User:Pleasantville/archive through 061208

Blackwater

Apologies for not making it clear why I edited the Blackwater page. As you may have noticed from the cited article, it was not Blackwater that was involved in the post-Katrina shooting incident involving the protection of Mr. Quinn. I understand why you would distrust edits made anonymously from this IP address (it is shared by approximately 1000 people, some of whom may not have the best intentions). Best regards.143.58.161.6 00:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I had read the article when it was published and thought I remembered what was in it. I should have refreshed my memory before restoring the passage. --Pleasantville 00:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

About Wikipedia

I've noticed something about the past couple of conversations we have had. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Nobody needs any special knowledge, or special position, any qualifications to edit. It's not helpful to demand that other editors present their credentials or show their knowledge, to edit an article. It would be appreciated if you no longer did that again. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

apology

I believe I owe you an apology. After looking back on it today, my conversations with you were less than civil. I apologize for that. While some of your edits were not civil either, I wasn't thinking that it was because of my tone that might be causing it. So, once again, my apologies. As for the citizendium remark it wasn't intended as "go there, leave here", it was intended as "If you're looking for an editorially peer-reviewed encyclopedia, that might be more what you're looking for." Judging from the sources I've seen provided today, you'd certainly qualify as an editor in the SF genre there. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

SwatJester has offered an unqualified apology by email, which I have accepted. --Pleasantville 11:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Beyond Fantasy Fiction & NYRSF

Kathryn, I'm hoping your knowledge of sf criticism and of NYRSF may be able to help me, if you have a moment. I've nominated the article on Beyond Fantasy Fiction for featured article status; the nomination discussion is here. One commenter has suggested that there should be more on the critical reception the magazine received. I've checked books such as Damon Knight's In Search of Wonder, but I'm not hopeful of finding much in the way of contemporary commentary. (Haven't checked the Atheling books yet, though; I'll do that tonight.) Anyway, what I was wondering was whether you knew of any survey work (other than Michael Ashley's books, which I've used) which would have material on Beyond. Were there any historical surveys in NYRSF? I subscribed for a while and don't recall any such, but I figured you'd have the definitive answer. Other than that, any other pointers you can provide to sources or critical analyses that I might have overlooked would be great. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I know we've got a pile of them in the basement and David & I have reprinted material from the magazine. --Pleasantville 13:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Soccer team roster

Our team is in the newspaper tommorow...I'll upload the article --Alzyb1 21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [moved from my user page --Pleasantville 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)]

Space Opera video games

I don't know enough about these games to do the winnowing and sifting; my professional gaming experience is primarily in RPGs and secondarily in board games. Sorry. --Orange Mike 01:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Delayed reaction here, but I have some experience in that genre. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

fame

... and fortune will follow, I'm sure. Other than the fact that only a tiny amount of what I talked about made it into the piece, an article on politics on the front page of the Washington Post ain't bad! And the world discovers that wikipedia is not edited only by 16 year old boys. Cheers! Tvoz |talk 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore

Please explain your deletion on my edit on Al Gore's environmetalism. I put my arguments on talk page with no disputing point.Kirin4 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The link added as citation did not lead to material sourcing the claim. Maybe the info is somewhere on that site, but I didn't see it when I checked. --Pleasantville 14:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The link did, o.k if I put it back?Kirin4 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop you. What is it that you thought you were linking to? Was there maybe a problem with the site loading? --Pleasantville 14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mathematica pricing

It was not an unsourced claim. The reference is right there (the same as for the US price). E.g. 3185 Euros (approx 4450 USD) most of Europe, or 2035 GBP in the UK. Stating that the price is 2500 USD in the US, with no mention of other regions is simply misleading. So please don't revert, or remove all pricing info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.44.92 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider getting an account and using edit summaries, which would help other editors understand your intention. --Pleasantville 12:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Confirmthem.com

Confirmthem.com allows anybody to comment on any of their posts, which I do on occasion. You could too if you wanted. I am not, however, an official creator of posts/threads. I am neither a owner nor employee of Confirmthem.com, and I receive no remuneration from them. I am, however, interested in their speculations on Bush judicial nominees. The reference to Confirmthem.com in the "Bush Supreme Court candidates" section is only to pinpoint the conservative speculation concerning the possible nomination of conservative Fourth Circuit judge Karen J. Williams to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. That is one of the reasons why so many conservatives were outraged at the nomination of Miers, they were anticipating someone else with better credentials and a better documented record on the issues. The Confirmthem reference was to highlight that fact as was the reference to Fund thinking it would be Ninth Circuit judge Connie Callahan. I in no way mean the entry to imply any sort of endorsement of Williams. BTW, the original attached web address referenced to a specific thread on Williams' possible nomination on the night of October 2, 2005. Since that time, Confirmthem has reformatted its site, and the address now goes back instead to its current content. I hope this answer your questions BoBo 23:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Thanks. --Pleasantville 12:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, but....

