User talk:Gandalf61

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 2003-2005 | Jan-July 2006

Contents 1 Trigonometry 2 Cohn's criterion holds for n=2 3 Midy's theorem 4 Rated Cohn's irreducibility criterion 5 Prime triplet 6 An alternative elementary formulation for Zeta function 7 Ref desk deletion 8 Friday's behavior 9 Ref Desk answer 10 Rules for deletion 11 Rules for Ref Desk opinions ? 12 Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ? 13 Yeah, but 14 Change 15 Be careful on WP:3RR 16 Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules 17 Flame 18 Sorry to see you leave the RD 19 Light current 20 Troublemakers 21 Forgot to sign 22 Email 23 A small request 24 Happy Holidays ! 25 Ref Desk Barnstar 26 ICMI article 27 ITN 28 Big Bang 29 Tricosagon 30 Happy Birthday 31 Metamath 32 Thanks 33 Your question 34 Naming names, S.V.P.

[edit] Trigonometry

I honestly have no idea how I managed that, but I've put it back now. Sorry! Thanks for pointing it out! -- Vary | Talk 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cohn's criterion holds for n=2

Please, do not remove my contribution to the article A. Cohn's irreducibility criterion. I've added the reference proving that the criterion also holds for n=2. If you cannot view the DVI file with the proof, you better convert the file to a PDF file with utilities such as dvipdfm, or download a DVI viewer program such as xdvi (for Linux) or windvi (for Windows). [This note was added by 62.101.175.138 on 13-Aug-2006 at 03:47]

Gandalf, I agree with 62.101's point about n=2, but I wonder if you would support moving this article to 'Cohn's Irreducibility Criterion'. See my note at [1]. By the way, do you know if this was Arthur Cohn? If anyone has a cite for his original paper that could be added to the article it would be good. EdJohnston 01:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midy's theorem

Hey, I was surprised to find that Midy's theorem is a bluelink at all, let alone so comprehensive. Thanks for writing it! Melchoir 17:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rated Cohn's irreducibility criterion

Hi Gandalf, you have contributed to this article. See if you agree with the rating I put on it via [2]. EdJohnston 17:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prime triplet

Thanks for good edits to prime triplet and removing the clarification tag. It was the first article I created. I should probably be more careful to explain things which are obvious to me when I know the subject well. PrimeHunter 12:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An alternative elementary formulation for Zeta function

Hi,

thanks for your comment on my post re Zeta function. We tried to get the result published in the AMS bullettin, but as expected it bounced within days of submission, with no reviews. Would you be able to suggest a journal that might be interested in publishing such a simple result?

Many thanks.

Riccardo Poli

No, sorry, I don't have any suggestions. Gandalf61 15:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref desk deletion

Of course I can explain, thanks for asking. I'm not removing comments because they're offensive—although that is a factor in how important it is to remove them—and that comment wasn't offensive at all. However, in my reading it was an opinion/argument of the user, and contained no information contributing to answering the original question. Someone asking what Hawking's religion is does not turn the ref desk into a free-for-all discussion on Hawking's religion. -- SCZenz 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to use my best judgement. Bear in mind that I can't read everything, and that I've not appointed myself the official censor of the reference desk. I'm just one user trying to do the right thing. I'm being insistent about it, when challenged, because the situation on the ref desk has been allowed to get out of hand; but my ultimate goal is for everyone to make reasonable decisions about what's appropriate and what isn't on their own. In the short term, I'm hoping that (time permitting) other users will also remove irrelevant discussion if they feel this is a good thing to do. If you haven't seen it already, User:SCZenz/Reference desk removals explains a bit of what I'm removing and why. -- SCZenz 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All maintenance on Wikipedia is done by volunteers. On newpage patrol, sometimes crappy new pages are kept; sometimes pretty good pages get deleted while no one's looking. Sometimes vandalism is reverted quickly, and sometimes slowly. Is this fair? Maybe not, but it's the best we can do. Better to do the right thing sometimes than not at all.

