User talk:Rick Norwood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Rick Norwood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 15:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Two small comments

(1) There's no reason to capitalize the word square in the article title tetramagic square, so I've moved it.

(2) Section headings should not merely be bold, like this:

Section heading

but should be created by "equals" signs, like this:

[edit] Section heading

because the software recognizes that and takes it into account when creating tables of contents.

Michael Hardy 00:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm happy to have someone else here who may prove to have good mathematical talents; were a happy community, for the most part. Come visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and in particular, join the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. But one quick remark:

A mathematician who wants to look up something related to mathematics is going to go to mathworld.wolfram.com

Well, don't say that too much, as we are rather proud of our work. After you get more familiar with WP, you'll find that there are a number of subject areas treated here for which wolfram.com doesn't have any articles at all; there are other subjetct areas for which the WP articles are far more extensive. I know, I've written some of them, and others will say the same. But anyway, don't let us scare you off; welcome! linas 00:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SF zines/followup

After doing a little more digging, I've got another small list of zines that should be added:

Aboriginal SF Pulphouse (and probably Author's Choice Monthly) Marion Zimmer Bradley's Fantasy Magazine Whispers Weirdbook Thrilling SF Adventures (reprints) Science Fiction Adventure Classics (reprints) Science Fiction Greats (reprints)

And, if you're going to list reasonably periodic series anthologies as magazines, you'll need

New Voices (in SF) Stellar (Ballantine/Del Rey) Andromeda Ariel Shadows Berkeley Showcase Universe Chrysalis

Someplace on the locusmag.com site, I believe there's a pretty comprehensive (way too inclusive?) index you can refer to. Monicasdude 17:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Given the nature of wiki, why not add them yourself as they occur to you?

[edit] the girl in art

I hope you don't mind, but I moved your proposed section to the talk page, because I don't think that the use of the first person in an encyclopedia article is appropriate. After the collaborative process has brought the draft closer to encyclopedic language, we can move it back from the talk page to the enyclopedic entry. Mamawrites 00:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mathematician vs. Arab mathematician

The convention is that if an article is placed in a sub-category, it does not generally belong in a parent category. Thus, why I removed the article I suspect you have in mind from Mathematicians as it was already in Arab mahematicians. The Biography category was simply being deleted. RedWolf 22:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thâbit ibn Kurrah

Hello. I think the articles on Thâbit ibn Kurrah number and Thâbit ibn Kurrah rule (and probably also Thâbit ibn Kurrah) should be combined into one article (see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages). It seems that Thâbit ibn Kurrah numbers are only used in the context of his rule, so why have two separate articles? Please let me know what you think about this. Thanks, by the way, for the nice article. PS: if you include a link to mathworld (or any other website), you should link to the exact page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It was a pleasure to work with you this week!

Hi Rick,

I have appreciated your contributions to Girl this week, and I hope that my "massaging" of them was not too heavy-handed. I think your bold suggestions of new directions for the article were really valuable, since they inspired me and many others to fill in details and expand the article. Just look at the diff -- it's amazing how much the article has improved in the last week! You played an important role in that.

An Award
For your contributions to the CotW focusing on Girl in September, 2005, I, Mamawrites, award you, Rick Norwood, this silver barnstar of resilience.

[edit] Nagovisi

Rick, do you have a reference for the Nagovisi-thing, besides Nash and Donald's writings? As far as I understand, the existence (historically or current) or matriarchal societies (not matrilineal ones) is very much in dispute, and we know very little about the Nagovisi. (At least, I don't.) I also have the feeling that girl is not a good place for such a factoid that runs counter to the matriarchy article itself, so I would suggest you try to work the Nagovisi into matriarchy instead, the editors there are probably more competent than me in evaluating the soundness of the claim (their matrilinearity is established, as far as I know).

A more wishy-washy version of your edit would be something this:

Among human societies, only a few tribes numbering thousands of individuals have ever been reported to be matriarchal, like the Nagovisi of New Guinea, but such reports have been called into question. See matriarchy.

Anyway, it's such a problematic statement that I don't think Girl is the right place for it. Arbor 06:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


Sorry to jump into this without being more wikipedia-aware, but I just happened on this user talk area.

I am Donald Mitchell -- anthropologist who worked with Nagovisi and has published about them. I can't agree with their characterization as "matriarchal," at least as I understand that concept. Indeed Nagovisi women are the land-owners; they exercise considerable authority over land use and land transfers but it would be incorrect to state that their male kinsmen and their husbands are without power in these areas. Nagovisi women are the primary food gardeners both in the sense of management (which in their system is quite complex), planting, and harvesting. The male food gardening component is mainly physical labor (cutting bush). Men are more commonly in charge of cash cropping than women are, but this is mostly because (for many historical reasons) men have had the role of interacting with the outside world, particularly the world of commerce. Nagovisi women have high status and considerable theoretical and practical power in many domain -- this is beyond dispute. But if a vulgar gloss of matriarchy is "women run things" then the Nagovisi are not matriarchal. The balance of power between genders is much more subtle and complex than that.

I would be pleased to respond to any queries.

Monokakata 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, Monokakata, you know much more about this subject than I do, and should rewrite the article in question accordingly, as well as either working on or creating an article on Nagovisi. You should also create a user page for yourself, called User:Monokakata. Rick Norwood 13:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Shall I shame myself by admitting I'm not sure which article is "the article in question?" I guess I must. Is it Girl or Matriarchy? And I agree that I ought to start a Nagovisi entry. I'll see what I can do.

And is it appropriate to have "message-board style" exchanges here?

Monokakata 14:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is Girl, and users can use their talk pages in any way they like, so I am happy to discuss things here. Rick Norwood 14:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buck Rogers

Just FYI I moved "Buck Rogers (sf)" to a more appropriately formatted namespace, Buck Rogers (science fiction). I changed the disambiguation page accordingly. Incidentally we've communicated before as I'm a member of the Modesty Blaise Yahoo Group. Cheers! Alex 23skidoo 01:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comic strip Conrad

Rick,

I appreciate your comments in the List of comic strips Discussion page, concerning the proposed deletions. You say that Conrad "is a major US strip". I've been trying to normalize the list of comic strips so that each entry shows the title of the comic strip, its approximate dates of original publication, its original creator(s), and its nationality. When I searched my sources, including Google, for a comic strip named Conrad, I wasn't able to come up with a definite identification. It would help if you could tell me at least the author of the Conrad you have in mind - or add it to the List of comic strips article yourself.

I've made a few other responses on the Discussion page itself.

Gwil 03:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Method of complements

I've not been able to find any references that call "n - m" the "n's complement", even for fractions. Do you have a source to help verify the last paragraph in the Method of complements article? --Rick Sidwell 15:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remark

Hi Rick. Thank you for your changes to calculus articles. And one remark. It is good if you put am edit summary when you contribute. Looks so much better on the watchlist :) That's especially important for big edits, as the ones you did on calculus, and can save the time of checking the diff sometimes. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 00:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rick. I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov 17:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hi Rick, by differential coefficient, I mean the derivative (df(x)/dx). I believe that is the standard definition. I don't like the phrase I used though much, please feel free to modify. I guess I wanted to convey the extent of his discovery of calculus and that he used the differential coefficient.[1] --Pranathi 07:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] definition of math

Many thanks for re-defining math. Good job! Not that easy. Vb14:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liberalism

Thanks for your comment, but I do not understand why you consider version A to be an extreme in which liberalism is primarily about economics. Your version of today 01:38 CET is not so different from my version of 18:50. Both emphasize the mazimization of individual liberty (which is the primary goal of liberalism). I deleted the principle tenets, since there is allready a long section on political positions and I added that liberal democracy is also supported by other democrats. What don't you like in my version of the intro, I am open for discussion.

So I do not see many differences between ouur versions and I am not aware (but I have sometimes a bad memory) that I castigated you for making changes without discussions. If so, sorry. Today I took your side in the argument against all the additions of Rumancz and for me it is not clear why yoou think I am determined to remove any suggestion that liberalism is primarily about freedom.

What you want is allready in the article: An historical overview is most of the article. I think we agree on the intro to be short and that criticism should be in another place. agree with you that qihout

Do you know to find a a way out of the discussion without a vote? Electionworld 21:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. We agree that liberalism is far more than economic freedom. For me, issues like freedom of choice in ethical affairs and rule of law are fare more important. I didn't write the intro, but I took some parts out of it, which were not right in place there. Long time ago I introduced the political position section. As you can see, it is about far more than economy. I hope you read the intro with that in mind. Electionworld 08:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of American Conservatism

I don't mind a section like that, in fact one is needed. But the one you keep putting in there is just a random unsourced commentary sighting random conservatives. While Rush may be big, he does not represent all conservative, he is only one neoconservative, and he has no governmental position. The other critisism also looks like it came straight out of a blog. I will have to remove the section until someone can create a better, sourced, encyclopedic version.Voice of All @|E|Merit 17:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

As a committed Conservative, I gotta tell ya it was a refreshing experience working with you on this section. It's obvious that you appreciate neutrality. Kudos. --Elliskev 00:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello - I reverted your revert, but incorporated changes based on your comments on talk. I think my version should stand, but we can discuss it there, I just wanted to give you a heads-up. Kaisershatner 15:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I just noticed your signpost on the Talk page there - I will in fact take your advice and let things sit for a bit. I tend to get immersed in an article and I work pretty fast, but you are 100% right that at this point things might benefit from a little patience on my part. I'll do my best. I hope you agree with the new structure, I think it adds a lot of narrative clarity to the article, which before was a bit hard to follow in a linear fashion. Kaisershatner 16:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elementary Math

Hey Rick, I noticed that you are working on some articles about elementary school math. I'm just wondering, are these articles supposed to be some kind of how-to guide for students? If so, there's a sister wiki that's more suitable for what you're doing. It's called Wikibooks. Solarusdude 23:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The only way I know to get something done is to do it. Maybe you can advise me.
I have heard for...how long, twenty years, thirty years, how dreadful grade school math texts are, and when my kids were in school I got a chance to see for myself. Awful beyond belief! My inclination to use wiki rather than wikibooks is that now many people know about wiki, while I never heard of wikibooks.
I'm imagining some poor kid, bright, computer savvy, caught in one of the many schools where the math teacher doesn't know anything. She goes to wiki, goes to the math protal, and finds something like -- well, like the textbook in the Diamond Age is what I'm dreaming of, though that my be a few years in the future.
I don't see the kid knowing about or going to wikibooks. Rick Norwood 23:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia is more notable than Wikibooks. Wikipedia has been around longer and is much more developed while Wikibooks is relatively new and doesn't have as much content yet. However, there are a few reasons why your articles should be in Wikibooks:
  1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the article criteria set by the community here doesn't allow how-to articles because they are unencyclopedic.
  2. Wikibooks already has several math textbooks but they are all college and highschool level. Wikibooks needs elementary-level texts.
  3. Since Wikipedia and Wikibooks are run by the Wikimedia Foundation, you are able to link articles between these two wikis to some extent. In this case, you could have your articles in Wikibooks and have links in the Wikipedia math portal that lead to them.
  4. The how-to link above seems to indicate that there is a project going on that involves moving all how-to articles into Wikibooks anyway.
Solarusdude 00:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi rick!

thnx for editing the pafe about liberalism and putting whether it was reliable or not (just that gave me a lot of info)...Im really in a hurry doing an essay on comparing liberalism in theory and in practice....SO HARD!!!!!!!

