User talk:Silly rabbit/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Loxodromic definition

I changed the definition of Loxodromic transformation, according to the definition in G.Jones & D. Singerman "Complex Functions". I believe it is preferred to have four distinct and non-intersecting types of maps. I would like to discuss this rather than have an edit war. Paxinum (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was probably quite tired (and/or) in a hurry when I changed it first. Paxinum (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:99.150.113.218

Cute bunny on your talk page!! I got a message from this anon user. I thought this was vandalism when he/she deleted a bunch of links and I reversed them all. I'm a contributer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lutheranism and when an anon user just reverses a bunch of links like that I freak out and reverse them back. I don't like edit wars so I'm just going to let it go and what ever happens, happens. I saw your message on the talk page User talk:99.150.113.218. I don't know if you are an admin or not but I thought you would like to know. Regards --Npnunda (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

bv sequences

Hello, I am Daniele Tampieri: thank you very much for the section you added to the Bounded variation voice. I have reworked it a bit (just repaired a broken link and titled bv sequences instead of simply bv): I also will open a stub about Lamberto Cesari which has important influences on both US and Italian mathematics: so that red link will be no more red. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning an image

In this image it seems less than conspicuous that the line through the center of projection O that is orthogonal to the plane actually passes through the center of the sphere. There are some fairly simple ways one could call attention to that fact. One would be by actually showing that line and indicating the right angle graphically where it meets the plane. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you're talking

If all you wanted me to do was remove the insult from that topic, why didn't you tell me straight up instead of going sideways trying to archive the topic and accusing me of personally attacking you? I'll remove the insult and you stop archiving it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.136.219 (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Groups

Hi Silly rabbit,

from the exterior algebra article you wrote, I draw the conclusion that you are somebody I could ask for the following: it seems that everybody from the math guy's panel is busy or whatever, and cannot respond to my peer review request of groups. If you have some time, would you be so kind to have a look? I'd be grateful. I have tried to cover earlier concerns raised by Geometryguy in the GA-process (about applications and history), so I hope the article has made a substantial leap forward since. Group theory is also slowly growing to a more mature presentation, but the articles should be assessed independently.

Thank you, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image blacklist

Fixed. I thought I'd changed that link before, but didn't notice there are multiple micropenis images listed there. Hut 8.5 11:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please describe the reason for rollback

What is so awful about this rendering that you had to roll it back?

--Yecril (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Silly rabbit — \frac is much nicer than the solidus for derivatives in non-inlined equations, and is much more common if you look at differential-equation textbooks. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The hypothesis that Silly rabbit did not like the fractions in stand-alone equations is not very convincing. He did not use the word "fractions" in the comment and he just nuked everything (as opposed to reverting just the "offending" changes that would have been very easy to remove selectively because I just commented out the original math). Also, please note that Wikipedia is not a textbook and textbook conventions need not apply. --157.25.5.68 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not how it renders in my browser, and it looks much nicer as an inline PNG. The WP:MOSMATH makes specific allowances that formulas may be rendered as PNG, and I see nothing wrong with this. If you want to make a sweeping change to the manual of style, then you may do so on the MOSMATH talk page. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a textbook, but it uses standard notations and math typography. (Introducing new notations would verge on original research.) And textbooks are a good reference to compare to for determining what notations are most common. (Just because Wikipedia is not X does not mean that it does not base its material on X'. Wikipedia is not a reputable source, but that doesn't mean that we don't cite other reputable sources, and in fact it is our stated policy to base Wikipedia content on reputable sources. Do you see the problem with your logic?) —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for undoing the vandalism on my page! Jonni Boi 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Democracy quotes

Thanks for bringing over some quotes from here to Wikiquote on democracy. I hope you don't mind, but I tweaked your post so that the [[en:Democracy]] link, which on Wikiquote actually points to the Wikiquote article, now points to [[en:Democracy]] (the Wikipedia article as seen from Wikiquote). I know it's generally rude to edit another's post, but I assume this was just a mental typo. I hope I haven't offended. I don't want to discourage editors like yourself from transferring material, as there are far too many editors who don't even try to keep us within GFDL guidelines by providing links back to the source articles. Thank you for understanding. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Locally connected space

This is in response to what you wrote on the discussion page (comments) on 'locally connected space'

Proofs are essential for the justification of certain material. It is true that citations are needed however I thought of the examples and the theorems are common (i.e well known) so there is no improvement possible there.

Topology Expert (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Locally connected space

Dear Silly Rabbit,

I didn't properly read what it meant for an article to be of 'top' priority. I guessed that this meant that the article shouldn't be deleted. So I agree with you regarding my article not being of top priority. Maybe it should be third on the list of priority levels. For classifying my article as a featured article, I am going to stay with fixed opinion. I have seen quite a few articles with exactly the same amount of content, detail and mathematical correctness as mine with a 'featured article' rating. But of course this is a trivial matter and I am going to let it go.

For my article on local connectedness, I have discussed about 6 different concepts on the same page. Do you think that the article should be split up into two pages; one on local connectedness, local path connectedness and weak local connectedness and the other on components, path components and quasicomponents? It seems appropriate to me but you are more experienced.

