Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:45, 25 March 2011

/Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5

Happy Holidays

... to you, and I want to thank you and your fellow mentors for all the work you have done supporting Mattisse this year. --JN466 15:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Have a good festive season yourself.--Salix (talk): 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I second this and also want to thank you for your kindness in sticking by me and helping me. I am trying very hard to live up to your expectations. Best wishes for a wonderful New Year! Warmest regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. it does feel like I've done that much though. Have a good year, be good! --Salix (talk): 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing irrelevancies from Talk pages

Re removing a remark from the Talk:NaN page: Misplaced Pages guidelines say:

Editing -- or even removing -- others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

...

• Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection How to use article talk pages).

My (perhaps incorrect) judgement was that this material was not relevant to improving the article. --macrakis (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Old sandbox

Hi, Salix. While following backlinks to a page I was working on, I noticed that you have an old sandbox page at User:Pfafrich/Sandbox2 that you haven't worked on since 2006. I was wondering if you still wanted to keep this, or if perhaps it should be deleted? Not a big thing, but I thought I would ask. --RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I don't need it any more. I've now deleted it. --Salix (talk): 08:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Response

I'm quickly responding to your post on Mattisse's talk here, just to keep the matters focussed at hand hand. I wasn't referring to you when I talked about a mentor questioning the block; requesting some more information, as you initially did, was more than appropriate, I agree. However, Philcha continued to question it, requesting diffs etc, even after the socks were identified, and the evidence easily accessible and fairly clear cut - to me, at least, and apparently to you and others too!! e.g. --Slp1 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine. --Salix (talk): 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Socks

I don't want to continue to clutter Risker's page when she's stated several times that she needs more time. But, please note that Mattisse has selectively admitted to socks—nowhere near the full list of verified socks. I realize her controlling the SA/anime socks is in dispute (we may have inadvertently uncovered a different sock drawer), but she has avoided admitting to an obvious one that casts her in a particularily poor light, Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I do respect your opinion and value your input, but you're not doing Mattisse any favors by misrepresenting her "admission". --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My e-mail response to the e-mail you sent me bounced back, with the message "does not like recipient". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Try again, I've fixed to to the correct email now. --Salix (talk): 18:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Returned again ... I'm heading out for the afternoon now, will try to deal with it later ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Floods

Hi there Salix, just to let you know I declined the proposed deletion tag for this article because an editor protested its deletion on the talk page (as you saw yourself). If anyone objects to deletion in good faith then it's ineligible for PROD. An AfD might be a good idea, however, where the article might be deleted or redirected to flood. This is just a notice, thanks. -- Atama頭 21:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Project Page for CoMiFin

Hi Salix,

We're involved in a European project for protection of critical infrastructure. I had created a wikipedia entry for the project, however, it was deleted due to a lack of traffic. This project is now entering an increased period of activity and I'd appreciate a re-instating of the page so that we can work on it further. I can recreate the page if necessary but I don't want to do so if it faces imminent deletion. Are there particular steps an entry can do to avoid this? The original page was under http://en.wikipedia.org/CoMiFin Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sionnach (talk • contribs) 17:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Closed AfD missing a bit

Just a heads up that this AfD had a couple of very similar connected articles being nominated under the same rationale. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw those, but missed that they were included in the same AfD. Now deleted.--Salix (talk): 23:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:P. D. Q. Bach#Proposed merger from Lasso d'amore

Following on from the Tromboon afd, I've proposed that the Lasso d'amore article is treated in the same way and am contacting all four other !voters from the afd.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Periodicals

First, it should be noted that whether they were obscure or not, they were among those listed in the Gale Directory of Publications and Broadcast Media or in a global directory of international newspapers in English. Yes, I did start with the global sources, not US-UK-etc, because, frankly, those nations are easier to start with, having fewer English-language periodicals. We do have a continuing problem with having a disturbingly obvious bias toward the major English speaking countries. As a result, we have disproprortionately poor coverage of a lot of the rest of the world, and make it harder for individuals who might have an interest in developing content related to the smaller countries to even know what sources are available for those less often discussed regions. It has been pointed out to me that some of the links were also of an advertising nature, which may well be true. Those were the official sites of the publishers, which I guess qualifies to some as advertising - I honestly hadn't considered that. I chose them because they were also the ones which generally gave the best description of the type of content they dealt with. The lists in the beginning were and are being created as "first-drafts", with greater organization, structure, and improved links to follow, once I have an idea what all is out there and am better able to organize them on the basis of that knowledge. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

One example

Since you said you hadn't seen one good example of the protection of BLP done by pending changes, I thought I would point out one, even I don't expect it to change your mind necessarily!