As for your suggestion that we need an official process to handle off-topic posts on a very rare kind of page (namely, question pages in project space), I'm not so sure we do. My comment removals (except for point #5) are justified by the smallest common-sense leap: that the reference desk is very similar to a talk page, so the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines about staying on topic are applicable. The standards on my page follow from existing policy and an understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia and the reference desk; just because you're afraid some people don't have the good judgement to do what I'm doing without making a mess, I don't think that means I should stop.

I'd like to say, though, that this discussion is a valuable one and your concerns are quite understandable. If many ref desk editors would really be comforted by "official" guidelines allowing the removal of off-topic discussion, I think I would be willing to work with them on it (although I'll have to think about it a little more). -- SCZenz 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#The tone of the Reference Desk. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friday's behavior

You seem to be as disgusted by User:Friday's biased, excessive "stalking" block of User:light current as I am. Would you support me, if I register a complaint against User:Friday ? StuRat 09:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Friday's block of Light current (I have explained why on AN/I) but I would prefer not to escalate the issue at this stage. Why don't we first talk to Friday on his talk page, and see if he will agree to reduce the length of the block ? When he has calmed down a bit, he may regret his over-reaction - let's give him a chance to put it right. Gandalf61 09:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, are you willing to take the lead on this ? I personally have found him to be extremely stubborn and non-responsive to editor complaints, so doubt if you will have much success in working with him. StuRat 10:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Done - I have posted a polite suggestion at User talk:Friday. Gandalf61 10:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's hope he takes your suggestion. BTW, do you really feel a 48 block is appropriate, or is this just a "compromise position" on your part ? StuRat 11:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a compromise position, which will, I hope, allow Friday to make some amends for his over-reaction without too much "loss of face". I see that opposition to the length of the block is building on AN/I. Gandalf61 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref Desk answer

This is just a very big thankyou for such a speedy and fab response! I wanted to find it so badly and right now it's downloading to go on my iPod. I thought it fitted so well there in the episode and now I'm really happy! :D Farosdaughter 22:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem ! I'd just taped Torchwood, so I was able to rewind and check the song very easily. Yes, it did fit the story line really well. Gandalf61 23:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules for deletion

Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion: [3] ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat 07:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Gandalf61 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. StuRat 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules for Ref Desk opinions ?

Would you care to comment on rules for Ref Desk opinions: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Next_item_for_consensus_discussion:_Opinion ? StuRat 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Gandalf61 11:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ?

Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Opinions_on_template_removal ? StuRat 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

... and done. Keep up the excellent work, StuRat - it is a slow process, but it is definitely moving things along. Gandalf61 11:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah, but

APHRODISIAC is a street name for a specific brand of E, aka MDMA. I certainly hope you knew what you were doing when you vouched for the value of that question to the encyclopedia - by reinstating it, I would argue you are responsible for it and any answers it garners. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change

Incorrect. Generally, new proposals are written on one page and tagged 'proposal', and discussed on its talk page. It is, of course, permissible to edit both a proposal and an already-accepted guideline to improve it; if we don't want something edited, we protect it. Please see WP:POL. (Radiant) 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is obviously rude and disruptive to replace and re-write a whole page while it is being actively discussed on its talk page, as Hipocrite did. Adding his new version at the top of the page is, I guess, slightly better as it allows both versions to be compared. Anyway, I have given my opinions on Hipocrite's version at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline. Gandalf61 14:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to reword it. The point of creating guidelines is reaching a compromise. That, incidentally, is why the votes are counterproductive, since they block compromise. (Radiant) 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful on WP:3RR

Gandalf, your reverts of the non-consensus edits of the guideline page have been appreciated. However, we need to be careful to avoid getting blocked for 3RR violations, so keep that in mind. StuRat 14:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, was not going to revert again. Have given my opinions on the new text at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/guideline. Won't do any harm to leave the new text up for 24 hrs, or until Radiant and Hipocrite calm down a bit. Gandalf61 14:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules

Vote here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. StuRat 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flame