Topology Expert (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dihydrogen Monoxide

The reference I removed was an accident, I didn't realize you edited other sections so of course I apologize for removing it. Your edit summary, addressing me as "1 edit warring editor" is incivil and I would appreciate it if you would stop using that tone of language. The issues with the article are numerous, there is nothing that supports the claims about the origin of the term and the link to the original post is original research. Many of the other claims about the spread and usage of the hoax are likewise uncited original research. The |refimprove parameter may be removed from the article once every statement is cited. The same goes for the |or parameter. The tone of the article is unencylopedic and reads like someone's personal essay. It needs to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic, fix the structure and conform to all the sections in the MoS. Once this is done the remaining two tags may be removed. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• And one more thing, 3RR is a three revert maximum, it does not mean 3 reverts is itself a violation. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• WP:POINT concerns editors disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. I invite you to tell me how my edits are disruptive. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, they'll eventually return until all the issues with the article have been satisfied. Just because you don't like something isn't a valid criteria to remove it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• The point of those tags isn't because someone thought they might look good on an article, it's to let the reader know (and any editors who visit) that the article needs work and may have unencyclopedic or unverified information. Moving the tags to the bottom defeats that purpose and I would ask you to move them back to the top. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well it applies because you're trying to use that argument to remove something you don't like from the article simply because you don't like it. That has never been a valid reason to remove (or delete) anything. If you would like me to repeat each and every single thing I've said here on the talk page of that article let me know and I will do so happily. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• 2 people isn't a consensus and I wasn't edit warring. If I was, you are just as guilty of it as I am. The absence of a discussion on the talk page isn't a permit to ignore the issues present in the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Right, which is why that tag was replaced by |refimprove. Another editor replaced the {{unref}} tag so you may want to explain the difference to them, not me. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the Tube Lemma

Dear Silly Rabbit,

Please see the page on the Tube lemma. I have nominated it for deletion for several reasons which are given on the discussion page. The main reason is probably the fact that the article doesn't even hint that there is a relation between the tube lemma and compactness but there are other reasons too.

Thanks

Topology Expert (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Silly Rabbit,

Thanks for having a look at the article on the tube lemma. I appreciate it. However, could you please note that if the article is deleted, I will start a new article on the generalized tube lemma? This new article will be properly structured and will provide applications to compactness. I am not intending to completely remove the original article. Anyway, thanks once again for your opinion.

Topology Expert (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding our disagreement. I would have no objection to changing the article (or even moving it to generalized tube lemma). I just don't see any need to delete it. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolai Markovitch

A few sources were dug up during the AfD, you might want to reconsider your !vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Riemannian geometry and systolic geometry

Hi,

A few months ago you deleted a link to systolic geometry at Riemannian geometry. I would like to make the following comment. The current version of the article at Riemannian geometry focuses on curvature-to-topology results. There are some fine accomplishments in this area, but I think the current thrust of activity in Riemannian geometry has gone beyond this stage, as represented by the fine book by Cheeger and Ebin from thirty years ago. Currently there is much activity in global Riemannian geometry, strongly stimulated by Gromov in particular. Much of what is going on here is curvature-independent. I think of systolic geometry as an example of a more modern trend in Riemannian geometry. There is obviously a lot of other activity as well. However, I feel that systolic geometry may actually be more representative of modern Riemannian geometry than some of the material that appears at the Riemannian geometry page, and the reader needs to know this. I would like to reintroduce a link to systolic geometry but certainly not to get into a revert war. You are free to comment on the matter. Katzmik (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting

Hi, I just noticed that you removed wikilinks from the dates at the Robert Mugabe article. I think you may have misunderstood the manual of style on this point. Although it is true that dates like bare years such as 1990 should not be linked, a full date including a day, month, and year should be linked. The reason for this is that the MediaWiki software recognizes this combination as a date, and formats it according to the user's preferences. Please look again at the section of WP:MOSDATE on autoformatting and linking where it explains this. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but this is a long standing issue. The relevant wording is: "Such links should not be used unless following the link would genuinely help the reader understand the topic more fully; see WP:CONTEXT.There has been much discussion leading to this point. There has been a petition to the developers to sort out the situation so that dates can be auto-formatted without creating pointless links - the developers have said they regard this as a low priority issue and so nothing has been done. There is currently another move to petition the developers and perhaps get Jimbo involved so that this long running issue is sorted. I would have thought somebody could create a simple template to sort out reader's date preferences without distracting blue text, non-contextual links, and a drain on user's PC resources! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 13:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just restored the edits. The guideline is clear that such links should not be used unless contextual. You may insist again upon the date linking in the article, and I will step back as it's really not worth getting into an edit war over this; however, issues with MOS date formatting should be taken up on the MOS talkpage. Regards again. SilkTork *^YES! 13:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Riemannian geometry

Perhaps Riemannian geometry could be restructured a bit, by introducing a section on Global Riemannian geometry. Here one could mention Gromov's contributions, isoperimetric inequality, etc. Katzmik (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tube Lemma

Dear Silly Rabbit,

Could you please have a look at the article on the Tube lemma. I have made some changes and I think that the article has been polished up. I also removed the {{topology-stub}} tag and the {{unreferenced}} tag; if you think that I haven't done the right think, please let me know.

Topology Expert (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for you

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Now that I see things differently and perhaps more clearly, I believe this barnstar is a bit overdue. As a wikipedian, your overall ability back near the begining of the year to remain civil towards me despite a lack of any real sense of wikipedia guidelines (e.g., WP:TRUTH, etc.) was a good demonstration of admirable wiki-character traits. *smiles* Firefly322 (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

loops and spaces

Hi,

In connection with your edit at introduction to systolic geometry, note that a loop itself is never contractible (finite dimensional spheres are never contractible). The distinction I had in mind was between a loop that can be contracted to a point IN THE AMBIENT SPACE, and one that cannot. Since the terminology I used was vague, I clarified the sentence (at the expense of making it a bit more awkward). Katzmik (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Compactness

Dear Silly Rabbit,

I have written that if X is a simply ordered set having the least upper bound property and inheriting the order topology, every closed interval in X is compact (in the articlecompact space). However, Oded reverted it and says that (-infinity, 0] is a counterexample. I am really not sure what to do so I reverted it back but I don't think that this is the correct way to resolve the problem. On the other hand, I am almost certain that what I wrote is correct. Could you please give me your opinions on this?

