User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 2

This is "User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 2".

re Please re-semi-protect Black hole

You removed semi-protection from Black hole and now the IP vandals are attacking it again. Please restore the protection immediately. Thank you. JRSpriggs 08:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. JRSpriggs 11:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Collateral damage

The collateral damage was two minor edits. Gora removed and replaced by a minimal Four War Gods entry and a pointless "Name means detection" somewhere. I'd rather have uniform spelling of a silly phallic sword, but that's just me. Why use the same unscrupulous reversal when you could just have fixed those two bits instead?--Boffob 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because YOU could have just edited those instances of the name of the sword (or perhaps undone the edit which put them in), but instead you chose to make extra work for other people to pursue your vendetta. You reap what you sow. JRSpriggs 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So much anger for so little. I'm not too familiar with undoing particular edits from way back when. I'll have to look it up. Plus it's not a vendetta, it's an obsessive compulsion for uniformity.--Boffob 05:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely the fact that you consider the work of others to be "so little" which makes me angry. Look at the upper right when you do a difference to find the "undo" button. I used it to undo your revert. JRSpriggs 06:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I did check what was getting reverted along before actually doing it because there had been a lot of edits in between, but most of them were vandalism and reverts. Out of the entire article the new material (and removed entry) really wasn't that much, so I thought this one time laziness wouldn't be a big deal (because I do avoid collateral damage almost all the time). Much later EDIT: Thanks for the undo info.--Boffob 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Section index code

• Thanks for adding the "section index code" to the bot archiver on my talk page. Do I have to do anything else now, or is it pretty much automatic from here on out? Smee 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually, this is the first time that I have tried setting up a section index, so I am not sure what will happen. However, I think that the only additional action you (or I) might have to take is to manually add the section information for sections already archived before this time. Let us wait and see whether that is necessary. JRSpriggs 05:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess the best way to find out is to wait for the next archival period.. Smee 05:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, it appears that Werdnabot aborted very early in its run on 22 February 2007. So it did not get to the point of processing your talk page. We will have to wait another day. JRSpriggs 05:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinetic Energy

Quite so, thanks for the heads up. Diagonalfish 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sections

I know - I don't think there is a way to tell it to start a new section above someting... so I had to decide what to chose. I think the current layout is more functional (and the bots would ignore the buttons anway, most likely). Tnx for the archival code, its useful to know.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving daily

Regarding your comment that daily archiving is undesirable because it is "wasting files". I note the guideline of Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. More importantly (since I agree with you regarding my own user talk page), the reason I was doing what I was is that I'm testing the automating of archiving of Wikipedia:Help desk, which currently has one archive per day. If you think that there should be one archive per week or month, you're welcome to comment at Wikipedia talk:Help desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I did not realize that you were experimenting for another talk page. JRSpriggs 06:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I apologize for my ignorance in the use of Wiki. --Layman1 13:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues. One is that the material you added violates WP:OR which bans original research. The other is that, even if it was permissible to put it into the encyclopedia, you put it into the wrong articles and parts of articles. JRSpriggs 08:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page warnings.

The purpose of a vandalism warning is not just to warn the vandal, but also to inform other people who are fighting against vandalism that the vandal is at a certain level of warning so that they can issue the appropriate warnings or ask to have him blocked. Removing the warnings interferes with the process of fighting vandalism and thus IS vandalism. This is absolutely, utterly wrong, and if you at some point decide to edit-war by replacing warnings on another user's talk page, you'll end up warned or blocked. Please do not do this. Warn once; if the user removes the warning, it is an acknowledgment that the warning was received, and will always remain in the page's history. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment on my talk page. IMHO, Darcy is stepping out of line. Adminship does not mean automatic respect, nor does it give one the right to arbitrarily enforce personal policies. That's what RfA is for. ;-) — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If either of you can cite a policy that justifies what you're doing, go ahead. Since you can't - because there is no such policy - if you persist in vandalizing another user's talk page, you'll be blocked. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Reverting removal of vandalism warnings by the vandal -- is it vandalism?, in order to try to get a definitive ruling from them. JRSpriggs 08:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Liénard–Wiechert potential

