User talk:Henning Makholm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade


Yup, you're right. I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder.Gator (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Soundtrack to your life[edit]

Thanks for remedying my tag for speedy deletion; either way it deserves a speedy. Thanks, Gwernol 02:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

r.e Edits[edit]

Wikipedia welcomes contributors regardless of age, but it would be nice to see you actually contribute. So far most of you (with the exception of Dbmag9) seem to have been more interested in building and editing each other's userpages. If your interests go mainly in that direction, perhaps your needs would be better served by getting MySpace or LiveJournal accounts? Remember that Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider.

It is OK to have a Wikipedia account without editing (e.g., in order to keep a watchlist or a non-default skin). But to maintain an elaborate userpage without actually contributing to the actual encyclopedic borders on being a waste of project resources. Henning Makholm 21:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""

Mr Makholm I have taken your message under my wing and thought about it for a long time.Your hilarious comment about getting a MySpace or LiveJournal accounts have brought me to the decision that I would very much like to have them, however i will not publize them to you because you will not (obviously) apreaciate them. I have started editing and creating pages (as my "classmates" have from now starting with yours!!! (Comment left by Tdmj)
Again, I apologise for my "classmates"'s behaviour. I do try my best. Daniel () 20:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire is important. Use your brain and don't be so trigger happy. — Dunc| 15:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I did. How can I put this any other way? To be create DBE you need to have done something important. Read article on Brain. Please use it. — Dunc| 16:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Another word for it is common sense. Do you want to list it on WP:AFD and show everyone how much you have? — Dunc| 16:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Duncan, rather than engaging in name-calling, as the creator of the article, could you at least add some info on the important thing she did to get awarded a DBE? After all, that only makes for a better article, right? --C S (Talk) 02:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


I noticed you did some redirecting work, and i was wondering if you could show me how to do that. I think you set it up to redirect, Theodore Jacobson Observatory to Theordore Jacobsen Observatory, which would be correct. Anyways, any help would be great. Thankszoreos--Geppy 02:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

San Girolamo degli Illirici[edit]

You're quite right - in fact I've just being trying to do that, but not sure if I set up the redirect right. Would you have a quick look? Thanks, Bengalski 15:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm Luffy! The Man Who Will Become Pirate King[edit]

Yes, I did find the right template. Thanks anyway, though! :) This is why I should not edit Wikipedia at 4 AM, eh? --Trafton 04:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


"Are you sure you meant to delete the AfD discussion and not the article being discussed?" LOL!! Sorry, I'm an idiot. I've restored the discussion and deleted the article. Thanks for pointing it out. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


I was thinking of inviting the admin who helped me with Hazel (disambiguation) to offer an opinion from a disambiguation expert perspective. Do you agree? -- Usgnus 18:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Might be an idea. Or perhaps I should just unwatch the page and let it deteriorate in peace. Though I'm perfectly sure I'm right, I can feel that the conflict is making me more upset than the subject deserves. Henning Makholm 18:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Hello, bonjour, monsieur ! User Daloonik is not a sock puppet (poupée de chausette) of bongout Bongout. Thank you ! W4rez 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

ratio equal to 4 or 3.2 or ...?[edit]

Thanks for the note. I made the edits during a pass by following a link. The purpose was to lighten the tone a bit, and they were done from memory. Now that it's come to my attention there is a separate article on the bill, I've checked and realized a couple of my memorized points were a bit shaky. I'll go back and take a look in a couple of days.

Glad to see someone from another linguistic perspective is adding material at the English WP. Thanks. ww 05:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


you're following me around now?--Heliac 19:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So I am. You are way, way too trigger happy with unexplained reversals. Half of what I see you revert appears to be good-faith additions that I refuse to believe you have any reason to know are worse than the version you revert to. Take a chill and start thinking before you revert something that is not obviously vandalism. Henning Makholm 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Also blanking your talk page after one day's activity just because it shows criticism against you (which you haven't bothered to reply to) is seriously antisocial. Stop that. Henning Makholm 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Developement[edit]

This edit changed "developent" to "developement". The former is a typo all right, but so is the latter. The correct spelling is "development". Henning Makholm 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is. *sigh* I took a whole bunch of typo corrections from one of the AutoWikiBot pages and it looks like not all of them are correct. I think I'd better go spellcheck all the corrections. Thanks for that. CmdrObot 14:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

history of numerical computations of pi[edit]

