Talk:PlanetMath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Mid-priority)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
Start Class
Mid Priority
 Field: General

Original article[edit]

The original version of this article was edited from PlanetMath's FAQ at http://aux.planetmath.org/doc/faq.html , covered by the GFDL.

PlanetMath articles[edit]

The PlanetMath articles are almost but not quite formatted right to be imported directly into Wikipedia: they easily can be adapted with a bit of hand-editing of their TeX source into wiki-markup.

This could be an ideal case for someone who wants to write a bot to:

  • screen-scrape the TeX source of a PlanetMath article
  • check that it does not appear already in Wikipedia
  • convert the source to Wikipedia markup, with an attribution to the original author, a link to the PlanetMath article on the talk page, and a mention of the licence under the GFDL.
  • post it to Wikipedia, with a suitable edit comment
  • also put an attribution to the original author, and a link to the PlanetMath article on the talk page

I'd do it myself, but I'm busy.

-- The Anome 22:11, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange. dbenbenn | talk 00:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Mathematics[edit]

WikiProject Mathematics has a project devoted to combining PlanetMath and Wikipedia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange. --Blackcap | talk 16:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Website down?[edit]

Is the PlanetMath website down? I tried to access it two days ago, the Windows flag waved in the air for several minutes before giving up. Today the same thing happened. Or did I just choose the two bad days to access it in the entire month? PrimeFan 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • yes, can anybody can tell us what is happening within PlanetMath? we have 4 or 5 days without it and this is unsetting...

--kiddo 15:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

they don't want to talk about it. see the message [1]. as of today, their's still no response to that query! Numerao 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, it is working fine by now... and still is excelent!... --kiddo 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

akrowne was more forthcoming about the down time of 9/10. CompositeFan 19:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The website is still down...what's the problem? Sr13 03:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I just checked and it is working fine, Greets --kiddo 04:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As of this writing (see timestamp on my signature), PlanetMath website is down. IE says: "The page cannot be displayed The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings." Knodeltheory 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

PM entries about PM, Wikipedia[edit]

Did you all see the the PlanetMath entries about PlanetMath and Wikipedia added by our very own PrimeFan? They're at [2] and [3] respectively. In a very sweet touch, PrimeFan wrote new text for the Wikipedia entry, but for the PlanetMath entry he simply copied the Wikipedia entry about PlanetMath! Anton Mravcek 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Website down again[edit]

The PlanetMath website is down again. Yesterday, IE took me to Live Search results instead of the PM website when I typed the URL in the Address bar. Same thing today. FireFox is similarly unable to connect. Anton Mravcek (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't been able to get it for the last week, and it's still down now. Perhaps it's been down all month? (Anton, it's nothing to do with your browser - if you 'ping' the site it does not respond.) Fredsie (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Website down again[edit]

15 April 2009: The PlanetMath website is down again;if you 'ping' the site it does not respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bci2 (talkcontribs)

It's up again now. --Zundark (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PM links and WikiP presentation is now upgraded from previous 'stub' status[edit]

signed comment added by Bci2 (talkcontribsWP-MATHS)

Wikipedia Admin: Why are Wikipedia--PlanetMath links being deleted or vandalized in this PM entry on Wikipedia??[edit]

The following link in the PlanetMath entry is being inappropriately deleted from the links section: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange Please prevent vandalism of this website by semi-protecting it. Attention for example of David D.. Nu 12:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Bci2Nu 12:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) May 15, 2009 WP-MATHS

The content you have added falls foul of a number of wikipedia policies and style guide lines (Wikipedia:Layout). See also sections are for links to other articles in the main encylopedia, links to off site pages should go in external links, links to pages in the Wikipedia: namespace should generally not appear in articles see Wikipedia:SELF, they are better place on the talk page. --Salix (talk): 13:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Totally disagree; furthermore you are not an Wikipedia administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bci2 (talkcontribs)
Actually he is, in addition to being entirely correct. --C S (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight?[edit]

It seems that a major 'improvement' added by Bci2 consists of multiple references and links to PlanetPhysics. At the same time, it looks like this user is an involved PlanetPhysics editor [4][5]. The recent editing might be viewed as an advertising. While some links might be of real interest (e.g. the pdf book with the content of PlanetMath), others seem to be out of place. I invite everyone to re-evaluate the PlanetPhysics mentions here. To begin with, I delete the addition regarding this category. ptrf (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)?? no such user on Wiki!