Thanks for your minor contribution to the newly created Liénard–Wiechert potential article. I would definitely appreciate any other suggestions or comments on the content of that article. Thanks! Nimur 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

About your recent messages

You are correct on the edit messages: I shall try to use better ones in the future. Thanks for the tip. However, my userbar is harmless and exists in my userspace. {Slash-|-Talk} 06:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Mathematics

As you may have noticed, your complaint rubbed me very much the wrong way. If you check my talk page, you will see that (to my knowledge) the "vanishing" bug bites rarely and unpredictably, and the first notice I get is an indignant post on my user page. Sheer joy. I can understand the reaction of someone whose post disappeared, and who assumes I deliberately censored them. But I assume you know better, and in this case it wasn't even your post. I'm baffled and disappointed that you would attack me. I'm a victim of this bug just as much as those whose posts disappear (or more so!). Furthermore, Lambiam correctly pointed out that any issues should have been raised with me privately. Do you really think I'm a sloppy, thoughtless idiot who would deliberately do such a thing or take no precautions to avoid it? I'm accustomed to responsibility where my mistakes could impact many other people, and so probably am more careful, not less, than the average editor. Were you just having a bad day and encountered one irritation too many? --KSmrq^T 20:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to remark that I agree with KSmrq that JRSpriggs's note was not stated in the right way and not at the right place. Errors resulting in text disappearing do happen (I've seen it before, with a different user). So it was right for KSmrq to get upset. Nevertheless, KSmrq's reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and especially the one above does nothing to help the situation, and actually may transform one contributor's well meaning but not-well thought out comment (which caused offense) into an outright hostile argument. Perhaps you two could just admit that you did not act in the best possible way and then stop here. How's that? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I had justification for being upset, which is not quite the same as saying I was right. In any event, I wanted to speak more privately in case there were deeper issues, so this doesn't carry over. My post here is intended to help us move forward peacefully, not stimulate more hostility. But perhaps I did not make myself clear. --KSmrq^T 02:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make a practice (as I already do) of checking the revision history after you do an edit (or series of related edits) and correcting any adverse side effects (regardless of how or why they happen). Thank you. JRSpriggs 10:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, and apparently it works for you. You also suggested working offline. Given the way I work and what I am trying to achieve, neither of these suggestions are appealing for me. What I have been doing is this: when editing a heavily trafficked page with substantial time between initiation and commit, I bring up a fresh copy of the page to be sure the section I am editing has not changed in the interim.

What I still do not understand is, why the personalization, and why the publicity? If you care to say. --KSmrq^T 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Begriffslogik

Hello, I am from the german wikipedia and I am interested in the article deduction theorem and its application in Peirce's law (the proof in the shape of a tree), because I intend to write in the German wikipedia an article about a kind of Schroderlike term logic. Unfortunately my facilities are the weakest and I just wanted to ask if you are interested in this topic here too. There is only one German source (probably you can check it because its an a boolean lattice order (Algebra) which was added a deduction theorem): Begriffslogik. It is further specified by some other rules (individuals), most important the judgment rule ( A=(A=1) ) which allows comparison with predicate logic. If you are not interested, do you know here someone who is interested in writing such an article here too? Unfortunately, User:Jon Awbrey is banned (I think finally for a good reason) who contributed a lot (nonsense too?). The discussions here (de) are somewhat strange too. But I read the English articles and appreciate them. Cheers -- de:Benutzer:Roomsixhu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.187.47.123 (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, my knowledge of German is too weak to allow me to make sense of your source "Begriffslogik". I have not worked with logics which use diagrams as proofs. If you want to see the kind of logic I personally use, see implicational propositional calculus which I created. Other than Jon Awbrey, I do not know anyone else here who is especially interested in propositional calculus. You could look at Talk:Propositional calculus and contact the people who left messages there. JRSpriggs 06:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you I, will look up there. The Venndiagramms and the so called Freytag Line-calculus are only two expressions of the calculus. Also there is an Schroder like algebraic modern form with these axioms you probaly know already and a deduction theorem (in the middle of the page) and for other purpuses some other rules. This calculus uses as term logic, to put it in a nutshell, less conditions (asumptions for the calculus, prerequesites, presuposes less, I do not know how to translate german "Voraussetzung") than predicate logic. Cheers! --de:Benutzer:Roomsixhu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.187.55.111 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

response

Dear JRSpriggs,

Sorry about that. For some reason my Firefox browser doesn't render the entire body of text when i click "edit this page" -- i almost accidentally deleted some of your profile too. Ie7 works though. i am new on wikipedia and didn't realize there are so many rules and technicalities.