Thanks

Topology Expert (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

autodud

Well, now we're both in agreement about your version. Thanks. TONY (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

I was absolutely was not "trolling", I was simply trying to express my opinion, which I have tried to express before, and my contributions to the discussion section keep getting deleted. Can we try to reach an agreement as to whether or not the FSM page will contain anti-FSM hyperlinks instead of deleting everything I try to do to help and pretending that I don't exist? Thank you for your time. KingofAttendance (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bernoulli number

I think your revert for Bernoulli number was incorrect. See the talk page. Loisel (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hilbert space

Phantastic job at "Hilbert space", keep it up! Would be great to have a picture and a couple of examples of finding the best approximation using orthogonal projections (perhaps, the least square method in finite-dimensional situation?). Also, what do you think of adding von Neumann's erogic theorem to applications (under "ergodic theory")? Arcfrk (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good attempt, but feels a tad too technical here. Maybe, move this material into a new dedicated article "von Neumann ergodic theorem" (currently, a section in Ergodic theory)? What I had envisaged is explaining how Hilbert space techniques provide a greatly streamlined approach to a notoriously difficult question (Birkhoff's proof of the pointwise ergodic theorem is allegedly quite complex, and hasn't been simplified since), at the expense of a slightly weaker conclusion. This is somewhat analogous to the role played by the L² techniques in elliptic PDEs. Arcfrk (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you have in mind. Any foray into ergodic theory, however, does seem to require some technical details. I will try at some point in the near future to simplify this section. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No hurry :-) And if ergodic stuff becomes a distraction, just ditch it. Arcfrk (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Integral of secant cubed

Hello. Can you offer any answers to the questions being raised on this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics? Thanks. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pink!Teen at ANI

You're post here was being discussed directly above. I've changed the level 2 header to a level 3 header as they are directly related. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypoelliptic pde and Lewy's example

Howdy, if you find it interesting writing, I would find Lewy's example#Significance for hypoelliptic PDE interesting reading. It is from 2006-06, so I hope it is still interesting to you. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cross products

I think that's not as helpful to the reader. I mean, did somebody just wake up one day and just decide to write that down like that? Clearly not. The determinant formulation came first, and they derived that property from it. Also if you look at: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CrossProduct.html they define it from the determinant and then derive the property.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not a very good way of looking at it working backwards like that. I mean, yeah sure, you can define it like that, it's not technically incorrect, but you probably shouldn't by and large, it ends up seeming pretty arbitrary to the reader until they understand the determinant formulation and then they work backwards.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The cross product was originally defined by Gibbs and Wilson in this way, although they were also aware that a formula using the determinant could be derived from the definition. Most textbooks I have seen also use this as the definition, and I think there is a very strong case to be made for this approach. The determinant definition has no natural motivation associated with it, whereas the geometrical definition in some sense is the motivation for introducing the cross product to begin with. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops

My bad! Glad somebody's reading the new stuff - it took me quite a bit of time to sort out the error in the article confusing the shape operator and the classical 2nd fundamental form. But in so doing I did come across the sumptuously illustrated mathematica book by Gray and co. :-) Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Riemannian connection

Hello silly rabbit. I am just about to edit the last section of Differential geometry of curves and noticed that you had added content to the article on Metric connection which does not agree with what is in almost every text book. There Riemannian connection and Levi-Civita connection are synonymous, e.g. in Kobayashi-Nomizu, Vol. I, do Carmo's Riemannian geometry, etc, etc. Do you mind if I clean up this article and that of the redirects for Levi-Civita connection to remove this confusion? I will also add more references. (This only requires very minor rejigging.) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Levy-Civita is for the tangent bundle; Riemannian is more general. Katzmik (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In my own defense (whatever the outcome of Katzmik's remark, which I'm not sure I agree with), I had only moved the section from elsewhere. Since it seemed plausible enough, I didn't question that the Riemannian connection might refer to a metric connection in the orthonormal frame bundle (without the torsion-free condition), I didn't bother to look into it any further. But it seems equally reasonable to use it to refer to a torsion-free connection. I am totally neutral to the change, but obviously we should go with whatever the standard convention is. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The classic text by Gromoll, Klingerberg, and Meyer in section 3.5 define a Riemannian connection as one for which g is parallel, and Levi-Civita connection as one without torsion. Earlier I was looking at Klingernberg's later book "Riemannian geometry" where he talks about Riemannian connections on more general bundles. Katzmik (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So clearly there is more than one use. Perhaps a sentence or two should be added to the article indicating that some authors require the Riemannian connection to be torsion-free while others do not, and that some use the term Riemannian connection to mean what the article calls a metric connection. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I recall the torsion tensor is defined only in the case of the tangent bundle; for a more general bundle it may not make sense to talk about a storsion-free connection. Levi-Civita being a special case of a Riemannian connection is a generally accepted convention I believe. Katzmik (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Since Kobayashi and Nomizu (the classic reference for differential geometry), Helgason (Differential Geometry, Lie Groups and Symmetric spaces), Do Carmo (Riemanniann geometry),Singer & Thorpe, Lawson & Michelsohn, Milnor & Staffesh all agree, just taking the first few books that I could grab, this would appear to be the established terminology for the connection on the tangent bundle [or equivalently the orthogonal frame bundle and its associated bundles]. Anybody else can add footnotes or additional explanations. Mathsci (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC) in case of ambiguity for other bundles. Mathsci (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have all of those books under my hand, but for example Milnor and Stasheff on page 311, line 6 from the bottom indicate a preference for the Levi-Civita terminology. That which they call it "Riemannian" on page 302 is certainly true, but it does not mean that Riemannian is not a more general notion. Katzmik (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Milnor and Stasheff, page 302:"This preferred connection $\nabla$ is called the Riemannian connection or the Levi-Civita connection." This is what most books say. Usually the more general case is referred to as "compatible with the metric" or "hermitian connection". However, WP only has to represent the sources. Unlike Bourbaki, it does not have to make absolute choices, it has only to represent what is found in mainstream literature. It seems indisputable that the most common usage of Riemannian connection is as a synonym for Levi-Civita connection. Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only is this not indisputable but in fact I strongly dispute this and furthermore such a claim is incoherent, since on general bundles it does not make sense to talk about torsion-free connections thus there is no notion of Levi-C-vita connection there), but it does make sense to talk about Riemannian connections. I think the appropriate way to proceed would be to look up the Riemannian geometry textbooks that are actually in print, which should represent the current consensus better than Kobayashi-Nomizu. The latter is certainly a classic, but the Japanese frequently depart from prevalent conventions. There seem to be three main texts on the market right now, one by Chavel, one by Hulin and Lafontaine and a third author, and one by Petersen. The odd number makes it easy to decide matters by majority vote. I have not looked yet what they say. Katzmik (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say there are other windmills to engage: this one really doesn't warrant a major dispute. I have checked Petersen, where Riemannian requires torsion-free. I don't have the other two books you recommend. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kobayashi spent most of his career at UC Berkeley. He was a colleague of S. S. Chern and Isadore M. Singer. What's all this stuff about the Japanese? Please can we try to keep things in proportion? There are many text books on differential geometry on the market now, in a variety of languages, as Mathscinet shows. I would think 50 or 60 textbooks would be a more reasonable estimate. (I would count Cheeger & Ebin for example.) I just numbered those I happen to keep at home, not in my office. Some books of course have generously been made available as djvu files on the web by unknown forces ... Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Levi-Civita