For years, articles related to a sailing club attached to a Wisconsin University have been edited to include libellous accusations about living people. If you take a look at the history of Wisconsin Hoofers, for example, you will see that every month or so different IP addresses or unconfirmed editors make BLP violating edits on the page. Blocks don't work since the IPs change, semi-protection has been used but it runs out eventually, and there are also good edits from IPs or unconfirmed editors when the page is unprotected. I was on a bit of a break when the last set of edits happened (deleted revisions, but as an admin you can see them) and the BLP violation accusing a named person of criminal activity, remained in the article for more than a week before another IP removed them. I suddenly thought of trying pending changes on the article. It seems that the person(s) behind the edits realized that their game was up permanently, since their next edit was been to attack me for my actions..

Just one example, but I think Pending Changes is a perfect tool for this kind of low-traffic page; it stops the libel, puts off the libellous editors and doesn't stop new editors from contributing usefully. Thought you might be interested. --Slp1 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be a case for page protection. To me it seems flagged revisions are best compared to page protection, kind of like protected pages where an anon can make a test edit. My fear would be that rather than converting protected pages to flagged revisions, it would be more likely be used to convert normal pages to flagged revision.--Salix (talk): 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protection was tried on several occasions, but the pages involved would need be protected indefinitely since this has been going on for years, with offending edits only happening once every month or so. In the meantime, with page protection, no IPs or unconfirmed editors could edit at all. My hope is that the pending changes will lead these guys to give up their campaign on WP, since they won't even get their jollies of seeing the edits last hours or days, while IPs are free to edit, and the BLP vios never appear to the public. Anyway, yes, I agree that moving from page protection to pending changes would be good where it would work, but that's not everywhere. In my mind there's a clear place for pending changes in protecting BLPs, especially in more out of the way articles.--Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes

Hey User:Salix!

I was wondering if there were anything that might be done to alleviate your concerns that PC may be unjustified? If there are possibly any changes to the implementation or the guidelines that may make it more palatable. If so, feel free to comment: Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#About_.22this_thing_defaulting_to_recognizing_the_significant_majority_vote_as_sufficient.22 Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Plimpton 322

Richard, Thanks very much for entering the discussion and deleting the section on mathematical reconciliation. I was puzzled that a section like that was not there already, and now mystified that anyone should want to excise it altogether. In contrast, the author of one of the leading histories of mathematics in the USA writes privately: Your reasoning here is excellent. I feel I ought to have noticed this connection before, but somehow I missed it. Thus, it appears that even if Plimpton 322 is about problems in algebra or Diophantine equations specifically, the connection with Pythagorean triples is quite immediate. And, of course, the argument that shows how to generate all primitive Pythagorean triples in the form (m^2 - n^2)^2 + (2mn)^2 = (m^2 + n^2)^2 works off the same idea of factoring the difference of two squares.

Now, you are an advocate of contacting academics, so just possibly you might want to ask around here among your academic contacts. At the moment, your policy is to guarantee that people go on missing a connection that, once seen, they feel they ought to have noticed. I know that rules are rules, but, with all due respect, might I suggest that you are cutting against the spirit of Misplaced Pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Plimpton_322#Pythagorean_triple.--Salix (talk): 06:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard, Again, very many thanks for those actions. It is very good of you to go to so much trouble for the cause. By including that quotation from the leading historian, do you not rather give the game away, as he is pointing out the mathematical link between the interpretations that somehow cannot be named, although all it amounts to is the trick of difference of squares. Now, I can see that your readers might indeed have difficulty verifying difference of squares, because Misplaced Pages's own article Difference of squares is flagged and open to challenge. In consistency with the policy to which you are adhering, should not Difference of squares actually be excised. If somehow it is acceptable to keep it up, what is actually the problem you have with the section on mathematical reconciliation? What exactly is it there that readers are going to have difficulty verifying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard, Further thanks for revealing how seriously misguided you were in reading the excised section. This goes a long way to helping me understand how Misplaced Pages operates. I have seldom seen such a complete travesty of what a person has written. Could you possibly have the good grace to also acknowledge publically that I never wrote anything of the kind, indeed that I inserted a disclaimer to guard against misreading of just that kind? I am unhappy that you have shown yourself up in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Underworld

I have closed the discussion to merge Underworld to Hell; there was no consensus for that merger. I have started a new discussion. I propose that List of underworlds and List of underworld rulers be merged to Underworld. Your comments are welcome at Talk:Underworld#Merge from lists. Cnilep (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing a notice t the conclusion of a discussion on the deletion of an article.