This comment [1] is going to cause a great deal of strife. I'd come to the same conclusion early in this whole debacle. Mangoe 13:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it needed to be said. Thanks. --Pleasantville 15:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, your proposal "If there is a policy, there should be a noticeboard open to EVERYONE to report such links and an evenhanded enforcement to go with it, as with BLP. And there should be reasonable procedures to follow in such cases so that there can be no appearance of temper tantrums or vengfulness." sounds reasonable.

Posting it on the [2] page may generate comments on it. (although possibly not as much discussion as has already taken place there on Clowns, Rutabagas and the Arbitors themselves) Uncle uncle uncle 18:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Book title query (non-wiki topic)

Do you know where I can find the title of a book if I know the general plot? Uncle uncle uncle 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

For older books in some genres, that's what motif index's do. (Example: EF Bleiler's Guide to Supernatural Literature) I don't think there's a general source for that though. --Pleasantville 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Try this - it's kind of what you're talking about. Tvoz |talk 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Prince record PDF

Since it's a public record of the US Government, couldn't we just host it here as an upload? • Lawrence Cohen 16:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I presume so. I don't know what Wikipedia rules are on hosting of pdfs. --Pleasantville 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask around. • Lawrence Cohen 16:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Statement.of.erik.d.prince.pdf

But there may be policies about this sort of thing. Also, I don't know how to link to a WIkipedia-hosted PDF. --Pleasantville 18:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked on Commons before to be sure, but no answers. I guess we can just link to it as an inline reference, as it's a Congressional record...? • Lawrence Cohen 18:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we're into OR territory here. Gonna update my question on ANI with this... I think we're fine, but something feels off. • Lawrence Cohen 18:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was introduced into the congressional record, it's in the public domain. But I think WP may not host PDFs because of bandwidth issues. --Pleasantville 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and I've never seen WP in my reading host a document, so I'm just not sure. I think it's fine as a source, but it's just a nitpicky "which way is best?" sort of thing. This is where I'd asked on ANI. Good editing, by the way! • Lawrence Cohen 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the official record of it. You can delete yours if you want, now. • Lawrence Cohen 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Blackwater USA arms smuggling

In case you hadn't seen it, Blackwater USA arms smuggling. Not much yet today on new sources to add, I think I have it completely current as of this morning. But your copyediting could make it better, if you have time. My writing always reads as clunky and dry to me. • Lawrence Cohen 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to go out in a few minutes, but I might have a look later. I was reluctant to jump into this, since the Blackwater execs know who I am: I was out there writing about PMCs early. But what the heck. Here I am. --Pleasantville 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I nominated the set of article for In The News on the main page, and it appears to have some support. Great work building them up. • Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Eeegads! It's on the front page. --Pleasantville 00:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Well done. • Lawrence Cohen 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Haizum

I've previously met Haizum and I do find him frustrating to deal with at times. However in this specific case, it seems he did have some valid points. While I agree, it would have been better for him to fix the problems himself since they weren't that hard to fix; or at least say specifically what he wanted, IMHO since he did explain what he was complaining about it was best to just consider if he had a valid point and if he did, work out how to fix it. (If he didn't explain why you don't think there's a problem and wait for him and/or other's to respond.) Tags are after all there so that others can address issues which an editor is unable to deal with him/herself for whatever reason. AFAIK general consensus is to leave them there until the issue is dealt with or there is a resonable consensus that there is no valid issue. I looked into what he was complaing about and attempted to address it when I agreed there was a problem and he seems to be mostly satisfied. Remember the goal is to make a better article. My personal views are I think much closer to yours then his so it is helpful to get an alternative viewpoint which can sometimes notice stuff we may miss. While we could perhaps do without Haizum's manner, ultimately it's best to ignore it when possible. In any case most editors have their own flaws, I know I can sometimes get too rant-ish on talk pages Nil Einne 11:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "mercenary" and whether private security contractors are mercenaries are complex questions, not a simple ones. The business model of contemporary PMCs was specifically formulated to circumvent laws and governmental prejudices against the use of mercenaries. Some of this is discussed on the Blackwater USA talk page. While there is some utility in the definition he cites, it does not settle the matter. Those forming the consensus represented by the pre-Haizum page were for the most part aware of the definition he cites. --Pleasantville 12:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the tremendous POV hoo-ha while at bed... • Lawrence Cohen 13:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I happen to get up at 5AM, intending to work on something else. I am normally not up that early. --Pleasantville 13:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Prince

Looking at those instances in context, it isn't the case that there could be any ambiguity as to which member of the Prince family was being referred to. Either the original editor was trying to avoid overuse of "Prince" as a noun (possible), or it's just bad writing. Not really sure how anyone could take offence at those edit summaries, although if you did I apologise. There is still room for humour here on Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 12:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the edit summaries weren't funny. They are. --Pleasantville 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI

I replied about Hazium, working together with him, the edits, and his history of eleven blocks, so that we can try to keep things calm... • Lawrence Cohen 13:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure what to do with him. --Pleasantville 13:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem; it's rather odd behavior. Hopefully the admins will have an idea. • Lawrence Cohen 13:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater articles overnight

There was a problem overnight. See the User contributions page for User:Haizum.--Pleasantville 10:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

After I pinged ANI again (see the main Blackwater USA talk page) it seems to have calmed down thanks to Haemo, or he just gave up being contentious for the sake of contentious. Hopefully. • Lawrence Cohen 03:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He's deleted all Blackwater-related items from his talk page. --Pleasantville 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't be responding to him again. I have no idea why he's going out of his way to try to bait everyone, but it's disruptive, as he simply won't edit the article. • Lawrence Cohen 16:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

His number of edits per actual article is pretty low as I recall. Baiting is indeed the right word. He ate an hour of my morning yesterday, and that was more than enough. --Pleasantville 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have as much time as I would like to view the situation, but I'll try my best to keep an eye on it over the weekend. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd appreciate that. --Pleasantville 17:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Erik Prince

That was very genteel of you to seek to protect the page of a scumbag like Eric Prince. I know that statement sounds sarcastic, but I really do mean it. (Plus, I agree that there should be limits to how hateful we can be towards extended family members of even the creepiest of folks). Salut. Saudade7 23:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Pleasantville 00:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:URGLogo2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:URGLogo2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the fair use for you. • Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Pleasantville 21:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you mentioned me in a comment as part of this case. I'd like to say two things. First of all, I'm an admin (yeah tooting my own horn. just saw that you noted who was an admin in your list, and I wasn't included). Next, I'm not sure if I'm comfortable being listed as someone who supported FL's ban. I stated during the arbcom request that I felt that the community could deal with this, and that it didn't need to go before the arbcom. I also stated my opinion on how FL has approached the whole situation. But I never said that I supported FL being indefinitely banned. In fact, I said that there could come a point where the community could or should offer him a second chance. I also recused myself of making a judgment call on the ban during the CSN discussion. I guess my position is a little too nuanced to fit into a little box ;Þ Just thought I'd drop you a note. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll annotate. It was a difficult list to make, harder than I expected. --Pleasantville 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zsero

Interesting theory, but doubtful. There are too many conflicts where both are editing at the same time. Also, Zsero has an edit history going back to 2004 when both were editing sporadically and Ferrylodge used to have broader horizons at the time, so I don't know that there would have been a reason for a sock. In any event, FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser says under "Unacceptable requests" that requests for a check in an open case should go on the arbitration subpages. In the past, the "Motions and requests by the parties" on the workshop page is where I have seen such requests go. It may be that you will need to restate your request or at least point to it there. The checkuser process always confuses me, so I'm not certain exactly what the procedure is. --B 12:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never used it before. I have no idea what to expect. --Pleasantville 12:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Expect your request to be answered in riddles. They can't say anything that violates privacy, so there are often confusing riddles that you have to decipher. ;) --B 12:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What sent my thinking along those lines in the first place was overlapping vocabulary: the usage of "travesty" and "misogynist." If I ran the Zoo, everyone would use real names. --Pleasantville 12:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge Arbcom Hearing

There is something I don't understand: in your sentence, "Following this discussion and the users attempts to manipulate it, he was banned" what do you mean by "the users attempts to manipulate it." What does "the users" pertain to? Ferrylodge? Or someone else? Can you clarify? --Pleasantville 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant Ferrylodge (and possesive user's) as in "the user in question." Hopefully I've clarified it on the /evidence page. --Rocksanddirt 20:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Pleasantville 20:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater talk

Heya! Would you mind checking out the BWUSA talk page? I think it's due for another fork as it's up to 57k in size, and most of the sections are fairly large now. I threw up some possible options if you want to check it out. :) • Lawrence Cohen 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get to it today. I have been sick and busy. --Pleasantville 12:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wolfram (2,3) controversy

Rehi Kathryn. I've tried some wording for use in articles, at my scratch page, and used it at the Smith page. It's really great to know that someone cares, who does not want to decapitate me with a rusty butter knife. Every day I wake up without having been decapitated, is a good day :-) Pete St.John 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete. I'll have a look over the weekend. --Pleasantville 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

sur-re-hi. Thanks for spotting the mal-formatted links. I used a style that has a reference section (separate from the subsection), but that isn't "portable" when I use the wording in relevant wiki-space articles, as intended. So I switched to self-contained references. And P.S., enjoy your weekend :-) Pete St.John 18:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Object-Oriented Turing Harry Harrison Strategic geography Battle of Cunaxa Universal quantum computer Pierre-Simon Laplace P. N. Furbank Wouter van Twiller Church–Turing–Deutsch principle Jet age Turmite Lee Kerslake Microorganism Mystery in Space Sven Lindqvist Invariance theorem Windtalkers Computing machinery and intelligence Solo Command