I've replied to your last reversion on the Talk page of the article. - DavidWBrooks 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Unfortunately no practical system for calculating with numbers is able to express \pi exactly. Though this fact was only proved rigorously in recent time, it has been suspected since the earliest times,


What "fact" that was recently prooved is referred to? And since when is pi the ratio of circumference to radius, rather than circumference to diameter? Michael Hardy 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I've posted these comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics:

"History of numerical approximations of π" really weird edit war---mathematicians please help[edit]

Look at the recent edit history of history of numerical approximations of π. User:DavidWBrooks has inserted this bit of wisdom into the article:

It has been known for millennia that π, the ratio between the circumference and radius of any circle,

("radius"! Sic.)

is a mathematical constant, but no method of calculation was available until fairly recently.

Of course someone came to clean up this nonsense, but here's what he (user:Henning Makholm) wrote:

Unfortunately no practical system for calculating with numbers is able to express π exactly. Though this fact was only proved rigorously in recent time, it has been suspected since the earliest times

Is there something remotely approximating some correct statement in that? If so, what is it? (Makholm left the ratio as circumference-to-radius rather than circumference-to-diameter.) Michael Hardy 21:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: my signature[edit]

Hey... thanks for catching the signature thing at Talk:Pluto. I'm not sure what's up with that, since a minor edit by Osgoodelawyer resulted in the same change in many of my signatures on that page. Scratch that - they were all changed during Thegreatdr's edit. Bizarre... --Ckatzchatspy 22:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

French fries[edit]

Read the talkpage - we Brits have never been happy with that page - whole sections reads like nonsense to us (french fries are often eaten with fried fish in the UK - because it suggests that Chips are a type of French fry and therefore presents an American-biased page. --Charlesknight 14:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're not happy with the page, you should improve it rather then just erasing the information about what they are called in the UK. From the knowledge I have of the UK, fries/chips are served with deep-fried fish, as well as to many other meats, quite often. Henning Makholm 16:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

pi image[edit]

Please stop removing the pi number image. I don't find it silly and actually it's a good way to present pi because first of all it has good quality and second of all, it far more interesting than the plain pi number. You are not allowed to remove anything from wikipedia because of you own person valor and tastes. If you want to reply, please do so on my talk page. --Arad 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Beach Jumpers / The Shadow[edit]

The Shadow was the mascot of the Beach Jumpers, due to his ability to "cloud men's minds so they could not see him." That is what the Beach Jumpers attempted to do. The picture really belongs in the article. Perhaps it could be better explained, but there is a definite relationship. Regards, Lou Sander 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is a connection, you should explain it rather than assume that the reader can figure it out telepathically. Henning Makholm 13:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Like Greek poets and Danish fairy-tale producers, we do not rely on "telepathy" for readers to understand cultural and literary allusions. Neither do we require everyone to "get" those allusions. But we hope that those who do not "get it" will be cautious about removing well-considered material that they don't quite understand. If an article contains longstanding material that you question, you might want to discuss it before deleting it. This page contains other comments on that subject; perhaps you could take them to heart. Lou Sander 14:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want your material not to be removed, it is your task to explain ahead of time what its relevance is. It's that simple. An encyclopedia is not a place for unexplained "cultural and literary allusions". Henning Makholm 14:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Nor is an encyclopedia, I hope you would agree, a place for people to repeatedly "correct" articles about which they have no subject matter knowledge, or to lecture others who DO have such knowledge. It's that simple. Lou Sander 16:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. Wikipedia is a place where it is expected to correct articles when they include material whose relevance to the subject matter is not explained in the article. It is not sufficient that you claim to have some private knowledge of the image's relevance - it must be said in the article itself. Henning Makholm 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
For editors who question the content of the Beach jumper article, it has a discussion page, three external links, and two references. Some people take advantage of these things before making uninformed changes to an article. Others, I suppose, require that everything in the references also be included in the article, or else they just decide that anything they don't immediately understand doesn't belong, because somebody else owes them an explanation.
Bertrand Russell once said "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I hope you don't require that Russell's Wikipedia article include that famous quotation, or an explanation of its meaning, or explicit definitions of words like "cocksure," to illustrate the frequent validity of what that wise man said. Many of us can learn from it. Lou Sander 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hutber's law[edit]