Incidentally I checked do Carmo's book and he clearly attributes the theorem on the existence of the unique connection to Levi-Civita. I think under the circumstances it is odd not to call it the Levi-Civita connection, which is a much more specific term than Riemannian. Katzmik (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank

Thank you for letting me know about my erroneous spelling fixes. I should have been much more careful in that article. I simply saw all the other changes and did not notice the small change that I made. Sorry for the trouble. --mboverload@ 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

math notation

Just in case I haven't pointed this out to you a hundred times already (otherwise ignore this comment), compare and contrast these:

asymptotically as |x-y|→0.

asymptotically as |x − y| → 0.

and these:

along the diagonal x=y.

along the diagonal x = y.

(Apparently taken from what you wrote at singular integral.) Michael Hardy (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. It's not just the "nbsp"s; it's also that the minus sign needed viagra. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Ulla Senior Silly Rabbit, nice to meet you. --CupPup (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Putnam fellows

Please see Bjorn Poonen's page. Mathsci (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Hello. I am new to this and I was wondering where you got your opinion on flood geology. Jayman97112 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Jayman97112±

Cauchy-Riemann equations

Which browser are you using and on which platform? My edit looked more sensible on linux + firefox combination. --STTW (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The usual convention is that, when the name of the author is part of the text, to use either {{harvtxt}} or {{harvnb}}. Thus, it is reasonable to say:

• ...due to Looman (1923, p. 107)

or

• ...due to Looman 1923, p. 107

but not

• ...due to (Looman 1923, p. 107)

because the latter has the author's name inside the parentheses rather than as part of the preceding clause. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Option two seems better as here you do not have one parenthesis in blue and the other in black as in option one (version which I edited). Option one looks odd and perhaps also confusing. --STTW (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. It was an excellent idea to add an informal introduction to the section on parallel transport. Many thanks. I'm trying to figure out how to make a minor tweak to what you wrote so that it also applies in the more usual setting of parallel transport along arbitrary piecewise C¹ curves in the surface. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

slight mess

The problem with riemannian connections is that if they are defined on general bundles then there is no way of defining torsion hence one must allow them to have torsion even in the case of the tangent bundle. Meanwhile, part of the literature focusing on the tangent bundle case, refers to the torsion-free connection as the riemannian connection. Lawson and Michelsohn solve the problem by calling it the canonical riemannian connection. The person who went to the trouble of writing most of the connection pages in wiki, refers to it as the Levi-Civita connection, as does a large part of the literature. Katzmik (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if that was the (only) mess MathSci was referring to. If so (whatever the outcome of the discussion with MathSci), I think it should stay as the Levi-Civita connection rather than Riemannian connection. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure which page you are referring to exactly, but in my opinion the best way to proceed would be to preserve the status quo. Thus the subsection at differential geometry of surfaces should retain its title "riemannian connection" unless a discussion at wiki project math decides otherwise. Katzmik (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to the articles in Category:Connection (mathematics). Mathsci implied that there was a slight mess. Since I wrote most of those articles, I offered to fix the problem. That's all. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say this is an ideal application of the principle "don't fix it if it ain't broke", unless again a discussion at wikiproject decides otherwise. Katzmik (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

free loop

Hi,

I was thinking of creating an entry for "free loop" but noticed that it is already occupied by a rock band. Would it be hard to create an appropriate disambiguation page? A free loop, as opposed to a based loop used in the definition of the fundamental group, is a map from the circle to the space without the basepoint-preserving restriction. Free homotopy classes of free loops correspond to conjugacy classes in the fundamental group. Katzmik (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I started it for you: Free loop. Right now it just gives a definition. Feel free to rewrite the whole thing if you like ;-) siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathsci/subpage1