October 17, 2005


[edit] History of Calculus

I would be cautious about the revisionist history of calculus. Much of the information that User: Pranathi is contributing to the Wikipedia is based on the work of Ian G Pearce at the MacTutor archive [2]. The problem is that Ian G Pearce is not a peer reviewed historian or archaeologist. In fact, according to his webpage at [3], he's just a first year PhD student in mathematics at the University of Dundee, having received his undergraduate degree from the University of St. Andrews in 2003. To what extent is Pearce falling victim to regurgitating information that may be completely fabricated or at the very least, poor scholarship? In particular, his very opinionated conclusions [4] are riddled with speculation and lack objectivity. Peace's thesis may be fine for an undergraduate classroom project, but I'm not sure about treating it as a definitive source of information that belongs in the Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. It raises more questions than answers. All of the articles that User: Pranathi have edited need to be qualified with cautions, but I don't want to raise Pranathi's ire or get involved in an edit war. Could you please do it? I'm not diplomatic enough; in fact, feel free to delete this posting, as it may not be "politically correct".

4.228.213.179 21:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rick, I am surprised at the lack of good faith here. I don't mind being questioned and am willing to accept my mistakes. I was not aware of Ian Pearce's qualifications. But I have other more acceptables articles that will say the same things. [5] is one from (I think) a DR in the same college and [6] by a Professor in University of Rochester. Dr. Rajeev also speaks of a possible transmission of ideas from India to Europe. The recent edits to Calculus were made without appending to our original discussion in it's talk page and I didn't understand the source until I came to your talk page to ask you. Can we discuss this please before such changes are made?
In recent edits, mention of Madhava, Bhaskara and Kowa seki were removed and replaced with a generic phrase for Indian and Japanese mathematicians. For a summary they may not be important, but I see you chose to keep reference to Wallis, Barrow and James Gregory. Also Madhava made some of the most significant advancements in the field and much earlier than European counterparts. Why the bias? --Pranathi 21:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Rick, please see our original discussion in the calculus talk pages. Why was Madhava's name removed? and Indian and Japanese contributions lumped together but european mathematicians mentioned by name. Especially when Madhava came up with some of their exact contributions to the field, 300 years before them. Let me know if I am missing something???! Also all mention of period (14th century, 17th century etc) was removed, while initially your parah mentioned 17th century only.--Pranathi 21:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of American Liberalism

Hey Rick, I'm looking into documented criticisms of American liberals and will try to add an NPOV section as soon as possible. Keep me in check, if you would, for potential POV that I might not realize when I'm writing. --ElAmericano 15:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I've made many draft attempts at coming up with a Criticism of American liberalism section and I'm not happy with any of them. They all end up being my criticism, and as valid and important as that is, it's not very encyclopedic. I'm going back to the the opinion that the best way to handle this is a simple link to American Conservatism, just as a reciprocal link would be best as a Criticim of American conservatism.--Kevin 04:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I was drawn back to this article today by a request to vote. After reading it (after 2 months(?) away from it), I think it's better without the criticism section. It's gotten to be a really good article, too. --Elliskev 21:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Could you have a look at this newly created article please?

I think a new article on Differentiating Functions should be reviewed. The subject matter may have already been included elsewhere; at the very least it should be categorised, formatted, ... I am not an editor with experiece in this area of wikipedia but found your name through the calculus discussion pages and thought you might be able to help. Regards--User:AYArktos | Talk 22:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The article has now been nominated for deletion - could you please provide some input into the debate? Many thanks--AYArktos (Talk) 00:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remark

Hi Rick. I would like to say that what I see in the pattern of your edits in mathematics articles worries me a bit. That could be from lack of your experience with Wikipedia, or maybe I am just day dreaming.

But anyway, what I noticed is that you like to pick really big targets. Articles like manifold and mathematics were pretty good articles before you came, and lots of people had spent a lot of energy working on them. You came and turned things upside down, and it seems that you keep on doing that at manifold even after a remark by me and Gauge several days ago.

That by itself is not wrong, and I noticed lately that you tried to listen more to others and use more the talk page. But again, please be less bold. I don't really see in your contributions many attempts at doing less glamorous things which would have much more impact, like copyediting articles, fixing typos, dealing with minor articles, and all that low key stuff.

That is, without asking you to change your interests, I would still think that if you would prioritize things a bit differently, you would be much more useful to Wikipedia and will get along better with others. This is a rude way of saying it, but think about it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History image

Hi there! I'm not sure if we should have that collage image on the History page. The caption describes it as a representation of the 20th century, but it relies heavily on imagery from 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - these are not from the 20th century! And it's just too America-oriented. You say that only half the images are American. This isn't really true, and even so, it's not fair that American event sshould take up 50% of the image. It would be easy to put together a new collage representing events across the world from 1900-1999 (ie: not dominated by American history and no 21st century events). I've started on one and it should be ready soon. Let me know what you think!  :-) Rusty2005 21:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion topic and government involvement

I too hate the idea of government involvement in just about everything. HOWEVER, there are some things that government is established to do.

Looking at the Declaration of Independence, we see the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

Government's sole purpose is to secure the rights of all men (within its borders that is). Similarly, the Constitution says "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". That means the only time someone's life can be taken away legally is as punishment for a crime which one has been duly convicted of by due process of law.

THAT is why government needs to get involved in the abortion issue. To preserve the rights of ALL men. Barwick 05:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not about what we want, or what I want, or what you want, it's about what the truth is. If all natural processes take place after conception (yes I know some fertilized eggs do fail to implant and then die), then that fertilized egg will turn into a full human being. If we somehow knew a brain-dead guy was going to recover and regain full brain and body function in 10 months, would it be legal to kill him today, or tomorrow, because he's not going to recover for another 10 months? No, that is absurd, and it is just as absurd to say that we can kill another human being whom we KNOW will fully "recover" or develop from their current situation to become a full human being.
Barwick 15:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Where did 20 years come in? If the guy was going to recover in 10 months, it would be absurd to say "screw it, kill that sucker", yet that is what we do every day with abortion.

[edit] Spam

What's with the films.com spam? That's the sort of thing I usually expect to find from some anonymous IP...I reverted some of them, but Shakespeare on DVD? What can we do with that? Adam Bishop 03:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Euripedes, etc.

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberalism

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberalism: would you consider changing your vote to speedy keep so we can get this over with? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare on screen

Good work on Shakespeare on screen. AndyJones 15:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liberalism

I've been working on this article for sometime, and I think that you too want it to be a better article than it is today, with a better presentation. This will be easier if temperature of communications is turned down a bit. I propose that we set aside the minor jabs that have been thrown and focus on improving the article, rather than engaging in pissing contests, we owe it to the readers to present a very large and diverse set of movements, often conflicting and contradictory, in an encyclopediac and NPOV manner. This will be better accomplished if we focus on finding the best consensus on the article, rather than engaging in pissing contests.

I hope we can move beyond this initially sub-optimal interaction, because it seems clear to me that your edits are in good faith and made with the intent of enlightening and informing. Highly commendable, and it would be ashame to waste your energy in a quarrel which is both unnecessary, and, I think, unwanted on both sides.

Stirling Newberry 15:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I certainly hope we can do business, however, I cannot do business with Hogeye - his edits are inaccurate, often uncitable, heavily POV and without merit. He's here to purvey some version of anarcho-libertarianism or extreme minarchism, and seems unable to allow any sentence to stand without putting in a liberatarian POV qualifier. After having to comb through sections for his inconsistencies, outright historical howlers and egregious bias I am taking the stand that he is not editing in good faith and until he does I will revert almost on sight anything he does.

Stirling Newberry 04:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Philosophy (navigation) RfC

We have a content dispute issue. Please comment on the talk page. This message is being sent out to everyone who didn't vote Delete in the last TfD of the template, ie: User:SimonP User:Jules.lt User:Pjacobi User:thames User:Michael User:Christopherparham User:FranksValli User:Silence User:Andymussell User:Moosh88 User:Rick Norwood User:Izehar

[edit] Urgent deletion issue

Hi, I created the Philosophy (navigation) template, and I voted for saving it too (as an IP). However, when I duplicated the template to adopt a new tag name, Infinity0 had a cow. We've been in an edit war since I started the template, and we escalated our battle to TfD, which was a big mistake, for now the whole project (both templates) is at risk because some people are voting to delete both. Meanwhile Infinity0 and I are voting to delete each other's TfD candidates, ironically pushing the delete votes for both templates into the majority. We need your help. Neither of us want both templates to die.

Here are the reasons to choose the "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide" tag:

  • Both templates are identical, as changes are ported after each round of disputes, to keep them that way. We've nearly come to a compromise on the few edits that we are still at odds over, but Infinity0 is one stubborn kid. Our competing has improved the template continuously, which is a good thing.
  • The conversion of the old tag to the new tag is complete.
    • The new tag has placement in Wikipedia articles. It is hooked in to the top level of the Philosophy hierarchy, and then some.
    • The old tag has virtually no placement in any Wikipedia articles. It's discussion page link sits on a bunch of users' talk pages, and that's about it. And since I placed most of the old tags, it didn't seem out of place for me to upgrade them.
  • Since the content of the templates are identical, and the fact that jousting will continue on whichever template wins, it makes sense to vote for the one that maintains the project's presence on Wikipedia.

Please vote to save the template: click here. For further discussions click here

Go for it! 04:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Liberalism

Hi, Rick, I took the liberty of Googling your name and found your webpage at ETSU. Sorry about my suspicions that you were a "stealth right-winger." It appears I was wrong. As fellow liberals, I think we can work together to improve the American Liberalism page. If you think the comments on the derogatory use of "liberal" are germaine, then we can definitely keep this section. It's likely that your experience in Tennessee on this matter is far different from mine in New York. luketh 03:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] philosophy

Hi, Rick. Yes, I have changed the article significantly, but I think for the better. Perhaps you would care to comment on specific elements of my edits? Or, if you prefer, to explain what is problematic with my structural changes? I'm interested to see what others make of them as well. Banno 23:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments on my talk page. Banno 20:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Hi Rick. I was wondering whether you could shift your attention to history of mathematics, now you're done with mathematics. I think that article needs lots of improvement, and I seem to remember that you know a bit about history of maths. Of course, it's only a suggestion, and you're free to work on whatever article you want. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pythagorean Triples

Hi Rick, thanks for improving my prose in the Pythagorean Theorem article. Just a question; you write Evidence from megalithic monuments on the British Isles shows that such triples were known before the discovery of writing. Do you have any reference about this ? I was thinking of adding more historical references to this section, so this would be a good start. Cheers, Schutz 23:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, I missed the reference in the history section, thanks. My local library has it, so I'll look into it, in order to add some page references (in a "notes" section) to the article. Schutz 00:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remark

Hi Rick. You have been doing good work and you did talk at talk:mathematics as I asked you.