You indicated that the discussion on the deletion of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wald's_maximin_model is over. Can you please delete the notice in the article that the article is considered for deletion. Thanks, Sniedo (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Donald L. Voils' interpretation of Plimpton 322

Information on DLV has been added at <http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Plimpton_322>, complete with references and sources. Apparently earlier attempts to trace DLV's work failed, but DLV himself was at Florida Atlantic University as late as Fall, 2009.

Notice that the main Misplaced Pages article evinces a certain skewing of the record as regards Bruins, Voils and Buck. Is there perhaps a Misplaced Pages sin of original research by omission? This is hardly fair to Robson who graciously acknowledges Bruins and shows interest in finding out more about Voils.

By the bye, you might try to look out Wilbur Knorr's article in the Monthly in 1998 for some further remarks about solving quadratics in the Old Babylonian mathematics and life on the square grid. Knorr superimposes the traditional figures for Elements II.9, 10 to notice a figure that goes with the Old Babylonian approach to a certain quadratic. Since both figures are drawing on a square (or rectangular) grid, the solution technique clearly can at least be visualised there. Euclid sees in his figures two right triangles sharing a common hypotenuse and his demonstrations are based on this. Rather startlingly, this hypotenuse is also one of the construction lines in Euclid's Windmill demonstration of Elements I.47, the first appearance of the Pythagorean proposition in the Euclidean Elements.

It is entirely possible for people to be looking at what is essentially the same figure, but picking out different features. But apparently in your world, if we say it is essentially the same figure, we are saying that everyone places the same emphasis on it. However, in my experience, very few people notice that that shared hypotenuse in Elements II.9, 10 is a construction line in Elements I.47. So, I would never make any inference on what people know or understand based on formal similarities.

In this instance, there are alternative dissection arguments. So, it might be entirely possible to be familiar with one approach, but not the other. For all that we might think the Pythagorean rule significant, it could still slip between the cracks. That is why I mentioned BM13901, on the problem of two squares where the areas are known in sum together with the sum or difference of the sides. Two squares where the areas are known in sum sounds like part of the Pythagorean rule. In a Chinese version in Jiu Zhang Suan Shu, Problem IX.11, that is indeed what seems to be in play. But you do not have to work it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.170.146 (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Its certainly good that you have found some additional references. I do have a slight concern that your straying a little from the precise topic which is Plimpton 322 to a more general question of Babylonian mathematics. Being an encyclopaedia rather than a journal wikipedia articles focus on what is known about a single topic rather than using the topic as the starting point for more general thesis. Euclid and Jiu Zhang Suan Shu are certainly interesting but they look they are getting off topic.

BTW you might like look a bit at Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Editing. In you posts you are adding line breaks in the middle of paragraphs. Its convention to just let the lines run on so they wrap automatically. Also if you want to make a link to a page use ] rather than pasting the full url. And finally please sign you posts on talk pages using --~~~~~ (there is a button for this in the edit box) so we can keep trak of who wrote what.--Salix (talk): 08:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard, Please, those references were there all along; and I confined my remarks the first time round to two, then three, brief paragraphs precisely so as not to upset the balance of Plimpton 322, badly written as it currently is. Two of those paragraphs were entirely mathematical, where, however, the relevant Misplaced Pages entries Difference of squares and Pythagorean triples are flagged, but have not been removed. The third paragraph, added in discussion with David Eppstein, specifically countered reading into the mathematics anything about what the Babylonians may or may not have done. But you would not have it that way: I had to be saying something about the Babylonians. You do not seem yet to have retracted that calumny.

It is you who invite the cross-cultural comparsions to point up just how much you have it wrong. As for straying more widely into Babylonian mathematics, recall that that is actually part of Robson's explicitly stated aim in Robson (2001), to recontextualise Plimpston 322 as part of a larger literature of old Babylonian mathematical texts, a key point that has gone missing in the main article Plimpton 322.

As it stands, Plimpton 322 reads like a puff-piece for Robson, with you and others writing and behaving like accolytes at a shrine. I doubt if that is fair to Robson's standing and reputation.

I appreciate the tips on editing in Misplaced Pages, but, please forgive me, I have no great wish to become too involved in Misplaced Pages. It is a customary part of scholarly discussion of interpretations to include a section on possible reconciliation qua interpretations. Noticing that was missing in Plimpton 322, I thought only to help out with a stub. The rest is history ... it does not encourage me to get further involved beyond clearly up this particular issue.

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Nonce

Can you tell me when that template was created? Thanks. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

21:09, 23 June 2010 by User:Stevertigo.--Salix (talk): 07:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

early history of logarithms

Hi, can I ask you for a little help? In the discussion of the early contributions of this Indian mathematician Virasena to logarithms, someone put a tag:

He described various relations using this operation as well as working with logarithms in base 3 (trakacheda) and base 4 (caturthacheda).