Cleanup Fundraising Computation Fundamental interaction Merge Digital physics Bryozoa Mitochondrial genome Add Sources Turing tarpit Orion's Arm Words per minute Wikify Carnage Heart The Osbournes White van speakers Expand Shadow Alonzo Church Canadian Bacon (film)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rabidly Placid

Good call on this user. It is interesting to me, and probably quite revealing, that he left a message on the talk page of 210.54.245.44‎, bemoaning the warning I placed on said anonymous user's talk page. My bet is that they are one and the same user. They will require some close scrutiny. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Pleasantville 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, by the way. I have reverted the changes. I have a feeling this will go on for a while. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Judy Merril

I was thrilled to trace back from your Social Network edits to see your ID'ing Judy Merril as a personal hero. She is/was mine too and a close personal friend, after she moved to Toronto. Indeed, I have a pastel drawing of her up in my office, and I stillhave her old stapler around as an iconic memento. (Doesn't work well, anymore.) What's your interest in Social Networks? Bellagio99 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I was reading it to understand the concept and did some copyediting and linking along the way. I used to be Judy's agent's assistant and knew her socially. --Pleasantville 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I know a fair amount of social network (analysis). Feel free to contact me. Any friend of Judy ...., Bellagio99 03:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Erdos Number categories

(Speaking of Social Networks! :-) Recently the categories related to Erdos Number were deleted. There are discussions and debates across several article talk pages (e.g. the Mathematics WikiProject Talk page. I've formally requested a deletion review at this deletion review log item. Pete St.John 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I weighed in. --Pleasantville 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

yes I see, thank you! Unfortunately, I think the vote "endorse" means "endorse the deletion as it stands" or "endorse the closure" (in this case, closing the nominated deletion, deleted). I think you meant "overturn" as your comment was quite in accord with the mathematicians who want to overturn the deletion. "overturn and admonish" would admonish the admin, Kbdank71, who closed the nomination for deletion and performed the deletion, but it isn't clear at all such would be waranted, in my opinion, although the way he worded the conlcusion was objectionable. Anyway thanks and sorry to bug you with more mess. I do think it would be darn cool, though, if people debating this united about that. Pete St.John 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Revised. The intro to that thing could be clearer. --Pleasantville 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep my eyes open. Scarian^Talk 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: 210.54.245.44 et al

Thanks for the update. I have reverted his most recent edits. Still no response on the talk page, but immediately back to his old tricks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps semi-protection of the page is in order. --Pleasantville 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That, and the ANI, are both good ideas. I am still hoping some discussion on the talk page might clear this up. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Thanks for catching that! :-) Scarian^Talk 19:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Pleasantville 19:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wolframscreenshot.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Wikiversary!

Hadn't you better change your tally on your userpage? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC) (hoping you'll still speak to me now that I'm an admin)

Thanks, though I think I opened the account in December. So you're an admin now? We must be taking over the world or something! --Pleasantville (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking over the world? Us? We're peaceful pastoral nomads with no territorial ambitions. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (rides with the Horde)

Heh! --Pleasantville (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For reverting the blanking of my talk page. Cheers! Scarian^Talk 15:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. The culprit was subsequently blocked. --Pleasantville 15:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey

No problem. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

re: The Poughkeepsie Tapes

Answered at WT:AFD. I also temporarily removed the malformed nomination on the page. I would have just corrected it but didn't want to presume that I fully understood your rationale for deletion. Please replace the template on the page using {{afdx}} instead. Rossami (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we're edit-conflicting. I'll fix the template on the page as long as you promptly follow the link in the template to complete the nomination. Rossami (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never encoutered this situation before. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you've already figured it out. Let me know if there's anything else you need. Rossami (talk)

Please re-review FactSet Research Systems

Hello,

Yesterday I added content to FactSet Research Systems. You added this warning: Your edits appear to be promotions for the company FactSet Research Systems‎. Please read WP:COI for Wikipedia's conflcit of interest rules. Your edits may be outside the paramenters of what's generally considered acceptable. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since your comments I have made several revisions and added additional sections that I believe eliminate the potentially promotional message. Is it necessary for you to re-review the page?

If you still have concerns, please let me know specifically which points need to be changed.