As such, I have no right to ask you to slow down when you make huge changes to math article, it is your right as editor, and I may do the same.

So let me put it as a favor. You basically rewrote function (mathematics) and did a huge change at polynomial. OK, you can do that. However, if I were you, and knowing that a lot of other people watch those articles, and that a lot of work went into that before you, so if I were you, I would be slower and more cautioous.

The reason is the following. It will take me a lot of time now to go through all the changes you made at polynomial, and see what I like, what I don't. I had a vision for that article, I knew it very well, and now it is all changed.

OK, I don't know how to say it. Let me try that way. There is no rush. You could have changed just a paragraph or two today, waited for comments, inquired on the talk page. Again, you don't have to do that, this is not the mathematics article, but again, it is easier on others that way.

It is not the end of the world, you could write a bit today , a bit tomorrow, etc. This is the strategy I employ, and very suscessfully. So think of it as a piece of advice, no more.

You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I had already replied on your talk page before your advice to reply here sank in. My impression is that it is more wiki to reply on the other person's talk page. Yes? No? Rick Norwood 14:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page, to keep all conversation in one place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rick, Oleg, I've commented about the above at Oleg's talk page, (since the discussiuon seems more complete there ;-).

[edit] Italic, baby

Hey Rick, how about making the variables italic at function (mathematics)? I had also asked that at talk:function (mathematics) which you seems to have missed. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. I started doing that, but belatedly. Rick Norwood 00:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I just fixed function (mathematics) myself. So please keep that in mind for future reference. By the way, one should not make italic parentheses or numbers, so
''f''(''x''+5)
is correct, while
''f(x+5)''
is not. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
PS Do you usually put articles you edit on your watchlist? Just wondering. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for improving polynomial. I've put a couple of questions there in talk. I'll follow your guidelines on italics. I put articles I edit on my watchlist except when I forget. Rick Norwood 01:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You can change your preferences so that they are on your watchlist by default. I find that very useful (easier to think of when you don't want to keep track of an article, than when you want). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tragedy on screen

Tragedy on screen = great idea.

I'll change the Shakespeare on screen link to point straight at the tragedy section. Change it back if you think it doesn't work, though. Also, I may be wrong, but I cannot think of a single film of a non-Shakespearean Elizabethan tragedy. I'll give that some thought today and run it past User:Archie the cat who is a bit of an expert on these things. AndyJones 08:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Have added a few IMDB links to Talk:Tragedy on screen. Wasn't super-useful, but a few things came up. AndyJones 09:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polynomial

You wrote at talk:rational function

I have allowed some time to pass since editing polynomial. I am now going to begin editing this article. Rick Norwood 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


Well, you could as well write it on talk:polynomial. And you could as well be more specific with what you see as a problem.

Also, I would suggest you first deal with the concerns at talk: function (mathematics) before venturing into bold new directions. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had explained my concerns -- the lack of a distinction between a function, an expression, and an equation.
I'll go over to function now and see what's up there. Rick Norwood 14:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Math

Thanks for your suggestion, the article was in really terrible shape. I've been working on it, but would appreciate some help. Rick Norwood 00:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reaction; this was caused by my Christmas break. I'm afraid I can't be of much help as I don't know much about the subject. Sorry to disappoint you. However, I do watch what you're doing and I'm very pleased with your work on the page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Encouragement is also help. Rick Norwood 14:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please decide whether to use BCE/CE or BC/AD? I don't care, but I'd like the page to be consistent. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to use BC or BCE depending on what my source uses. I only use AD or CE in those rare cases where it is unclear which era is intended. There are people who go through wiki changing all BCs to BCEs and other people who go through wiki changing them back, so it probably doesn't matter what I write -- it will be changed sooner or later. But I'll try to be more consistant, and you should feel free to change everything to whichever you prefer. Rick Norwood 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I know it is a controversial thing, which is why I asked you instead of doing something myself. I changed it to BC/AD, which is as far as I know the notation which was used first on the article, and is also the one which was used most frequently in the last version. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement Rick. This history article is getting better I think. I'm a little worried about some of the non-Greek pre-1000 CE stuff (it's news to me, and some of it's pretty bold) but I'll assume good faith. On that line any interest in helping to create a historiography of mathematics? Thanks again. --M a s 01:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] function (mathematics) intro

what do you think of my current attempt at a first paragraph? Randall Holmes 20:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The article does need to talk about sets and relations on a formal level (so don't try to edit this out!); but the first paragraph should (here I agree with you) hook into the high-school understanding of what a function is -- but make it possible for one to get from there to the official definition. I do have misgivings about my rhetoric (the sentences are long) -- but you know that I may yet edit what you write again :-) Randall Holmes 20:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there are some prerequisites: exposure in the 8th or 9th grade (in American terms) to definitions of simple functions is probably a reasonable expectation here (or one would not get the point). Has anyone tried looking at an article on this topic in a paper encyclopedia? Randall Holmes 20:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I shall be visiting function (mathematics) again; I think the level of the intro is now too low (though the prose is less purple than in my effort). I think that a happy medium can be achieved. There is also an incongruity: you define binary relation as a set of ordered pairs, but that is not the preferred definition of binary relation according to the article (I prefer that definition, just as I think you do, but the definition adorned with domain and codomain must be acknowledged. But now I must go to a department meeting... Randall Holmes 22:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, shorter isn't better. The extra stuff that I put in was there for a reason: Jorge Stolfi has a perfectly legitimate objection that your language ignored the fact that a function has a domain and a range (it only takes appropriate input for that function and puts our appropriate output for that function. Randall Holmes 19:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey dude

You mentioned you were a logician. Have you done any work on modal logic? Or just the classic stuff? Lucidish 04:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media bias thoughts

Rick, I've been blocked from editing lately because of a vandal on my IP, so the following may seem to be somewhat of a delayed reaction. These thoughts are in regards to the News media bias in the United States article. First, I wanted to make sure you understood about the whole "High school research paper" comment earlier: That was not meant as an insult, but rather as a distinction. (In retrospect, this was admittedly a poor choice on my part.)

Second, thanks for all your work, not only on the media bias article, but also on Wikipedia in general.

Third, as I explain here, I still can't support the conclusion section. It isn't anything personal – I know you've worked hard on it – but rather a judgment I have to make as a Wikipedia contributor. All I ask is that you consider what I've said and give me insight into anything I may have missed in my analysis. Best of luck with all your work here. - ElAmericano | talk 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page...

Quick question: You've been here for a decent amount of time, why have you never really expanded your user page? Is there some principle behind it, or are you just too lazy? Just curious... --LV (Dark Mark) 17:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not lazy, busy. But thanks for asking. Actually, the idea of expanding my user page never occurred to me. Rick Norwood 20:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I had just noticed it and figured I'd ask. Have a nice day. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More talk about the conclusion of Media bias, etc. . . .

A question: Would you take offense if I added a conclusion section to the School choice article, using Harvard's analysis to prove that it is, indeed, beneficial, and using the Supreme Court's decisions to support the idea that it is constitutional and non-discriminatory? I could, if we were to use your business model, but I don't. I have researched the topic and know I am right about it, but most poor people and 'regular' students don't understand the concept properly. Am I going to fix America through Wikipedia? Is that my job here? Just a question. - ElAmericano | talk 04:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friedman

You might be interested to take part in the latest discussion in Talk:Liberalism on Friedman's citation. 159.46.248.227 14:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld

[edit] Centuries

Hi Rick, I am reading 26 pages of talk archive right now to see if the reasoning behind this section is documented. I made the change because to me that is OK for note taking, but not for published work. Rich Farmbrough. 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Er I mean 38 pages.... Rich Farmbrough. 22:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

A-ha! Here's the answer to your inquiry: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#An_oddity_awhile_back.... Hope this helps. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frechet derivative

Your edit on the 11th on the Frechet derivative does not parse. Just thought you would rather fix it yourself than have someone else try to fix it. Rick Norwood 17:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rick. Unfortunately, I do not see the problem. Must be one of these things where one can't find errors in what one wrote oneself, but the errors jump out for other people. Feel free to fix it yourself, or, if you're still reluctant to do so, please be more specific. Sorry for being so stupid ... -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number

Well fix the grammer then.--Salix alba (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The War of the Roses (Shakespeare)

Good work on The War of the Roses (Shakespeare). At first I didn't like the idea*, but it's grown on me, and I see the page as having good growth potential for details of filmed versions of the Shakespeare history cycles. It's inspired me to do some research and make some changes this morning, which you can see on the article itself and at Shakespeare on screen#Histories. Cheers. AndyJones 10:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • PS By "didn't like the idea" I only mean that I was thinking of a separate article for every version. On reflection I think your way is better. AndyJones 10:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calculus Article

This is in reference to your recent revert on the history of calculus section of the calculus article. I was wondering if you read the discussion in the talk page on this topic. In any event, you reverted the article to saying Archimedes was near a breakthrough, without giving any explanation of why. As for Archimedes "contribution" to calculus, you must be aware that he did significant work developing the method of exhaustion. This method is conceptually quite similar to the modern Riemann Integral, and is also probably the first example of using a limiting process to compute area exactly, which was precisely what doing an integral was before the fundamental theorems came along. For example, this sort of process is how Fermat computed the integral of general power functions. As for a source backing this up, I don't know why you would need a reference from Barrow. As for a more contemporary reference, see any book with a little history of calculus. Here is a link with some information: [7]

For the time being, I changed the statement back to what I had before. If you would like to change the wording to something more agreeable to you, I won't mind, so long as you don't put back in the statement about Archimedes "almost making a breakthrough". Grokmoo 04:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Predictions

Thank you for your suggestion. I am deleting the section entirely. I could fill each of the four scopes with hundred of references since I did a thesis on it in the 70s, but successful theories? None of the old theories in the article about War are very successful :P The only "original" part however is the division in scope, but it IS original, so I will take it away :) .DanielDemaret 22:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, since none of the theories under the heading "Causes of war" have been successful, perhaps they should be taken away too :P DanielDemaret 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Article Vote

Dear Rick:

Please drop by and vote. --CTSWyneken 11:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limerick

Hello. You posted a delightful limerick on the Talk:Jesus page. It made me wonder: have I been pronouncing "Venn diagram" wrong all these years, or was the odd rhyme part of the joke? Jonathunder 23:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You composed the limerick? Now I'm very impressed. Your limerick is an oasis on that talk page; most of the rest of it makes my eyes go woozy and my head spin. Jonathunder 00:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cutting through the tension. A few of us have posted our own silly math humor. Arch O. La 04:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limited series

Limited series is the page that deals with comic books; miniseries related to television shows primarily. "Miniseries" and "maxiseries" are terms used solely by DC Comics, other companies using the term "limited series" for non-continuing comic book series. There is also a debate about how many issues comprise a maxi or a miniseries. Therefore, the convention has been adopted to use limited series and not maxi- or mini- series for comic books. Dyslexic agnostic 16:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Iqbal

The only reason I removed that sentence about Averroes and Avicenna is, in fact, that there is some scholarly speculation that there was earlier contact between Ancient Greek philosophers and other Eastern schools of thought, particularly Zorastrianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism at a significantly earlier date than the rise of Islam. This is thought to have influenced movements such as Gnosticism, and possible Cyncism and the like. Nevertheless, it is true that Averroes and Avicenna (if by no indication other than their latinized names) had a greater impact on the development of Western Philosophy than these earlier meetings.