I don't find this overly imprecise, but I wouldn't simply remove the which tag. Since you seem(ed) to have access to the mentioned references, could you give a more concise (similarly short) summary of the Virasena's work? Thank you! I'm trying to bring the article to GAC soon... Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The second reference list a number of formula, the typography is terrible but we seem to have log(m/n)=log(m)-log(n); log(x^2)=2 log(x); log(log x^2)=log(2 log(x))=log(2)+log(log(x))=1+log(log(x)) (logs are in base 2); if B=a^a then log(B)=a log(a), log(log(b))=log(a)+log(log(a)). And a few more which don't make a lot of sense.--Salix (talk): 22:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine! I edited it accordingly. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

LawesMattius and similar sockpuppets

I suspect that LawesMattius is a sockpuppet of Mattisse. Both names are derivatives of the common name Matthew, with Mattius being the Latin name and Mattisse I believe the French. One of the Lawes sockpuppets posted on Mattisse's page saying "Free Mattisse!" - Cyborg Ninja 00:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible, LawesMattius (talk · contribs) could also be her grandson, the edit seems a bit juvenile for her. If she is around she be keeping a very low profile.--Salix (talk): 06:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Magic Words

Is it possible to "create" magic words? --A Word Of Advice From A Beast: Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy! 20:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Magic words I don't think it possible to create new one unless you are a developer and have access to the code. You could try WP:VPT.--Salix (talk): 21:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Singular

Thanks for your advice. I've downloaded the program. What command do I give it so that it quotients the whole polynomial ring by a certain ideal? Do I just enter it by hand until I have sufficiently high order terms? Thanks again for the tip. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to work. I typed ring r1=0,(x,y),ds; as is suggested here. Then I typed ideal id1=1,x,y,x2,xy,y2,x3,x2y,xy2,y3; and ideal id2=x,y2. Then I typed quotient(id1,id2) and it retuned 1! The answer should be 1,y. I followed the example here and it came back to say that Milnor(f) was not defined. I really don't understand. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've really not used the program much, just know a few people who have. You could try asking on their forum. The other software I've heardabout, but never used is Macaulay2.--Salix (talk): 10:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I finally got it working using this page of the manual. It seems you have to give it lots of information before it can work. For example

ring r = 0, (x,y), ds;

poly f = x3 + y3;

ideal J = jacob(f);

J = groebner(J);

ideal K = kbase(J);

K;

K = xy

K = y

K = x

K = 1

tells it we have a ring of characteristic zero, with variables x and y, and tells it how to order the monomials. We define a polynomial ƒ(x,y) = x + y. We define an ideal, J, to be the Jacobian ideal (a.k.a. the gradient ideal). We put J into a Groebner basis. Then we define an ideal K to be the quotient of the whole polynomial ring by J. Then we list the elements of K. Thus:

${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} /\langle x^{2},y^{2}\rangle \cong \mathbb {R} \langle 1,x,y,xy\rangle .}$

I'll take a look at Macaulay2 now. Thanks again for the advice. — Fly by Night (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mridu

My article was deleted on the basis of A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content) I would like contest the deletion.

The page was created after reviewing some autobiographies at Shamit Kachru, Eva Silverstein, Shamita Das Dasgupta. Kindly elaborate on things missing in my article.

The article has been recreated. Kindly reply at its Talk page. I assure you I'd update/remove the article myself once I know the reason of doing so.

Mridubhattacharya (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

updated my talk page

Taking the first of these comparisons: Shamit Kachru is an award-winning physicist and an expert in string theory and quantum field theory, he has made central contributions to the study of compactifications of string theory from ten to four dimensions, has won the ACIPA Outstanding Young Physicist Prize. This makes a claim to a notable achievements. There was no such claim on Mridu where the list of things done (making the site search engine friendly, creating webmaster accounts in various search engines, mainly Google, Yahoo, Bing; creating automated RSS feed (if applicable); planning of URL rewriting patterns creating search engine sitemaps (xml files); create Google Analytics account and helping the developer implement the code; create title & metadata of top level key-pages of the website including the home page.) These are what I would expect of any professional in the industry. There is nothing beyond that, say published articles or papers (not blogs) frequent references by new sources, major national awards.--Salix (talk): 09:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks got your point and would comeback with some actual work done. Mridubhattacharya (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I start a new page at Special:MyPage/Mridu, and ask other editors to help me on this, please note that this is not a self promo and that if it doesn't turned out to be fruitful, can be removed. Mridubhattacharya (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You can create a draft at User:Mridubhattacharya/Mridu but please read Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) first. The draft would not be immune from deletion if it was found that it did not meet the notability guidelines. Its worth looking at Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation which can help you get the article upto standard.--Salix (talk): 09:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Gallery rendering.png missing description details