Thank you. Ktsummer (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The 2.71828'th Level of Purgatory is Wiki

Pleasantville, I just wanted to stop in and say thanks again. The recent changes involving sockpuppetry at Wolfram confound me-- he seems to be going to a great deal of trouble over small points, and I'm thinking, not insincere, but maybe way undersocialized, as so many contributing geeks can be-- but also in the context of the slashdot controversy re: Durova, which I've been looking at and which seems fraught with hassle. What you do is a thankless job and you do it graciously and openly, so, thanks (contradicting myself). Pete St.John (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've finally composed something for Durova (the Slashdotted) at this item on their talk. Please take a look-see. Pete St.John (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I did have a look. I'm in the middle of doing cast-offs for an over-due anthology this evening , so I feel a bit short on brain-cells. Here is a reaction to the general issues you raise rather than the specifics of what you have to say. I personally find Wikipedia privacy rules very irksome in that discussing matters of misbehavior about which one could be perfectly candid in most any other venue becomes a long drawn-out Jamesian Novel of Manners when enacted on Wikipedia. I suspect I understand only about 25% of what the Durova drama is truly about, and I am generally anti-pseudonymity, and so I hate WP rules concerning "outing" even though I mostly try to follow them. So on the one hand, I don't get overheated at the idea that some pseudonymous person may have more than one fake ID, and the o ther hand, I really hate it when I have to jump through poodle hoops to say something that could be articulated in a couple of sentences in any other context. The Durova thing seems to me composed of people voicing serious discontents originating from the same issues of ridiculous concealment of identity, and who have organized themselves on differing sides out of frustration. But the problem is mostly the same elephant regardless of what side they are on. --Pleasantville (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Meier article

Your edit summaries and talk page comments are bordering on the uncivil. Could you please try to find a way to express what you want to say without escalating conflict? Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider the rhetorical style being employed by Jeeny and Hameo to be inappropriate and uncivil and would like them to discuss matters of substance rather than engaging in moralistic namecalling. My edit summaries were shorter versions of my actual remark. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Since my point isn't getting across, I filed and ANI. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, this is more a case for an Rfc than an ANI discussion. If you get bounced out of ANI, let me know if you need help filing an Rfc. Jeffpw (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would file a RfC if I thought this was a content dispute. I don't think we are able to really discuss content at this point. Hence the ANI. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

wolfram demonstrations licensing

Greetings, and thanks for your work on that! A small improvement would be: to put the description text for each visualization under an MIT license as well. Other than that, this looks good to me. Let's hear it for scale-free living through clean licensing. Rest easy, +sj+ 09:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've passed that along. --Pleasantville (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Catenary

Hi Pleasantville, User:Cronholm144 drew my attention to a discussion of a recent edit I'd made to Catenary.

I've added to the discussion there; briefly, Hooke's contribution to the catenary is worth highlighting, but his eccentric anagram should not be featured so prominently—it's quite distracting, as you noted.

Let's continue the discussion on the talk page; if you'd like to reply directly, could you drop me an email or write at User_talk:Nbarth#Catenary? Thanks!

Nbarth (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed & clarified—thanks!

Nbarth (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mathworld images

Hi Kathryn. I left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Mathworld images regarding some of the images you've been adding. You're welcome to comment there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Scahill's Blackwater book

I bought a copy and started thumbing through it. Fascinating stuff, and the book has literally over about 1,600 footnotes and citations. It's monstrously researched. So, I whipped up this page as a reference. Once I finish cleaning up the formatting on the sources already in place this will be a lot of material. Lawrence Cohen 07:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have that one. --Pleasantville (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

More on images

Hi Kathryn. I have a request. I wonder if you would consider removing the software controls and logo from the images you added to math articles, as well as the mention of the Wolfram demonstration project from the captions. All that information can of course still stay at each image page (together with license information, etc). The reason I am asking is because in an article what is most important is how an image illustrates the article, rather than what the source of the image is. Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it early next week. I have a book due in to the publisher Monday. I have no objection to someone else doing it. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No time pressure (I don't have much time myself). (But it needs to be done long term, I tend to think that we would be better off without them altogether than the way things are now.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually found some time and cropped them myself. I removed a few of the images, like at factorial, which in my sincere opinion did not add to the article or even made things more confusing (I did not crop the images I removed, if you put any back, they would need that).

Thank you for the images. BTW, if you add more in the future, I'd suggest you also put some captions to the them, as it is not always obvious just from the image what the connection with the text is. And one last thing, references should be inserted after ==See also==, but before ==External links==, per WP:MOS (the part on sectioning, somewhere there). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the cropping. December is when our Year's Best Fantasy and Year's Best Science Fiction books come due to their publishers, so even though I have been spending some time on Wikipedia, this is a time of year when taking an hour off to go to the grocery store is a guilty pleasure! --Pleasantville (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

quantum mechanics

This might be of interest to you - 5 or 6 comments down. Tvoz |talk 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I replied. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review for Blackwater Worldwide, please help!