Hi, on this AfD you voted delete per my arguement that it did not meet WP:NEO. Since then new citations have been brought forth and I have changed my mind and now think is does meet WP:NEO. You may wish to review the new evidence and revisit your decision, or perhaps you like it how it is. Feel free to ask me any questions here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Venetia Burney/Phair[edit]

Thanks for catching that... I think we were of like mind, wanting to identify her at that point in her life. However, for some reason, I had the surnames reversed. I'm glad you were paying attention... --Ckatzchatspy 10:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Greetings. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill, which I have just listed. I would appreciate your input. --Descendall 09:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Number Sign[edit]

The comment to your recent edit to the Number Sign article seems to imply that the intent of the big tag was to overcome a browser deficiency. Perhaps it was put there for emphasis. In either case, I think your edit is an improvement. Victor Engel 21:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The preceding edit summary made clear that the editor was attempting to work around a bug in his browser or font setup. Henning Makholm 20:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias Deletions[edit]

Please refrain from deleting relevant links from the "Plagiarism" article. You may not unilaterally delete valid content because of personal bias or opinion. 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding irrelevant external links to rambling rants that have little or nothing to do with the subject of the article. At least explain on the talk page what you think the relevance of the link is. Henning Makholm 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You just deleted the article link again, falsly claiming that "nobody spoke up to defend it." Nonsense. I defended it, and so did a very prominent editor, ElKevbo:
"It may not be the best link but it's certainly illustrative of an ongoing discussion and debate in academia over the use of tools like While I don't feel very strongly about this particular essay it is a significant point of view that probably should be illustrated in this article." --ElKevbo 20:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Do not remove the link. You petitioned for removal, and it was denied. 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Nobody "denied" it. The comment you quote says that the underlying topic may be notable, but in no way does it support the link itself in the form you keep adding it. You, in particular, have not "defended" anything; I have asked you several times, but you have still not explained, neither here nor at the appropriate talk page, which good you assert the link does. You are invited to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page, or shut up and leave it. Henning Makholm 09:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that, in general, I agree with Henning. It would be much better if a new section were added to the Plagarism article or a new article created on this subject using the contested link as a possible source. Further, there Uhmare other, better articles in more reputable venues than the one that is under discussion (I'm pretty sure that the major higher ed rags - the Chronicle and InsideHigherEd - have both covered this topic). In any case, the burden of proof almost always lies with the editor who wishes to add information to an article and not the one who wishes to remove it. While I sympathize with the position presented in the contested link I agree with Henning that you have failed to make your case for including this link. I'm sure if you continued the discussion on the article's Talk page in a civil and rational matter we will come to a resolution quicker than continuing to edit war. --ElKevbo 09:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
ElKevbo, will you not tell Mr. Makholm to remain civil? I'm not sure why you directed that request towards me. I'm not the one who typed "shut up and leave it." Also, I believe you are unfair in your assertion about the quality of the article in comparison to others. Just because you don't "like" the domain for some reason does not mean that the article is not completely valid and 100% legitimate. (I have personally verified the accuracy of every quote and every reference in the article.) I have read every significant, online article on the subject, including those by "The Chronicle" and "InsideHigherEd." No comparison. No article, from any source, is more all-encompassing, well-written, and revealing. I would challenge anyone to prove me wrong in that regard. Please show me any article from any source that remotely approaches the depth and accuracy of the article in question. Please explain the grounds on which you dispute the value of this article. You insist that I justify why the article should remain, but one simply has to read it to see why it is extremely pertinent to the topic of plagiarism and current legal actions being taken against a certain plagiarism-detection service. 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing What I'm Told[edit]

Uhhh what? an admin emailed me and said I should delete those things b/c he wanted to have it look clearer, he/she just wanted to see the votes and not the other comments ... did I accidently remove a vote?Danielfolsom 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (can u reply on my talk page)

Original Barnstar.png[edit]

For the Indiana π bill articel... 08:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Responded here Rich Farmbrough, 09:53 22 January 2007 (GMT).