Also the PlantMath “One Big Book” compilation was uploaded to PlantPhysics by bci. Its no longer available from PlanetMath (http://aux.planetmath.org/book/ is a broken link) which raises questions as to its significance. --Salix (talk): 19:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The 2005 'Big PM Book' compilation was created based on all of the ***currently existing entries of 150 members of PlanetMath.org . There are only two references to Physics Planet.org included in the Wikipedia PM that are relevant, and the PlanetMath Book 2004/2005 entry was placed at the Planet Physics website because it is helpful to many PlanetPhysics.org members in the area of mathematical and theoretical physics. Furthermore, the Wikipedia user who posted the PM book of 2005 is neither a contributor nor is this user (Bci2) an editor of any kind of either PM or PlanetPhysics.org. The links provided in the previous discussion are not supporting at all the statement made in the previous discussion entry as they merely point to the PM book volumes available at PlanetPhysics; there is no editorial, or otherwise, any indication whatsoever in the cited links #4 and #5 above-- which seem to be intended only to deliberately misguide the Wikipedia readership, rather than to provide any form of evidence that does not indeed exist. Therefore, the false allegation of a so-called "Undue weight?" should be withdrawn-- along with an appropriate apology as it appears to be a totally unbased/unfounded personal attack without cause or any good reason as it does not have any real facts to support it. Thus, the writer of this message has no editorial rights, special or otherwise, of any kind on either PlanetPhysics.org or PM, and intends to remain that way as the writer (User: Bci2) very strongly believes in the Freedom of Speech rights and non-censorship guaranteed by the First Ammendment of The US Constitution to all US citizens; such rights do belong indeed to all people on the planet Earth.((talk): 2:30PM, 15 May (If any Wiki user does believe otherwise, please do make yourself known, as you also do have that right according also to The (valid) First Ammendment of the US Constitution). The PlanetMath entry on Wikipedia should not also be censored here by the CC group of five that now has gained control of PM (against its own published bylaws). The PM book entry of 2005 should be allowed here as it provides a reasonable illustration of the contents of PM **before** censorship of PM was instated by the group of self-elected five. Furthermore, there is no further newer version available, which raises the question "why indeed not?"-- and if it were available by some 'miracle' tomorrow, and in perfect style and form -- its posting on PM would not be allowed tomorrow by the five CC self-appointed "committee", and then the key question is "why its complete contents are not allowed on its own website?!", that is on an US website, which is thus supposed to be "free", not very severely controlled, completely censored by the CC-- like the PRC internet is already known to be.

Last-but-not-least, before the last five sections of this Wikipedia entry about PlanetMath.org were both introduced and edited--at the level of 90%+ --by this writer and Wikipedia user, the entry was merely of 'stub'-grade, mostly devoid of any references or indeed any substantative or substantial content.Nu 21:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC); now it has been added over 2.2 Gb-worth of weblinks to relevant, and freely downloadable, GNUL content, previously unavailable to Wikipedia and PlanethMath readers.

Moreover, the PlanetMath.org ownership was previously incorrectly stated / incorrectly attributed, and there were many other, key factual inaccuracies present that have been adequately addressed by this writer, without any undue weight, etc...