As for the picture, unfortunately, I know very little about Islamic philosophy on the whole (my own area of study is in earlier India and China), but I do wonder whether he may be a bit of a controversial figure (given his connection to the founding of Pakistan). Unfortunately, though, this is no single figure/image/thought that can characterize what gets labelled "Eastern philosophy" the way Socrates is used in the west. I'll give it some thought though... Ig0774 04:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Both of your suggestions sound good to me. Ig0774 18:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I have to be more careful what I write in Philosophy. Its always good to have someone who's carefully watching my grammar. Ig0774 14:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

In addition to the religious view of Jesus, there is the secular view. Many secular writers agree that Jesus was an itinerant preacher who taught peace and love, rights for women and respect for children, and who spoke out against the hypocrisy of religious leaders and the rich. He was accused by the Jews of blasphemy and executed by the Romans on suspicion of treason. Nothing is known about his early years. The only primary sources, Matthew and Luke, contradict one another and contradict what is known of the secular history of the time. Matthew, in particular, seems to have invented a genealogy to satisfy what amounts to numerology, and tells of many occurring only that that certain prophesies be fulfilled. Among these is the story that Jesus’ mother was a virgin. There are is no record of Jesus claiming to be God, claiming to come as a sacrifice to redeem mankind, claiming to be born of a virgin, or claiming to be part of a trinity. He did say that that God was greater than he, that he felt that God had forsaken him, and that the end of the world would occur within the lifetime of his listeners. The only accounts of his resurrection are in the gospels, and they contradict one another. The beliefs of most modern Christians have little relationship to the teaching of Jesus, but rather are built up out of myths about Jesus that have grown over the years.

References:

  1. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperSanFrancisco (1993), ISBN: 0060616296
  2. Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Harper San Francisco (2005), ISBN: 0060738170
  3. Robert W. Funk, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the AUTHENTIC Words of Jesus, Harper San Francisco (1997), ISBN: 006063040X
  4. Robert Walter Funk, The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do?, The Jesus Seminar, Harper San Francisco (1998), ISBN: 0060629789 #The Jesus Seminar, The Gospel of Jesus: According to the Jesus Seminar, Robert Walter Funk (Editor), Polebridge Press (1999), ISBN: 0944344747
  5. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, Scribner (1968), ISBN: 0020892403
  6. Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Basic Books (2005), ISBN: 0465085776

________________________________________

Rick, this seems rather POV, but you also have some decent data here and, well, several resources. Why not post this to Talk:Jesus#Skeptics and other philosophers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by archola (talk • contribs)

I wish I knew who posted the above. I appreciate the comment, but I was really just using this as a workspace, and did not expect my work to be read. You may post it if you like -- for my own part, I don't think the truth is going to impress people who have already made up their mind, and I think the skeptics probably already know everything in the paragraph. Rick Norwood 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that I forgot to sign before. I borrowed one sentence (many secular writers agree...) but left the rest alone because I knew it would be controversial. I've been more interested in documenting the views of those who feel that the idea of Jesus is more important than the man, rather than strict Skepticism. The Ethicists don't really care whether or not there was a historical Jesus ;). Skepticism is fine, but the debunkers sometimes get as fierce as the Religiots. We have been discussing the Jesus Seminar today, though, and for Bible scholars they are pretty skeptical.
I should also post your sources under "Sources of Skepticism." Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
To me, what Rick wrote is quite good, as well as quite likely rather true. However, Arch has a very real point about the Religiots as well. Nonetheless, the very real question comes down to a point I raised about a week or so ago: the Jesus article has, for all intents and purposes become the Jesus Christ article. A decision needs to be made as to whether that is really the best course of action, or if you wish to return to FA status, if you should create a more historical article. Jim62sch 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
We have theology in Religious perspectives on Jesus and history in both Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus. The Jesus article admits that the dude is important to both. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)`

Rick, that sentence I borrowed earlier ("Many secular writers agree that Jesus was an itinerant preacher who taught peace and love, rights for women and respect for children, and who spoke out against the hypocrisy of religious leaders and the rich.") has a "citation needed" tag on it. See Jesus#Other current ideas about Jesus. I know you have a list of sources above, but I don't know which of these sources (or which page numbers) this sentence comes from. So, I'll need help in citing this. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 20:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (The editor formerly known as Archola).

[edit] Libertarians

Talk:Liberalism#Your_turn_Thesmothete: actually, I know quite a few libertarians who can admit to fallibility. Clearly, Gibby is not one of them. Here on Wikipedia, the obvious example is Jimbo, who has a bit of an ego, but certainly doesn't think he's perfect. One of my closest friends from high school was and is a libertarian (one of the few African American libertarians I've ever met, I might add), but he's definitely not an ideologue. And here in Seattle, I've run into a lot of people with a strong streak of libertarianism without being purists. I remember one of them remarking that he wouldn't vote Libertarian for Commissioner of Public Lands (for reasons I presume are obvious). But then, as I've had occasion to remark elsewhere, a lot of Seattle libertarians are more focused on ending the drug war and the war in Iraq than they are on economics, which is very different from most libertarians I've encountered elsewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As with most ideologies, the ones who can admit fallibility aren't as purist. They are still focused on "maximizing liberty", and in my view have way too much faith in ownership, markets and competition as the way to do that, but (for example) they understand why you need to inspect meat. Or why public parks are a generally good idea. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If I believed in human infallibility, I might not be libertarian. —Tamfang 00:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Shadows

I didn't think it was something worthy of talk, but now I have brought it there. Talk:Dark Shadows. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with my reasoning. Thank you. Mike H. That's hot 23:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Shkarter1985, a user I've had trouble with in a number of articles before, is refusing to bring his grievances to talk and is reverting the agreed-upon revision. Please help me settle the matter, if you don't mind. Thanks! Mike H. That's hot 03:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I had no idea about the bolding. Can you explain the intent behind it? Mike H. That's hot 02:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth

"rv To begin the introduction "In arguments..." is to look at a special case before the general case. Most truth lies in simple statements, e.g. "It is raining," not in arguments."

True, but to revert a whole edit based on what (arguably) could be an improper prefix is a little bit hebetudinous. -Ste|vertigo 17:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buck Rogers and Tom Mix

In earlier USA comics before the Comics Code came in, there were plenty of Westerns with Tom Mix as a fictional character.

If you find someone old enough to remember the times before WWII, he may well confirm that there was a cowboy fictional scenario with cowboys called Buck Rogers and Tom Mix and a horse called Trigger. Anthony Appleyard 07:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durant

SLRubenstein objected that Durant is not a historian of the ancient world and thus does not count as an expert in the matters surrounding the life of Jesus. Since it was I who put him in the notes and since we had Grant and plenty of others in there, I saw little reason to fight it out.

If you wish to take it up on the talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate page, I have no objection. I'd ask you do that rather than duke it out in an edit war. I personally prefer the debates kept to talk pages. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 00:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think it was worth fighting over. So, I just took him out. I'd have to investigate Durant's credentials a bit before calling him a historian, though. On something like that my general impression (that he is one) isn't enough. In my professional work, I must be from Missouri ("show me"). Not a bad thing to be on high emotional article like Jesus --CTSWyneken 15:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -ize/-ise

The last time that I remember doing that was when an article had a mixture (sometimes different versions of the same word in the same paragraph), so I tried to make the usage consistent. It's true that "-ise" is more common in British English, and is usually preferred in articles related to British topics — but in this case it was just consistency, as I recall. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prayer in school

I saw you edited prayer in school and you seem to have some knowledge of the subject. I was wondering if you knew whether a school club, which thus is school sponsored, can perform organized (vocal) prayer in school. If not, do you know which supreme court case decided this..? I'm trying to figure this out but as of yet to no avail... KI 02:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks

No problem. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII

Hi, I see you have having disputes with User:RJII at Talk:American liberalism. A word of advice from a friend - that guy is persistent and very POV - he's on probation. He's even started an arbitration against me because I've reported him one too many times. Be careful; you may want to get a few more people into the issue. How about the other philosophy editors? -- infinity0 21:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a word of warning - he has a way of wearing people down by asking them for sources. Please don't try too hard - most cases a fact is so well known that asking for sources comes close to WP:POINT - remind him of that. -- infinity0 21:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

infinity0, cut it out. I'm doing what any responsible editor should be doing --requesting sources. That's what improves the articles and cleans out all the original research. RJII 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, infinity0 has been attempting to use my probation as a weapon against me, and has been warned against this by an administrator: "stop using RJII's probation as a weapon against him." (jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) -Adminstrators Noticeboard/Incidents. Just a heads up. RJII 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] first line

Hello. You said in your edit summary that the title of the article was required by policy to be in the first line of an article. That seems really strange. Where can I find this policy? Thanks. RJII 16:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks.Xemoi 01:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Michael Smith

Hi Rick. I don't know where you stand on the whole notability debate, but in my opinion, Jon Michael Smith falls short. I can't be bothered though. May I suggest to be more careful when creating articles? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, but I hope you are not under the impression that I created the Jon Michael Smith article. Rick Norwood 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the history of the article, that is precisely the impression that I have. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth in Mathematics

Rick, I'm please you had the courage and insignt to make that last edit. I agree what you reverted did not correct an erroneous statement, but instaid the previous edit actually said the same thing in more words than necessary. Plus it was a bit speculative as to what a "reasonable" powerful axiomatic system is. Thanks... Kenosis 16:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservatism

I am at a loss as to why you keep adding that section.

It doesn't relate to conservatism as a philosophy. The quotes used attack not conservatism, but nationalism, patriotism and classes as if they represent it. One even pre-dates the modern philosophy! I do not want to be rude but do wish to be frank; it honestly seems as if you have some vision of conservatism being simply aristocracy, nationalism, religion, inequality and unfree- you then critique it based on this vision.

Conservatism (as a philosophy) is not aristocracy, nationalism, religion, etc - it is the preservation of tradition and gradual (slower) change. A 'criticism' section is unrequired for such a philosophy - because criticism of it depends on the circumstances in which conservatism is applied.

