OK, I've never physically seen him, so don't actually know if he has a snot-nose, so I went too far, but, really, look, the guy has a bad attitude. This is the real world, look around: you can see people mis-behaving all the time. Shit happens. One deals with it. However, for these people to be admins, like Bbb23 is, and like Beeblebrox is, that's just wrong.

Look, I have no interest in starting proceedings against anyone; but you guys need to police your own. You have a situation like a corrupt police-force: most of the cops/admins are good, some are bad. I already had this kind of run-in years ago: the fallout from that is seen on my talk page, up top: a bunch of corrupt admins applying their virtual night-sticks to me. Its a form of police brutality, and yes, I am going to use foul language when I am being beaten. And yes, they will use use the foul language as an excuse to beat me some more. As the joke goes: "the beatings will continue until morale improves." You guys have got to get rid of these crooked admins. Do not ask me to do it for you. ] (]) 18:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
:For the record, nominating articles for AfD in an area in which you do not edit is not "textbook vandalism", as you will discover if you read ] -- ] (]) 19:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is not me, or BB23, or deletion nominations you don't like. The problem is ''your'' attitude. It is in fact people who grossly overreact to criticism, the way you repeatedly have, that drives away other users and makes them see Misplaced Pages as an unpleasant place. There is no context where someone politely asking you to stop making personal attacks warrants a response like the one you gave. There is no room for rage like that set off by such a small thing in a collaborative environment. things get nominated for deletion all the time here, as you must know. What if everyone reacted the way you did, resorting to attacking the person doing the nominating instead of arguing the actual merits of the article? Nothing would ever get done here if we all freaked out whenever we saw something we didn't like. I can see that you have made a lot of good edits to math articles and I honestly thank you for your contributions and would ask that you consider the possibility that it is in fact your attitude, not corruption, that has led to this fifth incidence of blocking for personal attacks. ] (]) 19:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
*Linas, I see you have had your ability to edit this talk page revoked - if you wish to make further appeals, you will need to see ] -- ] (]) 19:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

== Math question ==



Hi, I note that on July 14, 2005 you added a line to the article about spherical harmonics, saying that hypergeometric series can be generalized to give something (harmonic functions?) on any symmetric space. Later someone added a few references, however the references all seem to be to detailed and exhaustive lists of types of functions associated to symmetric spaces. Is there a notion that solutions of one of the variants of Laplace's equation often has a series expansion? A reference would be really nice if you know of one, or alternatively even some further explanation. (forgot to log in, I am createangelos)] (]) 11:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

:Sorry, but Lina's has been indefinitely blocked and is not able to edit this or any other page. You might try asking at ]. ] (]) 03:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


:Linas's user page still gives sufficient clues to contact him personally. --] (]) 03:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
==Category:Introductory physics==

''']''', which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 14:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
==Category:Elementary mathematics==

''']''', which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 23:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

== Please unblock ==

There is little chance that this plea will succeed... Obviously I'm not a charismatic writer: this is just a simple request.

'''''PLEASE''' unblock Linas''.

Experts in scientific, mathematical, any technical articles over time have been leaving WP so we need all the experts we can get. As most people should know, Linas is definitely a knowledgeable and valuable contributor to WP physics and maths in many positive ways: writing, diagrams/images, categorizing, proof reading, proposals/comments/suggestions on talk pages, founded WikiProject physics itself very early which has accelerated the transmission of ideas for improving physics articles since 2005. Very few editors have done as much as, or more than, Linas, for WP physics.

Rudeness/incivility is not the problem. Other very knowledgeable editors in the physics and maths WikiProjects can also be rather aggressive, but when the focus is on content, the aggression often disappears, or lasts a while then dies out. It's true that Linas' past reactions to admins have not made things better, but can we move on? If someone talks rudely then ignore it (except for extremely vile personally directed remarks or threats)? ]]] 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

*Two things:
:*Unblock requests by third parties are generally not considered. If Linas wishes to be unblocked he is free to appeal himself.
:*Incivility is in fact exactly what the problem was here. I am fairly tolerant of such things, but when a user's response to request to stop attacking other user after having already been repeatedly blocked for it is "Why don't you just fucking stop attacking me, you asshole? " yes, that is a problem, and is exactly the sort of thing that drives users away from this site. Being aggressive is one thing, making a habit of referring to other users as snot nosed punks, assholes, and so forth is something else, and it is not acceptable.

Unless Linas provides some reasonable assurance that this behavior will not recur there is very little chance that an unblock will be forthcoming. Of course another admin would review any new unblock request, but I doubt they would be any more willing than I am to look the other way at a long-term pattern of personal attacks. ] (]) 00:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

:I got curious and read most of the stuff about this mess. There seems to be two sides of this sad story. Linas perhaps has a bad temper, but as far as I can tell, there were no really disastrous personal attacks anywhere. The administrators arguments on this talk page are rather childish. What do you want Linas to do? Admit that he is a crook that deserves all the punishment in the world? I don't think he will because he obviously believes he is right - and have the right to believe that. You are losing a valuable editor. ] (]) 18:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
:: Linas perhaps will be unblocked, but Misplaced Pages will remain the same, with its stupid habit to impose heavy “cumulative” punishments. And with incompetence, hypocrisy, and irresponsibility everywhere, of course. ] (]) 19:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

:::FWIW, I've appealed three times. I've been told no three times. ] (]) 04:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


:::I support unblocking Linas. Legalities aside, I do not believe it was really proper (at the very least, it did not have the full appearance of propriety) for Beeblebrox to block him in the immediate aftermath of Linas using the heated language towards &mdash; Beeblebrox. Beeblebrox should have sought out an uninvolved admin. I don't care whether this is specified in the "involved admin" policy. He shouldn't have done it. --] (]) 04:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

::::It actually reminds me of a much more serious case from real life where a journalist has been held prisoner for 15+ years for writing something, without a trial.

::::The alleged "crime" in the present case is that Linas called Beeblebrox an ******** in a heated moment. I have called my best friends (and been called by them) much worse things, e.g. #¤%&¤%# and even !¤%". We might hold a 2-minute grudge (at the very most), nothing like an indefinite grudge.

::::The alleged "crime" aside, it's highly inappropriate for the "victim" to be prosecutor and judge in a "trial" with no defense attorneys. It looks bad, it smells bad, therefore it ''is'' bad. There is no excuse. ] (]) 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

== Gosh Numbers listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Gosh Numbers'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] ] 03:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

== Notification of automated file description generation ==
Your upload of ] or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions ]. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill-null--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 14:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

*Another one of your uploads, ], has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 14:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

::Both look correct to me. I cannot add any notes to those files. ] (]) 19:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

== Multiple errors in ] ==

If you are reading this, can you please fix or at least tag the erroneous section? The current article ] has a section "Example Algorithm (Discrete AdaBoost)" that is filled with incorrect formulas. It looks like someone was trying to crib them from cite-3, "A Short Introduction to Boosting" Yoav Freund, Robert E. Schapire but got them all wrong, misunderstanding the notation and the meaning of it all. ] (]) 19:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

== Missing content in ] ==

The article for ]s is missing the function for comparatives, e.g Comp = taller, Comp=fatter, etc. Can someone please fix this? ] (]) 15:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

==Desuspension==
Hi,

I have just noticed that you contributed a lot to write about ]. I have tried to write about ], an opposite operation. May you review my work? I am not a professional mathematician, but high-profile math has been my passion since my childhood. Cheers!

] (]) 14:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
== Module (category theory) listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Module (category theory)'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 20:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
==] nomination of ]==
]
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see ] for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on ] subjects and should provide references to ] that ] their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-nocontext-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ]<small>]</small> 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
== File:Divisor-summatory-big.svg listed for discussion ==
] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 11:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

==] has been nominated for discussion==

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''', which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. <b>]</b><sup> ]</sup> 19:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

== A goat for you! ==

]
Always looking what new things you discovered!

] (]) 22:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>

== Is the electron a small black hole listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Is the electron a small black hole'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> — <span style="font-family:gill sans">]</span> ] 23:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]

The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->

<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 12:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
== "Simp" listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Simp'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> —] (] | ]) 17:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

== Thanks for the nice images ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]

|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Graphic Designer's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | A token of gratitude for the many figures illustrating mathematical concepts, in particular those in ]. <i><b>]</b></i> <sup><small>] ▾ ]</small></sup> 21:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
|}<!-- Template:The Graphic Designer's Barnstar -->


Hope to see more of your figures in the future, should you return to editing in Misplaced Pages. <i><b>]</b></i> <sup><small>] ▾ ]</small></sup> 21:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

== A view from an outsider ==

Hi,

Firstly, a quick word about my credentials - I am aware of your work at ] with which a former partner used to run a small business with, through which I found some links to mathematics pages and criticism of Linux startup times (though I might have got that confused with someone else). So I am personally satisfied with ''your'' credentials. I struggled at A-Level Maths in school, and semi-regularly look at the ] YouTube channel to teach myself new things, such as the seemingly counter-intuitive claim that .

Anyway, I am also an administrator here, albeit one who greatly favours common sense over rules and regulations (which mirrors the sort of person I am in real life), and I ]. So, with that in mind, I am happy to try and get an appeal set up to get your main Linas account unblocked. The process is basically described at ] but in a nutshell, all you have to do is assert that you want me to do this, and I will go and set it up. ] ] ] 14:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
==] has been nominated for renaming==

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. –] (]]) 04:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
==Concern regarding ]==
] Hello, Linas. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that ], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for ].

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under ]. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request ] of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available ].

Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

== Your beautiful "phase of the j-invariant" image ==

Hello, Linas.

I have been looking at your beautiful image "phase of the j-invariant" and I had an idea.

Since j is a continuous function on the unit disk, and since a "circular rainbow" is a continuous mapping of the circle to the space of colors (see footnote<sup>*</sup>) ...

... the phase of the j-invariant does not need to display any discontinuities, '''except''' at isolated points.

Yet your image shows many line segments where the color varies discontinuously.

Is there any possibility that you might try to make another image of this which does not show lines of discontinuities?

—————

<sup>*</sup> If we represent the RGB (color) cube as <sup>3</sup> = {(x,y,z) ∊ R<sup>3</sup> | 0 ≤ x, y, z ≤ 1}, then consider the intersection of the plane x + y + z = 3/2 with the cube. This is a regular hexagon. Inside this regular hexagon is an inscribed circle. The colors corresponding to this inscribed circle form a lovely circular rainbow.