My short answer is a link summarizing recent edits; it speaks for itself. I think the article needs some cleanup. Notice that PM is qualified as "public domain encyclopedia" now. The book is described as "copyrighted" (see the last paragraph). I fail to see how this is possible, given the GFDL licence of the PM content. Further, I don't understand the following addition "he or she may then choose to grant editing rights to other individuals or groups if his/her entry is approved by PlanetMath Administration". Do you need an approval of your entry to give editing rights to others? Can you provide a reference for this? ptrf (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Much worse: you need to have a pre-approved entry that is not erased by the PM Admin in order to be able to give any editing rights to anyone because the PM Admin reserves all such rights for themselves as specified in the CC doc reference that you requested above; the requested reference is provided here in link format to the CC of PM doc at the PM website CC of PM doc . See also the much worse part that is currently in place now on the PM website: Punishments and Enforcements by PM Admin and CC. Nu 23:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)-->reply to the latest Ptrf posting.
So it seems that there is some political problems on the PlanetMaths site. One of the core policies in Wikipedia is to have a neutral point of view in its articles, in essence we cannot take sides in disputes, instead we have to rely on published sources. You involvement in PlantMath does raise questions as to whether we can get a truly objective view. So please dot be suprised about the scrutiny.
I had a look at the CC guidelines, which mentioned that official actions of CC are carried out by the user "ContentCommittee". This user seems to have no activity so I'm wondering if it is really up and running yet. The version you posted seems to be a draft but there is a charter which is not draft. Mentioning the committee would seem to be appropriate here.--Salix (talk): 07:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
[Disclosure: I'm marginally involved in PM too, I've submitted a correction to an article. For the record, bci1 is one of PM's top producers featured on the main page]
The above posting is Unsigned , and was presumably posted by "Ptrf", anonymously.Nu 15:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Bci2 (talk).
I agree with Salix. What can be done here, is to describe noosphere's model of content development. I find it of great interest. At least we have sources for that: the PM policies. ptrf (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Ptrf doesn't seem to be a registered Wikipedia user...posting anonymously.This is significant. Moreover, PM policies have no relevance here; furthermore, the cited content censorship "policies" are inconsistent with the current, published PM bylaws, no matter how hard or 'cleverly disguised' the above counter-comments are trying to hide such basic facts.

Is ptrf on the censoring CC at PM? Is "Ptrf" a registered Wikipedia user because his talk page doesn't link to the above signature? Bci2 (talkNu 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Bci2Nu

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, the edit history clearly shows that Ptrf's edits are made with a registered account. And please stop removing the comment "[Disclosure: I'm marginally involved in PM too, I've submitted a correction to an article. For the record, bci1 is one of PM's top producers featured on the main page]" that Ptrf made above. --Zundark (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The link for Ptrf|talk does not seem to show up any

Wikipedia website for "Ptrf". This does not match the statement made above.Bci2 ([[User talk:Bci2|talk]

More of the same?[edit]

There were no personal attacks-- neither personal nor 'attacks': "Ptrf" was merely an anonymous writer until the last signed statement above with a different, existing wikipedia user name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zundark , that is if the anonymous writer were indeed "Ptrf" appearing to be followed --meshed in the same message with-- Zundark ?, which is as yet to be verified ), different from the previously anonymous name of "Ptrf", as the records above show; moreover "Zundark" is not a PM registered user name, and neither is "Ptrf". On the other hand, "ptrf"--with a hiden mailing address-- has made only one correction at PM in February 2009, and has no other contributions todate since February 22, 2009.Bci2 (talk )
There was no "accusation" of any kind being made, only a question for user Zundark if Zundark indeed posted on the PM discussion website on May 20, 2009, because "Ptrf" claimed his postings weren't anonymous and there was no user talk available on Wikipedia for "Ptrf"--at least I could not find it.The question was intended to clear up the confusion betwen their two meshed messages on May 20, 2009. Bci2 (talk)
Ptrf's user talk page is at User talk:Ptrf (which is linked at the end of his/her comments, making it particularly easy to find). I note that you have modified the comment I was replying to above, removing the very part of it that I was referring to. I have accordingly removed my comment. --Zundark (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This argument is also counter-productive as the initial discussion subsection title has no foundation.Bci2 (talk)

The category: Unassessed mathematics articlein the attached hidden category to this discussion is inappropriate as this discussion has virtually nothing to do with mathemtaics--it has no mathematics in it. Nu 14:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Bci2

Website down again[edit]

Planethmath.org is unavailable for a couple of days, perhaps a week. From where can I get information about the reason, and the expected duration of the inactivity? Why don't they provide any information? 89.135.20.50 (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Wow! Now works again! What happened? It's clear from your messages that it did not work since Jan 25 14:22. 86.101.236.13 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, doesn't really work yet. It shows :

Error
Could not find object! Contact an admin!

instead of the articles. :(

86.101.236.13 (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Website down again - Dec 2012[edit]

I tried to access http://www.planetmath.org/ several times during last hour but failed - IExplorer could not display the page.
DownForMe.org says PlanetMath.org is UP [6].
What's going on here? --CiaPan (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)