Hi, silly rabbit. For the section on parallel transport, I'm trying to merge together the intro from Berger's panorama - which uses geodesic curvature to explain parallel transport plus "rolling without slipping or twisting" - your intro, mine, explicit rolling for the 2-sphere (possibly with formulas), and Arnold's construction of parallel transport by approximation (which in fact generalizes to n-manifolds as explained in Arnold and Berger's panorama). This will take a little time but because it needs to expand before it can contract, it seemed best to do it in a semi-private space. It shouldn't take too long, now that I have identified most of the sources. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a worthy enterprise. I made a fruitless attempt to find some sources on rolling without slipping or twisting that were independent of the mechanical formulation of the Chaplygin sphere problem (which is another worthy article unto itself, but not suitable for a general discussion of parallel transport). I believe this is quite a classical approach to parallel transport, but I can't find any discussions of it referencing the older literature. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a full account in Appendix B of Sharpe's book as well as Cartan's Sorbonne lectures. Also Berger explains it. Another way to think about it is that, because of the Gauss map, it's in fact enough to do it for the 2-sphere. Anyway I'm glad you approve. Mathsci (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I decided in the end that Katzmik's suggestion to keep S² and embedded surfaces a little more separated was probably the best for encyclopedic presentation (it is not the way I'd teach this stuff). The rolling is still being polished over on subpage1 and will take a little more time. I also made everything apply to any Riemannian 2-manifold regardless of an embedding, because of JRSpriggs's question on wikiproject mathematics. Proof by intimidation has been used to define the (oriented orthonormal) frame bundle. The pruning of sections seems to help and more figures are always possible (even if a bit hard to draw). I think Koszul's name is usually attached to covariant derivatives like $\nabla _{X}$. Mathsci (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits on Alexandroff extension

Hello, I noticed your recent edits on the aforementioned article. I personally prefer math mode to html, because (i) I know latex but not html and (ii) many html math symbols don't get rendered on my browser of choice (internet explorer); I had to switch to Mozilla to see your edits. It is my understanding that wikipedia nevertheless prefers html (why is this, by the way?).

Anyway, in the changeover the \hookrightarrow between X and X^* got lost. I don't know how to put it back without changing it back to math mode. Could you take care of this? Thanks, Plclark (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally left the arrow out. Wikipedia prefers html because LaTeX often aligns poorly with the text in an html document, and can also cause the lines of text to align poorly relative to one another. More details are available at WP:MOSMATH. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

my user page

Someone has recently edited my user page and has violated Wikipedia rules, he deleted everything one there, you should give him a warning, and then probably teach me how to do a warning, just click history on my user page and you'll see an IP address please

Thanks Jonni Boi 21:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Riemannian geometry of surfaces

Hello. I left a note on the WPM talk page about splitting off the last section "Riemannian connection" of Differential geometry of surfaces into an article with the above name (or some variant). The classical section would probably only need a little rejigging (principally the Gauss-Codazzi equations). What do you think? Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Steiner chain

In this edit, you changed "≥" to ">". I've never thought about it before, but I think I can picture one of these with only three circles. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're right. It was a lapse on my part. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

You recently commented on Talk:Semen about the image situation; discussion has been ongoing, since, and more comments might be appreciated. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Vector (spatial)

Dear Silly Rabbit, although you are "pretty stressed" in this period :-), I hope you like my edits to vector (spatial). As already discussed in the talk page, "vector (spatial)" is a somewhat questionable title for this article which is supposed to have a restricted scope. Any vector in a vector space, even the most abstract vector space, is spatial. Can we change to "vector (elementary physics)", for instance? By the way, thank you for writing this article. Its structure is quite nice and the information it provides is very useful. Paolo.dL (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the term "spatial vector", together with "space-vector". But I did it only because you seem to like this expression (you repeat it several times on the talk page). Is it used by some authoritative authors? Or is it only your own way to distinguish this article from coordinate vector? The only place where I have read this terminology is Wikipedia. Paolo.dL (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:vector (spatial). Paolo.dL (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

surface transport

Hi,

I adjusted the section on Riemannian connections at differential geometry of surfaces to fit better with the case of surfaces. Please take a look. Katzmik (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Guggenheimer Affine curvature.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Guggenheimer Affine curvature.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Intrinsic equation of evolute

Hi! Can you please evaluate if the intrinsic equation given for Evolute is correct. I have doubts with it.--Dojarca (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: User move request

Hi. The user it:User:Silly rabbit is now free. Grab it. Ciao. --Paginazero (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL

Rabbit, can you give other examples like the one you gave at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words&diff=231465317&oldid=230728562? Feel free to reply at that talk page, or here, or my talk page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FIbre Bundle

Dear Silly Rabbit,

Please (if you have time) have a look at User Talk: OdedSchramm; I have included my opinions on why the article on fibre bundles is not satisfactory (this is an understatement). Also (this is an indication of the article's standards), if you have a look at the section on examples, examples of fibre bundles are given and then it is written: the corresponding trivial bundle would be the cylinder, the corresponding trivial bundle would be the torus etc... This is nonsense since a bundle is an ordered quadruple (at least for fibre bundles without structure groups); one cannot describe it with one particular space! I have included some comments on the discussion page of the article, but I doubt that someone will look at it.

Since you are an experienced Wikipedia user, do you know whether it is necessary to include an article on orbit spaces? I was thinking of adding the topological relevance of orbit spaces to the article on Orbit (mathematics) but I am not sure whether this is appropriate. Could you please give me your opinions on this?

Thanks

Topology Expert (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your excellent and considered contribution to that discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity

I saw that you had commented on the bias of the article. Well, another editor decided it was too biased against Christianity, "fixed" it, and removed the POV tag. I'm no writer, I'm just a gnome, so maybe you could give it a look-see? Would appreciate it muchly... Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pythagorean Triple

Dear Silly_rabbit,

Thanks for that article. I see you have removed my "edit", but the error still remains. It seems you are going to correct it later. Any idea why your entry doesn't appear correctly?

This is about my third attempt to write you, not counting scanning your home page for some way of contacting you.

By the way, there is no "navigation bar above", and so no "+" to click on. I can't even remember how I get to this page, but get interrupted -- at work -- before I can send the message.

As a new user, I find that Wikipedia is a bit cavalier about editing its pages, but makes it hard for one user to contact another about possible corrections.

Other 1st day complaints: no cursor -- either here or when doing an edit. I have to backspace to find out where I am on the screen.