Please take some time to read through the way Wikipedia creates policy and guidelines (WP:POL, WP:PPP, Wikipedia:How to create guidelines). You'll see that they are not in fact created by voting on motions, but rather through discussion. From that, I hope you realize that I wasn't throwing fuel on the fire, but attempting to turn the guideline creation back into proper channels; StuRat was simply going at it in a way that doesn't work on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the house of parliament, after all; if you want to make a guideline here, don't use parliamentary procedure. HTH! (Radiant) 17:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. There was constructive discussion going on and you could have helped. Instead you got fixated on your "we don't vote" mantra and you just kept stoking the fire. Now Hipocrite has seen the merry blaze that you created and he has gone one better by throwing a whole crate of dynamite onto the fire. Everyone's hard work is blown to kingdom come, folks will retreat back to their trenches and the RD wars will simply continue. Both of you leave me unutterably depressed. Gandalf61 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Question, Gandalf... would you say that making personal attacks and throwing around accusations of vandalism is constructive discussion, or throwing fuel on the fire? (Radiant) 13:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant - I would say that your rhetorical question combines allusion or innuendo, misdirection and a false dilemma. As the Bard says, it is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". Gandalf61 14:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is a rhetorical question, but you have ignored the underlying issue, in that you accuse one side of fueling the fire, but ignore the fact that the other side has made several personal attacks and false accusations. Are you aware of the fundamental attribution error? (Radiant) 14:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'll second Gandalf61's comments. I haven't reviewed everything, but my reading so far is that some users were muddling along, building a consensus they were happy with and happening to use some straw polls / votes to do it with, and it seemed to be working pretty well, until you came along, unilaterally said "votes don't work and we don't use them here", and swept away all their work. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And, I, of course, concur. StuRat 07:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve and StuRat - thank you for your responses, and for your continuing efforts to restore some sanity to the RDs. You have brought me light in a very dark place. Gandalf61 07:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Steve hit the nail right on the head. Some users were muddling along and building a consensus that they were happy with. They did not take into account the rest of the encyclopedia. The refdesk is not meant solely for the people who have been there for awhile, but for everybody. So this consensus-building should take into account the opinion of those outsiders willing to comment on it, as well as the way Wikipedia generally uses for forming consensus. (Radiant) 13:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Also nice how those seasoned outsiders end up having more say in the discussion than the poor, misguided regulars, who have now been shown (based on the number of incidents referring to them at WP:RFC and WP:AN/I) to be dangerously misguided novices who really need to be quashed down and taught some lessons before they do any more damage to the project. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Where did you get that idea? Everybody has equal say. I haven't seen anybody referring to "poor, misguided regulars" or "dangerously misguided novices" or "quashing down". Are those actually anybody's words or is it your interpretation?

Do you really need me to answer that?

If the latter, would you please consider that you may have misunderstood what people meant? (Radiant) 14:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think I understand what people meant, but my understanding is always changing, so I will keep thinking about it. Would you, in turn, please consider the possibility that "quashed down" is exactly how some of the people you and Hipocrite have attacked now feel, after you proudly swept away their work? —Steve Summit (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm quite willing to consider that, but I must say that although I have said some things that were not tactful, I'm not aware of actually having attacked anyone here. Could you please point out what I have said that was interpreted as an attack? Regarding sweeping away people's work, it seems to me that while Hipocrite's first "sweep" did indeed remove the older work, his subsequent ones (as well as mine [4] [5]) did not remove any older material. (Radiant) 15:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten your second "sweep". Gandalf61 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf, give it up, you can't win. He's just going to remind us that he did that only after StuRat deferentially moved the swept text to another page. (Never mind that StuRat was goaded into that, that the other page is now up for deletion, and that notice was then served on StuRat at AN/I for trying to stuff the deletion vote.) —Steve Summit (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I just wanted to find it for the record so that his half-truths don't stand uncorrected. Gandalf61 16:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding sweeping away people's work, you agreed that I'd "hit the nail right on the head" when I said that earlier, but if not, no matter. Regarding "could you please point out what I have said", I am not going to get sucked into that game; I have spent far too much time reviewing diffs already. If you can not see that User:StuRat, and the user whose talk page you flamed, are feeling hurt and attacked, then I have no further use for you. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What you hit on the head was the statement that "Some users were muddling along and building a consensus that they were happy with", as I stated above (it's not enough for "some users" to be happy in order to build a consensus). It is obvious that StuRat is feeling hurt and attacked, but that appears mostly to be because he misinterprets disagreement as an attack. It is also obvious that StuRat is attacking other people. Surely you're not saying retaliation is acceptable? He was never "goaded" into forking a new page, he was "goaded" into discussing things with other people, including some who weren't refdesk regulars. Discussing the same thing on two separate pages simply isn't helpful; those discussions belong merged together. (Radiant) 16:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So you agree that StuRat is feeling hurt and attacked, but you deny any responsibility for that, instead blaming the victim. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, I'm not saying that. StuRat is not simply a victim, for he has attacked as many people as he claims to have been attacked by; see also WP:KETTLE. I am saying that I have not attacked StuRat, and have never intentionally hurt him, although I realize that I may have unintentionally hurt him. (Radiant) 18:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't think either RFC or MFD is a particularly useful way of resolving this; and this thread is not a "flame", it is in response to a comment about flames Gandalf made. (Radiant) 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise that. My mistake. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to see you leave the RD