Thanks, Trvce

Adding Categories

I haven't been vandalizing articles, I've only been adding categories that seem appropriate for them. The reason why I put the category "Centipedes" for Mistress Centipede is because there aren't any categories for "Fictional centipedes" otherwise I would have put it under there. I did something similar for Myoga's article since there weren't any for "fictional fleas", and I went back and fixed that article too. If I've deleted any categories from the Inuyasha-related articles it's either because the category is dead or that the article itself already falls into a category WITHIN that category. If there is any trouble, please calmly inform me of the matter at hand and I will try to fix it. Unknown Dragon 11:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dark energy

JR, I replied on my talk page to your comment there (in case you aren't watching it). Sorry for any misunderstandings. Gnixon 17:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot

Why'd you put Werdnabot on my talk page? --LSXsound(REPLY)

You left a message at User talk:Werdna on 11 April 2007 saying "How can I get a Werdnabot?". I construed this as a request to have your page configured for Werdnabot. I am sorry that I misunderstood you. However, it appears that it does not matter since it has been removed from your talk page already. Also you have been blocked indefinitely by Kafziel (talk · contribs) for alleged persistent disruption. JRSpriggs 03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't feed the troll

JR -

There is no need to respond to the anon on talk:general relativity. I have seen this behavior many many times before, and I can assure you that he will just keep asking questions. I have many times before sought to mollify the poster in cases like this, and it just plain does not work. Instead, silence will make them go away. --EMS | Talk 20:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree now that he is a troll. I thought before that he might be a troll or a crank, but I was not sure. That is why I kept my responses very brief. I will not respond to him any more. Thanks. JRSpriggs 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to give him or her sort the benefit of the doubt, but even if he or she is not a troll, they are so off-base that they need a lot of care and feeding to learn what they need to know and be satisfied. We are not here to deal with that stuff. --EMS | Talk 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

power vs. exponent

According to the dictionary a power is the exponent of a number. Definition 19c of dictionary.com Geoboe84 11:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most dictionaries now days include abuses as well as proper uses of words. Notice that the two definitions just above that one are correct, to wit:

a. the product obtained by multiplying a quantity by itself one or more times: The third power of 2 is 8.

b. (of a number x) a number whose logarithm is a times the logarithm of x (and is called the ath power of x). Symbolically, y = x^a is a number that satisfies the equation log y = a log x.

I continue on Talk:Logarithm. JRSpriggs 09:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I find it highly unlikely that dictionaries (of all things) would abuse the definitions of words.Geoboe84 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbolic geometry and systolic geometry

I am rather new to wiki and therefore am not sure exactly how to reply to your message concerning the above. Could you please indicate your email address? -MK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katzmik (talk • contribs) 08:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Electromagnetic stress-energy tensor

Well, c=1 unit is of the so-called "geometric units" or "standard relativistic units" which has no relation with Planck units at all. You might mix them up. Nevertheless, the formula as what I keyed in is correct for c=1 unit convention, and $\epsilon _{o}={\frac {1}{\mu _{o}}}$ holds, which can further simplify the tensor. All of these come from James Hartle's General Relativity textbook[1]. --KasugaHuang 14:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the first formula, if you mean this: $T^{\alpha \beta }=\epsilon _{o}[-F^{\alpha \gamma }F_{\gamma }^{\beta }+g^{\alpha \beta }F_{\gamma \delta }F^{\gamma \delta }]$, this is not what I keyed in, and further confirmation may be required. :) --KasugaHuang 14:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• For the information about geometric units (including c=1), see the article Geometrized unit system. As for what you mentioned about the revision history, I'll check it later. :) --KasugaHuang 09:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the undo?