Blackwater Worldwide, an article under this WikiProject, is up for Peer Review to move to Featured Article status. Please help out and offer up reviews, advice, or edits to the article or review at:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Blackwater Worldwide/archive1

Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 14:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look, though probably after New Year's. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wolfram Research

Pleasantville, in a similar vein to the question you asked of me, can you please explain your personal connection/issues with Wolfram research as well? thanks. - Deego —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deego (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have raised the general issue of your frivolous advert tags on the Mathematics project page and requested a review of your math software edits which I think are for the most part inappropriate. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to chat about this. I consider Pleasantville a friend (anyway, helpful when the Wolfram Turing Machine debate got heated). I'll start with a few points.

Association. We all have leanings and certainly Pleasantville is pro-Wolfram (broadly speaking). I myself am pro-math and merely ambivalent about the self-promotion style typical in business, and atypical (overtly) in Academia. I think the Wiki should tend to be more like Academia in that way. However, I've been called self-aggrandizing myself, by Pavel Curtis, which name-dropping proves the point.

1.1 The question as originally stated by Pleasantville on Deego's talk strikes me as impolite.

1.2 Turnabout is fair play; so Deego should have been answered, P having introduced the topic.

1.3 However, P is not secretive about it, as D quickly discovered from her user page.

1.4 There is self-promotion going on at Wolfram (as at other companies...all of them, even Google :-) but there is also anti-Wolfram hostile editting. Wolfram, unlike many smaller technical companies, has many detractors, and the articles have been hit by unethical means in the past. This doesn't excuse P's defensive reaction, but it explains it, and if we understand each other then we can get along :-)

Plainly we want to stick to the facts and leave personality out of it as much as possible, so I advocate just dropping that issue.

Frivolity Strong language. P has a good point that the bulk of D's contributions seem facile; it's easy to sprinkle advert warnings on all the articles related to products of some company I didn't like (say, Microsoft); a bot could do it, and would probably be largely right. But we don't want to do that. However, P concedes the somewhat self-promotional overall tone, even excusing it (that citable reviews tend to be in "media" which tend to publish positive items).

1.1 I'd advocate that D slow down in marking pages wholesale.

1.2 I'd advocate the P retract "frivolity".

Tendency to positive reviews I'd just suggest that D seek out more balanced (i.e., negative) but still citable reviews; SourceForge (the reasons for some FOSS projects is inadequacies in commercial products) and reviews in scholarly publications (academics also consume math software products). This would gel with redistributing effort with more time on each of fewer articles.

History What D may not be aware of is that these articles have been the subjects of long agonizing battles. Some of the wording is a delicate compromise of conceding some facts while permitting some tone. Just trampling on that abruptly is a legitimate cause for concern, to her, because it's potentially alot of effort wasted. Please, D, respect that history and approach the articles one at a time, thoughtfully.

Tone Frankly I'm a little disappointed by the defensive tone of both P and Cheeser1. I'm sympathetic but disappointed. It's too common for our first reactions to be negative; we're up to our necks in negativity. So group hug :-)

Ok you guys take your turns. Pete St.John (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My grandmother died. Literally. This morning. Sorry if my tone disappoints. --Pleasantville (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My sympathies. Lawrence Cohen 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a walk. Have a cry with your family. We'll see you later. Pete St.John (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear, Kathryn. God bless you both. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you all. (I have responded to Deego on the COI page.) --Pleasantville (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Kidd

Thanks for adding to this. I was a little stunned to discover there wasn't an article on her already; then, once it was created, I began to think nobody had noticed it was out there. (And I'm not religiously committed to the edit I just made; but the list could become an honor roll of SF writers of the era, if we don't restrain ourselves.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an interesting passage in the LeGuin obit which alludes to something important:

I doubt there has ever been a literary agency remotely resembling that household beside the Delaware. In the early days, I know Virginia kept most of the Agency files under the bed. Her methods were unorthodox, but she trained up several generations of agents in that house. I caught a couple of glimpses of the labyrinthine psychological complexities of the establishment. It seemed a bit like a performance of Marat/Sade crossed with Der Rosenkavalier.

Her office was in her bedroom because she had extreme difficulties walking (stemming partly from childhood polio and partly from morbid obesity0 and she did her job mostly in bed. (At one point she got audited by the IRS because she had deducted the cost of a new bed: The auditor came to Arrowhead and not only accepted the deduction, but upped the percentage of the house that was tax-deductible to something like 90%.) I think Swanwick may have written an obit which may have mentioned some of this.