I hope you understand my words and take this in good faith. michael talk 14:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You just professed your point-of-view ("the preservation of a state religion, a landed upper class, and a hereditary aristocracy") in addition to ignoring what I said above! michael talk 14:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

your positions that you keep adding to conservatism and american conservatism are misrepresentations and star man arguments. I will continue to delete them. The talk pages have already disagreed with you completely on your insertions. I think you need to separate your feelings about conservatism from the NPOV objections to them. ER MD 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you do not stop adding your POV to the article I will be taking this further and getting additional input and discussion to end this nonsense. michael talk 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I think you are acting in good faith, but I also think that repeatedly deleting what you disagree with is not the wiki way to resolve disputes. I have provided reputable sources for everything in the disputed section. I can provide more, if you like. Saying that the ideas you disagree with are "not conservativism" only means that they are not your kind of conservatism. I accept that. I may very well find your kind of conservatism admirable. But you need to face the fact that there are other kinds of conservatism. Calling my referenced comments NPOV, OR, nonsense, and so on has become just name calling, not a rational response to the points raised. Rick Norwood 15:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No one has backed you up or agreed with your nonsense. You continue to act in a poor fashion and ignore reasonable argument against your (pov, skewed, nonsensical) edits. Your request for comment has nil responses that are either neutral, or, more importantly, in your favour. With this in mind, I am reverting, again. michael talk 12:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't end up reverting - someone else beat me to it. However, you have been reported for breaching 3RR. michael talk 13:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, you demonstrate how narrow your outlook is in regards to political / philosophical thought. Move beyond American conservatism / liberalism - the terms used today in the USA bastardise these philosophies and wholly redefine and distort their meanings. michael talk 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You have stated an agenda and are flying your flag. The criticism section is nothing but a pathetic in-article fork wholly disregarding the philosophy. Until this is gone, the article will not be appropriate and neutral. michael talk 16:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Quit the patronising rubbish. Cut the crap. Stop dictating to me. I'm not interested in stereotypes, I don't believe in stereotypes - you do. By saying you're a "liberal" - zing - you've done it, you've shown how naive you are. Adopt a worldview and get out of this bubble. I don't give a damn what someone's opinion / beliefs are in real life when working here. Policy, and myself, asks that they do not bring those views onto wikipedia.
Want to know what the answer is, the real answer to this petty little war? Kill all the "criticism" sections on all political articles. Wikipedia has one view; the neutral view. Criticism sections add two, essentially creating an in-article fork. We don't dictate positives and negatives, we outlay the facts and the facts speak for themselves. When you put in your criticism section, you're not letting the reader make up their own mind, their own judgement - you're dictating it to them. michael talk 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss this matter with you any further. With every sentence you type you simply reinforce everything I've said in regards to your editing. I look forward to bringing an end to this idiocy through mediation, and then, Arbitration, if you still wish to continue with your agenda. michael talk 02:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I have filed a request for comment in the hope to resolve your actions. Please respond on the page. michael talk 15:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done as you request. I hope we can resolve this dispute amicably. Rick Norwood 15:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spirit of compromise

Rick,

I personally don't have a problem with you keeping "abortion" and/or "contraception" up on the list of things they oppose so long as a source can be sited. My main concern is that I honestly don't think that they oppose "feminism", or the rights of women. Just some of the more radical off shoots of the feminist cause. Chooserr 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm talking about the article family values incase I didn't make it obvious :) Chooserr 00:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Do you intend to list this case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases so it may be heard? michael talk 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your case at 2006-06-13 Conservatism has been closed. When you return from your 3RR block, please try to discuss matters with the other person on the appropriate (closest) talkpage before bringing a case directly to mediation. This often clears matters up. Thank you for your interest in MedCab. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Per request, the mediation case (above) has been re-opened. Please note that you have a Request for comment opened regarding your edits. If possible, please visit that page first and see if a compromise can be struck there. Until the RfC is accepted, you or the other parties pull out of the mediation case, or it's accepted by ArbCom or Wikipedia Administration, I will leave your mediation case open. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservatism 3rr

Rick, you have been blocked for 24hrs due to revert-warring on this article. you noted that they were in response to blanking, but this is not a valid defese, as it was blanking a disputed POV section, not balnking as vandalism. Please try to use the talk page more in future. Thanks.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth article

Hi Rick. Somehow in the midst of current arguments with Jon Awbrey in the article, I briefly got your username mixed up with that of Nate Ladd, and made some mistaken references to you in the context of a fairly heated exchange with Jon. My sincere apology; I've since resubmitted the points I made with the correct intended name. Hope your endeavors are proving fruitful. Right now we seem to be at an impasse with respect to keeping the content of the truth article readable and understandable to reasonably intelligent, compounded by a possible sockpuppet problem there. Thanks and good regards, ... Kenosis 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:ER MD

Thanks for the note. I gave up on that article, I'm afraid, it's off my watchlist. ER MD simply refuses to accept any criticism that is phrased as criticism. What he wants to put in there is not what people criticize conservatism for, he wants a glowing summary of all that is ethical and good about conservatism. What frosts me is that he's doing it under the guise of "fighting POV." It's like only allowing criticism of Hitler if we can say, "Critics charge that Hitler wanted a stronger Germany through economic policies that helped the poorest Germans and removed troublesome elementals from German society through non-traditional means." It's silly and it's NOT what critics charge, it's how Hitler's spin machine might defend itself. In my interactions with ER MD, it's clear to me that he doesn't read what people like, it's like arguing with somebody who doesn't listen to you when you're talking, they're just mentally rehearsing their next verbal barrage. I'm giving that article a rest, it's beyond hope unless something can be done about ER MD. What's more, I'm a conservative and I can't even work with ER MD. Bjsiders 14:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions

Hello - you left a message on my talk page about an hour after I performed significant number of reversions related to Michael D. Wolok. There are a number of users who have expressed a concern with those reversions. I have some more details at the bottom of my talk page which you are most welcome to read. In the meantime, given the number of comments I received, I am not sure if I will be able to personally address each of your concerns. However, I hope that at least I am able to convey some sense of accountability and resolution here. Thanks again for taking notice. --HappyCamper 03:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teach for America pov?

Hi Rick, Thanks for cleaning up the TFA page - I would really appreciate any thoughts you have about POV that remains (or not?) in the article. It's hard to juggle TFA being so glowy about itself, and then some of the realities being quite grim - I would really like to get an experienced editors thoughts - no pressure though :-) H0n0r 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated thanks...

Belated thanks for your compliments on my work on the Fraction (mathematics) article. I've been distracted by things like getting married and buying a house and haven't had any more time to devote to the article. I'm hoping to start working on it again, but I'm curious... rather than improving the text of the article further, might it be more sensible to complete the Wikibooks material on fractions, and then prune down WP's Fraction article a bit? Regards... --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free will quotes

Rick Norwood, I was very surprised to read your comment on the quotes that I added to the Free will article. It has been my experience that most people reject or misunderstand any quotes of Schopenhauer's words.Lestrade 12:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Peppered Moth Evolution

Sorry I took so long to get back, my line died because of Vonage, and I'm only on dial-up, until the 27th at the latest. I hope to get back to you soon on that.

MSTCrow 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservatism

In terms of the classical stuff, I think that it can be used, but that this should be done very cautiously. The word is certainly used. But it is a word, and it is used as an analogy. Just because we describe figures from the classical past as "conservatives" (and you are of course right that this is not infrequently done) does not mean that they were part of an ideology called "conservatism." We need to be careful about anachronism.

I read both versions, and I find the connective text mostly confusing and unhelpful in both version, but perhaps I've missed something. I've not been impressed by the way your critics have handled themselves - there's been an incredible amount of ad hominem on their part, and their own arguments I find mostly foolish. But the section as it stands is pretty indefensible, and the way to quiet them is to make it good, not to make it worse by meeting them halfway. If there's going to be a criticism section, it simply shouldn't be a list of quotes, and listing only classical sources and Benjamin Disraeli because you don't want to have them accuse the section of "liberal bias" only helps them in their arguments that there shouldn't be a criticism section at all. john k 15:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Travel

I´ve added Mark Twain book to the Sci Fi article because there was a misleading entry: Time Travel. Rather than removing Time Travel from the list of subjects Wells pioneered I thought it better to put Twain book, idented, and clearly marked as not Wells work. I think I wasn´t so clear so I will remove the Time Travel entry instead, because it wasn´t pioneered by Wells. If you think it´s best to let Time Travel "in" and find another way to correctly credit Twain as a pioneer of the subject rather than Wells, let me know. Loudenvier 19:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peppered Moth

What mediation are you referring to? There is no such mediation listed on the article's talk page, nor is it on the Mediation or Mediation Cabal list. - MSTCrow 09:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cryptic remark

I've asked for clarification of a cryptic remark of yours at [[8]]. Maybe just a typo… - Jmabel | Talk 00:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian values

Hi, and thanks for adding references to Christian values. One of them, however, (http://www.nogaymarriage.com/default.asp) is basically a petition, not an essay, as readers clicking at the reference would expect. I think referencing a petition here is a bit problematic since it might be seen as an advocacy of some kind. Could you please replace that reference with a citation of an essay instead? I think that would be much better. Thanks again. --Zoz (t) 16:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

[edit] So you know...

People are talking about you here. Just thought you'd like to know. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Image:ResearchStar.gif We've awarded you this PARC research star in recognition for your contribution to research about conflict in Wikipedia. Thank you for your help!!! --Parc wiki researcher 20:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just so you know/see - the above user is User:Parc wiki researcher, not me, and I don't know what that award is. But your contribution seemed reasoned to me, and agreeable. So please continue to contribute your views - especially since you understand the irrationality of the square root of two!
Best regards, --Ludvikus 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosphy & Algebraic topology

Just kidding about the latter.

Although one of my strong interest is in the Philosophy of mathematics.
What's At above, why merely treating neighborhoods in an algebraic way!
So what's a neighborhood I'm asked? Just a cleaver way of beating around the bush.
Why? Because in the center there's a black hole.
What do you mean? Answer: Division by zero, and consequent infinity.
So what's algebraic? Ah, good, and a difficult question. That's for another day!
Rick, can you contribute, at least a bit, and of course, can I recruit you to support my positions! Why, you ask? Because they are the correct ones. --Ludvikus 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Rick, perhaps you misunderstood? Did User:Dbrucker tell YOU to "go away" also?

Also, it's BORING without you - I feel like the Jew was asked about his experience

at praying at the [[Wailing Wll]. When asked what it felt like, he said, " To tell you the truth, it's like talking to the wall." It's to hear at least one agreeable voice- and one from Sherwood maybe, rather than Norwood - your Endlisg-sounding name makes me think of Robin Hood!

So remain, and come back to Philosophy. The audience there no seems totally unaware of the SPECIFIC importance of mathematics, particularly in the form of Geometry!
Can you imagine - if I was to say Arithmetic gave way to Geometry - (rational numbers were "replaced" by lines, or parts thereof) what would happen? Unfortunately, "Academic" philosophy today requires no mathematical skills, knowledge, or history, and very few read that wonderful edition by Dover Publications on Euclid's Elements by that genious Englishman, Sir Thomas Heath.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have it immediately to hand. --Philogo 00:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow! So many typos above! No wonder I don't here from you directly.
But you're the most coherent voice on the Philosophy page (next tome of course).
So keep it up.
Dbruckner has had a change of attitude - sounds better.
I'd like to hear from you on irrational numbers - did you get my point on pi/2 as not being a counterexample: --Ludvikus 15:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments about me

Rick – I couldn't help noticing your comment on L's talk page that I claim 'Philosophy is another name for Western rationalism, 'nobody has been a real philosopher who is not a follower of the ancient Greeks', and that I dismiss Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tze, etc. None of these three claims are true, and I do not claim them.

