User talk:132.181.160.42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 132.181.160.42). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia.

Please note these points:

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian: --→ Chèvredan∫ante talk · contrib 00:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Leibniz

You wrote:

This entry may suggest to some that Leibniz, while brilliant, was also a bit devoid of humor and imagination.

Why would it suggest that? It is obvious from this Wikipedia article that Leibniz had far more imagination than all but a tiny number of people. Could you be specific: where would we find such a suggestion in this article? Michael Hardy 01:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planck units

Thank you for your edits to Planck units!

You might find it handy at some point to register for a Wikipedia username. Edits and comments from signed-in users tend to be taken with a bit more weight than those from IP addresses, and this will probably save you hassle in the long run.

Happy editing! --Christopher Thomas 05:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Algebraic structure

Its nice to see a good edit by an anonymous user. As other have suggested you might like to become a registered user, which will give you a user name and watchlist so you can see who else have made changes. The you could also join Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. --Salix alba (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:202.36.179.65

are you and User:202.36.179.65 the same person? -lethe talk + 08:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page reference and quotation for Post's bipolarity, please

List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder tends to be a problem, and there have been cases where the cited sources merely said something about extreme behavior or mood swings. In some cases people have "cited" song lyrics as evidence for a singer-songwriter's bipolarity.

Does Davis specifically use the word "bipolar" or "manic-depressive?" What, exactly, does he say? Thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link in title

I removed the link in the section heading of equivalence relation, that is against the style manual (WP:MoS).

By the way, anon, you are hanging around here long enough that I think you better make an account. You'll learn relevant style rules better that way, and it will be easier for us to talk to you. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aug 2006

Hi

Anon, how about making an account, rather than wondering in and out with various IP addresses? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Deceptive edit lines

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Jon Awbrey 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is considered deceptive to add some content and delete some content, when the edit line mentions nothing but the addition. It is a nuisance to other editors to delete material without an accurate edit line, and it may be considered vandalism when persisted in repeatedly after being advised to desist. Jon Awbrey 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More deceptive Edit Summaries?

I didn't revert any of your recent changes at Wolfram's (2,3) but the edit summary "style, no content changes" was a bit disengenuous. I'm sure you know that in scientific publication there is a big difference between "finding" something and "describing" something. It concerns me to see this mentioned here already from a year ago. Pete St.John (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon, make account

Please get yourself a an account name (which need not be your own real name). Would be easier to contact you that way and for your to learn the Wikipedia conventions. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please read the MOS

With reference to your edit to Janet Frame (which I reverted), it would help it you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) to avoid making similar edits elsewhere. Cheers. Moriori 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.

Further, to explain my earlier revert of Abraham Flexner, we are very sensitive here with new content, especially large pieces of content that appears copied from another source, and also not well integrated or wikified. It appears that in your second try, you integrated and wikified it somewhat, so it's much better than before now. It still would be helpful if you explained where the content came from in the article talk. At any rate, thank you for your contribution, and I hope that you will register. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independence-friendly logic

Why did you add "zero-sum games"? The games corresponding IF formulas have no sum: they are simple win-lose games.

Guslacerda 05:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC);

[edit] Talk page edits

While I am sure your intentions were good, you really should not edit other editor's comments, even to correct spelling or grammatical mistakes. In addition, adding signatures, as you did at Talk:Convair B-36 should only be done using the unsigned template. The signatures that you added make it look like the comments are from a different date than they really were. --Chuck Sirloin 14:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your edits to Strategic Air Command (film):

Your recent edit to Strategic Air Command (film) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a non-talk page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 05:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chevalley and Zorn's Lemma

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to the Zorn's Lemma article. Your paragraph regarding Chevalley has been twice removed, not by me. However, it seems to be incorrect, since it contradicts information given in

Campbell, Paul J. (February 1978). "The Origin of “Zorn's Lemma”". Historia Mathematica 5 (1): 77–89. Elsevier. ISSN 0315-0860. 

by Zorn himself. In particular, the chronology seems wrong to support your description of events: Zorn did his work on the maximal principle in 1933, and published in 1935; Chevalley did not start working on it until 1936, and his work was published in 1939 as part of Bourbaki's Théorie des Ensembles.

I have added a note to this effect at Talk:Zorn's lemma. If you have a contradictory source, please mention it on the talk page so that we can discuss it further.

Thanks. -- Dominus 14:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undecidability

You have been adding statements to several articles that certain mathematical objects (lattices and projective geometries) are undecidable, which I have now removed. This makes no sense. The type of thing that can be undecidable is a decision problem; that is, a set of strings, such that the strings in the set are inputs that should cause a decision algorithm to accept and the other strings should cause it to reject. Neither lattices nor projective geometries are sets of strings. What is the input to the undecidable problem supposed to look like? What question about that input is hard to decide? You need to explain that more clearly if you want your contribution to stay in these articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser confirms you are a sock puppet of blocked User:Concerned cynic

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Concerned cynic.

Please read WP:EVADE. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)