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

About List of Jains

Hi there User:Salix alba! Please reconsider your decision to remove the indefinite pending changes setting on that article. It's been full of tripe for more than a year now. Opening the article up is definitely not going to help. Please reply on my page - Amog | 17:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I've left pending changes on. Its just the block of new and unregistered users which I've remove. --Salix (talk): 17:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, alright then! - Amog | 19:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Unicode blocks

Hi, I appreciate your edits in these. Could you add "as of Unicode version 6.0" or alike, where & when appropriate? I think that would greatly improve the quality of a Wiki-page. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes done. Now all I need to do is find a font which renders them! --Salix (talk): 21:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, just wait. 2015. It's just that WP is OK before. -DePiep (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Salix alba. I notice that you recently contributed to a debate at Talk: Greek love. The article was nominated for deletion almost a week ago and you will need to act soon if you are to vote there. Thanks. McZeus (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mhiji

Hi salix. I am noticing some bizarre behaviour from this user. The page blanking after every message regarding problematic edits is bad enough, but they are messages about the same problems! Maybe another stern word? (I'm not sure of the intricacies of the edits in question, but they seem to be frequent.) Thanks, The Interior(Talk) 00:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

PSSM talk page deletion

Thank you for restoring the Talk:Principles and Standards for School Mathematics page. The deletion was by accident. I had a little bit of trouble loading the page and at some point, I must have edited it incorrectly without noticing. --seberle (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep I had half a feeling it was an accidental thing.--Salix (talk): 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for your on-going help at the maths reference desk, and especially for helping me name my surface. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Mathematical films

Category:Mathematical films, 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Elliptic coords.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Elliptic coords.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fukuoka topic

Hi.

I noticed your run in with Macropneuma and his comments tell you to "back off" away from his page on Masanobu Fukuoka.

Would you be interested in support me in a RfC (Refer for Comment) regarding his user conduct? Reading the page, it appears to require two individuals to do so.

I am really concerned because the topic was unreadable and uneditable by others. Jase has obviously become territorial about it. It is littered with blog posts and mailing list references and the formatting so convoluted.

Thank you. --Iyo-farm 14:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I would. There is a big case of WP:OWN here, I've considered doing the same myself, but had other things to do. --Salix (talk): 18:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's see how he responds and if he is willing and capable of cooperating.

I am pretty much slowing down now. There is more work to be done but I think the topic has now been kicked into a bit better shape. I agree with Jase about adding 'greening deserts' but cannot find the references right now and am pretty exhausted by having to cut my way throw so much crap. I don't know how much he actually achieved in the real world. There seems to have been a flurry of interest in the 80s/90s but it appears to me to have died down now and other more conventionally modern forms taken over.

Sadly, one of the problems with Fukuoka is that he has been deified quite so much that it is difficult to find the facts from under the romanticisms. DItto, the problems of the Misplaced Pages topic have spread far and wide like weeds all across the internet. --Iyo-farm (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Salix, thanks for correcting that duplicate citation on the Fukuoka page. I hadn't noticed it was already in the citations, which makes me wonder why it's duplicated in the second 'References' section. In any case, thanks for picking it up. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ian P.

Salix, I think we need to invest some time in Ian's article. As it stands, it runs a great risk of being spanked by templates. For example: there are no in-line citations. Secondly, the article reads like an obituary. The last thing we want to see is his article being snipped at. It's far too late for me to do anything now; I should have been in bed four hours ago. I'll take a look tomorrow. In the meantime, if you get a chance, could you make a few changes? All the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Any advice?

I see you've resumed doing some periodic edits of Masanobu Fukuoka and you've read at least some parts of the talk page. Do you have any advice on how to deal with Macropneuma? Every time someone challenges one of his edits he starts making filibustering posts on the talk page with somewhat difficult-to-follow grammar and filled with accusations of POV and personal attacks. I've tried for some time to get him to explain his reasoning on a few things but he doesn't seem willing to do so and keeps throwing around various other wikilinks.

My patience and ability to AGF is running out. Do you have any suggestions for how we might be able to achieve a more productive environment? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, thought you might be interested -Aquib (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing

Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Venn Diagrams

Hi, You added this revision Who is Smith? Is your original function correct when compared to the current one? (note that current is 2^(ix) whereas yours was (2^i)x Pod (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)