1. Western rationalism is a name for a certain school of thought that prevailed during a certain philosophical period. You are confusing this with the claim that the philosophical method is characterised by its rationally critical nature, its use of logic and methodical argument, and so on. One can use these techniques to show that there are limits to what can be established by reason, and thus disprove a certain strong form of rationalism. Since you are a mathematician, thus familiar with Godel's proof, you must agree that it is perfectly possible to show, using logic, that there are limits to what can be proved by logic.

2. Certainly, someone can be a real philosopher without being a follower of the ancient Greeks. One has only to adopt a certain methodical, critical way of doing things, aim at absolute clarity, precision &c That is all that is needed.

3. I do not dismiss Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tze or other ethical teachers or religious leaders. I say only that the method of philosophy is characterised by the features listed above. If the methods of these teachers are not characterised by these features, then they are not philosophers. Logic.

With every kind wish. Dbuckner 17:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rick – thanks for the message. You said "If I understand you correctly, you think that philosophy is a method of investigation, while I think that philsophy is an area of investigation. In other words, you think philosophy is more like science, which is everything discovered by a certain method, the scientific method. I think philosophy is more like history, an area of study in which many methods are used."

Care still needed! I do not think philosophy is a method of investigation, I think it is characterised by a certain method of investigation. Also, I happen to agree that philosophy has a definite 'area' or subject-matter. And in fact I am more sympathetic to your point about Eastern philosophy than you might think. However, I feel absolutely bound to the principle that as an encyclopedia and by NPOV principles we should faithfully represent the views of authoritative sources, whether we disagree or not. I profoundly disagree with some of the key points of Quinton's introduction. But, though I disagree, my personal view does not count. All we are allowed to do is present the sort of view you would find in a standard reference work on the subject. The vision of Wikipedia, according to Wales, was to make a reference work available to people who had access to the net, but had no access to reference works. If that vision is correct (I think it is) we have a duty not to deviate over-much from what standard reference works say, regardless of our personal views on the subject. Otherwise we are imposing our personal views on a global audience. An attractive and tempting idea, but is that morally right?

I hope that gives you a better idea of where I'm coming from. I apologise for previous episodes of curtness or rudeness – that was largely the result of having been with this article for many years, and seeing in every new person yet another need for endless rounds of discussion and argument about the same basic principles. Now that you've stayed with this article for some time, & I don't have to worry about endless arguments with someone who then disappears, to be replaced by another lookalike. So, if we reach a consensus, I very much hope you stay as a guardian of the article. It needs one. Dbuckner 09:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy revisited

Dear Nick Norwook, I never got a chance to get back to you. I never heard of the Coast of Utopia.

It's good to have you around - the voice I seem to communicate with best.
You have a cool way about your approach that's very useful.
And I appreciate very much your efforts to be constructive, and informative.
It's your rational presence which makes me feel like I'm not talking to a wall.
Best regards, --Ludvikus 15:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm an optimist. There are not many adversaries or protagonists involved in this debate -less than what one can count by the fingers of one hand.

I'm telling you - the Geat Wittgenstein was right, correct: philosophy is a form of therapy (as distasteful as this may seem to you).
Eventually, the page will be opened, and everyone will get into the act.
Compromise you say? - Here's my proposal. I'll let you sway me towards any view you wish - but only you - let this be my position, at least until the site is opened to everyone.
Do you understand my proposal? In your need to have things move forward, I'll let you veto, or be my arbitar. You are I think the least alienating voice. So if anyone can bring peace, it's you!
Notice that I'm not really compromising my position - since I do not believe philosophy is a particularly rational inquiry - more so than any other inquiry.
So, as in chess, it's your move! Good luck!
Best wishes, --Ludvikus 18:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed a point I made.

Although it's distasteful to have to engage in therapy in general, nevertheless, it is my understanding of Wittgenstein that in regard to the most pressing, or interesting, kind of questions of philosophy, one does not engage in reasoned, or logical, arguments exclusively, or primarily, but in something like psychological theraphy: your opponent has somethink like a mental cramp, and your task is more like that of a doctor looking for a cure.
Whatever you may say about X (I'll leave the name out), he's going to kling to the word rational no matter what logical argument you offer. In other words, a person's beliefs, views, etc., are not much moved by logical argument - except in very emotionally very neutral areas - like a mistake in spelling, or addition. Core philosophical beliefs are much more like Religion. Have you ever tried to convince someone of something involving their religion? Did you get anywhere?
Regards, --Ludvikus 22:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: I'm going away (dancing with women). I leave Philosophy in you most worthy hands. --Ludvikus 22:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war at Liberalism in the United States

It seems User:Rjensen has continued to revert to his version, in spite of opposition. I've reported him for violating the 3RR, but I can't revert again unless I too would like to be blocked, so I'd request that you make the appropriate changes.

I almost wish I hadn't moved the page, bringing the page to his attention and thus sparking the edit war. The name of the article means very little in comparison to the changes Rjensen has made to the lead. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I only meant about the POV rants that he put in, I'll handle everything else as best I can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cielomobile (talk • contribs) 17:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Citations

Rick, where are the citations that you mention on the talk page. I tried to find them, but it is far too busy. Could you leave them on my talk page and we can discuss. Thanks. Dbuckner 09:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell That's auful. How could you prejudice the article by elevating Ruusell tomsuch a level? Even Christ is not placed at the top of religion. --Ludvikus 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Rick, I'm sorry I had to revert but that one is clearly not going to wash with KD and the Slave, both of whom have made constructive comments. I know it's not brilliant but try to follow where I'm going here. Thanks. Dbuckner 14:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you reverted to the more recent version. Good. And good luck. I hope you withstand the preasure. But keep your cool headedness. Otherwise, you be labelled the trouble maker.

Best regards, --Ludvikus 14:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining "malicious"

The term "malicous" I used is referring to the editor's "pattern of communication". The pattern of communication, I believe, (and I think to be self evident) is malicious to the functioning of the community of editors. I was not expressing a judgement on the psychological state of the individual. Is that explanation helpful? Richiar 08:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I can accept the change in word if it seems more suitable, less accusatory, to others. My perception of ludvikus is that he is more restrained because he has a possible ban hanging over his head. I don't believe he is "trying to do better", but I would not want to act maliciously towards him. I do believe it is in the interet of the editing community to preserve and promote quality editing, and when we have several high quality editors willing to contribute, they should be encouraged. I think Peter King was exposed to unbelievably nasty abuse by Ludvikus, and this should not be allowed to happen.
Anyway, if you would help me to understand how you're seeing things,I'd like to hear what you think. Also, you might look at this proposal, which is sort of the framework for how I'm looking at things. Richiar 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[proposal] for "ommittees" and material below that. Richiar 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I.
a) Destructive comments + b) incorrigible to correction = c) destructive communication pattern to the well being of the editing community
c) + d) pattern of persistence of incorrigibility = malicious editor in regards to the wellbein of the editing community


II
Being kind to Ludvikus drove Peter King and Mel away, othes may soon follow


III
The squabbling needs to stop-discussing it won't help.
Agreed.
Hence my reversion of nonsense by a malicious editor Richiar 20:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to belabour the issue, but after I thought about your comments more, I think you're right: I've decided to drop the word "malicious" from my wiki vocabulary. Thanks for clarifying that. I just wanted to let you know. Regards. Richiar 23:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] analytic and continental

There is no main article on this, it was deleted. Not sure if it is longer than the other sections, perhaps, but we were having a general discussion about the philosophy article and I think it should not wind up looking like something that came out of a factory, with each section the same lenght and nothing to contribute other than as a place that links to other articles like the philosophy panel.-- Lucas (Talk) 17:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The nature of History of mathematics

Rick,

First, let me commend you for the excellent work you've been doing on History of mathematics; the article is developing well. My comments, however, are quite long, so I thought I would put them on your talk page, rather than the article's.

Central to my concern is the fact that we are writing a history article, not a mathematics article. As a historian, I have several problems with your limiting the History of mathematics to the history of current academic practice. This is precisely the kind of thing that historians of science have long been criticizing as Whig history.

First, we have to realize that mathematics is practiced in different ways in different culture. The contrasts between Greek, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian mathematics are well known. More recently, Geoffrey Lloyd has published several important comparative studies of Greek and Chinese science and mathematics. In his Adversaries and Authorities (Cambridge Univ. Pr., 1996) he discussed the different Chinese and Greek concepts of demonstration or proof:

...if we confront Liu Hui's commentary [on the Nine Chapters] with our comparative issues in mind, we can say this. What he does in the discussion of the additions of fractions and elsewhere is to show that the algorithms used are correct. Now this is as good a proof of the procedures as anyone could wish–provided, of course, that we don't limit our notion of what will count as a proof to the axiomatic-deductive demonstration in the Euclidean style–provided, that is, that we do not stipulate that for a proof to be a proof, it has to be cast in that style. For what more should we ask of a proof of a procedure than an explanation of how and why it works, however that explanation proceeds? (pp. 61-2).

If we limit our history of mathematics to mathematics as it is practiced in a modern mathematics department, we are automatically ruling out many important episodes in the history of mathematics.

Secondly, to the extent that we focus on modern mathematics as the touchstone, we contribute to the tendency to seek out "modern" discoveries in other cultures, while ignoring the culturally distinctive modes of reasoning that led to their present discoveries. Writing in a special issue of Isis devoted to the cultures of ancient science, David Pingree, the late historian of Indian mathematics and astronomy, made this comment (which seems applicable to the dismal state of the Indian mathematics section):

[to define] science as that which modern Western scientists believe in and the methodologies with which they operate, is inappropriate to a historian ... Its active form is more pervasive in and pernicious to history. This results in the attitude that it is the task of the historian not to study the whole of a science within its cultural context, but to attempt to discover within the science elements similar to elements of modern Western science. One example I can give you relates to the Indian Madhava's demonstration, in about 1400 A.D., of the infinite power series of trigonometrical functions using geometrical and algebraic arguments. When this was first described in English by Charles Whish, in the 1830s, it was heralded as the Indians' discovery of the calculus.... The matter resurfaced in the 1950s, and now we have the Sanskrit texts properly edited, and we understand the clever way that Madhava derived the series without the calculus; but many historians still find it impossible to conceive of the problem and its solution in terms anything other than the calculus and proclaim that the calculus is what Madhava found. In this case the elegance and brilliance of Madhava's mathematics are being distorted as they are buried under the current mathematical solution to a problem to which he discovered an alternate and powerful solution. (pp. 561-2)

David Pingree, "Hellenophilia versus the History of Science," Isis, 83(1992): 554-563; reprinted in Michael H. Shank, ed., The Scientific Enterprise in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 2000).