If for instance you are using 24-bit color (8 bits for each of R, G, or B), then suppose you have parametrized the circle described in the last paragraph by

C(t) = (x(t), y(t), z(t)) = (1/2, 1/2, 1/2) + r(cos(t) '''u''' + sin(t) '''v'''),

where r is the radius of the inscribed circle, and '''u''' and '''v''' are perpendicular unit vectors, each perpendicular to the main diagonal (1,1,1), and 0 ≤ t ≤ 2π. (See footnote<sup>**</sup>.) Then you could translate this to the usual R,G,B coordinates (i.e., 0 ≤ R, G, B ≤ 255) via

(R(t), G(t), B(t)) = (floor(255.999 * x(t)), floor(255.999 * y(t), floor(255.999 * z(t))).

Then at points z ∊ D where t = arg(j(z)), you would color that point using (R,G,B) = (R(t), G(t), B(t)).

—————

<sup>**</sup>
It is easy to check that r = √(3/8). The vectors '''u''', '''v''' may be taken as '''u''' = (-1, 1, 0) / √2 and '''v''' = (-1, -1, 2) / √6.

] (]) 23:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 15:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 4#Locally path connected}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ]]] 19:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

== Founding a Critical Project ==


{| style="border:1px solid gray; background-color:#fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size:x-large; padding:0 0.5em 0; vertical-align:middle; height:1.1em;" |'''The Physics Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align:middle; border-top:1px solid gray;" | Awarded for founding the Physics Project
|}
You were blocked indefinitely with good reason, but you still deserve this even if you never see it. -- ] (]) 03:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you. However, I was blocked for bad reasons, by a gang of corrupt admins who were eventually caught for repeated offenses, and were eventually banned themselves. They are now gone. I suppose I should droop my head and look apologetic, but I won't. I have a sense of pride. ] (]) 21:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
May i have permission to use one of your image, this one:
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&nbsp;The thread is ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice--> ] (]) 07:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
http://www.linas.org/art-gallery/numberetic/disc_re.png
for my article on Algorithmic Mathematical Art here:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t1/20040113_cmaci_larcu.html


== A barnstar for you! ==
Thanks.


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
Xah
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
xah@xahlee.org
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Resilient Barnstar'''
∑ http://xahlee.org/
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I am glad to see someone learn from their mistakes. Welcome back! -- ]<sup>] - ]</sup> 20:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
|}


:For the record: this is absolutely false. I was unfairly attacked by a gang of admins, who went unpunished for their attack. I've gotten no apologies. Yes, eventually, this gang was caught red-handed and busted up; most were banned, and their activities ceased. I am willing to put this in the past. I am not willing to accept a cover-up of the crimes of admins, nor accept the insinuation that I was the guilty party in all this. ] (]) 21:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


== Welcome back ==
] 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I gather that, for the moment at least, you have chosen to go on as you were, so as a practical matter not much has changed, but it's good to have you "official" again. --] (]) 05:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
:Sure. Just give me credit (put my name next to it). The particular one that you picked is also already on WP, used to illustrate a few articles, its at ], and has a detailed explanation of what it is there. ] 13:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


:Thank you. See, however, the comments above. ] (]) 21:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. I've added your work with credit. Thanks for the explanation on wikip too. ] 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::Have you been able to recover your password? I suppose you could always make a Linas2 user or something if not, but at this point your static IP has only a few disadvantages compared to an account, and there is a lot of history on that page. --] (]) 21:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 2#User:67.100.217.179}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 00:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:55, 2 June 2024

Archive
Archives


"Was this reviewed?"

On Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) you wrote:

... much of the burden of revieweing edits could be improved with better tools. For example, I would love to know if one of my trusted collegues has already reviewed the same edit I'm reviewing. This would greatly reduce my review burden, and allow me to monitor many, many, many more articles. linas 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic idea. Do you know whether there is some ongoing discussion on such things? (Feel free to reply here; I'm watching this page.) — Nowhither 18:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect there is, but I know not where. I have noticed that the wikimedia software made an attempt at implementing something like this, but it was either a hack or mis-designed or incomplete. You can see this on newer wikimedia sites, for example . If you look at edit histories, you'll see red exclamation marks denoting unreviewed pages. But you'll also notice that any sockpuppet can reset them, ... so it really doesn't work correctly. So it seems someone thought about it, but I don't know what the status is, or where its going, or who is doing it. You'll have to look up the wikimedia folks.
Anyway, what I really want is actually fancier than what I wrote at the village pump, but I thought I'd keep it simple. I'd happily engage in a conversation with the wikimedia developers if you can locate them. linas 04:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
To clarify: This site runs the latest version of the wikimedia software, but the review system is turned off because it hurts performance. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, it could be written as a fancy SQL query, and that would make the lights dim. Is this MySQL or Postgres? I'm guessing there are ways to make this more efficient, by using status bits of various kinds, requiring table redesigns. No matter, I didn't like the way the red exclamation marks worked anyway; they weren't really useful. linas 14:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The WikiMedia sites are using MySQL. I was wrong by the way: the feature that you described is called "RC patrol", it's described on m:Help:Patrolled edit, and it seems that it was turned off because anybody could mark an edit as patrolled (as you already noticed, see also this mail and replies). I was confusing it with the m:Article validation feature, which is a more elaborate scheme that is disabled for performance reasons. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the links, I'll have to prowl around there a bit. My other bit of patrol paranoia is that it is easy to review only the most recent change; thus a "bad edit" could be hidden in the history and overlooked. Thus, I'd prefer to see *all* changes since I last looked. linas 04:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add WP:WPCS to your watch list

Since you wrote a fairly large amount of material in this area, I think your participation in some discussions would be very valuable. Having seen articles like lambda calculus degraded, I empathize with your concerns here. In WP:WPM it appears that a sufficient number of expert editors have formed a critical mass, so that WP:RANDYs don't have much luck in degrading most Math articles. Despite what the official policies might say, WP:CONSENSUS is often a game of numbers. Even though the talk page of a basic article like Function (mathematics) is pretty depressing given the amount of human resources that have been wasted in zero-sum games, some actual improvements did come out of the discussions there. Thanks. Pcap ping 09:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the invite ... I see from your page that you are "semi-retired" ... so am I. I plink on occasional articles but hardly have a "watchlist" -- too time-consuming/exhausting. linas (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User_talk:Pohta_ce-am_pohtit#Watchlist, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. We do not call editors idiots; "vandalizes" and "subtle vandalism" are not the term, see Misplaced Pages:Vandalism so you can learn what vandalism actually is. Also, see assume good faith regarding "brazen" as the only intent was to improve an article that still has referencing problems. Inline citation preferences aside, the existing citations are not uniform in format and even Misplaced Pages requires that, as does every academic journal I know, and that was the root of the problem. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fuck off, asshole. You did not act in good faith, you vandalized the article. People like you need to be outed and kicked out. linas (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for For strong personal attacks.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. tedder (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Linas, you've been here a long time, you've been blocked once before for such behavior. I know that you know the guidelines of Misplaced Pages, including WP:NPA. Please heed them. tedder (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I've never been blocked before. Let me be clear: Mr. User:Aboutmovies vandalized an article. Then he attacked the editor who fixed the article. Then, for good measure, he attacked me. Then I called him an asshole. Then he got you to block me. And your were sucked right into his game. So to summarize: Fuck off tedder. You are part of the problem, and not part of the solution. The sooner we get rid of fucking asshole admins like you, the better wikipedia will be. linas (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Surely you're going to undo these last couple comments, right? You can't expect to talk like that and remain unblocked. Wknight94 00:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, you (Linas) were blocked on 6 December 2007, for "Persistent incivility and personal attacks over a number of talk pages, was warned." Good times. I'm hoping you can settle down, comment on the content, and help us build an encyclopedia. tedder (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. I was never blocked on that date. The use of blocks by powerful admins against defenseless users is a highly uncivil, anti-social action. There is no way to interpret your action against me as anything other than a personal attack, by you, against me. You are wrong in every way, and it is well within my social rights to respond to you by using swear-words: you have already committed the far greater anti-social evil here, and you deserve all the opprobrium you can get. linas (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am planning on asking the above admins to issue an apology, to voluntarily relinquish their powers as admins, and to take a leave of absence from Misplaced Pages. I have started a formal complaint at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/User:Linas, but that appears to be the incorrect forum. linas (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Formal complaint filed at: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Attack by multiple admins upon User:Linas. linas (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I can see no abuse of power here by any of the involved admins to be honest, but as I mentioned on my talk page, you are free to initiate my recall procedure if you feel I should have my sysop rights revoked. –Juliancolton |  03:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You have violently abused your power, and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself. You should be ashamed to even post such nonsense as that above. You are ruder than any swear words could ever be, and yet seem to be utterly unaware of it. Please leave. I have asked you to leave me alone before, in very simple and plain english, but you don't understand. I now ask you once again: please leave: please leave me alone, please leave my talk page, please leave Misplaced Pages. You are a pox, you do not belong here. You should go away. linas (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if you feel that way. Insulting you was certainly not my intention. You are free to remove this post once you've read it, but I respectfully ask that you withdraw your attacks against me so we can work together to resolve this dispute. You seem like a constructive contributor, and I don't want to see you blocked further. –Juliancolton |  03:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Linas. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.- sinneed (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Having looked over the sequence of events, I find that the language used by Linas is completely and utterly unacceptable. A block for personal attacks would already be justified -- any continuation of this pattern will certainly lead to a block. Looie496 (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I was not aware that Linas had been blocked when I wrote this, and I apologize for giving the appearance of "piling on". Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This is all my fault- sorry, the block message should have automagically gone in before this thread. tedder (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Fuck all of you. We need a fucking lynch mob and get all of you fucking admins driven off of WP. We need to put edit blocks on every fucking single article on WP and shut you fucking assholes out. I'm tired of cleaning up all the fucking vandalism out of the fucking articles, and I'm tired of getting attacked by fucking assholes, like you, who don't have a fucking clue of what the article is about to begin with, and, because you're a fucking admin, should know fucking better then to fuck with none of your business. Fuck off all of you. 00:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked your account for 3 days for unacceptable personal attacks. You may contest this block by following the instructions listed at WP:APPEAL. –Juliancolton |  00:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to locate this discussion. I am pursuing actions against the admins involved in this drive-by shooting. linas (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I found it, it is located at: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive564#Nuclear_meltdown_at_User_talk:Linas linas (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am a "completely uninvolved" (though quite possibly still an arsehole) Administrator...