I've tried to register my E-mail address, so maybe things will be easier next time.

Best wishes,

Lem

John Lemuel (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused about the error you are reporting. The formula renders properly for me, and I have looked at it in a couple of different browsers. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

oh, that is the navigation bar??? but it is not above itself

John Lemuel (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

my error -- didn't scroll right,but end of eq. goes past apparent margin

John Lemuel (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you

for bringing back humor into weird markup propsals by your umpalumpas! :) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks too for revealing that the collective noun for umpalumpas is in fact cadre. I'd always wondered about that. Chenxlee (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts about Fourier Transform

Hi. Back in march or so you reverted some edits of a disgruntled reader of the Fourier Transform article and to better express his frustration you added a too technical tag, which is probably appropriate. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about how to make the article better, I have been thinking about it for a while now, but I think I need an outsiders prospective, because the only things that come to my mind would require massive changes to the article. Also, on a side note, I wanted to commend you for the hard work you put into Hilbert Transform, if I weren't a frequent editor of the article I would try get it moved to Featured article status. Thenub314 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cauchy-Riemann Equations

Yeah, you were right: the limit wasn't wrong. I guess I must have gone cross eyed. Although I think it is much clearer now. I think it's better to use a real variable to take the limit. So take h and ih to be the infinitesimals and let h tend to zero. I know it's all the same, but the none expert might get confussed. Nice to see that you're on the ball though dude. Keep up the good work. Declan Davis (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Great Work!

Dear Silly Rabbit,

Thanks for improving the article on fibre bundles!

Topology Expert (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

ID cite-book template

Geez, that was quick! Thanks, Silly rabbit. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Warning

Do not insist on edit warring unless you have legitimate concern. At least now you have brought it to the talk page rather than instantaniously reverting, against the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.52.116 (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Well apparently you havnt brought it to the talk page as you stated. You have just used another discussion to complain to continue to deflect criticism of THAT topic upon yourself. I see you are begining to look like a vandel. I suggest you stop it and/or procede to discuss whatever problem you have within a seperate talk on the talk pages. 124.182.52.116 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

See WP:CON and WP:BRD. Also, please don't personally attack me by calling me a POV-pusher. Also learn to assume good faith if you wish to continue to contribute to this project. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Shogartu, and rollback

Hi, I blocked this user. I was wondering if you would like to have rollback rights on your account ? It allows to revert vandalism faster and is especially useful in those cases. Cenarium ^Talk 01:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Geodesic dome

Hi. You recently reverted the above article to a previous version last edited by yourself, on the basis that a lot of text was deleted without explanation. However, looking at the edit (by an anonymous user) to which you appear to be referring, it looks like a thoughtful attempt to restructure the article and I can't see that much content has been removed. It occurs to me that the anonymous user, perhaps unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policy on edit summaries and discussing major edits on talk pages, seems to have been acting in good faith and their edit warrants a second look. Robin S (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit was vandalism pure and simple: it was a revert to this revision of the article from June 2006. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was aware that was a possibility, but I have never seen an out-of-the blue reversion intended as vandalism before, especially not to such an old version of an article, and thought asking you would be the fastest way to check. Robin S (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cartan's theorem

Oops, my mistake.

Topology Expert (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Vector space terminology

At Direct sum of modules I changed [1] "The cartesian product V × W can be given the structure of a vector space K" to "The cartesian product V × W can be given the structure of a K-vector space" and you changed it back [2], describing it as an error. Now, I've never seen your precise terminology used, whereas the phrase ""K-vector space"", for "vector space over K" is pretty standard I think. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I misread the diff. Yes, I had intended it to be K-vector space as well. Vector space over K is also acceptable. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Linear algebra puzzler

Solution by eigendecomposition added. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Thanks. Ht686rg90 (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I love you

I do hope you understand, this debate is very invigorating for me. I am not challenging you, per se, as much as I am WP's double standard on what constitutes a good source. Personally, I am a devout Christian that has evolved to the point where I don't care what people believe as long as they believe in something. I do not prosletyze, I do not force my belief system on others. Currently, I do not have anything from Kentucky as of yet, because I just thought of it this morning at 4am or so. But I know how Kentucky is about religion. I may run into a problem finding out how to get it recognized at first, but I believe I would have no problem getting approval for the "Religious Society of Gospel Believing Chimmney Sweeps" if I so try.

I am unsure if you are so set that FSM is a parody that no one will be able to assert otherwise. Between you and me, and whoever reads your talk page,I wonder what some of these Hollywood religions have on people.

WP wants to be taken seriously so they require citations. That is great. An article I wrote was challenged as non-notable person David Winters (choreographer). I took that as a personal challenge, and scoured for unimpeachable sources. That is why I have about half the sources as hardcover books by reliable publishers. Your USA today article is a good source that supports the assrtion that FSM is a parody, but I feel the University recognition as a religion supports the postion that the IS should be softened. Cheers. ----K3vin (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pythagorean Triples

Dear Silly_rabbit,

I thought I had made a great discovery when I noticed 2*z^2 = x*y (using other letters. So, I'd just like to know how many centuries it has been known. I have the Sierpinski book, but don't recall this equation. It has been many years since I read it though. I will have to look it over again.

I printed out the article, and will try to print out the discussion pages next. I will see how else I've been anticipated. My other "discovery" was angle doubling for Pythagorean triangles. I did scan Sierpinski and found nothing on that, but Prof. Neil J. A. Sloane has one example (versus a general approach)in his "Sequences" page (at AT&T, I think). I sent him a note but his reply wasn't explicit enough for me. I know he's very busy though, and was pleased to get a reply.

Basically, I've noticed that doubling either acute angle in a Pythagorean Triangle leads to another; but it is easier to always pick the smallest angle. Going in the other direction, any such "family" leads back to two non-Pythagorean parents that each have both legs as integers (i.e. a^2 +b^2 is not a perfect square). For example, for [3,4,5], the parents are [1,2, sqrt(5)], and [1,3, sqrt(10)].

