User talk:Richard L. Peterson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Richard L. Peterson! Thanks for fixing the typo over on the Diebold article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Richard L. Peterson, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hermitian matrix : reply

1)I've heard only this about automorphisms of the complex field besides the triv. and conj: that they're everywhere discontinuous, & there's a lot of them.Is it actully known whether any (or all)besides conj. are of order two?

I've been studying mathematics for more than three years now, and I have repeatedly tried to get to the bottom of this. I've asked several professors, but confusion even seems to be running rampant among them. (Not that they are bad, in fact : one can prove Fermat's Last Theorem). I don't know about the discontinuity thing. What my professors seem to agree on is that there are infinitely many INVOLUTIVE automorphisms on the complex numbers, if you accept the axiom of choice. Apart from the usual conjugation, I never found an example of another... which is usually the case when the axiom of choice sneaks up...

Are there noninvolutive automorphisms of the complex numbers? I don't know whether or not this is a known result. I'd say there are some more.


2)Has anyone worked on what to do for the generalization of symmetric matrices to "hermitian" if one has, say, a field with an automorphism group of order 3, or worse, an automorphism group isomorphic to the symmetric group on three elements? I'm very interested.

What exactly do you mean by "what to do". In any case, I've never seen anything like that. Maybe order three becomes relevant in the study of trilinear forms? But I don't know if you are familiar with projective geometry and its fundamental theorem, but when you classify polarities and you work it all out, you can really see why the involutive character is of that much importance.

I'm sorry I can't be of that much help (I'm not a professional (yet)).

But you reminded me that there is still some work to do on Hermitian things on Wikipedia. A lot has been written by people who are into functional analysis and work with the complex numbers and conjugation, and they consider other fields with involutions as an "extra", which is not the case at all, when one studies finite geometry, one encounters the word "hermitian" just as often.

Greetings, Evilbu 10:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Those pesky constants

Hi Richard. Nice meeting you. I reverted your last edit at Radius of convergence, where you added "plus a constant" to your examples. I don't see why this constant is necessary: the derivative of

h(z) = -\frac12z^2 - \frac16z^3 - \frac1{12}z^4 - \cdots

is

g(z) = \log(1-z) = -z - \frac12z^2 - \frac13z^3 - \frac14z^4 - \cdots .

Am I missing something? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi, Jitse, nice to meet you, and thanks for considerably improving the exposition of the example. You're right that in your much clearer power series, "(plus a constant)" is unneeded. But because I was too hurried/lazy to figure out how to indicate a summation etc, for "brevity" I didn't specify C(1), the coefficient of z, to be zero, forcing the "(plus a constant)" to be tacked on afterwards.Rich 03:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Glad to hear that you approve of my change to the example. See you, Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin Awards

Richard, I see you've been trying to clean up this POV, spamlink, promotional, mess of an article. Well done. I've pitched in myself and removed sections which I feel shoudn't be there. The term is not owned by Ms Northcutt, although on reading previous versions of the article, you could be led to believe that it was. -- I@n 17:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I've just looked at the article. What you have done is quite good. Thanks, it was beginning to drag on me.Rich 21:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:BB -- I@n 06:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't know how to copy or move text. I have avoided wordprocessing & putting in attachments to email and "drag text" commands since 1990. I guess I could copy everything but nah.I'll look into it asap.Rich 06:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MathWorld

Thanks for drawing that mistake to my attention, Rich. I have replied in full at Talk:MathWorld. Blarneytherinosaur talk 03:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Heyas, it looks like you did some good work cleaning up the prose and eradicating weasel words. Thanks for the note calling my attention to it also! -SocratesJedi | Talk 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On your anabolic steroid article edit.