You may be aware that there is a discussion relating to you at ANI. Are there any points you would like conveyed there? I would point out that any comments along the lines that have recently been deleted are not going to be forwarded (and will likely be removed from here - though not by me - again), but if there are genuine gripes behind the avalanche of swearing I would be happy to either note them there or even review them to see if there is some underlying grievance I can address. I will watch this page, but as I am a Brit (as you can see by the way I spell arsehole - which does not seem to get the same reaction as "mule-pit") I may be a while in responding. Anyhow, the offer is there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much a dumbass to boot, too - I didn't check whether you are able to edit this page. You can email me if there is anything that you wish me to do for you, in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You have not committed any offense to me, I have no anger towards you. I choose to rain insults only upon those who have acted in unprovoked malice against me. Thank you for inviting me to the discussion. I appear to now be unblocked, and can participate in it. Where, exactly, is it? linas (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it, I think what' you are referring to is here (right?): Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive564#Nuclear_meltdown_at_User_talk:Linas Pretty darn cowardly of them to organize a "nuclear attack" on me from the shelter of their obscure little corner of WP. linas (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
That indeed was it. I made the original offer in ignorance of you being unable to edit this page - so by the time you were able to respond the matter refered to had been archived. Nevertheless, if you wish to use the services of an admin who has no previous interaction with you (perhaps as a sounding board or similar) then feel free to contact me. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

ANI thread regarding you at WP:ANI#User:Linas again. Wknight94 03:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For those of you who are English language impaired: "Fuck off" means "leave me alone". Don't believe me? Google it. What part of "fuck off" don't you understand? What is wrong with you people? Jeez. Go jump off a cliff. Go fly a kite. Get lost. Leave. Stop harassing me. linas (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If I may kindly interject; please, linas, calm down. There's no reason for the attacks. I understand that you feel wronged, but you can't beat these guys with harsh language or make them reconsider. All you're doing is inviting more abuse. The more you justify it, the more you ask to get gang-banged. Let me suggest, perhaps, a short break from Misplaced Pages to take a breather. If you don't feel that necessary, at least stop the profanity. Please? Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 04:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continued personal attacks directed at others, as discussed at WP:ANI. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  05:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that we have a code of conduct on Misplaced Pages, which applies to you as well. If you have a grievance against others, swearing at them and telling them to "jump off a cliff" is not acceptable under any circumstances.  Sandstein  05:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC) (Diff fixed,  Sandstein  05:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

I can't say with honesty that I agree with this block, but I'd like to let you know that my offer still stands, Linas. I'll keep a watch on your talk page for any replies, or you can email me if that's your preferred method. Please keep my offer in mind as an option! Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Linas (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Thanks for the offer, I didn't know I could edit anything when there's a block on. I honestly do not understand how these awful people got into these positions of power. From my point of view, I have been "gang raped" by four admins now. I fail to see why the "code of conduct" applies to me, but not to them. Worse, the infractions they are committing are far more severe than mere swearing/blue language I'm accused of. From my point of view, it would appear that a there's a lynch mob running around in Misplaced Pages, attacking inactive editors (you will see that my activity has been very low for the last year), and that the lynch mob acts with complete impunity: when I complained to the arb, they basically dismissed the case. They are either blind to this rather serious problem, or are unwilling or unable to deal with it. This is all going to be to the detriment of WP -- these wild and lawless gangs of admins are going to drive away editors who are knowledgeable and capable, while encouraging crazy editors to be more bold in their bizarre defacement attempts. I don't see any good coming out of this. ::In my case, I stopped being active a few years ago, due to this pernicious lawlessness and misbehaviour, and the lack of any workable mechanism to maintain article quality for any articles that are far off the beaten track. I felt that my time was being wasted; honestly, I have many projects I'm interested in, and WP became a loosing proposition; I simply found more important things to work on. I know I am not alone, and I am now saddened that the arb committee seems to also have lost its power and vision and simply cannot/will not control the mob any longer. Oh well. ::Anyway, you don't have to remove any blocks, its not like I'm going to increase my activity as a result. Maybe in a few years, after these admins have been driven out, and some sort of order has been restored. I dunno. Good luck till then. linas (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No reason given to unblock outside of manifesto. Syrthiss (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/User:Linas.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Take-down request

Please take down the blatant personal attacks on your user page. Thank you. Wknight94 16:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks on me. linas (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello, Linas. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tedder (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, Linas, when you've been blocked for personal attacks before, running around to multiple noticeboards complaining about incompetent/corrupt admins is unwise at best. Might I suggest you retract the comments before someone comes along with a 1-month block? I won't ask you to do anything more at this point than just take them down quietly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Linas and User:Linas/Leadership need to be taken down/refactored as well. Wknight94 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I've refactored the userpage to remove the names. Linas, whilst you're perfectly allowed to criticise Misplaced Pages, its admins or anything else on your userpage, when you start naming individual editors, you cross a line. Equally, I've deleted the sub-page - calling people "fuck brained idiots" also crossed the line. Thanks, Black Kite 17:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the section of your user page which violates WP:NPA against five fellow admins. You are strongly cautioned not to restore it or your user page will be reverted and protected so that you can't edit it at all. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I've restored it for now. Give me a bit of time on this, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Figures. I think you have it backwards. Can't you see that what you are doing is far worse, far more offensive, than anything that I've done? Don't you think that deleting random user page content is more offensive, and crosses a far more serious line, than using swear-words, or naming admins? (I certainly do: I believe you have committed the greater sin/moral wrong.) How am I supposed to tell people that "these are the admins who are abusing their power" when I am not allowed to use their names? How can I ask for a change in leadership without indicating which leaders are the ones that need to be thrown out? How can I even have a conversation when I get blocked from editing?
I don't understand why you admins feel that you are immune to criticism, can do anything you feel like, can cross any line you wish. Why am I held to a higher standard than you are? Shouldn't it be the other way around? The gag is a far greater crime then a few swear words. The gag is a far greater crime than a public naming and outing of the WP admins who are abusing their power. If Wkinight94 was innocent, and a good guy, he wouldn't be sitting here, attacking me ... again. linas (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not "random" user page content, it's content that consensus has agreed should not be there. I want to help you here, Linas, but if you're going against established standards, that will be hard to do. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Why should I back down? You are the ones provoking this argument. Stop provoking me, and I will stop being provoked. You can't kick someone in the head, and then say "quiet down now, and stop fighting", and expect them to respond in some cool-headed, coherent manner. You can't threaten someone with a block, and then say "hey don't feel threatened: cool down, act rational". But, hey, it seems that just about none of you guys seem to get this. So, if you feel like being a bully today, then block me for a month or whatever. Either that, or just stop bullying me. linas (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I tried. Sorry you didn't want the help. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite fine with personal attacks on your userpage. The forumshopping? Not so much. Please continue the conversation at ANI. tedder (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
@Linas: You can raise whatever issue you want in the proper venue and manner. You did that at WP:RFAR and were soundly rejected. Your own advice in such situations is to quietly slink off with your tail between your legs. Wknight94 17:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Why should I? You started this attack, why should I be the one to submit to it? Why can't you just leave me alone? Why do you need to bully me? linas (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
These people are actually trying to stop you getting blocked, as was I. But seriously, if you launch multiple attacks on people in your userspace, you shouldn't be surprised when they object to it. They will "leave you alone" when you stop doing it. Black Kite 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, its really hard to tell who is doing what. The last block expired recently; I cleaned up my user page, and *whammo* within an hour, the beehive has been stirred again, and I'm getting stung from all directions. linas (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think if you remove the attacks on named editors from your userpage, this will all die down straight away. It's got to be the best course of action, no? (Edit: I see Sarek has removed it anyway. If you say that you won't re-instate it, I think we can close this right now). Black Kite 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with proposal

I have read your complaint on the maths project page and had a look at what caused the argument. I completely disagree with you. You should count to ten and think to yourself before any new outburst "Misplaced Pages is the encyclopaedia any idiot can edit". There's no point in insulting good faith editors, you should explain the problem in a clear and coherent manner. There is no point insulting trolls and vandals, they feed on other's unhappiness. You're investing too much feeling into it all. Dmcq (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a good faith edit. You are right about the trolls, but apparently, a whole bunch of them are now admins, and that's a problem. Word of caution: someday, they will attack you. linas (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If not good faith then see my remark about not feeding trolls. Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I also looked at the situation. I got the impression that it probably started as follows: Aboutmovies searched for the string "beyond words" on Misplaced Pages to look for references to this new age publisher. Somehow he managed to miss the fact that he was messing with maths articles, and made his 3 silly edits. (Some things to consider: monoid is originally a philosophy term and may well be abused in new age; a large part of the general population will be unable to identify "Springer Verlag" as a publisher's name.) When he was reverted, he understood why and accepted this, but was in a bad mood. When you called him a vandal this was technically incorrect because he had done it because of inattentiveness, not bad faith. But of course it wasn't a good idea of his to template you for that. It was also a bad idea to discuss details of citation formatting etc. in such a situation, and there was a series of misunderstandings. I must say that I strongly disagree with the extreme escalation that happened in this case. This includes the silly blocks, but also your running to Arbcom and mediation and the words you used when doing so. It looks as if once you were blocked you lost the ability to see the situation with someone else's eyes. Hans Adler 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandal and "idiot" - let's not forget that: . Wknight94 19:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"a large part of the general population will be unable to identify 'Springer Verlag' as a publisher's name." This hit me like a sledgehammer between the eyes. You are, of course correct. You are equally correct that linas seems not to see things through the eyes of others, but I think this started because many didn't see it through the eyes of linas. Can there be people who don't recognize "Springer Verlag"? Of course, many. How many of them ought to be editing a mathematical article carelessly? Probably none. Can anyone with a clue take a look at Trace monoid and think it is a New Age topic? I doubt it. While "vandalism" might be too strong a term, I sympathize with Linas. Am I the only one recalling the move Rambo as I plow through this incident?--SPhilbrickT 18:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A better place for you?