Now this may be covered in the discussion pages, but I haven't looked at them yet.

Best wishes, John Lemuel (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

John Lemuel (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You have been blocked for 12 hours for violating WP:3RR on Fidel Castro. When telling other users to follow 3RR, please make sure that you haven't violated policy yourself. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I was reverting a user who was making edits obviously against the longstanding consensus at Fidel Castro, and who was not engaging in discussion on the matter. I see that now the editor is willing to persue the matter on the talk page rather than continue to edit war. See my post at Talk:Fidel Castro, as well as my very non-WP:BITEing entreaties to bring the new user into discussion.}}

Are you willing to stop editing the article while discussion is taking place yourself? Regardless of what side of consensus you're on, repeatedly reverting edits is considered disruptive. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I will stop editing the article. I would even be willing to set up an RfC on the matter, so that consensus can really solidify on the matter. This issue has been discussed at length, and an NPOV lead was finally settled upon. Perhaps a wider group of editors may lead to a stronger consensus. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I should also remark that there is this exception to WP:3rr, and I believe that these reverts fell squarely under:

Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons.

Castro is a living person, and calling him a dictator without a source is controversial. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversial? Well, if the shoe fits... —Travis^talk 01:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what an essay on WP:DUCK has to do with anything. The lead had already undergone substantial flux between the two camps. The existing consensus version achieves neutrality by merely asserting facts, not making any unsourced extrapolations. If it turns out that the majority of sources would call Castro a dictator, then and only then is it ok to say that in the lead of the article. Otherwise, the lead shouldn't give undue weight to either side. Isn't that what WP:NPOV demands? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering retirement

There are times when I really have to question my faith in this project. I have dedicated thousands of hours to this project, and have, with assistance and collaboration, written hundreds of articles. However, there is always a certain group of people who are going to persist in pushing their own point of view against Wikipedia's core policies. Policies like the neutral point of view and no original research. If administrators use their tools arbitrarily, and continue to block those editors who are the biggest assets to the project, then the project will lose in the long run. Blocking should not be done so callously and arbitrarily. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It is not governed by strict rules. Actions like this should be carefully considered to benefit, rather than to hurt, the project. Yet I have seen, more often than not, senior editors who I admire immensely being blocked over petty Wikidrama issues. This is not helping the project, and is discouraging some of its most dedicated contributors.

I am giving retirement serious consideration. It seems that the rank-and-file editors seem to get abused by the upperclass of administrators. These administrators take it upon themselves to enforce "the rules" unquestioningly and with neither solicitation to do so, nor a consideration of the possible outcome of these actions. Whereas a block was originally intended as a last-resort measure (even in cases of edit-warring), now it seems that there is a new class of administrator who have a block-first and ask-questions-later attitude. In the old WP:CIVIL days of Wikipedia, all it would have taken is for someone to ask me, politely, to stop reverting the changes. Equally politely, they could have asked the other party to do so as well.

If this is the approach of the new Wikipedia, then I think I want to have no part in it. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow the rules and you won't be blocked. As someone who cited WP:3RR in his/her edit summary, it is your responsibility to make sure you were well within policy yourself. I can understand your after-the-fact rationale of violating 3RR, but I never saw an explanation for your repeated reversions of Alex2706 on any talk page. I have a big issue with long-time editors who claim that their edits are valid according to policy, but when policy comes to bite them in the ass (i.e. block), they proclaim that WP:IAR should be applied. Furthermore, I find it even more frustrating when people argue their way out of 3RR blocks; IAR has always conflicted with 3RR, but people have derived a number of exceptions to 3RR to accommodate special circumstances. Judging from your fairly simple edit summaries (excluding the last one), I don't think you were thinking of the BLP exception to 3RR during your edit warring. On a personal note, I've been an administrator for more than two years and an editor almost as long as you. I apply WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR strictly, and I don't tolerate attempts to violate these policies. I have decided to unblock you, based on the notion that you will refrain from edit warring and stick with discussion on talk:Fidel Castro. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I never saw an explanation for your repeated reversions of Alex2706, as according to 3RR. In other words, I didn't see why you felt it was alright for you to violate 3RR, but not Alex2706. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my block made you feel that way. I will take your suggestion to heart, but I cannot say that I entirely sympathize with your cause. I myself have been put between a rock and a hard place on a number of occasions, but I've always made sure that I haven't violated any policies while I was trying to defend the integrity of our articles. In any case, I salute you for your work to this encyclopedia, and I hope that you will find it more effective to contact an administrator to deal with a troublesome user, rather than placing the burden entirely on your shoulders. Regards, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

I truly understand how you are feeling, as back in 2006 we went through the same issues on Fidel Castro. In fact we came up with a pretty good article, until someone trashed it, and an RFC on him languished for months because he never responded. I have stayed away from the page ever since, except to revert the occasion obvious vandal, because of the incessant edit wars that never are resolved. However, even now, almost three years later, my edits on the page are remain voluminous. See [3] - a total of 446 edits! I tell you this because I have found the only way to survive this sort of thing is to back away. Not to be discouraging, but some topics are hopeless. Peace of mind and a comforable emotional state are more important than trying to improve an article that has a long history of getting trashed. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

dual space

read the line again, how is the dual space the set of parallel lines and more so how can you count the intersections of a vector with lines parallel to it?