You added an 'experts needed' template to the anabolic steroid article. However many experts in the field of endocrinology and related fields contribute to that article and already review it. If you have an objection to any specific material in the article and believe it to be inaccurate then please post a topic in the articles talk page and voice your opinion so that we can discuss it. However adding templates without knowing the history of an article is not a good thing to do.Wikidudeman 19:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Look, Wikidudeman, I do respect your point of view and appreciate that you want to make the article as good as possible. But [1.] The talk page for "Anabolic steroid" is an unpleasant place where flaming is done but little discussing. The two or three editors who try to be civil and focus on the the article are at best treated to curt replies like "So do it Adam" if their changes are approved, with no thanks for their hard work, and at worst have their edits attacked as "butcherings." So I didn't want to go on the talk page unless I have to. Nor is it required. [2.]The "expert needed" template is in my view quite necessary in an article that is health related and in which editors can't agree on important issues. We owe it to the readers.[3] According to the talk page, you stated that you removed it in August 2006 because you didn't think any experts had been attracted to it. So when did these experts show up? Before the template went up or after August 2006? Who are they? If it's the scientific peer review on Wikipedia that you mean by the experts, remember that they're not necessarily experts on steroids. [4] Your message above is a pretty harsh rebuke for a good faith edit even if it had been faulty, and I resent it. Remember that courage is different from rage. Please, I know you mean well, and don't realize how your rebuke feels at this end, but it doesn't help cooperation and drives away editors. I hope you don't want to drive editors away.[5] I am in middle of contacting experts from Harvard, Stanford etc to see if someone will look at this article. If any of them does, let's be friendly and polite even if we disagree with them. I will put expert needed back up although I do respect your opinion [6] I'm not against steroids. I bet they will become safer and more effective in the future. But we have to be responsible.Regards, Rich 05:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Richard..[1]It's wikipedia policy to talk about edits and changes that are made to any articles on their talk pages. This prevents edit wars. [2] Many wikipedia articles are health related and there are no 'experts needed' templates on them. [3] I had a few templates up on the article however this was before I realized we already had many expert editors alteripse being one of them. [4] I have the article set up for 'peer review' so that it can be qualified as a 'good article' this is just one more of the steps that these types of articles require to be qualified. Although this article has technically been reviewed by dozens of experts, adding for peer review is simply one more step. It has nothing to do with it having or having not been reviewed before. Now you SHOULD post your argument for the tag in the talk page of the anabolic steroid article. If you don't defend your adding of that 'experts needed' tag in the article itself then I will continue to remove it until you defend it's being there. This is wikipedia policy. I will start a topic in that talk page for you to defend your placing of the tag in. Wikidudeman 06:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hi Richard, and thanks for your participation at the recent RfA, which did not succeed. For those of you who expressed their support, your kind words and your trust are sincerely appreciated. For those who were opposed --especially those who offered their constructive criticism-- please accept this message as assurance that equally sincere efforts, aimed at enhancing the quality and accuracy of representations within the Wikipedia, will continue. Striving for improved collaboration and consensus will also continue, with all of your insights in mind, while applying NPOV ideals as fairly and reasonably as possible. Ombudsman 06:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary for reverting

Thanks for reverting a recent vandalism of Fibonacci number. Note that WP:Revert says: 'Be sure to add the word "revert" (or "rv") to the edit summary'. No big deal, but it makes it easier to follow the page history. PrimeHunter 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Rich 03:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mehmet

Mehmet is "the Turkish interpretation of Arabic Muhammad". JRSpriggs 09:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ThanksRich 19:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Light speed article

Hi,

Could you have a look at the Speed of light article and the discussion? An editor in Hungary has decided that a formula is wrong and resents my efforts to clarify matters. He was probably the one who blanked the article. At least he has promised to make trouble.