Hi Linas. Your contribution to WP is really great; and it is really a pity that it will be somewhat spoiled, inevitably. However, what about Citizendium? Isn't it closer to your dream? (I write a little both here and there). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Citizendium isn't so bad. It's an excellent place for creating new content without too many distractions from other editors. Unfortunately this includes the pleasant ones, too. Hans Adler 21:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, CZ has serious drawbacks. This is why I write "a better place for you?" rather than "a better place for us all!". And this is why I am trying both wikis. Unfortunately, the approval mechanism of CZ is nearly idle. Worse, it should remain nearly idle (I would be glad to be wrong in this prediction). But anyway, if someone wants his writings to either stay constant or monotonically increase in quality, he/she should think about CZ. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(u/i)Don't go to Citizendium. Despite this recent setback, you have been such a driving force for Misplaced Pages's mathematics and physics articles that it would be a dreadful shame if you left. The high profile of Misplaced Pages does bring in a lot of idiots and drama ensues, but it also brings in more experts than even Citizendium, and a lot of high-quality articles, even very specialized ones, are the result. To respond directly to Boris, "constant" would seem to characterize the quality of Citizendium articles a little more than "increasing": they are by and large written by one (or in rare cases two) individuals. In the ideal scenario, Misplaced Pages is obviously a much more powerful paradigm: rather than being based on "I know this...", it seems to be based more on "I know this and you know that..." with the view that an article written by a mathematician, an engineer, a physicist, and a philosopher, might ultimately be superior to one written by any individual who is a self-proclaimed (accredited) "expert" on something related to what he or she is writing about. Freethinking characterizes Misplaced Pages, and to me you are the archetypal free thinker. Le Docteur (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In spite of the above approbation, I do disagree with some of the finer points of your edits overall: Informed disagreement is, of course, part of the Misplaced Pages cycle. Nevertheless, Misplaced Pages is obviously a better place for you (in my mind). There is a difference between informed disagreement and "cranks". Unfortunately the lovely bureaucracy that is Misplaced Pages (not!) is generally unable to distinguish between these two things, and it is quite frustrating. It is now, apparently, required that most editors here must consume "alphabet soup" lest they succumb to the barbarian hoards. A better course of action, I would like to think, is to report directly to a WikiProject. (This is similar to the adage in academia that the only way to get something done is with departmental backing... or somesuch.) I personally think that the way forward is to strengthen ties among project members. Le Docteur (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm dreadful at writing so Citizendum would be bad for me but for someone who's work will just degrade on wikipedia it could be better. This company I was in once had everyone in the company doing some tests on their own and then in groups. My manager said afterwards how this showed that together people did better and called on me to say how I had done. Actually I'd done second best in the whole company on my own and far better than any of the groups so perhaps I wasn't the best choice, I had to think quick and dissemble to get out of the position. I had been quite unable to get my group to agree with what I said and they'd done some really silly things. I though it was a pity and checked it out with the person who did best, what he had was he was much more diplomatic than me in dealing with people, and his group had also done better than mine. So overall I'd say if you're good enough the wisdom of the crowds isn't actually true. I like to try working with people and helping them do things better but you have a definite forte for getting a good article written. Dmcq (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

About "the lovely bureaucracy": leaders that are (say) mathematicians is an Utopian idea, be it in Misplaced Pages or in real-world politics. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Reliability interconnections

Hi, Linas. I proposed to merge Category:Reliability interconnections to Category:Electric power transmission systems. You could comment it here. Beagel (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD

Hi Linas, Have you seen Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#User:Linas/Lattice models and another below that I have not looked at yet? It looks like the nom did not advise you. Cheers, --Bduke (Discussion) 02:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. linas (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Boy's surface/Proofs‎

The article Boy's surface/Proofs‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Uhh, Who proposed this? Who posted the above to my talk page? Where is the discussion of the deletion? Jeez. linas (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

re Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Linas/Wacky thoughts

Please don't be paranoid. We have never met in wikipedia so there is no personal hidden agenda. I run into this page while doing word search. I do dislike the fact taht some people are turning wikipedia into a tool for socializing and self-promotion, which was not hidden in the nomination. However after reading the bottom of your user page I understand why you were so jumpy. Don't worry, I am quite far from evil "wikipedia leadership" and any other MMORPG. Twri (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Or not. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding User:Altenmann. Pcap ping 15:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Dang. Thanks for the notice! linas (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Temporary password emails

Hi Linas. I have left a message for you at Misplaced Pages talk:Security#Hack attempts/paranoia.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Networking

Hi there,

read a couple of your stuff on Wike(m/p)edia policy and partially agree. I am mainly active on the German version, so not so well known over here. I suppose, you don't read German, but if you do, I invite you to read and contribute to de:Benutzer:Fossa/Nebel. If you don't, let me know, if you are interested in an English version, if I ever get to one. I suppose you also know User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming?

Cheers, Fossa?! 07:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I had not seen that essay on "gaming wikipedia" before. I have no desire to play these kinds of political games. I want to be able to tell the truth, and to collaborate in a constructive manner. I am very disappointed to note that this kind of gaming seems to be implicitly/explicitly approved by Misplaced Pages management/admins -- many editors here seem to actually want to play this game -- its very nearly enshrined in "policy" on various policy pages. Culturally, its the wrong path to go down -- it consigns honesty and integrity to a low level of importance -- and allows asshole admins to fuck whomever they please. Perhaps its unavoidable for certain classes of articles -- but it is pointless and stupid with regards to science articles. linas (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that you are a mathematician, and the ideology of the natural sciences is "to tell the truth", as you put it. There are philosophical reservations to the "truth", which I am sure you are aware of. But suppose you want to tell the best model fit for reality (call it "the truth", if you wish), then you will not get around "playing games", that holds true for both wikipedia and science. Have you heard about Game Theory and/or Science Studies? To get to the "truth", social networking and "playing games" is absolutely indespensible. The Misplaced Pages establishment does exactly that, but does not admit that it does play games. Fossa?! 12:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, well, sure, but some games have better/more appealing rules than others. The rules of the current wikipedia game puts too much power in the wrong kind of people. Alas, I do not read German; maybe someday ... linas (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with the poor rules and the wrong people at the important decision-making positions. The question is only, what to change first: The network or the rules? I suggest, it's easier to first change the network first, but for that the right people need to be recruited into the network. Only with the "right" type of people at important network places you will be able to change the rules. In any case, I will in the future write everything bilingual, so count on you being bothered again. Fossa?! 16:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Electric power distribution systems

Category:Electric power distribution systems, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

HELP!

Anti-laser needs your help! Chrisrus (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about old edit to Event horizon

Hi Linas, in this edit from 2006 (differences from previous version here) you added the sentence "If the observer is lowered very slowly, then, in the observer's frame of reference, the horizon appears to be very far away, and ever more rope needs to be paid out to reach the horizon" and also the sentence "if the rod is lowered extremely slowly, then it is always too short to touch the event horizon, as the coordinate frames near the tip of the rod are extremely compressed." These sentences have survived basically unchanged to the present...but what was your basis for them? You seem to be saying that in some sense the distance to the horizon is infinite, but p. 824 of the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler textbook Gravitation says:

The divergence of g r r {\displaystyle g_{rr}} at r=2M does not mean that r=2M is infinitely far from all other regions of spacetime. On the contrary, the proper distance from r=2M to a point with arbitrary r is 2 M r | g r r | 1 / 2 d r = [ r ( r 2 M ) ] 1 / 2 + 2 M l n | ( r / 2 M 1 ) 1 / 2 + ( r / 2 M ) 1 / 2 | {\displaystyle \int _{2M}^{r}|g_{rr}|^{1/2}\,dr=^{1/2}+2M\,ln|(r/2M-1)^{1/2}+(r/2M)^{1/2}|} when r > 2M ... which is finite for all 0 < r < ∞

The "proper distance" found by integrating the metric line element along a spacelike path with constant t coordinate and varying r coordinate (analogous to the "proper time" which is found by integrating the metric line element along a timelike path) can be understood like this: imagine we have a chain of observers who are each hovering at some constant r-coordinate, each with only an infinitesimal distance to their nearest neighbors and with the chain stretching from infinitesimally close to the event horizon out to some distance R. Suppose that at a single t-coordinate each observer measures the distance between themselves and their nearest neighbor closer to the horizon, using a short free-falling ruler which is momentarily at rest relative to themselves. Then if we add up all these little measurements, the total will be the "proper distance" from R to the horizon, and as mentioned above it will be finite. It seems to me this notion of "proper distance" is also the best answer to the question of how long a rope lowered very slowly from R would need to be to reach the horizon, is there some other way of answering the question I'm not thinking of, or were you thinking that the distance as measured by a series of very short rulers (each instantaneously at rest in Schwarzschild coordinates) would actually be infinite? Hypnosifl (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delayed response, I don't get on WP very often any more. The sentences were trying to describe the differences between an adiabatic maneuver to get all of those observers in place, and free-fall. So, yes, if one just "uses a short free-falling ruler" to measure the distance between observers, one does indeed get the finite proper distance 2 M r | g r r | 1 / 2 d r {\displaystyle \int _{2M}^{r}|g_{rr}|^{1/2}\,dr} , as you point out. Rather, this was an attempt to address the question: "what is the length of an accelerated ruler?" Now, rather than measuring the distance between observers using free-falling rulers, one attempts to perform the measurement with rulers that are stationary with respect to the horizon, i.e. are being more and more strongly accelerated as they approach the horizon (the acceleration being provided by the tug of the rope). I believe that the right answer is that such rulers get strongly contracted, so much so, that this distance becomes infinite. Put another way, this is an attempt to explain why, in one frame of reference (the free-falling, proper-time frame) there is no singularity at the event horizon, while in others, there is. In particular, the amount of acceleration one needs to hover at the event horizon is "infinite" -- more properly speaking, "unbounded" as one approaches the horizon. This is the infinity that the dangling rope is trying to illustrate: the tip of the rope must undergo ever stronger acceleration as it approaches the event horizon, and the accelerated rulers become ever shorter. Unfortunately, I cannot give a reference for this.
BTW, there is a similar but different phenomenon for freely-falling observers. Suppose one observer, far away from the horizon, drops a blinking light into the black hole. This external observer would never see the blinker actually cross the event horizon! It would take "forever" to even approach the horizon. Basically, the external observer would perceive the blinking to get slower and slower, and the light to be more and more red-shifted, as the falling blinker approached the horizon. The red-shift, and the blinking become infinite as the horizon is approached; the external observer cannot ever see it being crossed. (Of course, the falling blinker hits the singularity in finite proper time). The dangling-rope thing is an attempt to illustrate the space analog of this time-based divergence. linas (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I copied all this to Talk:Event horizon which is a better place for this discussion. I also re-edited my reply there for more clarity. linas (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

I do not understand you idea : . As such, Legendre polynomials can be generalized (In what way?) to express the symmetries of semi-simple Lie groups (not SO(3)?) and Riemannian symmetric spaces. (not euclidic ?) Gvozdet (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry for the late response, I do not get on Misplaced Pages very often. This is not "my idea"; rather, there are papers, books and conferences on the topic. Simply-put, whenever one has a space with a continuous symmetry, one also has a symmetry group describing the symmetry; these are essentially the Lie groups. One may define a Laplacian on such spaces, and then study the eigenfunctions of the laplacian on these spaces. These solutions can be considered to result in "generalizations" of the associated Legendre polynomials. linas (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, moving further discussion to the talk page Talk:associated Legendre polynomials. linas (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Shapley-Folkman lemma

Dear Linas,

your edit summary noted having trouble imagining why the Shapley-Folkman lemma was previously rated "high". I suggested "high" per the criterion "has an important impact in other fields, outside of mathematics" (paraphrasing from my fallible memory), because of the conceptual importance of the result in economics and operations research. I have not reverted and do not object to your change, but just wanted to explain why I suggested "high". In fact, after viewing the other "B-Plus class articles, I agree that the Shapley-Folkman lemma's importance fits better with the other "Mid" priority articles.