I'm not sure Arrowhead could really be described as a farm, since there were really only 2 or 3 acres of property. It may have been a farm house, but if so, the property had been sold off for cabins some time back. The National Park Service took the whole area by eminent domain (in the 70s?) for a planned dam after the area flooded in the 1950s. The agency rents from the park service, as did Virginia. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to edit Arrowhead SF then? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

One could probably do it as a reprint anthology. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm talking about the Wikipedia article of that name, which is about Arrowhead the farm/notfarm! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) hopes to see you at a WisCon some day

Oh. Duh. Somehow I failed to notice the link was blue. I lived there for the first 3 weeks when I first worked for the agency and worked there for another year and a half or so. The tricky bit is sourcing. The book The Futurians is certainly a place to start. The next tricky bit is that the Futurians relentlessly contradict each other, so if you find a source for something there may be a contradictory one. --Pleasantville (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MathematicaBox.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:MathematicaBox.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The irony here is a little funny to me (but I can imagine not so funny, also). Suppose anybody walking on the street who passed Trump Tower might complain to the Mayor, "are we sure that building has permission to call itself Trump Tower? Might that not be invading Donald Trump's privacy?" It would be funny unless the poor mayor has to parse a thousand such complaints per day. In this case, the very same item could be criticised as advert, and as lacking fair use justification. Presumably the fix is to nail down the permission? Pete St.John (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose. Image:MathematicaBox.gif is not free content; the copyright is held by Wolfram Research, and as far as I know they haven't released the image under any free license. The inclusion of such non-free content hurts Wikipedia's goal to be free of most copyright restrictions, and so Wikipedia allows the use of non-free content only if it meets all of the non-free content criteria. One of these criteria is significance: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In the articles in which it was being used, the box art of Mathematica 6 was not being discussed at all; it seemed to me that Image:MathematicaBox.gif was being used purely for decoration. If so, then the image fails to meet the non-free content criteria, and so must be removed.

Your analogy with Trump Tower doesn't make sense to me. For one thing, copyright does not apply to names, such as "Trump." Additionally, if there were any intellectual property inherent in the name Donald Trump, then Donald Trump himself would be the intellectual property owner; since he also owns the Trump Tower, there is no problem with him using his own name. (In the same way, there is no problem with Wolfram Research using this image of the box art of Mathematica on its own Web site.) The mayor has nothing to do with the situation at all. The problem that we are seeing here is that a copyrighted image (the Mathematica box art) was uploaded to a third-party server (Wikipedia), apparently without consent of the copyright holder. This is potentially a copyright violation, and is much different from a real estate tycoon naming a building that he owns after himself. —Bkell (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The irony is that Wolfram himself would most assuredly not object to the use of that image in that article. I don't disagree about your interpretation of the wikipolicy, but this is malum prohibitum and not malum in se (on the fair use grounds) and if Wolfram sued wiki over it, I would actually laugh myself to death. Literally. But I apologize to Pleasantville, this should be debated at the article talk (I guess) and not on her user page. Pete St.John (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Wikipedia will get sued. The issue is that non-free images are counterproductive to Wikipedia's fundamental goal of being a free encyclopedia. At heart, this is not a question of whether it is legal for Mathematica box art to be in a Wikipedia article, but whether it is conducive to Wikipedia's goals. —Bkell (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply at his talk, using Coke as an example. Pete St.John (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See Image talk:MathematicaBox.gif#Significance of this box art. —Bkell (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My buddy there

Hehe, thanks. Isn't it cute when they think you'll remember who they are? I'm like, "uh... nope, doesn't ring any bells. Can you provide diffs?" XD I'm not even sure whether I have a bunch of talk page vandals or just one really enthusiastic one :P Anyways, thanks again. delldot on a public computer talk 09:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mad Hatter/Painbearer

That's what I'm afraid of. I'm always keeping an anti-vandalism watch on editors' pages (such as yours), and this kind of two-name thing messes up my attempts to help by reverting third-party vandalism. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Modular arithmetic

Hi Kathryn. I removed the external links you added to Modular arithmetic. I am sure you mean well, but having more than half of the external links there (5 out of 9 to be exact) point to Wolfram-related websites can make one wonder what your motivation is. If those links are really great I am sure other people can add them (you can suggest them on the article talk page). Thanks. You can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. There is a general problem with lightly referenced articles and achieving balance when there are few refs is tricky. I should probably be adding some unreferenced tags as I poke around. --Pleasantville (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that article was rather well-referenced given its length (and those were external links to demonstrations, rather than references). But no matter, thank you for the good work in the math articles and vandalism reversions. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

SFWiki

I handled the W editors and some of the others so far, also have done a little work on publishing companies.Shsilver (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lady Florence Dixie

You didn't explain your deletion of quotations from a cited newspaper report in this article, which I'm working on. I'm about to revert your edit. If you have a political angle, please see the third story under the same header. More will follow. Xn4 22:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I just mistook, in a too quick reading, your edits for vandalism. Sorry. --Pleasantville (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No biting please :)

Hello!

Please try to give our new users a nice welcome. The edits User:Graeme.c.saunders did may not have been appropriate, but they weren't vandalism. A welcome and some links on how we do things here would probably have been better in this user's case. Cheers! henrik•talk 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Silverberg

Any guesses as to whether this is the real AgBerg, SilverBob himself?