Thanks. P0M 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Horgan (American journalist)

U said: Were his books bestsellers, or critically acclaimed, or cited by scholars? If Horgan gets a book review by irritating a famous person, I don't think that in itself makes him notable. What has he said that is new? People have long wondered if science will "go on" forever or if it will some day, "stop", run out of discoveries, solve everything, (or just become too hard-Richard Feynman) Horgan thinks, like many other people, science will someday stop, and thinks it will stop soon. Likewise, many Christians think the world will end soon. A Christian does not become notable solely for that belief. If you do think Horgan is notable, please say why and remove the deletion template. There need be no hard feelings. Thanks,Rich 06:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Rich i appreciate ur communicative probity upon my Talk Page of ur determination that this author is not "notable" and that therefore, you have instigated via wiki-flag that this article be nominated for deletion. I entered his book details on this article because I had encountered it in the spirit of serendipity amongst my research and work. I personally am not familiar with this book, person nor their work and I have researched, read and practiced extensively in Mysticism Studies and have rarely encountered reference to him or found his works cited. That said, I am unable to determine whether or not his work is notable in full confidence.
Namaste in agape
Walking my talk in Beauty
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 08:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been so long since I started the page on John Horgan (American journalist) that I'd forgotten I'd created it! Autarch 18:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horgan Deletion

Horgan is an important author who has published significant work which has been widely reviewed. Why should he be deleted? He certainly is a more influential than 90% of the musical groups listed in Wikipedia and he has generated a good deal of interest. His book Rational Mysticism is reviewed, cited, praised and criticized in over 100 places on the Web. The Unitarian Universalist denomination considered it worth reviewing. It is a required text in at least one university class. If Mr. Peterson doesn't like Mr. Horgan's ideas, perhaps contributing to the article would be more productive than deleting it.Richard Dates

[edit] Wendy Northcutt

Hi. Replied on the talk page. Apologies if I was overly harsh in my edit summary when I removed the tag - the article has a bit of a history with a rather trollish individual [1] who I suspect has also edited it as an anon; I was possibly in a bad mood at the time, and I mistook your anon edit for more of the same. Best Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

no problem, thanks.Rich 22:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure its Catholic, I seen the pope hat collection and the statue of John Wesley Hardin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.118.82 (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Richard Krawiec

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Carados (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

um Carados. i just began the article about 7 minutes ago. i would appreciate a little patience from you. Rich (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huck Finn edits

Richard L. Peterson:

I'm uncertain what I did to antagonize you to the point that elicited your comments at the Huck Finn Talk page. Any edits and comments I made at Huckleberry Finn were made with the sole intent to improve the article. I do not own the article and heartily believe that article improvement is based primarily on collaboration. I apologize if something I said or did appeared to be directed at you or anyone else, and my intent is not to "[emphasize] the errors of others to drive them off". Please assume good faith before making such assertions on an article Talk page.

If I've made a mistake (which I assuredly do on a regular basis), then feel free to point it out, disagree, discuss, debate, amend, and revert. That's how WP works best. If I "hid" an error, it was unintentional and please feel free to "uncover" it so I, you, or others can fix it (or not, if they or I don't agree it's an error). Please keep in mind that part of working in the WP community is that not everyone will agree with your contributions, but we all try to maintain appropriate behavior when discussing issues. It appears you took exception to my statement that the citation to the quote in the Green Hills article wouldn't work. Forget my comment about citing another WP article; my issue was that the Green Hills article itself was uncited. If it had been, then all we had to do was copy the quote's cite into the Huck Finn article and all would have been fine. Alternately, I found a copy of Green Hills and looked up the quote myself and cited it appropriately.

Again, I apologize for any distress my edits may have caused (but I stand behind them until someone changes my mind). (Also, this may be what you were looking for.)
Jim Dunning | talk 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I was the one in the wrong. Thanks for your gracious answer above.-Rich Peterson63.164.145.198 (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Rich (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kish and Sumer articles

I'm fairly certain that the kingship was not lowered by Ninhursag. First off, the kingship was lowered in Eridu... Nico (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, i'll remove it , it's been sitting there with cite needed for a while.-Rich Peterson130.86.14.89 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)