In contrast, I rated its importance as only "mid" in economics, per the economics criterion that this subject is encountered by graduate students but not by undergraduates or by the general public, in contrast.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I ranked it "mid" only because ranking it "low" would be rude .. but seriously, this is of low importance to mathematics. To be "high", it would have to be covered in hundreds of textbooks, fill the pages of the various pop-sci books and magazines on a regular basis, and maybe the topic of a few best-selling books by Nobel-prize-winning authors. The topic fails miserably in this criteria; I don't even see how it deserves "mid" importance. linas (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The criteria you mention have no basis in WP policy, particularly in its mathematics project. However, the SF lemma appears in the 2 best (and only standard) microeconomic textbooks, which are listed (Mas-Collel, Green, and Whinston (?) and Varian.
Exercise. The Shapley-Folkman lemma generalizes Carathéodory's theorem (convex hull), which is a prototype for MSC 52A35, geometric transversality theorem.
For a humility-check, the SF lemma has inspired work by some mathematicians like, e.g. J.W.S. Cassels, Roger Howe, Lloyd Shapley, Jon Folkman, Ivar Ekeland, besides the probabilists and econonists mentioned, some of whom have already won the Nobel prize in economics---there being no Nobel prize in mathematics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, the topic of every WP math article, including those ranked of 'low' importance, appears in multiple textbooks; I think its fairly safe to say that pretty much every such topic has inspired work by distinguished individuals, however humble or acclaimed they may be, as well as having served as the foundation for homework exercises. linas (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well said. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Periodic Zeta function

Hi! Here you added expression for periodic zeta function using polylogarithm. Are you sure it is not a type, since in the reference provided it's polygamma.--MathFacts (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just removed the mathworld ref just now; the polygamma is clearly wrong.linas (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

bug in Bernoulli polynomial diagram

Hi -- the diagram of the Bernoulli polynomials that you contributed at Image:Bernoulli_polynomials.svg is wrong because the constant terms of the even-numbered polynomials are truncated by gnuplot's integer arithmetic. The values of the even-numbered polynomials at x = 0 and x = 1 should be the Bernoulli numbers; in your diagram they are 0. You need to calculate the constant terms with floating-point arithmetic (e.g. by adding a decimal point). Can you upload a corrected version? I don't have gnuplot running here. Joriki (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Indeed, you are right. Although .. I changed to flt pt, and there was no discernible change to the image, because the the values at 0,1 are so tiny compared to the y-axis scale. I changed the x-axis scale to graph only between zero, one; I should have done this off-the-bat, as it helps enmphasize the convergence to sine, cosine. Due to image caching, the change might not be immediately visible, though. Click on the image to get the new version. linas (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier, but now that the plots are right I noticed that the colours are extremely difficult to tell apart -- the two shades of green and the two shades of blue look almost the same on my screen. I think you can change the colors by adding 'lt rgb "#RRGGBB"' after the linewidths. Joriki (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, the colors bugged me too, but I didn't know how to change them. I found a pink & ochre that seemed to contrast ... linas (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Much clearer now. But you didn't change the gnuplot code :-) Joriki (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Zero mass particle

Good day! I can not to understand some thoughts. What is relativistic Lagrangian?

When relativistic effects are significant, the action of a point particle of mass m travelling a world line C parametrized by the proper time τ {\displaystyle \tau } is

S = m c 2 C d τ {\displaystyle S=-mc^{2}\int _{C}\,d\tau } .

If instead, the particle is parametrized by the coordinate time t of the particle and the coordinate time ranges from t1 to t2, then the action becomes

t 1 t 2 L d t {\displaystyle \int _{t1}^{t2}L\,dt}

where the Lagrangian is

L = m c 2 1 v 2 c 2 {\displaystyle L=-mc^{2}{\sqrt {1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}}

If the m=0 (for instance photon) its proper time τ is also 0. So S==0. For all L.

Am I right?

So Lagrangian for photon must be indefinite.

But we know that Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is: The resulting Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is:

L [ x , t ] = ρ [ x , t ] ϕ [ x , t ] + j [ x , t ] A [ x , t ] + ϵ 0 2 E 2 [ x , t ] 1 2 μ 0 B 2 [ x , t ] . {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}=-\rho \phi +{\vec {j}}\cdot {\vec {A}}+{\epsilon _{0} \over 2}{E}^{2}-{1 \over {2\mu _{0}}}{B}^{2}.}

First and second term is interaction between photon and other particles. But other terms we can consider as Lagrangian for photon.

I see the contradiction. From the one hand we can not define it, but from the other we can!!! What is real Lagrangian for photon!!

Thank you very much for explaining me!! Gvozdet (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Yes. The first lagrangian that you give is for a "classical relativistic point particle". It looks correct to me. In classical mechanics, point particles are always massive, there is no such thing as a "massless" classical point particle. Now, the photon is a quantum mechanical particle, and as a particle, the only correct way is with a quantum field Lagrangian (which you did not write down). There is no such thing as a "classical photon". The second Lagrangian that you wrote down is for the classical electromagnetic field, and not the quantum field. In what you wrote down, E and B are classical fields, not quantum fields, and j and rho are classical currents and charges, and are not particles. So, this is wrong:
First and second term is interaction between photon and other particles.
No. It is the interaction between the classical electromagnetic field, and classical charges/currents. There are no particles here.
But other terms we can consider as Lagrangian for photon.
This is wrong; there is no photon here. In order to talk about photons, one must quantize the fields; the full second-quantized field theory is a lot more complicated; see canonical quantization for basic details. The partition function that describes the second-quantized electromagnetic field (i.e. "photons") interacting with a classical current j is
Z ( j μ ) = D A exp ( i d 4 x j μ A μ + 1 4 π F μ ν F μ ν ) {\displaystyle Z(j^{\mu })=\int DA\exp({\frac {i}{\hbar }}\int d^{4}xj^{\mu }A_{\mu }+{\frac {1}{4\pi }}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu })}
Note that the integral DA is performed over all possible field configurations of the four-potential A. This is a path integral and is very very "large". Only in this way is it possible to get "photons". The F μ ν {\displaystyle F_{\mu \nu }} is the electromagnetic stress tensor. linas (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Now I totally understand all my errors! Gvozdet (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 14:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Casimir invariant

You wrote, "Superficially, topological quantum numbers form an exception to this pattern; although deeper theories hint that these are two facets of the same phenomenon." What deeper theories? Mporter (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I probably had in mind results from string theory/knot theory/M-theory/calabi-yau/quantum lie groups but can't easily/quickly remember whatever it was that prompted this edit. Sorry :-) linas (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I realize that the above is a horrible answer; for which I doubly apologize. It has been a very long tie since I've thought about such things. Probably the easiest/most direct readings where these ideas would occur would be in the calabi-yau texts, in quantum lie groups, and in non-commutative algebra. Strictly speaking, one is no longer dealing strictly with Lie groups any more, but with various generalizations or similarly-behaved structures. Again, sorry. If something pops into my head later on, I'll try to put it down. linas (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Young Symmetrizer

"image of a_\lambda" The image of a_\lambda is one element, one endomorphism of a tensor power of V. That is, the image of a_\lambda under CS_n -> End (VxV...xV) is an endomorphism of VxVx...xV.

Do you mean the image of that? I guess you probably do. The wording is just slightly confusing, should explain it in 2 steps. I'll bet that you were thinking 'the image of the image of a_\lambda' but it is unfortunately a bit elided, which is going to confuse a lot of people....at least it confused me until I thought a lot about what you meant by that cryptic phrase. Createangelos (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, I'd have to study it again. linas (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Satisfiability

In the article on satisfaction, you added text about a theory being convergent, but you linked it to Convergence (logic), which describes a proeprty of rewriting operations, not a property of theories. I left some other comments on the talk page of that article. Could you make sure that the language you add to the article is formally correct? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. linas (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to John Henry (folklore). Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you discussed your concerns on the talk page of that article. Blanking it whole-sale, as you did, and in particular, blanking the primary section, which provides the main narrative, is wrong. This folklore is a common topic in children's textbooks, and is central to American mythology. To just blank it out, leaving nothing but an uninformative shell, is bad.
An article about John Henry should actually explain the myth, the folklore, itself. As it is, your edits left only a section that offers some poorly-grounded, vague historical speculation. The speculative grounding in history is utterly unimportant to the myth, its just some boring pedantic footnote! It shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog! linas (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to John Henry (folklore). This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

The material in question has been tagged for some time, and editors have been bringing their concerns about it to the talk page for some time, but you have not seen fit to chime in on those discussions except to say that uncited material should be retained and that the cited material needs to be deleted because it's drivel.

The verifiability policy is really a very easy one to comply with, and I hope you'll take the opportunity to do so. Bdb484 (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a brilliant opportunity for me to be uncivil to another asshole editor who makes wikipedia such a bad place to work in. Let me put it plainly: you, Mr. bdb484, represent the very epitomy of what is wrong with wikipedia. You are exactly the kind of person who makes this a shitty place to do editing. So let me get to the uncivility fortwith: fuck off, asshole. Leave me alone! I do so wish that the wikipedia admins would ban you, but, alas, they will ban me. Oh well. linas (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Unification

Respect for your important addition about partial orders on the Unification article. And for leading me to the John Henry article where I've left my discussion on how condescending the article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ODogerall (talkcontribs) 01:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Carlson's theorem

Hi,

I am sorry, I do not really understand the statement in Carlson's_theorem#Applications (which you wrote). Could you please formulate it more precisely?