You didn't say WHY you undid my edit to e. I took out a redundant formula, leaving the simpler alternative. You think both are more useful than just the simpler one? Dicklyon 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:E (mathematical constant)#Integral expression for e. JRSpriggs 06:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Systolic hyperbolic geometry

Thanks again for your interest in the new systolic geometry page. I wrote down a draft of what could become a hyperbolic subsection. For the time being I did not place it in wikipedia, but rather on my "Website for systolic geometry and topology". If you are curious to see it, go to the website, click on "subfields", then click on "systolic hyperbolic geometry". Any comments would be appreciated. Katzmik 11:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Cardinal numbers

Could you give me a proof that every cardinal is an ordinal using the axiom of choice? --Acepectif 19:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That every cardinal number is an ordinal number (in the presence of AxCh) is a well-known fact. If you are not familiar with it, you have no business editing articles about either ordinals or cardinals.

Suppose you are given a cardinal number, consider a set S of that cardinality. Apply the axiom of choice to get a choice function for the powerset of S minus the singleton of the empty-set; call it f. Using definition by transfinite recursion, let g (α) = f (S - {g (β) | β < α}) which stops when the difference becomes empty, i.e. when g is onto. Then g is a bijection between some ordinal γ and S. γ has the same cardinality as S. The least such ordinal is called the initial ordinal of the cardinal number. In the presence of the axiom of choice, every cardinal number is identified with its initial ordinal. JRSpriggs 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Energy(physics) Edits

Thank a lot for fixing my typos.Hallenrm 04:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to bogus articles

The gravity control propulsion link was not bogus. Kaiser's dissertation chapter about the early days of the Gravity Research Foundation; Talbert's statements about the birth of DeWitt's research institute and the Research Institute for Advance Study; and Goldberg's report on the role of the Aerospace Research Laboratory (ARL) show the interest in anti-gravity by policy makers and tycoons caused a return of general relativity classes to physics departments. Several famous papers were written by members of ARL. You should check at least Goldberg's and Kaiser's works that were cited in the article. It may be an embarassing fact, but the sudden growth in general relativity during the latter part of the fifties can be attributed to the intense pursuit of gravity control propulsion. Tcisco 05:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Taylor series

Hi. I'd like to hear your opinion about my revert on Taylor series. Please comment on Talk:Taylor series#Explaining my revert. Jesper Carlstrom 07:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Foreign quotes

Hello, just wanted to let you know that occasionally my mind goes completely blank trying to reproduce an English idiom illustrating a certain point I am trying to make. In such cases I provide the closest analogue in another language (not always in Russian). This memory loss happens even more often in conversation, but then it's easier to find a substitute or explain what I mean in the interactive mode. Fortunately, Oleg and Ksmrq came to my rescue this time. I hope that you did not interpret my using a Russian quote as a sign of disrespect to English speakers. Arcfrk 00:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That is OK. I assumed that it was just an oversight. If you cannot provide an idiomatic translation, then a literal translation is better than no translation at all. JRSpriggs 03:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Thanks for the edit. The definitions and constraints for some of the categories were not clear. Making the insertions was a method for finding out. I had reviewed the category definitions and some of the corresponding pages prior to the insertions. Tcisco 06:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rin and Kagura

I could have blocked everyone due 3RR violation as well. Nobody tried to contact him after his first modifications, and the edit war continued through time. People must learn to discuss through talk pages instead of edit summaries, and to contact an administrator when the matter cannot be resolved. -- ReyBrujo 11:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding BorisTheBlade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Slotedpig (talk · contribs) and I put messages on this talk page. I sought help from WP:AIV and then from CMummert (talk · contribs), an administrator. All to no avail. JRSpriggs 04:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Opps

Oh hey thanks for catching that category thing...it slipped my mind--88wolfmaster 03:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Simplified Mathematics

You have reversed the "simplified Explanation in the article Cardinal Numbers.

I came to this Wikipedia page to find out what a cardinal number was, andn after reading the entire page became totally confused. I may be thick, but the article is far to complex for me to understand. Whilst it now makes more sense (after I found out what a cardinal number is elsewhere on the net), it is not useful to a beginner. We need a simple explanation. By all means correct my text if it is wrong, but do not over-complicate it to the point of being un-readable to the mathematically ignorant. Commenting rather than the more rash instant removal would have been more polite.