Based on a look at the edits I'm pretty certain it's not.--Pleasantville (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

It's been a while, how's Wikipedia going for you? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha. You caught me. I got strep a few weeks ago on a trip to Florida and so spent way too much time cooped up in the house in Pleasantville with no voice (so I couldn't talk on the phone), so I've been spending way too much time lately here. I've been considering whether to publicly embarrass myself by trying to write a few math articles. --Pleasantville (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just saw you on CNN by the way. --Pleasantville (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think that's the first time I voted in an RfA. --Pleasantville (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

Hi, why did you revert my edit? Koalorka (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be removing references to Turkey being in Europe. One of the 2 reverts was an item that specifically requested discussion on the talk page before modification. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What's to discuss? Would it be reasonable if I requested Greenland be considered African? Would you entertain my arguments? Not likely. This has no basis either. Koalorka (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take this up on the talk pages of the appropriate articles. This is not a venue for your dispute. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a venue for dispute. Koalorka (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wolfram images

Hi, Pleasantville - I commented at the TfD page, but the bottom line is that Wolfram's terms of use are not compatible with the GFDL. Kelly ^hi! 17:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Allegory of the Cave

All right, enlighten me. Why does the University of Washington faculty interpretation of the Allegory deserve a special section in the article?~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wolfram links

You seem to be adding an awful lot of external links to wolfram.com and internal links to pages about associated projects. Would you mind telling me whether you have any link to Wolfram? --BozMo talk 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think looking at your user page and home page continuing to add links to Wolfram sites for whom you still freelance would violate a policy you have probably never heard of (see WP:COI). I appreciate you are a valuable contributer here but perhaps you could read the policy and let me know if you think it applies? Thanks again. --BozMo talk 18:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 146,649 links from Wikipedia into http://*.wolfram.com. This is because wolfram.com hosts web resources heavily favored by WIkipedian. The basic infrastructure of the Wikipedia math pages is built on a combination of wolfram.com pages and PlanetMath entries. Also, there is substantial evidence in the links leading from Wikipedia to wolfram.com of datamining of wolfram.com by Wikipedians for the Wikipedia science entries.

What I am up to is attempting to work out a method to be used in a Wikiproject for making it easier for members of the general public to find what they need in the newer wolfram.com resources for use on Wikipedia. The initial idea, which came from User:Sj was that Wolfram should make images on the newer section GFDL-compatible, which the company did, and that Wikipedia could then make use of Wolfram-generated graphics. In the process of exploring that with Project Mathematics, I discovered that matching entry to entry across the sites is harder than it looks. What I am hoping to arrive at is a workable process that can be made generally available. Then others can harvest graphics etc. from the newer resources. --Pleasantville (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand this and of course applaud it. However could you clarify whether you personally get any direct or indirect financial benefit from Wolfram by doing this? Thanks --BozMo talk 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The basic infrastructure of the Wikipedia math pages is built on a combination of wolfram.com pages and PlanetMath entries. I'd contest that (as author of at least 500 pages). These days the external source of choice would be the Springer EoM, for any advanced topics. And I don't think it's particularly helpful to call "datamining" what any mathematician would feel free to do: take the content but not the form, and acknowledge the source.

All that being said, and given that User:Sj represents only himself here (not WikiProject Mathematics), I'd never want to discourage the provision of free content anywhere on the Web. The regulation way of doing any importing is passive, rather than active: see the PlanetMath pages. What works best is the listing of available resources, so that there is good "random access"; and then Wikipedians can import and annotate as suits the needs of the project. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps datamining isn't the right word for the 100,000+ links into ScienceWorld. I'm not sure what to call it. It looks to me like a very elaborate and perhaps difficult attempt to match up resources across 2 websites with the purpose of making use of material on the target site on a large scale.

Charles would of course know the precise history better than I do. However I would point out that there are a very large number of articles that have only MathWorld as a reference, and a similarly large body of math articles with no references at all.

(For comparison, I find that there are only 61,353 links from Wikipedia into the domain nytimes.com. Both figures take into account only those links from en.wikipedia.org.)--Pleasantville (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles, with all due respect, I ran the figures and while Springer.de may be your preferred source, I find only 576 links total to springer.de in all en.wikipedia.org. That domain includes the Encyclopaedia of Mathematics as well as other resources. Additional numbers: 7,771 for planetmath.org; 4,837 for arxiv.org; 3,621 for ams.org; 3,944 for nature.com; 1,060 for sciam.com; 3,621 for ams.org; 2,653 for newscientist.com. The highest I have been able to find (other than wolfram.com) is the BBC (bbc.co.uk) with over 133,000 from Wikipedia into their domain. Perhaps someone could suggest a different tool?

My understanding is that there are more than 18,000 math articles in Wikipedia. They ought to average at least 3 citations a piece. So where is Project Math getting its sources? --Pleasantville (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Hey, thanks for helping me to revert that vandal on FIFA World Player of the Year. Top marks! =)64.72.65.130 (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

you're welcome. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)