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand what you don't understand. Are you asking for a proof? ... Ahh, I think see the source of confusion. Imagine a counter-example: for example f(z) sin(π z): then all finite differences vanish, but of course f(z) is not zero. linas (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I do not exactly understand the statement. What I more or less understand is that if f is a function that obeys some conditions (e.g. the conditions of Carlson's theorem), then it is equal to its Newton series, if it converges. Is this what you mean? I am not sure uniqueness is the best term for this statement, but I won't insist on this.
I tried to reformulate it myself, but I was not sure that I do not change the meaning (and I did not find a good reference), so I thought it is easier to ask you.
Thanks, Sasha (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdb484 (talkcontribs)

The ANI thread has been archived here, in case you didn't see it, Linas. I have also rewritten John Henry (folklore), restoring much of what was deleted. — Scientizzle 16:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! The article looks very much like what I'd expect it to be; the lead paragraph in particular being a model of clarity and conciseness.linas (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Linas! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Circle map

Hello, I believe you created the article on the standard family of circle maps (also known as the Arnol'd family), where you state that this family was introduced by Kolmogorov. Do you have a reference for this? LR (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Its likely a typo. I first saw it decades ago in a book by Kolmogorov, and am mis-remembering what I read (with Kolmorogorov presumably explaining work by Arnol'd and I just didn't notice the credit at the time.) linas (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that is helpful. Do you remember which book this was? LR (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
No. It would have been an English translation of a Soviet book, I think from the 1960's, maybe later. It was big & fat, maybe even two volumes, on mathematical physics. A variety of chaotic systems were explored: rotors with weak springs attached, etc. I thought Kolmogorov was author/editor, but a google search shows no such results. It was a reasonably well-known book in the heyday of chaos theory (i.e. the 1970's/80's). linas (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Reduction (mathematics), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Reduction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Argh stupid bot. linas (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of text in Afshar experiment

Dear Linas, I would like to know whether you are still interested in Afshar experiment and whether you would like to include text and reference describing my work published in the open access article Danko Georgiev (2012). Quantum Histories and Quantum Complementarity. ISRN Mathematical Physics Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 327278, 37 pages. Please check Talk:Afshar_experiment#Classical_optics_vs._Quantum_optics. Thanks, Danko Georgiev (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I responded there. Including a short 1-2 sentence summary seems appropriate. linas (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Linas, I provided a short 3 sentence entry. Please check if it is OK to be inserted in the main article. Thanks, Danko Georgiev (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find the entry anywhere. I skimmed over your paper; you are not actually doing Feynmann sum over histories, you are doing classical sum over histories (i.e. you are doing first quantization, not second quantization). Technically, you should call this Christiaan Huygens sum-over-histories, or, if you really insist, Bohr sum-over-histories, but since you don't even have a factor of hbar anywhere in there, you are not actually doing a quantum calculation, you are doing a classical calculation using quantum notation. So I don't know what to say... all this is just adding pointless confusion to an already confused topic. linas (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Electric power transmission systems

There is a discussion, which articles should be included in the category:Electric power transmission systems. Your opinion is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. When you recently edited Occam's razor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scholastic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. linas (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Minkowski function

Hello Linas, you don't know me, but I happened upon some of your work on the Minkowksi ? function, which I believe to be excellent. I am nearing completion of a result which is directly related (and I am certain you will find interesting), and I'd like to be able to hear your thoughts on it upon finishing. However, you are difficult to contact (by design; I'm the same way :) ), and so I am choosing to plan ahead. Perhaps you can contact me at my e-mail address, chri5ayre5 (note: these are 5's) at yahoo dot com? Also, if you'd like to, check out my website at www dotttt chrisjayres and then com; I have a wide variety of interests, as you seem to, and am finishing a PhD at UC Davis in Economics (specializing in the least-ridiculous subfield, Micro Theory/Game Theory), so your visit would likely not be a complete waste of time (no promises though ;) ). Chris 25 March 2012 Special:Contributions/76.105.6.157

OK, i just spotted this on front page. linas (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. When you recently edited Variation of information, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metric (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Linas, The electron is now shown to be

Hello Linas, The electron is now shown to be gravitationally confined however, gravitational collapse is halted at the photon orbit orbit radius, so it is not a black hole, though it has a specific relationship to the Planck mass. See, http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/discussionpost/Electron_as_a_ring_singularity_56595 DonJStevens (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoopie!!linas (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

JSD/Fisher info metric

Hi there, just started a discussion on Talk:Jensen–Shannon divergence re your edit there just for some clarification really, hope you can help. Thanks, Amkilpatrick (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, its proportional. linas (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Introductory physics

Category:Introductory physics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brad7777 (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Linas, the wording of your notification at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics is an example of canvassing. Although I understand your frustration, you should use more neutral wording. You could use {{Cfd-notify}}, for example. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow. That is a whole lot of bull-hockey. The disruption of drive-by deletions is far greater than, far more dangerous, and far more detrimental to wikipedia, than any amount of canvassing ever could be. The canvassing policy is wildly misguided, and completely misses the point. The entire deletion process in wikipedia needs to be redesigned from the ground-up. linas (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Canvassing is more likely to undermine your efforts to save the category (by alienating experienced Wikipedians) than support them. Remember that these CfD's are determined by the best arguments, not the number of votes on each side. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Only one problem with that: the non-experts who are voting to delete are WP newcomers with little experience in WP or in the damage done by deletion; nor are they advancing any credible arguments. They are simply "voting". By contrast, the folks at the physics project are, for the most part, old-timers who have been here 5+ years, or more. I've been here 8+ years, and I've seen large numbers of top-notch, absolutely excellent, smart, highly qualified editors driven out by ugly, nasty, power-hungry administrators who enjoy inflicting pain and suffering, and using wiki-lawyering, quoting inane and assenine policies, such as the "canvassing" policy, to wreak their damage, and revel in their power. I myself quit editing for 3-4 years; its not rewarding when I have to deal with assholes, while all the good guys leave. I only came back this month, and why lookit -- already I'm embroiled in yet another stupid argument over an issue that should never be an issue to anyone who has ever even thought about it. And then to discover your polite-yet-still-insulting reprimands on my talk page!? What, exactly, is it that you think you are going to accomplish by making these remarks here? My admiration? Or do you get off on watching people squirm in pain and anger, and just can't help yourself from poking just a wee bit more, to see the spectacle continue? WTF. Bah humbug. linas (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. When you recently edited Fubini–Study metric, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mixed state (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.linas (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

About GnuCash

Hi, I was just replying to one of your clarification requests on Convergence of measures, where I found a link to your biography mentioning you as one of the lead developers of GnuCash. As a user of GnuCash, I take this opportunity to convey a "Thank you!" for your development of a great and useful product. Piyush (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! (It's been a decade since I touched GnuCash, but the web server is still here, 3 feet away...) Back on topic, so, reading further down, it looks like the Lipschitz functions give weak convergence (they are explicitly mentioned in the 'weak convergence' section), and perhaps is it the case that the Radon ones are equivalent to strong convergence? Is it possible to spell out a specific relationship to the weak topology? Any clue if anything can be said from the category-theoretic point of view? I'm thinking that all this must be some variation of so inverse limit over some categories, but I don't know what these might be. (and I have been too lazy to google so far...) linas (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. When you recently edited Special linear Lie algebra, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hyperbolic plane, Chaos and Adjoint representation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Carlson's theorem

Hi Linas,

I have previously erased the section at Carlson's theorem because as stated what is written there is incorrect (and also unreferenced). I can more or less guess what the correct statement is, but I could not find a reference -- that's why I have left several notes at your talkpage long ago.

As you correctly wrote, all the forward differences of f ( x ) = sin π x {\displaystyle f(x)=\sin \pi x} vanish at zero. So if you want to make the statement at least approximately correct, you need to assume that f satisfies the conditions of Carlson's theorem!

Next, it is completely unclear what you mean by 'exists' and 'unique' (in fact, I think you use the terms opposite to standard convention).

So please reformulate and add sources.

Best regards, Sasha (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

PS I have not erased your sine example from the article, just moved it to the "sharpness" section. As there is no reason to have it twice, I have reverted your last edit (not the previous one discussed above, since I hope we could agree first). Sasha (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, yes, the last edit and its appearance in the 'sharpness' section is OK. For the other statements, I don't understand what it is that you think is wrong, or why the usage of 'exists' and 'unique' are unclear... I am sometimes guilty of being very fast with edits, and thus, I sometimes introduce errors, but I just don't see what they are in this case. linas (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, I really do not mean to be annoying, I honestly do not understand the statement. Do you mean to say the following: if f and g are two functions that satisfy the assumptions of Carlson's theorem, and have the same Newton series, then f=g? Sasha (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I think I see what the confusion is in the article, let me edit it to fix this. linas (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
perfect. Then I won't touch it until you are done. Sasha (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I added a lot of extra details, I hope its clear now. linas (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No objections now, looks both readable and rigorous. Sasha (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that you made edits to Carlson's theorem to remove the two examples, and to make the notation more dense and complicated. In general, we like to keep mathematics articles accessible, and so like to keep the notation as simple and direct as possible; this tends to help beginners with understanding the concepts in the article. Thus, for example big-O notation is easier to read and understand than the more fussy and verbose statements about bounds and limits. Likewise, removing examples is also a bad idea. One of the examples that you removed had an edit summary of "mathematically incorrect", yet it is possibly the single most common actual application of Carlson's theorem. If you believe its incorrect, you should probably bring this up on the talk page; better yet, a quick review of the edit history would show that I'd created this content, and you could have asked me directly. Anyway, I restored the examples, I did not revert to the simpler big-O notation. linas (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if I made the article less readable, this was not on purpose. Still, correctness is also important, so let us try to agree on a version which is both correct and readable. My objections to what you wrote are listed above. And I did leave more than one comment at your talk page before making any changes, see above. Sasha (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
My apologies, then; I really did not understand what you were talking about, and I admit, that was a rather busy point in my life, and so I did not spend much time thinking about it. The article as it currently stands seems reasonable; if you still have issues, let me know.
As to duplicating examples: that is OK, it can sometimes make an article more readable. Thus, in the beginning of an article, it is best to have a semi-informal "general idea of it all" section, explaining the concept in high-level but not quite precise terms. The following section can then give a detailed, formal definition that is mathematically precise. This allows the reader to stop reading early on, depending on what they were looking for, instead of hitting a hard wall of dense algebraic formulas. linas (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Some follow up

Some follow-up on our previous discussions. You said to compute

exp ( τ x ) {\displaystyle \exp({\vec {\tau }}\cdot {\vec {x}})}

and

exp ( i σ θ ) {\displaystyle \exp(i{\vec {\sigma }}\cdot {\vec {\theta }})}

which respectively give

I + ( τ x ) + | x | 2 I / 2 + | x | 2 ( τ x ) / 6 + | x | 4 I / 24 + . . . {\displaystyle \mathbb {I} +\left({\vec {\tau }}\cdot {\vec {x}}\right)+\vert x\vert ^{2}\mathbb {I} /2+\vert x\vert ^{2}\left({\vec {\tau }}\cdot {\vec {x}}\right)/6+\vert x\vert ^{4}\mathbb {I} /24+...}

and

I + i ( σ θ ) | θ | 2 I / 2 i | θ | 2 ( σ θ ) / 6 + | θ | 4 I / 24 + . . . {\displaystyle \mathbb {I} +i\left({\vec {\sigma }}\cdot {\vec {\theta }}\right)-\vert \theta \vert ^{2}\mathbb {I} /2-i\vert \theta \vert ^{2}\left({\vec {\sigma }}\cdot {\vec {\theta }}\right)/6+\vert \theta \vert ^{4}\mathbb {I} /24+...}

However, I don't see what's particularly interesting about that.