Can't say I blame you a bit, it's a shame that people are being driven away. Thanks for the kind words. -THB 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Light current

LC was exhibiting the same poor judgement that led to his blocks in the first place, albeit in milder form. The question is one that he certainly should be able to answer for himself – very thoroughly – by looking at our articles on the topic.

In other words, my response to his post was because (as you put it) I am 'familiar with Light current's behaviour and background', not in spite of it. I urge you to review his block log, and note that I was the one who lifted his most recent block in the first place. He had acknowledged that he had demonstrated poor judgement, and was made aware that he was expected to be on his best behaviour. I had to replace the block a day later when he started making sexual innuendoes during a discussion about appropriate behaviour on the RD, attacked another admin, and deleted large swaths of an article ([6]) to make a point. He took my good-faith gesture and decided to make me look like an idiot for trusting him.

He has a history of skating very close to the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Now that he's back from his block, he's making comments like this, which are hard to read as anything but rude. I can't say for sure if it is deliberate or if his judgement is genuinely that bad. I know that many people have tried to explain to him what the trouble is (most recently, see Ned Wilbury's attempt to explain why that comment to Patstuart wasn't a good idea: User_talk:Ned_Wilbury#My_posts_on_Pats_page).

In any case, the Ref Desk isn't a chat room, and he should know better than to ask questions designed to provoke conversation ('Whose fault is it?') when he could just as easily read our article to get a much more thorough, detailed, and well-cited response.

For what it's worth, I have no intention of being the one who blocks him next, but he's going to be blocked again soon if he doesn't find more constructive ways to spend his time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize, and no nerve to hit. I just wanted you to know why I'm less inclined to extend Light current the full measure of WP:AGF. I gather (and I may be mistaken) that you've come in to this mess a bit later than some, and I didn't want you to think that I would reply that way without a reason. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troublemakers

If an RfC about [User:Hipocrite] starts up, I think I'd like to contribute. He's been rude, and falsely accusing people of personal attcks just for disagreeing with him. (No it wasn't me.)

Also, regarding admins, what is with people getting blocked merely for disagreeing? I've just gotten started on Wikipedia but I'm questioning whether it's worth it, considering that what seems to matter is "whether you're friends with the right people.Tragic romance 17:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, some of Hipocrite's behaviour recently has made me feel disgusted, but I see no point in an RfC. First because the whole RfC process doesn't achieve anything anyway; second because he would wiki-lawyer his way out of it on a technicality (have you seen the procedure for RfC - it is byzantine); third because it is simpler to just ignore him. But please don't give up on Wikipedia just because of Hipocrite - Wikpedia is a wide world, and there are plenty of quiet corners where you can do useful work without having to deal with the politics, arguments and unpleasantness. Gandalf61 18:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I should point out that admins are absolutely not supposed to block people merely for disagreeing with them, and if you see this happening I would very much like to hear about it and would investigate, or you could post it on WP:ANI. Adminship is a bunch of tools, not a higher rank (indeed, Wikipedia doesn't have ranks in the first place). (Radiant) 18:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but please respond to Tragic romance on his/her talk page, not on mine. Gandalf61 18:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forgot to sign