I am not a mathematician, but I do like to understand maths. Unfortunately, all too often the mathematical topics in Wikipedia go into so much detail that the novice is left completely confused by massive in-depth examination of every minute detail. For all maths topics we need a simplified explanation, as if you were teaching a child of 7. Then we can have the more complex explanations that only a trained mathematician will understand.

By all means remiove a simple explanation if you are willing to clean up the original over-complicated article to make it understandable. Otherwise just pressing the delete button is lazy and arrogant. How would you like it if somone did that to you? - I guess you know already because it seems to happen all the time to everyone.

I hope you will take the time to make the article more understandable.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give in this area. Although 13:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

May I respond to this, Although? I had a look at the simple explanation of yours. The problem with it is that it does not explain what a cardinal number is. Rather, it deals with natural numbers. The idea behind cardinal numbers is rather different. I think that the first two sentences of the article describes what it is as simple as possible. I agree that it is not polite to simply remove something, but in some cases it is the best thing to do. One may not know what to write instead, or may not have the time to improve the text. If a paragraph is simply confusing, it might be good to remove it. In this case I think it was, because your explanation puts people on the wrong track. Jesper Carlstrom 14:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have re-read the article and have re-read the first two lines in particular and it is still way to confusing for me. Yes I had understood cardinal numbers to be the same as Natural numbers - which you say they are not. Could you try to improve the beginning of the article to firstly distinguish cardinal from natural numbers, and secondly to give example of what is, and what isn't a cardinal number. There are many ordinary people like me who just want to understand the concept of a mathematical term without having to read three or four pages of deep theory. How would you explain the concept to a seven year old child? Surely you would not expect him to understand the first paragraph? I certainly don't.Although 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to, but for the moment I do not have the time. I now saw that you discuss this also on Talk:Cardinal number, which is certainly the right place to ask for such a contribution. Jesper Carlstrom 08:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"subpages" of List of InuYasha chapters

There's no longer any such thing as "subpages" in the article space, so List of InuYasha chapters/Vol11to15 is just an article (or at least, a page in the top-level article space) with a "/" embedded in the title, not a subpage of List of InuYasha chapters. (Compare with a namespace where subpages are still enable, such as for example the User: ns.) So these have naming convention issues, at the very least. There's no reasonable way for my bot to distinguish between these and "real" articles, and indeed, if they're not "real" articles, they shouldn't really be in the article space. You might consider moving them to the template space, say. Alai 00:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

They are merely sections within the article List of InuYasha chapters. They were only separated to avoid problems with editing what would otherwise be an extremely long article. Allowing direct access to them and treating them as separate articles would cause a lot of problems. Can you not make an exception for subpages of this specific article? JRSpriggs 03:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a very long article anyway, it must be said! (Even if you avoid the individual pages being quite as long.) In the long run, I'd imagine it'd be preferable to convert it to something on the lines of a "summary style" main article, with "first class citizen" articles with more detail. As I say above, if you don't want them to be separate articles at all (which in effect they at present are -- albeit orphaned ones with funny names), moving them to the template space would avoid that. If you really want to keep them as they are, and have my bot leave them alone, you could add a "fake category" inside a wiki comment, and it will skip them. However, that won't stop it showing up on Special:Uncategorizedpages, anyone else being perplexed by it, or it otherwise being an uncategorised top-level page in the article space. Alai 13:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I added a commented out reference to Category:InuYasha to each of them. JRSpriggs 05:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

InuYasha movie names

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InuYasha&curid=113028&diff=136280400&oldid=136200714

Uhm, with that, you are making people THINK that there are no InuYasha English titles.

Because this is how the format is with WP:MOS-JA:

(Japanese, Translation, Meaning)

You are fooling people with that format! WhisperToMe 10:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, if a game DOES NOT have an official English translation, just use Name (Japanese, Meaning) WhisperToMe 10:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If it does: English Name (Japanese, Romanized Japanese name, Meaning (if different)) WhisperToMe 10:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh, I understand what is going on now - the Japanese and English games have separate formats. OH!