I could go on, but I think I've filled too many lines already. The crux is that mathematicians and historians have very different views of the history of mathematics. At the risk of oversimplification, mathematicians tend to present the (almost inevitable) discovery of timeless truths, while historians seek to understand the historical and culturally contingent circumstances in which mathematical theorems were conceived. I will argue strongly that the latter is the appropriate form for an article that titles itself the History of mathematics.

Thanks again for your effort on History of mathematics. --SteveMcCluskey 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historia Mathematica

Rick –

Thanks for your thoughtful reply; I think I see now where we're at odds. You wish to limit the history of mathematics to the content of survey courses and their corresponding textbooks; I would include the full range of the discipline as expressed in advanced courses and in the research published in scholarly books and the discipline's leading journal, Historia Mathematica. A brief examination of that journal's contents will show that it is not limited to mathematics as it is currently practiced. In fact, since its founding in 1974 it has presented many of the same historiographic discussions – including discussions of the tensions between historians and practitioners – that we find in the broader field of the history of science.

Turning to the substance of recent research, one article that I came across: (Jeffrey A. Oaks and Haitham M. Alkhateeb, "Māl, enunciations, and the prehistory of Arabic algebra", Historia Mathematica 32 (2005): 400–425) seems to be directed at how specific Arabic terms and concepts influenced the development of algebra in the Arabic-speaking world. Another (Agathe Keller, "Making diagrams speak, in Bhaskara I's commentary on the Āryabhaṭīya," Historia Mathematica, 32 (2005): 275-302) deals with the issue of proofs (and their absence) in Bhaskara's writings.

The latest issue of Historia Mathematica 34 (2007): 3–6) included a lengthy appreciation of the work of David Pingree (1933-2005), chair of the department of history of mathematics at Brown University, who I had quoted as an example of the approach I feel this article should take. This presents something of a paradox if you wish to define Pingree's approach as somehow outside the history of mathematics.

I hope you will think seriously about these issues and not dismiss them out of hand. Your framework has served the article quite well so far, but I fear it is much too limiting. I want to see good solid history in the History of mathematics article, but that can be done without abandoning mathematical rigor.

Turning from the abstract to the specific, would you please take a look at my draft for the medieval European section; I'd welcome your specific comments. --SteveMcCluskey 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early History of Math draft

As you suggested, I've condensed my medieval section, but perhaps not as much as you'd like. See my comment on my draft's talk page. --SteveMcCluskey 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I've split the Medieval section into two subsections, partly for logical reasons, partly to make them page size.
I'd appreciate your assistance on the Early Modern section, which still seems somewhat incoherent, although it's better than it was (IMHO). See my comments at User talk:SteveMcCluskey/History of Mathematics#Early Modern section.
In general, I think it's about ready to roll out onto the main page.
Thanks, SteveMcCluskey 15:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstood comment

After I read your comment on reason several times I think I misunderstood what you said. If so, I'll cross it out. Sorry.Richiar 05:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calculus field/area quandary

Hi! I've had a similar quandary to yourself in defining if it is a field or area of mathematics, and somewhat stopped looking some years ago. I've not got a problem with the revert as it came along with some good edits, and i've still got the problem after around 13 years of doing calculus.. heh. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calculus

Hey Rick, Just wondering if you had seen Geometry guy's comment regarding our dilemma at the calculus article. I believe it may be the key to finally resolving the problems we seem to be having and put the article on the track to clarity, depth, and readability. Cronholm144 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calculus article(s) & general ruminations

Is there any time we would possibly be able to arrange a mini-drive of several calculus articles so they are more encyclopedic, but also provide easy reference points for learning? Aside from that, just a few notices of late;

I personally don't mind the idea of "imagine" or "consider" in textbooks, but in some Wikipedia calculus articles and mathematics articles there seems to be more of a "let me tell you a story" approach rather than a "let me tell you about" approach. I prefer the latter as more encyclopedic, because it somewhat stipulates the idea of the reader making imaginations and considerations after they have read the text at hand, rather than stimulating that interest such as a literature or poetry book should; any other analogies or stories on how to understand calculus should probably be put on WikiBooks as such.

I'm not sure it is in Wikipedia policy, but I'm of the opinion that articles should provide you with a "from the ground up" form of knowledge, where basic principles are included to explain the information at hand, but for ultimately more advanced topics, the reader has to read the principles himself. While i don't mind an article pointing a user in a direction, telling them "you need to know <~>" like in some calculus articles, it's somewhat more "teachy" than "telly".

Again, i'm not directing this at you, just generally sharing with you some observations as per some articles. The reverted content, "For more technical information on the limit and the derivative, see their respective articles." would probably just be better off as a "See also: Derivative and Limit (mathematics)" as per other wiki articles.

Just a few thoughts, not biting, just nibbling :-) ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Calculus?

Perhaps it'd be a good idea if those of us that were solely interested in calculus actually formed a WikiProject dedicated to improving related articles? Then we could actually have listed calculus-only articles that require collaboration and improvement. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 13:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Rick! I trust you had a safe trip.--Cronholm144 15:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calculus

I am confused as to how you think I am acting "unilaterally" [9]. First of all, I changed two words in the article, based on the resolution of the excessively long debate about whether it should be "curriculum" or "curricula." I was just reverting the change to "curriculum" back to "curricula" because the singular is in no way justified. If that qualifies as "unilateral," so be it, but I've made my case, no one else has. As for the rest of that, I didn't write that, and I'd appreciate it if you paid more attention instead of falsely accusing me of messing up the article. The only thing I did to that paragraph was fix a link from "algebra" to "elementary algebra." --Cheeser1 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rick, I do not think you revert of the lead was not a demonstration of good faith, you have not allowed people the time to respond to your response. Further, the consensus for the lead is not leaning in the direction of the one you reverted to. Your edit is a revert of a revert(the first step in war). I would really prefer not to see such an edit war(the second in days).--Cronholm144 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I continued our other conversation on my talkpage

Hello Rick, I understand and appreciate that you have been diligently working on Calculus for a long time, and have seen more than a fair share of transient edits. Nonetheless, I would like to gently ask that you hold your 'shoot first' approach in reserve. It's hard enough to edit when there are revert wars being fought over singular vs plural, so why complicate our task even further? We all agree that the current lead is far from perfect. If there is discussion going on already at the talk page, and I see that you have contributed there, why revert unilaterally to a version that is clearly deficient, even according to you, instead of arriving at some conclusion first? Please, don't tell me that you value your opinion above your fellow editors', because I will not believe it! Best, Arcfrk 05:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing Stories cover

Rick, I had to down size your Amazing Stories cover Image:Amazing1.jpg and provide a Fair Use statement to prevent it from being deleted. I don't follow Science Fiction, I do electronics magazines and Hugo Gernsback created both. -- SWTPC6800 02:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logic

You added Logic to Category:Philosophy:

Logic is in category:philosophy, see the philosophy for confirmation

I'm not sure why you did this. Since it already has not one but *two* categories that derive from Category:Philosophy, it should not itself be in Category:Philosophy per WP:SORT.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

 Thank you for your recent contribution to a few logic articles. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new article on Dragon Lady

Hi. I put something up at Dragon Lady (etymology). Thanks for the advice. Jeffmatt 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science fiction and the two meanings of "fan fiction"

I hope you approve of my edit there. The modern meaning, the one in mundane dictionaries, is completely different from what any fan would have understood by those words before the advent of media fandom. I appreciate the hint to refer to Willis' Goon stories and the like, but went a different route, since I don't believe most people consider the two visions at all related. --Orange Mike 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media bias in the United States

Media Matters published a report yesterday that you might be interested in regarding syndicated newspaper opinion columnists in the US. At the moment I'm a bit pressed for WP time, but may eventually get over to lend a hand (for better or worse). Keep up the good work! Ossified 11:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The higher criticism

I'm curious what is going on with The higher criticism. First of all, the manual of style says that we shouldn't use articles in titles for things that are not proper title of books, songs, films, etc. Next, I thought that there was already an article on higher criticism (I'm in the process of trying to locate it, but the article histories are a bit confusing with the recent page moves). Finally, the article in question isn't about higher criticism exclusively (the section on lower criticism, the section on the historical-critical method). So I'm contacting you to try and straighten some of this stuff out. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 17:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is what I have discovered. On 29 July 2007, Maunus moved Higher criticism to Historical criticism in Bible studies (as can be seen by this diff before the move. Then we had Historical-critical method, which has for the most part stayed unchanged since July (see this diff). Then we also have Biblical criticism, which seems to serve about the same purpose of Historical-critical method. I suggest merging Biblical criticism with The higher criticism. I also suggest moving Historical criticism in Bible studies back to to Higher criticism. Maybe I'll make this proposal in a more visible place.-Andrew c [talk] 18:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you are concerned about "several, maybe half a dozen, very short articles with unscholarly titles all on the subject of Bible criticism." My guess is that one of these is the source criticism article currently nominated for deletion, and that form criticism and redaction criticism are also on the list? I hope I can persuade you that the titles as well as the subjects have impeccable scholarly pedigrees. Try a search on Google Books for source criticism or any of the other titles you regard as suspicious, and see what comes up. I've also put my own humble understanding of source criticism on the Afd page. Unfortunately, most of what I know about the subject is already on Wikipedia in various articles. Katherine Tredwell 01:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice job on the Evil intro

Just wanted to say that your intro is much more concise than what was there, and I like it a lot better. Thanks. Rpresser 14:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your definition of function has merit: here's why

Your definition is more or less this: A "function" is that which has one or more inputs and [produces] exactly one output. Period. This is a highly-abstracted definition, even more abstract than the set theoretic one. It's in the spirt of Gandy (1980) Church's Theis and Principles for Mechanisms in Barwise, Keisler and Kunen, eds., the Kleene Symposium, North Holland Publishing Company pp. 123-148. The difference being that Gandy specifically ruled out analog computation and was sticking to discrete computation.

Example: in my time I probably built a 100 analog circuits with 100 to 1000 operational/functional elements in each, sometimes more. Given a "circuit", each output node produced one and only one output (no sh*t ! ), given one or more inputs (which, except at the edges of the circuit, were also outputs). The thingies in between the circuit nodes (plated-thru holes, circuit pins), i.e. between the inputs and outputs we called, loosely, "the components". These were the "functors" that did the "functions", "operations", "transforms", whatever.... When properly designed, these were always predictable via a "rule" (excepting true "noise" from a back-biased zener diode, and coming from poorly-designed resistors). The common ones were the three fundamental passive-circuit elements "inductor" V(t) = L*di/dt, "resistor" V(t)= i(t)/R, and "capacitor" V = 1/C*∫i(t)*dt, the (linear active-circuit element) Vout(t) = -G*Vin(t), the diode (a kind of one-sided squashing function), and the "battery" element to provide a constant voltage V. Plus basically 1 formation rule, that current into and out of a node is always 0. Indeed, these circuits did arithmetic computations no different than any other type excepting that the variables and values were ... what would you call them? ... non-discrete. Only by observing behavior at a node, e.g. the errant robot arm that hit you in the head, or via some kind of analog or digital transducer (oscilloscope, needle-meter, digital meter), could you observe what a "function" was really" doing.