Gandalf,

You forgot to sign your entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Without a signature, your input is likely to be ignored. StuRat 22:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay - think I must have ended with 3~ instead of 4~. Fixed now. Gandalf61 00:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I see you are a Dr Who fan. Here is a fav quote of mine from the original series, from the Brigadier, who was quite frustrated that his troops were unable to stop a Dalek invasion force:

"Damn it ! Just once, just one damn time, I wish the Earth could be invaded by aliens who aren't immune to bullets !" StuRat 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Would you consider enabling you e-mail address ? StuRat 04:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No - sorry - nothing personal, it's just not something I want to do. Gandalf61 12:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A small request

Hi Gandalf. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use the blanket term 'deletionist' to describe people you disagree with on the Ref Desk talk page.

Some users find it insulting or demeaning – I'm one of them – and I really think that refraining from its use will help to keep the talk pages civil and friendly. Some editors now are using it as a deliberate 'snap under the nose', as it were.

I hope that you will heed my polite request. I know that we don't need more ill will on the RD talk page. Tensions are high enough, eh? And it's just not in the holiday spirit... Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not intend to be insulting. I am using deletionist to mean "someone who unlilaterally deletes things from the Reference Desks that they disagree with, without prior warning or discussion". No value judgements - just shorthand for describing the frequent behaviour of a group of editors, including yourself. Happy to use another term instead - what would you prefer ? Gandalf61 18:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is on a few levels. Right off the top, I think that trying to search for another term with which to lump everyone together isn't a good solution. You see this problem a lot in politics, where one group will use a label for another group and then try to stick as much mud as possible to the label. He's a fuzzy thinker; he's a Democrat or She's evil; she's a Republican or Of course you'd say that, you're a liberal or That's just the kind of viciousness I'd expect from a conservative. And so forth. A label gives one an excuse to stop listening to other people, because one already knows everything one feels one has to know about the label.

On the flip side of that, there are people that you've lumped in with me that I don't particularly see as bedfellows. To take one example, while I agree with some of the sentiments expressed by Friday, I have also advised him against deleting certain types of comment: User_talk:Friday#Crespo. There is a spectrum of opinions here, and using a single label to describe everyone is a misleading oversimplification.

As well, by treating the participants in the debate as unitary, monolithic blocs rather than individual people, we all get tarred with the same brush when one person says or does something dumb. Among the people who you would call 'deletionists', people like Rick Block and Ned Wilbury have generally been very polite and restrained. Some others – and we won't name names here – have been less polite at times; one or two have been downright prickly. When you lump me in with 'the usual deletionist crowd', the implication is a bit nasty. I'm sure that you've seen one or more 'inclusionists' (and I hate to use that term, too) say things that have made you want to cringe at times; in those cases, I hope that you would prefer that others not assume that you and all 'inclusionists' are alike.

The second problem is that the term 'deletionist' has a history on Wikipedia. (See m:Deletionist, m:Deletionism, and m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians.) It's generally used to describe an attitude towards certain types of articles (though even among self-identified 'deletionists' there is appreciable disagreement over where those boundaries are). Among people who voluntarily describe themselves that way, it's very much a tongue-in-cheek term; among people who use it to describe others, it's usually meant as an insult. It appears semiregularly as an epithet on WP:AfD and WP:AN, typically as part of a rant about how 'deletionists' are destroying Wikipedia or have run amok. Choosing to adopt a term that has a prior meaning – and a history of being used as a slur – just doesn't make good sense if you want to engage in a good-faith discussion. While you mean no offense by it, there are people on the Ref Desk who are apparently using it to jab at others, and it is best avoided even for that reason alone.