Now, I have an idea - Why not separate games that were released in English and games that were NOT released in English instead of just using "English" and "Japanese"? WhisperToMe 10:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I just started the new format. I separated games by type:

• Console video games
  • Japanese + English
  • English only
  • Japanese only
• Mobile phone games
• Trading card games

WhisperToMe 10:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks for your recent report to WP:AIV...keep up the great anti-vandal work! Jmlk17 07:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. And thank you for blocking that vandal. JRSpriggs 07:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The poor energy article

As noted, Hallen, after totally screwing up the energy article, is now going to actively prevent anybody from writing a summary of science-based energy. I really see no alternative but to get him banned from editing the thing. Otherwise we're never going to be left alone to write it. I'm open to suggestions.SBHarris 21:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ordinals

Re your comments at WT:WPM concerning Ordinal number article: the current lead is not at all user-friendly! I don't know if I qualify as your 'unsophisticated reader', but I've had hard time following it, both in terms of the content and of the inner logic. The basic problem seems to be that it appears to be a bulleted list of various properties of ordinals, minus the bullets. The prose is terse, and it's hard to discern whether there is a connection between a sentence and the next one, as in the example of

Larger and larger ordinals can be defined, but they become more and more difficult to describe. Ordinals have a natural topology.

By the way, I am not ashamed trying to read an article on the topic of which I am rather ignorant. An encyclopaedia isn't written for those who already know, and if I needed to choose between making an unintelligable but light, and precise, if technical, statement in the lead, I would prefer the latter, or, perhaps, neither. Cheers, Arcfrk 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-gravity

You should read Goldberg's paper about the role of the Aerospace Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in the history of general relativity theory.Tcisco 05:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro to math of GTR

You have reverted my edit. It seems you agree with me and Carcharoth that the article is not suited to the name Introduction to, which is a standard format for trampoline articles serving the specific goal of explaining things in a non-technical way to the reader. What alternative name do you suggest? Please reply at the talk page of the article. Loom91 20:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mao Zedong and edit protection

For the record, I responded to your comment on another user's talk page (directed at me) a while ago. In case you didn't see it, and care, here's the link: User talk:CBM#Mao Zedong and edit protection 70.132.14.22 06:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for the information

Hey,JR Spriggs!This is Angel David!Thanks for the info about Jimbo Wales and the board of trustees. And I appreciate it. Good Luck editing and have a good day! Oh and may I consider that you make a user page so a lot of people willknow you and oh crate userboxes to tell people about you.

Just a suggestion though! -Angel David 03:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Systolic hyperbolic geometry

I started adding more specific comments on systolic hyperbolic geometry at systolic geometry, comments would be appreciated. Katzmik 14:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Surprising answer

I was surprised by your unfriendly answer in Talk:Cardinality. Did I offend you somehow? I did not intend to. Paolo.dL 13:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd notion of vandalism

Seems you find your own edits of cardinality to be the last word in both accuracy and aesthetics. Well, you are entitled to your view. But what ever happened to WP:AGF, assuming good faith? I find it hard to imagine that you really believe my edits merit the label vandalism as it is commonly used in Wikipedia: "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I am a conscientious and extremely thoughtful copy editor and not entirely ignorant of mathematics. If you'd care to discuss the merits of my edits and of your revert, I invite you to open a discussion on the discussion page of the cardinality article.—PaulTanenbaum 17:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

Continuing the discussion from Talk:Orihime Inoue#Image, I'm quite aware of that, and I have not committed any copyright infringement that I am aware of. All of the non-free images that I upload have a suitable fair-use rationale, license, and source given. If any is inadequate, or you feel I have committed some form of copyright infringement, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you put User talk:CBM on your watch list. CBM is one of those who has actively been removing images which have questionable copyright status. There are often cases when the up-loader believes that an image is covered by the fair use doctrine, but others disagree. Particularly, when it is one of many such images related to the same topic. JRSpriggs 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking back on his contributions, many of the images he has requested to be removed are those where their inclusion in articles is merely decorative, which I indeed support. Most of the images I have uploaded are images of characters for specific character articles, which is suitable for illustrating the appearance of the character, and does indeed increase the comprehension of the reader who is reading the page. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the main image depicting a character in the InuYasha series deleted from that character's article several times. At InuYasha (character) and Kagura (InuYasha) among others. We used to have three pictures of Kagura in her article, but now we have none. JRSpriggs 01:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference was that those images had no source, licensing information, or fair-use rationale, at least according to the edit summaries User:Someguy0830, an editor I would trust on these matters, gave. Every image I upload has these; ergo, there is no existing problem. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-gravity (2)

Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 00:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

InuYasha Episode

Could you please put in information on the episode "The True Owner Of The Great Sword"? I put in information(I did not copy the information, it was in my own words, but the information and article got deleted. I don't see why it should, since there are a few InuYasha episodes listed tat the information put on them is accepted.) I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Maybe you could do it or help me? Thanks. Kagome_85 142.163.26.75 21:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If an article is deleted, you may request a review of that deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion review. It would help to discuss this with an administrator, if you know one (I am not one). See Category:Wikipedia administrators. Do you have a link to the AFD (articles for deletion) discussion? Or was the article speedy deleted? Which administrator deleted it? Why? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I hope this helps. JRSpriggs 03:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try this when I don't have much homework lol. Kagome 85 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Peirce's Law

In the statement of Peirce's law, you've got the quantifiers in the metatheory wrong. It's for all P and Q, not all P and some Q. Your statement becomes trivial by letting Q be P. I'll leave you to fix the page. Nortexoid 07:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I will reply at Talk:Peirce's law. JRSpriggs 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Relativity

I've decided to introduce Wikipedia:WikiProject Relativity as a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. In particular, I'd like to bring your attention to the 'Missing articles' section which people can get their teeth into. Hope all's well. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on Byakuya

Hello there, fellow InuYasha related articles editor. Recently, User:Sesshomaru decided that, according to the manual of style, the Byakuya otheruses pointing to Byakuya Kuchiki should point to Byakuya (Bleach) instead, the latter redirecting, citing MOS:DP#Piping. I think he's misinterpreting the rules there, but it got into a little lame edit war where the Byakuya article about the InuYasha character was moved by User:Sesshomaru to Byakuya (InuYasha), while Byakuya is now a disambiguation page. You may want to read the talk page and offer your two cents, but in the mean time, all the Inuyasha articles with links to Byakuya no longer go to the appropriate article, simply because someone was not happy with perfectly fine direct links.--Boffob 06:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Links to User Space

I didn't put a single link in to my own user space, other people did. They probably prefer my user space article to the encyclopedia article. You aren't going stop people from referencing what they like, no matter what rules you have. Sorry.Likebox (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fellow Inu fan

Hey there, I'm a fellow Inu fan, just thought I would let you know. Lol I recorded the episodes on the last full run, so I was lucky!!Tourskin (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Countable set

I knew I'd irk at least one person with my changes to countable set. That's why I cited Walter Rudin's textbook. Calling Rudin "nonstandard" is a stretch. I will not start a revert war, but I ask you to reconsider. Teply (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's try and avoid a pissing match over usages here. Both usages are reasonably well-attested, but the more common one is that finite sets are countable. So certainly "finite sets are countable" should not be described as an "alternate" (or even, more grammatically correctly, "alternative") usage; it should be the first one mentioned. The "countable means countably infinite" usage also needs to be mentioned, without disparaging it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Haskell Small

A tag has been placed on Haskell Small requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —BoL 04:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break, I just created the article a few seconds ago. Give me some time to fill it in. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I declined the deletion, and put on an underconstruction tag which should help a little, tho people sometimes ignore it. . Get the exact refs in quickly. there are quite an number of people who who think it perfect right to nominate an incomplete article-- there's been an usual amount of it the last day or two-- I dont know what it is, possibly the let-down after Christmas. --it is unfortunately necessary to write it first offline in order to be safe.DGG (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Natural log

JRSpriggs: Regarding this wholesale deletion, please explain how a table of time constants (natural decay rate) as powers of e is “not specific to the NATURAL logarithm.” Greg L (my talk) 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I will respond at Talk:Natural logarithm. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