Also, when you write [ L 1 , L 2 ] = L 3 {\displaystyle =L_{3}} , I am correct in assuming refers to the commutator? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me reply on your page. Hint: what is the expansion for sin x? For second question, yes, commutator. linas (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I was trying to see some particular pattern common to exp ( τ x ) {\displaystyle \exp({\vec {\tau }}\cdot {\vec {x}})} and exp ( i σ θ ) {\displaystyle \exp(i{\vec {\sigma }}\cdot {\vec {\theta }})} , if we're just focusing on the exp ( i σ θ ) {\displaystyle \exp(i{\vec {\sigma }}\cdot {\vec {\theta }})} expansion, then it's
exp ( i σ θ ) = cos ( | θ | ) I + i sin ( σ θ ) {\displaystyle \exp(i{\vec {\sigma }}\cdot {\vec {\theta }})=\cos(\vert \theta \vert )\mathbb {I} +i\sin({\vec {\sigma }}\cdot {\vec {\theta }})}
As you said, it does look like Euler's formula (not very surprising considering it's we're taking the exponantional of something), but I don't see what's particularly interesting about that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you want the form
exp ( i σ θ ) = cos ( | θ | ) I + i sin ( | θ | ) | θ | ( σ θ ) = cos ( | θ | ) I + i   s i n c ( | θ | ) ( σ θ ) {\displaystyle \exp(i{\vec {\sigma }}\cdot {\vec {\theta }})=\cos(\vert \theta \vert )\mathbb {I} +i{\frac {\sin(\vert \theta \vert )}{\vert \theta \vert }}({\vec {\sigma }}\cdot {\vec {\theta }})=\cos(\vert \theta \vert )\mathbb {I} +i~\mathrm {sinc} (\vert \theta \vert )({\vec {\sigma }}\cdot {\vec {\theta }})}
Which is much more interesting. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. You are mixing x's and thetas. Also, a better place to divide might be here: θ ^ = θ | θ | {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}={\frac {\vec {\theta }}{|\theta |}}} is the unit-length vector.

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Linear transformer driver (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Resistance and Open circuit
IBM AIX (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to SGI

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent AfDs and ANI

There's an ANI thread: WP:ANI#TenPoundHammer.2C_AfD_and_WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT that is relevant to your recent comments on the AfDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment Moved

I have moved this here from the MHP RfC because of the following instruction in the RfC:

Note: Because prior attempts to resolve this conflict have resulted in long discussions with many endless back and forth comments, please place any responses to other editor's comments in your own "Comments from user X" section and limit your comments to no more than 500 words. If you wish to have a threaded discussion, feel free to start a new section on this talk page but outside of this RfC or on your own talk page.

Feel free to move it back to one of the allowable locations. --Guy Macon (talk)

Don't confuse counting arguments with frequentism. The 'simple' explanations here are counting arguments, not frequentist arguments. This has nothing to do with Bayesianism; there's no need to invoke 'priors' or 'ill-explicated pre-conditions': if something is 'ill-explicated', then turning it into a Bayesian prior doesn't magically make it 'well-explicated', nor any less 'hidden'. There is nothing wrong with using this problem to illustrate Bayesian-style reasoning, and indeed, the article already has an (opaque) section on this; none of the proposals are suggesting its removal. linas (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem RFC

Hi! Over at Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem? I assigned Proposal #1 to your comments. If this is incorrect, please indicate "Proposal #2", "Neither", or "Abstain". Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Question for you at talk:MHP

Hi - Just to make sure you don't miss it, I've asked you a question here. If you could respond there I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just fucking stop attacking me, you asshole? Did that ever occur to you as a reasonable position to take? Share the love, I say. linas (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I see that you are an admin. You have a bad attitude, and you should certainly not have the privilege of being an admin. People like you are what make WP such an ugly, unpleasant place to be. Please take this personally: think about how you can be less violent, more constructive, and take on a more positive attitude. linas (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, you appear to be a personally involved admin. That at a minimum does not look good. Please consider reversing your action and bringing it through a more impartial channel. --Trovatore (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I acted in my capacity as an administrator to warn Linas that personal attacks are not acceptable. (Now that I have had a look at his block log it is clear he was already very aware of that anyway) His reply was a very nasty personal attack. That I happened to be the target of it does not mean my block was a violation of the involved admin policy. I don't recall ever having interacted with him before issuing the above warning. Of course if Linas wishes to appeal this block a different admin will review that request. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not talking legalities, per se. It doesn't look good. Take a day, think about it; I think you'll see that. --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I thought about it before I did it. I don't need to run to another admin for help to block someone for behavior this blatantly unacceptable. If I warned him for vandalism and his reaction was to vandalize my userpage that would not mean I was suddenly involved, it would mean just what it means here, that he deliberately ignored a valid warning to stop engaging in behavior that the community has deemed unacceptable. I don't see any ethical dilemma there. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me. Beeble, you are the one who "personally attacked" me first: why would you think that I'm going to bend over and take it, and not complain? Why should I give you that pleasure? To stoke your self-image of a powerful individual, free to behave in any manner that you wish? There are bounds to reasonable, rational behaviour and you've certainly crossed one just now. linas (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Linas (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Admin is out of control. He shows up out of thin air, accuses me of something I did not do. When I tell him off, he blocks me. This guy should not be an admin; people like him are ruining the general camaraderie of Misplaced Pages. linas (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were engaging in personal attacks at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics, you were properly warned about it, and you responded with a personal attack on the person who warned you. This is your fifth block for making personal attacks, so I'm not surprised it was made indefinite. But you can still get yourself unblocked if you commit to stop your attacking approach and do so in a convincing manner. In the short term, I suggest you walk away for a brief time and calm down. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Linas (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

False accusations. I did not attack anyone on the wikiproject math pages. Those people are my friends; I work well with them; my editing on WP is almost exclusively limited to math pages. The accusation is ludicrous and fabricated. I believe that the the true reason for this block is retribution for a controversy arising from the serial AfD of dozens of math articles. These all ended with a speedy keep; this event was noted on the WP math project discussion pages. The nominator was an admin; his behavior is clearly a misdemeanor. In fact, that admin is known for this kind of behavior; there have been multiple proceedings against that admin; yet he remains an admin (which is perfectly shameful, BTW, you guys cannot control your own.) Beeblebrox is another admin, presumably a friend of the first, drunk on power, and eager to throw his weight around. This whole episode is a waste of my time, and of your time. Beeblebrox, and his buddy, should not be admins. Adminship should be reserved for people who are stable, capable of basic ethical judgments and able to carry out their duties in an impartial way. linas (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see a systematic problem with civility, bad temper and a total lack of AGF from you. And your attempts at denying it just prove it further. Since you abused your right to appeal by posting more insults - this time against Beeblebrox, I've withdrawn your ability to post further unblock requests. Max Semenik (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In my view, this, this, and this are personal attacks - incorrectly accusing someone of vandalism and of drive-by attacks, and calling them a "snot-nosed punk" are not acceptable in my view. Your response to a reasonable warning was also a personal attack too, in my opinion, and your latest unblock request also contains personal attacks. Adding this to a long-closed RfA was also inappropriate. Having read the entirety of this talk page, together with some of the disputes you have been involved in in several other places, what I'm seeing here is another bout of anger. You're clearly a great contributor, and I'd hate to see you suffer further because of short term anger - so I really would strongly recommend a day or two away, and then come back in a more collegial and friendly mood. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, for when you get unblocked (which I hope you will), if you wish to report an admin for what you believe is abuse of power, the usual places are WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
What it seems like we have here is a user who makes good content contributions but has an inability to control their temper when they see something they don't like, coupled with a bit of a persecution complex. When I asked him to stop with the personal attacks, which he very clearly did make, his response was "stop fucking attacking me asshole" as if this was part of some prolonged campaign of harassment by me when in fact as far as I know it was the very first time I had ever spoken to this user. plenty of users have (irrational) grudges against all administrators but they manage to express their concerns without throwing a screaming fit and accusing anyone who asks them to calm down of attacking them. Frankly the whole situation is quite ironic in that Linas' comments apply more to his own attitude than to those who he is so angry at. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and in response to the accusations of croneyism in the latest unblock request:I have no idea what AFDs he is referring to and no clue what admin he suspects me of acting on behalf of. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, User:Bbb23 is clearly misbehaving. That is what I say here, which you take as a "personal attack". Saying that someone is mis-behaving should not be considered a "personal attack". It's not in doubt that he was misbehaving; clearly, he engaged in behavior that scandalized the rank-n-file. So I'm miffed that a statement of fact is taken as a "personal attack". In the second remark, here where I say that he is engaging in "drive-by deletions": well: this guy had just nominated a dozen or so articles in a very short space of time; all the articles were kept with a speedy-keep. What else would you call this, if not a "drive-by deletion"? This guy does not edit math articles, and shows no interest in the topic, except to create AfD's. That's textbook vandalism. If the guy was not an admin, we'd all nod our heads and say "yup", and move on. But instead, we have this ruckus: I point out its vandalism, and it becomes a personal attack. As to the last one: this, OK, I've never physically seen him, so don't actually know if he has a snot-nose, so I went too far, but, really, look, the guy has a bad attitude. This is the real world, look around: you can see people mis-behaving all the time. Shit happens. One deals with it. However, for these people to be admins, like Bbb23 is, and like Beeblebrox is, that's just wrong.

Look, I have no interest in starting proceedings against anyone; but you guys need to police your own. You have a situation like a corrupt police-force: most of the cops/admins are good, some are bad. I already had this kind of run-in years ago: the fallout from that is seen on my talk page, up top: a bunch of corrupt admins applying their virtual night-sticks to me. Its a form of police brutality, and yes, I am going to use foul language when I am being beaten. And yes, they will use use the foul language as an excuse to beat me some more. As the joke goes: "the beatings will continue until morale improves." You guys have got to get rid of these crooked admins. Do not ask me to do it for you. linas (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, nominating articles for AfD in an area in which you do not edit is not "textbook vandalism", as you will discover if you read The Textbook -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is not me, or BB23, or deletion nominations you don't like. The problem is your attitude. It is in fact people who grossly overreact to criticism, the way you repeatedly have, that drives away other users and makes them see Misplaced Pages as an unpleasant place. There is no context where someone politely asking you to stop making personal attacks warrants a response like the one you gave. There is no room for rage like that set off by such a small thing in a collaborative environment. things get nominated for deletion all the time here, as you must know. What if everyone reacted the way you did, resorting to attacking the person doing the nominating instead of arguing the actual merits of the article? Nothing would ever get done here if we all freaked out whenever we saw something we didn't like. I can see that you have made a lot of good edits to math articles and I honestly thank you for your contributions and would ask that you consider the possibility that it is in fact your attitude, not corruption, that has led to this fifth incidence of blocking for personal attacks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Math question

Hi, I note that on July 14, 2005 you added a line to the article about spherical harmonics, saying that hypergeometric series can be generalized to give something (harmonic functions?) on any symmetric space. Later someone added a few references, however the references all seem to be to detailed and exhaustive lists of types of functions associated to symmetric spaces. Is there a notion that solutions of one of the variants of Laplace's equation often has a series expansion? A reference would be really nice if you know of one, or alternatively even some further explanation. (forgot to log in, I am createangelos)137.205.57.217 (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Lina's has been indefinitely blocked and is not able to edit this or any other page. You might try asking at the math project. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


Linas's user page still gives sufficient clues to contact him personally. --Trovatore (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Introductory physics

Category:Introductory physics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Elementary mathematics

Category:Elementary mathematics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please unblock

There is little chance that this plea will succeed... Obviously I'm not a charismatic writer: this is just a simple request.