Finally, I'd like to think that my position is more nuanced that the label suggests, and that your definition doesn't completely line up with my opinions. It might sound flip, but the last thing I deleted from the reference desk (before the ear kerfuffle) was something I did agree with. Someone was giving advice to a kid who had swallowed some shampoo; the advice given was to not worry. In any case, I posted about it to the RD talk page and the talk pages of the editors involved (see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Removed_medical_advice) and sought feedback on the removal. The editors whose remarks I had removed both commented politely. In any case, there was no subsequent edit war, and no disagreement over my course of action.

Based on that discussion – which has been up on the talk page for five days now – I felt that we had achieved reasonable consensus agreement that we shouldn't be giving advice on emergent medical problems. Consequently, I didn't see my edits today as removing a remark 'without prior warning or discussion'. (I also invited the other editor to start an open discussion on the RD talk page if he had concerns; instead, he opted to start an edit war and left it to me to start talking.)

All right, I've gone on at ridiculous length here. I'm glad you've decided to read all the way through this, and I hope you can see where I'm coming from and why people have been objecting so vehemently to being labelled and lumped rather than treated as individuals. Your continued good faith, good cheer, and good manners are appreciated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ten, as the person who performed the initial revert, you both had the responsibility to develop the consensus, and, since you failed to do so, bear the responsibility for starting an edit war. StuRat 12:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Without knowing what's going on here, I can already say that this accusation is baseless, since it always takes two people to edit war, and both are equally responsible for that. >Radiant< 23:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays !

You may want to consider endorsing this petition: User_talk:Friday#Petition_to_recall_User:Friday_from_the_position_of_admin. StuRat 12:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Considered it, but decided not to, because I don't think it will achieve anything. It certainly won't improve Friday's behaviour. Gandalf61 12:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If he is no longer an Admin, he will no longer be able to block people he disagrees with, so it will "improve his behavior", in that manner. StuRat 13:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref Desk Barnstar

Moved to User Page. --Jones2 03:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Gandalf61 13:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - if you move it to your userpage it will look good. :) --Jones2 10:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ICMI article

Hi, and thanks a lot for cleaning up my (well, I started it at least, but I guess it's not really "mine" anymore :-) article on ICMI. When I write in other languages than my native languag (Norwegian), I happen to make some more or less embarrassing mistakes. So thanks for cleaning some of them up! I see now, from some of the links you added, that the articles of other similar organisations have been named with the complete name of the organisation rather than the abbreviation. Perhaps this should have been done in the case of ICMI also? --Mosvold 10:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ITN

• A three man team, using only skis and kites, completes a 1,093 mile (1,750 km) trek to reach the Southern Pole of Inaccessibility for the first time since 1958 and for the first time ever without mechanical assistance. (BBC) Gandalf61 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd really love to put this up, it's quite cool, but the article needs some organization before the main page links to it. -- Zanimum 19:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bang

Hi. Judging from your edit, I trust that you've looked at this edit? I'm not knowledgeable enough to make a call on the first part, except I did remove the new paragraph and posted about it on the article's talk page. Xiner (talk, email) 00:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at that edit. My edit was intended to fix three particular errors in the paragraphs giving an overview of the early part of the Big Bang:

1. Terminology - baryogenesis does not refer to the confinement of quarks into baryons (despite its name). It in fact refers to the as yet unknown process that violates conservation of baryon number, producing an excess of matter over antimatter in the early universe. All of the current contenders for this hypothetical process occur at higher energies than the quark confinement threshold, so baryogenesis must have taken place before baryons and mesons were formed, while the universe was still a plasma of quarks and antiquarks, producing an excess of quarks over antiquarks, which then led to an excess of baryons over antibaryons.
2. Sequence - mass annhilation between matter and antimatter took place after baryons were formed, not before. This is because the average energy of particle collisions at this point was still sufficient to create quark-antiquark pairs.
3. Another sequence error - all symmetry breaking transitions took place before baryons and mesons were formed, not after. By the time baryons and mesons were formed the four fundamental forces were already in their present form.