JR, wouldn’t there still be room for the chart in another part of the article—under another section name—to help show and explain in laymans terms, a very common use for e? Greg L (my talk) 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is probably a place for it in some article. But I would guess that exponential function or radioactive decay would be a better fit than the article on the natural logarithm. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuing: As you wrote recently in Talk:Natural logarithm, “Just as y=ln(x) is inverse to x=e^y, so y=log₁₀x is inverse to x=10^y.” Similarly, the opening paragraph of the Natural logarithm article mentions information betraying how e isn’t really notable, such as… “[i]n simple terms, the natural logarithm of a number x is the power to which e would have to be raised to equal x — for example the natural log of e itself is 1 because e¹ = e, while the natural logarithm of 1 would be 0, since e⁰ = 1.” So it seems to me that none of that makes e unique in any way either, for any number raised to the power of zero equals one and any number raised to the power of one equals itself.

It would be wonderful if the opening definition of the article would 1) not disclose such extraneous, near-valueless information, and 2) better disclose in plain-speak, precisely what property makes e unique. I would like to know. I read up on e while trying to make my contribution and am still at a loss to understand what is special about e. Greg L (my talk) 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

${\frac {de^{x}}{dx}}=e^{x}$. That is it. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delimiting numbers

JR: You’ll note that by delimiting with span control (as done with e here: 2.718281828459), the gaps are slightly narrower, don't break (like a non-breaking space), and (most conveniently) can also be copied and pasted into Excel, where they are treated as numeric values.

We've got a small group of people discussing a plan to create a template-like function to make it easier to delimit numbers like this. It would work similarly to how {{frac|2}} produces 1⁄2 and {{frac|10|11}} produces 10⁄11. This new template would be powerful and convenient. It would allow an editor to type only {{delimitnum:6.02246479|30|23|kg}} in order to obtain the following: 6.02246479(30) × 10²³ kg. As it currently stands, one must code all of the following to accomplish this: 6.022<span style="margin-left:0.25em">464<span style="margin-left:0.25em">79(30)</span>&nbsp;×&nbsp;10<sup>23</sup>&nbsp;kg

The discussion was originally discussed at WT:MOSNUM but got disorderly and dysfunctional there so I and some other advocates picked up the discussion here on my talk page. We would appreciate the assistance of someone deeply involved in mathematics. The link I provided takes you straight to a “nutshell” overview of the proposal. If you like what you see, please weigh in. Greg L (my talk) 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

InuYasha genres

You seem to be more familiar with the franchise than I so here's a question: does the series strike you more as adventurous (like One Piece) or action packed (like Dragon Ball)? Think the topic should be open for discussion on Talk:InuYasha but I wanted an opinion from an expert beforehand. Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not used to thinking about genres, so my opinion may not be worth much. But I think InuYasha is more like One Piece than it is like Dragonball Z. In all of these, the fighting has an essential role, but there is more emphasis on fighting in Dragonball Z than in the other two which give more attention to relationships (character development) and new situations.

Actually, someone put Horror in a while back. Although that was quickly reverted, I tend to think that perhaps he was right. It is a mixture of Horror (ominous supernatural threats) and Romance/Adventure, with occasional comic relief thrown in. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, it seems more like adventure than anything else. According to Wikipedia's Horror (genre), I would definitely say Horror shouldn't be there (it's already classified as supernatural fiction in the box). Yes, Romance (genre) and Fantasy would belong, however, WP:MOS-AM#Content tells us to utilise two or three useful ones. Personally, I feel there are a lot of better examples of romantic series out there and InuYasha would be at the very bottom. Same goes for Fantasy, although it applies less than Adventure, Sengoku-jidai, and Supernatural fiction, we simply can not have an overload of genres. I'll leave a quick post on the talk page. Any thoughts before I do? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead; you do not need my permission. As to Horror, episode 11. "Terror of the Ancient Noh Mask" and episodes 57 & 58 "Fateful Night in Togenkyo" are both clearly horrific. Many other subplots have substantial elements of horror, such as episodes 158 "Stampede of the Countless Demon Rats" which continues in episode 159 "Kohaku's Decision and Sango's Heart". JRSpriggs (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to hop into the discussion if desired. Several editors have expressed their views. You might find it of interest. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)