68.42.51.85 (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

p-integrable sequences spaces, in the L^p article

Dear Silly Rabbit,

I think you meant to say: every separable Banach space is a quotient of $\ell ^{1}$. Bdmy (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks. I should have looked up the result before adding it. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

plagarism

hi, can you tell me what part of the passage in the mao article is plagarised. thanks--60.242.159.224 (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The part that you copied straight out of a book. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I still don't understand, and I still have no idea which part you claim was "copied straight out of a book". If you don't mind showing me which part, I can rewrite the passage.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Operant conditioning chamber

Hi about Operant conditioning chamber page. That citation doesn't exist what we were talking about before so we'll leave that section out on popular extensions. thanks for your help 24.63.31.233 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed (dual of L^p)

The rabbit is indeed a very quick animal, but sometimes the turtle wins the race (in La Fontaine) Bdmy (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Good hunting... umm... Happy editing.  ;-) siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak?

You might want to remove the wikibreak notice. Your "long" wikibreak seems to have lasted just under four hours :) It's hard to stay away, isn't it?LowKey (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please watch your edit summaries.

Please maintain civility in your edit summaries. "Lunatics" is hardly civil. Also make sure of your facts. I did not add the text that you removed here [[4]], I merely reverted your earlier removal of it.LowKey (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. You did add the supposed facts in question. Even if through a reversion, you are still responsible for them. Also, in the context of our debate over how to present the WP:FRINGE views of a handful of religious zealots in a manner that does not assign WP:UNDUE weight to the *extreme* fringes of scientific study, I don't see at all how the use of the somewhat hyperbolic term "lunatic" can be dubbed incivil. If you feel offended because you are yourself one of the aforementioned fringe group, then perhaps you should abstain from editing said article, rather than lash out at me when I use a characterization of the subject of the article that you feel is inappropriate. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no argument with you removing the text as uncited. However, it was not my addition. It was someone else's. I reverted your removal because in your edit summary you gave a reason that was simply not valid, regardless of the content that you removed and I restored. You then removed it a for different given reason, and you will note that I have not restored it. Ah hang it, it's not worth arguing about this. I really don't care about your removal of the text as long as your stated reason is valid. (It wasn't particularly well written to start with).

As to civility, do you seriously not understand how "fringe lunatics" is not civil? Well how about..(From WP:CIVIL, emphases added)

These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

 Rudeness 
 Insults and name-calling 
 Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen") 
 Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor 
 Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice 
 Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves 
 Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel 
 Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors 
 Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them 
 Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs 
 Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner 
 Harassment 
 Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"

The fact that you consider "fringe lunatics" to be only "somewhat" hyperbolic and not all uncivil, and yet characterise as "lashing out" my rather low key request (I even said "please" - with no emphasis) which included a simple example of what I was getting at, may indicate that you really do need a wiki-break.LowKey (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to move all of this to either my talk or your talk if you wish. I find it hard to track discussion going on in two places. (I like to read back before responding)LowKey (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point here. If you take such offense to the characterization of a decidedly fringe group as fringe (and all the baggage that goes with that — hyperbolic charges of "lunacy" included), then perhaps you should recuse yourself from editing the article in the first place. You have already demonstrated a repeated pattern of unwillingness to adhere to consensus, and otherwise tendentious editing at the Flood geology article. Accusations of incivility are just another part of that same pattern. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Also the "playing dumb" and "Using derogatory language towards other contributors" charges that you quote obviously do not apply to anything that I said in an edit summary or otherwise. I have a feeling that this entire thread was started just in order to provoke me, and so it is in real danger of being archived. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact

Hi. Please don't vandalize the evolution section. The statement "The majority of people do not accept Darwin's theory of evolution as fact." is true. It was also sourced by a well respected news company. If you have a problem you should first use the talk page rather than edit out facts with unsourced, more subjective, statements.

Lol (no offense). Who said anything about creationism? I accept evolution regardless of my believing in a creator. Maybe not all concepts styles or specifics of it for scientific reasons, but that's a whole other issue you can view on a shared channel regarding this matter (youtube.com/playitalready) I already thanked someone for editing it to say Americans and not people. YOU CENSORED THAT too! Nice try though. There WERE NO OTHER SOURCES! IF you've a better source, you're free to explain why it's better and provide it. I didn't realize that I have to appeal to popular opinion on wikipedia so that I may provide a factual and sourced statement, or that using statistics in scientific articles about evolution not relavant and violates rules. Wow, I been wondering why aspects of the Darwin's theory weren't confronted before. Good censorship, and I thought the Abrahamic creationists were bad. Look please don't shift the burdon of proof. Americans should be substituted for people. Otherwise you shouldn't censor a more specific and sourced statement for a lesser one. If not, you could get suspended. Anyway I see why wikipedia is notorious for being untrustworthy and you can have it that way. Later

No poll is perfect but we can see the general result around 1/2 or more not believing in Darwinism in full or to some degree. Oh and it was ok to use not the whole America as an example but some Oklahoma case? If it was a supreme case and federal than at best it would be equal to the poll of America as a whole! Thought you had a good point but never mind. And if you're so worried about the poll being unfair or something, why not add the other polls you like so that the uptmost use of facts are provided rather than edit it out to some vague obviously anti creationist biased statement that was previously stated?But according to you I guess the only fair thing to do is leave the "There are those who refuse to accept" style, or what ever you changed it back to,where it kind of implies there are small small pesky disease of people who won't accept the flawless fact? What ever. I looked up Vandalism and maybe it wasn't 100% vandalism or on purpose but you're supposed to talk it out and prove your case rather than censor. Obviously you didn't read parts of my last message or you'd be sure to address everything in a full and logical way. Well I suggest you view the evolution vid on youtube.com/playitalready and leave your comments, you won't get censored there. The vid isn't the best but the links are, or else I'd be 100% Darwinist still and my upcoming book wouldn't argue against it at all. What ever, later. -Sfvace (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You did not prove anything. You don't seem to be even reading my replies or else you would not repeat the whole appeal to popular opinion argument. I said you censored something for the reasons I gave. If not fact, worse case is that it's my observation. Please review my last messages and don't edit war or do these frustrating things your doing. Thanks Sfvace (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)