PLEASE unblock Linas.

Experts in scientific, mathematical, any technical articles over time have been leaving WP so we need all the experts we can get. As most people should know, Linas is definitely a knowledgeable and valuable contributor to WP physics and maths in many positive ways: writing, diagrams/images, categorizing, proof reading, proposals/comments/suggestions on talk pages, founded WikiProject physics itself very early which has accelerated the transmission of ideas for improving physics articles since 2005. Very few editors have done as much as, or more than, Linas, for WP physics.

Rudeness/incivility is not the problem. Other very knowledgeable editors in the physics and maths WikiProjects can also be rather aggressive, but when the focus is on content, the aggression often disappears, or lasts a while then dies out. It's true that Linas' past reactions to admins have not made things better, but can we move on? If someone talks rudely then ignore it (except for extremely vile personally directed remarks or threats)? M∧ŜcħεИτlk 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Two things:
  • Unblock requests by third parties are generally not considered. If Linas wishes to be unblocked he is free to appeal himself.
  • Incivility is in fact exactly what the problem was here. I am fairly tolerant of such things, but when a user's response to request to stop attacking other user after having already been repeatedly blocked for it is "Why don't you just fucking stop attacking me, you asshole? " yes, that is a problem, and is exactly the sort of thing that drives users away from this site. Being aggressive is one thing, making a habit of referring to other users as snot nosed punks, assholes, and so forth is something else, and it is not acceptable.

Unless Linas provides some reasonable assurance that this behavior will not recur there is very little chance that an unblock will be forthcoming. Of course another admin would review any new unblock request, but I doubt they would be any more willing than I am to look the other way at a long-term pattern of personal attacks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I got curious and read most of the stuff about this mess. There seems to be two sides of this sad story. Linas perhaps has a bad temper, but as far as I can tell, there were no really disastrous personal attacks anywhere. The administrators arguments on this talk page are rather childish. What do you want Linas to do? Admit that he is a crook that deserves all the punishment in the world? I don't think he will because he obviously believes he is right - and have the right to believe that. You are losing a valuable editor. YohanN7 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Linas perhaps will be unblocked, but Misplaced Pages will remain the same, with its stupid habit to impose heavy “cumulative” punishments. And with incompetence, hypocrisy, and irresponsibility everywhere, of course. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I've appealed three times. I've been told no three times. linas (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


I support unblocking Linas. Legalities aside, I do not believe it was really proper (at the very least, it did not have the full appearance of propriety) for Beeblebrox to block him in the immediate aftermath of Linas using the heated language towards — Beeblebrox. Beeblebrox should have sought out an uninvolved admin. I don't care whether this is specified in the "involved admin" policy. He shouldn't have done it. --Trovatore (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It actually reminds me of a much more serious case from real life where a journalist has been held prisoner for 15+ years for writing something, without a trial.
The alleged "crime" in the present case is that Linas called Beeblebrox an ******** in a heated moment. I have called my best friends (and been called by them) much worse things, e.g. #¤%&¤%# and even !¤%". We might hold a 2-minute grudge (at the very most), nothing like an indefinite grudge.
The alleged "crime" aside, it's highly inappropriate for the "victim" to be prosecutor and judge in a "trial" with no defense attorneys. It looks bad, it smells bad, therefore it is bad. There is no excuse. YohanN7 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Gosh Numbers listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gosh Numbers. Since you had some involvement with the Gosh Numbers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Cesaro-0.3.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Both look correct to me. I cannot add any notes to those files. linas (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiple errors in AdaBoost

If you are reading this, can you please fix or at least tag the erroneous section? The current article AdaBoost has a section "Example Algorithm (Discrete AdaBoost)" that is filled with incorrect formulas. It looks like someone was trying to crib them from cite-3, "A Short Introduction to Boosting" Yoav Freund, Robert E. Schapire but got them all wrong, misunderstanding the notation and the meaning of it all. linas (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing content in Lexical function

The article for lexical functions is missing the function for comparatives, e.g Comp = taller, Comp=fatter, etc. Can someone please fix this? linas (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Desuspension

Hi,

I have just noticed that you contributed a lot to write about suspension (topology). I have tried to write about desuspension, an opposite operation. May you review my work? I am not a professional mathematician, but high-profile math has been my passion since my childhood. Cheers!

Lamro (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Module (category theory) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Module (category theory). Since you had some involvement with the Module (category theory) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Valdovu Rumai

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Valdovu Rumai requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 15:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Divisor-summatory-big.svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Divisor-summatory-big.svg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Mathematical disambiguation has been nominated for discussion

Category:Mathematical disambiguation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor 19:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Always looking what new things you discovered!

i⋅am⋅amz3 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Is the electron a small black hole listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Is the electron a small black hole. Since you had some involvement with the Is the electron a small black hole redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Homotopy extension.png

Notice

The file File:Homotopy extension.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Information source for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Information source is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Information source until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Simp" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Simp. Since you had some involvement with the Simp redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 17:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice images

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
A token of gratitude for the many figures illustrating mathematical concepts, in particular those in Arnold tongues. Walwal20 21:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


Hope to see more of your figures in the future, should you return to editing in Misplaced Pages. Walwal20 21:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A view from an outsider

Hi,

Firstly, a quick word about my credentials - I am aware of your work at GnuCash with which a former partner used to run a small business with, through which I found some links to mathematics pages and criticism of Linux startup times (though I might have got that confused with someone else). So I am personally satisfied with your credentials. I struggled at A-Level Maths in school, and semi-regularly look at the Numberphile YouTube channel to teach myself new things, such as the seemingly counter-intuitive claim that 1+2+3 .... = -1/12.

Anyway, I am also an administrator here, albeit one who greatly favours common sense over rules and regulations (which mirrors the sort of person I am in real life), and I don't like our sockpuppetry procedures. So, with that in mind, I am happy to try and get an appeal set up to get your main Linas account unblocked. The process is basically described at Misplaced Pages:Standard offer but in a nutshell, all you have to do is assert that you want me to do this, and I will go and set it up. Ritchie333 14:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Pseudophysics has been nominated for renaming

Category:Pseudophysics has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Cubic interpolation

Information icon Hello, Linas. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cubic interpolation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. FireflyBot (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Your beautiful "phase of the j-invariant" image

Hello, Linas.

I have been looking at your beautiful image "phase of the j-invariant" and I had an idea.

Since j is a continuous function on the unit disk, and since a "circular rainbow" is a continuous mapping of the circle to the space of colors (see footnote) ...

... the phase of the j-invariant does not need to display any discontinuities, except at isolated points.

Yet your image shows many line segments where the color varies discontinuously.

Is there any possibility that you might try to make another image of this which does not show lines of discontinuities?

—————

If we represent the RGB (color) cube as = {(x,y,z) ∊ R | 0 ≤ x, y, z ≤ 1}, then consider the intersection of the plane x + y + z = 3/2 with the cube. This is a regular hexagon. Inside this regular hexagon is an inscribed circle. The colors corresponding to this inscribed circle form a lovely circular rainbow.

If for instance you are using 24-bit color (8 bits for each of R, G, or B), then suppose you have parametrized the circle described in the last paragraph by

  C(t)  =  (x(t), y(t), z(t))  =  (1/2, 1/2, 1/2) + r(cos(t) u + sin(t) v), 

where r is the radius of the inscribed circle, and u and v are perpendicular unit vectors, each perpendicular to the main diagonal (1,1,1), and 0 ≤ t ≤ 2π. (See footnote.) Then you could translate this to the usual R,G,B coordinates (i.e., 0 ≤ R, G, B ≤ 255) via

  (R(t), G(t), B(t))  =  (floor(255.999 * x(t)), floor(255.999 * y(t), floor(255.999 * z(t))).

Then at points z ∊ D where t = arg(j(z)), you would color that point using (R,G,B) = (R(t), G(t), B(t)).

—————

It is easy to check that r = √(3/8). The vectors u, v may be taken as u = (-1, 1, 0) / √2 and v = (-1, -1, 2) / √6.

2601:200:C000:1A0:3998:89DD:A33:8E64 (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Proofs involving the Laplace–Beltrami operator for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proofs involving the Laplace–Beltrami operator is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Proofs involving the Laplace–Beltrami operator until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Felix QW (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

"Locally path connected" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Locally path connected has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 4 § Locally path connected until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Founding a Critical Project

The Physics Barnstar
Awarded for founding the Physics Project

You were blocked indefinitely with good reason, but you still deserve this even if you never see it. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I was blocked for bad reasons, by a gang of corrupt admins who were eventually caught for repeated offenses, and were eventually banned themselves. They are now gone. I suppose I should droop my head and look apologetic, but I won't. I have a sense of pride. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Linas is still openly actively editing. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar
I am glad to see someone learn from their mistakes. Welcome back! -- Aunva6 20:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
For the record: this is absolutely false. I was unfairly attacked by a gang of admins, who went unpunished for their attack. I've gotten no apologies. Yes, eventually, this gang was caught red-handed and busted up; most were banned, and their activities ceased. I am willing to put this in the past. I am not willing to accept a cover-up of the crimes of admins, nor accept the insinuation that I was the guilty party in all this. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back

I gather that, for the moment at least, you have chosen to go on as you were, so as a practical matter not much has changed, but it's good to have you "official" again. --Trovatore (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. See, however, the comments above. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Have you been able to recover your password? I suppose you could always make a Linas2 user or something if not, but at this point your static IP has only a few disadvantages compared to an account, and there is a lot of history on that page. --Trovatore (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"User:67.100.217.179" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect User:67.100.217.179 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 2 § User:67.100.217.179 until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)