So you see, your definition works in the (analog or discrete/digital) electrical domain. It also works in the (analog or discrete) mechanical domain. wvbaileyWvbailey 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical criticism

Rick, since you seem to take an interest in the subject, I'd be grateful if you could look at Biblical criticism and make suggestions, even do some editing. I've spent some time trying to improve it and I'd now like some input from others. Tks PiCo 01:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knowable undefinables

I would argue that I can construct a definition of your function f(x) = k. It just chunks away creating any number you want ad infinitum:

  • CLR(r)
  • INC(r)
  • J *-1

Clearly this definition of a number is "evolving" so that when you look at time t1 it is one number at at time t2 it is another number. (I would argue this is not a function, altho it is an algorithm).

Or if you don't like that one, the division-by-zero example I presented on the division by zero talk page will do just fine. I see what I'm discussing here is deeper, on the foundations/philosophy level. I am evolving into a strict constructionist and basically don't buy the "completed infinite" (for many reasons, not just mathematical, but physics-based as well ... having to do with a suspicion that the universe is a finite entity at both the small and the large scales, ergo there is indeed a "biggest number"). So probably I will be unable to accept your argument and you won't accept my premise: "If you can't define it (construct it), it doesn't exist." So, for me: π and e are just symbols that indicate the notion of "algorithmic approximations to some specified degree of accuracy". But in my philosophy they are not completed entities because they are always becoming. I first got a strong intuitive sense of that many years ago when my son and I bought an early (really early) Macintosh-based fractal program. I loved it: we would just fly deeper into the fractal, exploring this or that little region, until finally the poor Mac would just poop out and not allow us to "go deeper" (to do so we would have needed a math co-processor). Anyway, thanks for the examples, I appreciate the input. Bill Wvbailey 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason and emotion or passion in Reason

(No, I don't know how to link to a section!) I just reverted your edit to this section of the Reason article. As I wrote on the edit summary, I agree with you that this section is bad, but the rewrite violated NPOV, and, to the extent that it was supposed to reflect philosophers and psychologists views, was strongly biased in favour of one particular position. If you want to have another go at it, that would be good. I will also put this on my 'to do' list and try to find some decent WP:V sources. Apologies for the revert. It seems ridiculous to revert an edit by a reliable editor. Regards, Anarchia 04:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Division in polynomials

I wouldn't say that (x^2 - 1)/(x-1) is a polynomial; I would define polynomials as a syntactic class of expressions built up with only multiplication and addition from variables and scalars. Is there a text somewhere that follows the convention that any expression that can be simplified to a polynomial already is a polynomial? It seems to me to be parallel to the fact that the word aa − 1 is not in the free semigroup generated by a, even though the element in the free group generated by a corresponding to that word is in the image of the inclusion map of the semigroup. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is one of form vs. substance. To use your example, in constructing free groups, we begin with the semigroup of forms and then mod out by an equivalence relation to obtain the substance -- a free group on n generators. If you view a polynomial as a form, then you are correct, but if we mod out by an equivalence relation, then my view is correct: (x squared plus 1) squared divided by (x squared plus one) IS in the ring of polynomials.

Rick Norwood 13:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you wrote. In the case at hand, Polynomials are ordinarily considered to be expressions, not equivalence classes. This is the viewpoint taken by the article: "a polynomial is an expression". But I see that the article is two-faced, later saying things like x^2 -2x -3 is "equal" to (x-3)(x+1); that is quite strange. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Because "polynomial" is an elementary topic, I don't think this article is the place to go into the subject of equivalance relations. I think we can take a naive view of what "equals" means, and doing that, certainly the expressions you mention are equal. Rick Norwood 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on the article talk page, where I left a comment. I agree we don't need to go into detail about equivalence relations, but we could say something like "every polynomial can be simplified into a sum of monomials. Two polynomials are equivalent if they simplify to the same form." — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Math

Hello, Mr. Norwood. On Talk:Mathematics#Request for comment on Disambiguation text for "Mathematics", it appears that your comment is in favor of keeping the current Disambig. Iff that's not right or you would have additional thoughts, could you clarify? Thank you. --Thomasmeeks 17:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polynomial

In your edit comments when you recently reversed User:Lambiam's changes to the polynomial article, you said "We really do not need to consider the "empty polynomial" (as distinct from the 0 polynomial) in the introduction". Can you explain exactly how you think the "empty polynomial" is distinct from the "0 polynomial" ? I think we can all agree that 0 is (or, at least, denotes) a polynomial expression - but would you call this the empty polynomial or the 0 polynomial ? What would you say is the degree of the polynomial expression 0 ? Gandalf61 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with assigning a degree of 0 to the zero polynomial is that it then does not satisfy deg(PQ)=deg(P)+deg(Q). To avoid this problem it is usual to either assign a degree of -infinity to the zero polynomial, or to say that its degree is undefined - see Zero Polynomial at Mathworld for example. Also, once you say that the zero polynomial has one term, 0, then you could equally well say it has two terms, 0 and 0.x ... or three terms, 0, 0.x and 0.x^2 etc. - once you allow terms with a coefficient of 0 then the numbers of terms in a polynomial ceases to be well defined. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would say that the zero polynomial has zero terms ... or, to be more precise, we use the symbol 0 to represent a polynomial with no non-zero terms, which we call the zero polynomial or the empty polynomial. We call it the zero polynomial because it is the additive identity in the relevant ring of polynomials. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Conservatism Discussion

I've added my thoughts on the Talk:Conservatism page. Please respond to them and let me know if I'm wrong and why. Chenzo23 (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] THANK YOU

The E=mc² Barnstar
For answering a question I've been asking for over a decade. No one could tell me: vinculum and solidus. Keep up the terrific work. Kingturtle (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] back to the future

So for the second time in three days my carefull edits to Polynomial were undone within hours. Nevertheless I agree with your action, and have no hard feelings. Actually I knew my edits that you indid were in a version that was not going to last. It was a good exercise for me writing them though, and I hope you read them before the undo (as that makes at least one person). Probably they were too heavy for an introduction. But I also fear that as long as divergent points of view on a subject are not somewhere mentioned in an article, the risk remains that somebody will do a good-faith rewrite without realising she is pushing a one-sided point of view (in this case that a polynomial is an expression that must be a sum of terms, or even stronger that only its most reduced form defines a polynomial). As you can see I did restore some previous work I did, that does not I think touch too much sensitive points. The main point about which I really care is that the article should not say "monomial" all the time when it means term. I have a vested professional interest (and I am not the only one) in having some terminology for a product of powers of variables without coefficient, and lacking anything better, that is a "monomial". Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [[Walt Disney's Treasury--BirgitteSB 16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC) of Classic Tales]]

I see you have a history of working on the article Walt Disney's Treasury of Classic Tales. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never formatted comic book references myself. However this appears to be the information you would need. I found it with some other links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References. If you need more help, you might ask on the talk page there.--BirgitteSB 16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeno

I have replied on my talk page. Djk3 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to the Topology Article

Hi there. Saw you undid my edits to the topology introduction. Let me explain where I was going with that.

I certainly agree with your comment mathematically, but I think most folks who look at these articles will not be technically minded. I edited the introduction because I feel that it is our responsibility as mathematicians to put something there that they can understand. I believe that, in order to do that, some rigor must be sacrificed. My feeling is that the subject of topology is such a visual and beautiful area of mathematics that we do a disservice not to make its article as accessible as possible to the general audience.

So I feel that we have two choices. We can make every article completely precise, using the word "close" only when it has a mathematically precise definition. This is comfortable for us, and it's what we like to do as mathematicians. The other choice, I think, is to add in a sentence here or there, at least in the introduction, that acts as an invitation to the uninitiated to get into the subject, to show the true beauty of mathematics, and to provide some intuition for the area.

If you agree with this statement, perhaps you could suggest a better way to introduce the subject of the topology while providing the reader some sense of the intuition of the subject? All I know is that given all I know and love about topology, if the article as it stands was my first introduction to the subject, I'm not sure I would have gone any further.

Anyway, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triathematician (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps this is a minor quibble. But the statement I made is not "incorrect". Vague I will give you, but in some sense it is correct. The terms "close" and "proximity" do not have a precise meaning... that is the whole point of topology (in my view)... getting at those terms without using those words. So since the terms do not have a meaning, only a "feel", they are not incorrect. The idea here is to convey intuition, which forces us to go outside of the technical definitions. Perhaps I could change it to say that "in some topological spaces"... Triathematician (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Étienne Trudeau

A tag has been placed on Étienne Trudeau 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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your remarks on the Reason article.

Hi Rick. Your wrote to me:

By the way, Andrew, you will get more respect if you join Wikipedia, so that your name link is not a redlink, and people can check your credentials. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply through ignorance, I don't really know what you mean. But I am interested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You begin by clicking on "create account" in the upper right hand corner of your screen. It will walk you through the steps. When complete, your name will appear in purple rather than red. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made a very basic start, inspired by yours! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kish Island

Over the past few weeks, there has been a very heated discussion on the Kish Island (Iran) page regarding the disappearance of former FBI agent Robert Levinson. The article is dominated by contributors who have been quite successful at blocking mention of the incident because it, in their own words, “vilifies the island”. Since the Levinson disappearance is the most notable event since the revolution, we feel it should at least be mentioned as a part of the article. Also, we do not feel it reflects negatively on the island or the nation of Iran. I am trying to get a pair of fresh eyes on the discussion, and build consensus for inclusion of one sentence describing the incident. If you have a few minutes, I would appreciate it if you would drop by and voice your opinion. --Pumpjack (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a few minutes to provide an objective opinion on the topic. Your thoughts will hopefully help bring this to a resolution. Again, your thoughts are appreciated. --Pumpjack (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] propositions

Hi Rick: I have left you a message re your recent posting on my talk page at User talk:Philogo#propositions.

[edit] 900 inconsistencies

Rick, you mentioned you have a book dealing with 900 biblical inconsistencies. Could you let me have the details (of the book, not the 900 inconsistencies!) - I want to mention it in the article internal consistency of the Bible. (Unless it's Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia - we've already got that one). Thanks. PiCo (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy page

Rick you can't just call a vote when a discussion is taking place. There has to be an attempt at consensus first and there has to be some relationship to fact and citations. --Snowded (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion but I am afraid I disagree and one editor cannot call a vote without agreement. Lets give it a day or so an see what happens. I will attempt a summary of the issues later --Snowded (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ear-Fall-Off Floyd

Your comment: "The extent to which fans and fandom is noteworthy is, of course, debatable. My inclination is to be inclusive. at least in the case of major fanzines such as Fandom Funnies."

OK. I will admit that I am not familiar with this subject so I am not sure to what extent the fanzine or the character is major. To me "fanzine character" means not intrinsically notable. Maybe this character has additional notability beyond the fanzine? If you can add a reference from a reliable, secondary source showing that the character has been covered then that will resolve it. If not, I'm inclined to send it to AfD to see what the wider consensus is.
BTW: You might find it worthwhile to archive off the older items on this page.
--DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)