A reference for all of this is Quarks, Leptons and the Big Bang by Jonatahn Allday. Hope this helps. Gandalf61 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tricosagon

Go ahead and fix it; I left it partly out of laziness, and partly because leaving variable spelling is a subtle hint that the word may not exist. If I were Jimbo, the article would redirect to Polygon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tolerably certain. Tricosagon and Icosagon contain the same element. Eric Weisstein is a fallible guide to mathematics; he is an abominable guide to Greek. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the only reason I didn't make the article a redirect was the Michelob factoid, I will put it out of your misery by merging to Polygon or Regular polygon, wherever it fits better Prism (geometry). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday

Usage of songs in movies and video games is notable in many articles. Certainly the inclusion of this song into a widely adopted mathematics textbook is notable, especially because of the novel approach taken to addition instruction by TERC?? What note do you think would be appropriate in this article if we take out the cat? --Merceris 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The words and/or music to "Happy Birthday to You" must be included in many many publications. Using it in a school textbook seems very mundane to me. However, if you can show that its use in the textbook that you have in mind is unusual in some way, you could include that fact in the Happy Birthday to You article. Ideally you should provide a link to the textbook itself, or to a reliable secondary source that describes the song's use in that textbook. However, the paragraph that I removed contained additional information on the textbook and syllabus that is totally irrelevant to the article where it was placed, which is about a song. And the article certainly does not belong in the Mathematics education reform category - any more than it belongs in the Presidents of the United States category just because the song was once famously sung to President Kennedy. A reader looking for articles on Mathematics education reform would not expect to be directed to an article about a popular song. Gandalf61 10:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metamath

Thank you for your improvements to my somewhat loose English. I have been planning to write a new version of this page with more details. Anyway I don't know exactly when I will release it. -- fl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.127.41.206 (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks

I quick line, just to say thank you for your response on the reference desks, reading the articles you gave me, i think this is exactly what i saw during the lunar eclipse. I did not have a clue about how to find out about it 'red moon during lunar eclipse' on google didn't seem to help me, so thanks again

Kind regards, Dave 13:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your question

Replying to this here since it's not about the ref desk. There's nothing at all automatically problematic about new editors- where would we be without them? Everyone was new at some time. That said, editors who don't understand what Wikipedia is about are sometimes disruptive- I suspect most editors have seen this from time to time. Certainly we're forgiving and willing to tolerate a learning curve. Really, I think the problem editors tend to be only a very small percentage of the total editors. If it were otherwise, the encyclopedia would be in much poorer shape. Friday (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday, you are avoiding my question. Who are these "probem editors" that you keep complaining about ? Who exactly did you have in mind when you said "the people who are the problem either don't understand or don't accept our standards and policies to begin with" ? Gandalf61 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see no useful purpose in continuing this conversation. I explained myself as best I could above. Friday (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been part of the above discussions and as I believe I share Friday's view, you're welcome to read and respond to what I wrote below. -- Cheers, Deborahjay 00:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming names, S.V.P.

...(s'il vous plaît) regarding the current discussion about the nature of RD responses. You're welcome to follow the link I provided to one [ab]user; "Find" my User name to locate the discussion of recent RD responses to which I objected. As for another: I've found this user so truculent, solipsistic, and apparently resistant (regardless of occasional syncophantic, formulaic, and evidently empty self-deprecations) to considerations of reasoned discourse, I've opted to refrain from any attempt at dialogue. May I also take this opportunity to thank you for the helpful clarifications you've provided on the RD discussion page, which I consider a source of guidance. -- Cheers, Deborahjay 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Deborah - thank you for that clarification. One of my pet peeves is when someone uses a generic (and usually perjorative) label without making clear who they are referring to. Friday is not the only person who does this, but he does do it more than most, frequently using terms such as "those who don't get it", "some people", "the people who are the problem", "problem editors" and (see above) "editors who don't understand what Wikipedia is about". One of my problems with Friday's use of these phrases is that they are unnecessarily personal, focussing on the (un-named) editor rather than their behaviour. Every so often I choose to call him on these weasel words, just to show that his rhetorical devices do not pass unnoticed. Gandalf61 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to focus on contributors, except insofar as certain contributors may regularly exhibit the same problematic behavior, thus making this a user conduct issue. Certainly, it's the behavior itself that's the problem. I don't see that statements like "some people are making bad edits" is unnecessarily personal, but your mileage may vary. Friday (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)