User talk:Greenleaf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Contents

[edit] thanks for coming over to sms.ac

we can use all the help we can get with 'Mr Anonymous', heh. Themindset 18:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You may want to look at the SMS.ac, Inc. page once more - I noticed you have participated in the past. The article was recently stubbed and is being rebuilt. --Raga 20:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science intro

Greenleaf, my edit didn't delete anything except this:

  • Particular specialized studies which make use of empirical methods are often referred to as sciences.

And I felt that I safely could, since it's a redundant restatement of another sentence in the introduction:

Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

What do you object to, and why? —RadRafe 16:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid it deleted a bit more than that:
  • Mathematics, studies of quantity and order, are often referred to as a science or sciences, but the fruits of mathematical sciences, known as theorems, are obtained by logical derivations which presume axiomatic systems rather than a combination of observation and reasoning. Many mathematical methods have fundamental utility in the empirical sciences, of which the fruits are hypotheses and theories.
And what is left strongly suggests that the science is always of empirical nature, where reasoning is strongly linked with observation. However, this is not the case with most pure sciences, and even branches like Mathematics/Computer Science - at least a good part of that - the point I quoted addresses this very issue. If your deletion was limited to the point you mentioned, I wouldn't have bothered much, although, in my humble opinion, "Science is two things" was a bit too curt :-). Greenleaf 09:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I left that part in, actually. I copyedited it and moved it down a bit. Didn't you see that? Anyway, I was bringing the article in line with its stated scope:
The scope of this article is limited to empirical sciences. For mathematical sciences, see Mathematics.
—RadRafe 05:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Ooops. My apologies. But won't it be better, then, to remove it from point form list and append right next to it, to show that mathematics is NOT empirical science although some people (rightly or wrongly is a different matter) consider that as science. (this way various views of science come together - making the article more cohesive - like this is what this article consideres(1), this is what's not considered and why(2), and then we go in to detail of (1), like areas, scientists etc). Something that's not science is a bit too late to be discussed even after scientists, imho. That way, people (like myself)won't be lost thinking that some part is left - that might also any future editor from adding that to the list as well. ;-)
right now it briefly announces that maths is a seperate topic, then briefly explains science, then goes in to scientists, then describes experiments etc, then again says mathematics is not in, and repeats that the article addresses only empirical sciences.
Anyway that doesn't seem to be a big deal - all the best in your copyediting. Have it your way ;-) Greenleaf 06:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sinhala

Hey Greenleaf, sorry for bothering you, but could you take a look at the Sinhala article and the discussion as well when you have the time? Thanks a lot, Krankman 17:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Vsplusplus 2005 beta2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Vsplusplus 2005 beta2.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)