Discussion on centrifugal force[edit]

Hi, Regarding the discussion on Talk:Centrifugal force, I think David is going to continue his arguing for as long as he gets a response, so I'm not going to say anything more there. Both you, I, and EMS have told him where he's wrong, and imo that is sufficient.

Regarding your last post: The "centrifugal" term that he is talking about is due to the rotating coordinate axis, not the scale factor, so he's likely not going to understand your point.

--PeR 17:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, of course - the trouble with efficient cranks is that one gets this powerful urge to save them ... I was trying to give a simple one-dimensional example of why coordinate acceleration has fictitious components in non-uniform coordinate systems (and the changing scale factor is why the the radial component of a tangent vector will change under parallel transport), but you're probably right that it will fly over his head. On the other hand, I think it is also confusing to speak about a "rotating coordinate axis" in this case, because the coordinate system as such does not rotate - any point whose polar coordinates stay constant will be stationary in the corresponding euclidean coordinate system too. In any case I'll take your hint and stay silent on the matter henceforth. Henning Makholm 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the urge is very strong. Now that he's starting to get rude, it gets easier though. I think that I added "when \theta changes in time" to my statement about the "rotating coordinate axis", but yes it was not perfect. However, I doubt that even the most brilliant physics lecture would have helped in this case. --PeR 18:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
(PS. Having though some more, I think I found some new insight from your example, so whether he learned anything or not, it wasn't in vain. --PeR 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

sorry about the change in Natural units[edit]

but you should know that the Manual_of_Style deprecates the use of PNG for in-line math:

However, still try to avoid in-line PNG images. Even if you use <math>L^p</math> throughout the article, use ''L''<sup>&infin;</sup> to get L rather than using the LaTeX-based <math>L^\infty</math> to get L^\infty, which doesn't always look good.

and it also discourages changing it because it's an"emotional issue". so i should have left it alone. r b-j 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The HTML I get from the wikimedia servers for your quote here ends with

... rather than using the LaTeX-based <code>&lt;math&gt;L^\infty&lt;/math&gt;</code> to get <span class="texhtml"><i>L</i><sup>∞</sup></span>, which doesn't always look good.

No PNGs there. It is better to let the software choose how to render a formula rather than to try to second-guess it and produce markup that does not respect user preferences and will be optimal only for a subset of the readers. Henning Makholm 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits' spamming and bad faith prodding[edit]

The user is clearly engaged in bad faith PRODing, spamming and attempted censorship. If this matter doesn't belong on the specific WP Noticeboard where I placed it, then please advise where to place it.

It should not be dismissed cavalierly as you appear to be doing!!

Please respond on my talk page. O'Donoghue 00:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello... I saw your note at Talk:Pluto. As I stated there, I have no preference either way, and will go with consensus. The previous change was reverted because it was only changed at "Pluto", there was no comment or explanation as to why, and (perhaps most importantly) because of User:Something14's long history of making edit on Pluto-related articles to marginalize the "dwarf planet" designation. Again, though, I'll go with whatever the group wants. Cheers, and thanks for bringing it up. --Ckatzchatspy 09:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, but in this case I think he did have a point. Stating the catalogue number is clearly encyclopedically relevant, but stating it twice (and in boldface, even) does seem to be rubbing salt in the wound unnecessarily on those who are unhappy with it now being listed in the MPC. –Henning Makholm 09:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. So your thought is to go with the unbracketed version? This discussion seems to suggest that the "official" method is to use brackets. However, it also gives examples of official usage with unbracketed numbers, and makes a good point about the unbracketed variant being more in line with the way astronomy articles are named on Wikipedia. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 09:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
After readming minor planet names (but not its talk page), my impression was indeed that the parenthesized form is slightly more official. Then I discovered that the articles about asteroids all omit the parentheses, and since both forms appear to be accepted in the scientific literature, I let the interests of inter-WP consistency prevail. I would probably have done it the same way if I had read the talk page discussion you link to. Anyhow, the choice is not significant enough that I'd feel it worth opposing somebody who comes along and wants it changed to the parenthesized form. –Henning Makholm 17:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Likewise - although I'm glad you decided to go with the version you did. Besides matching the related articles, I like the look better. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Hej Henning. Tak fordi du rettede mine fejl vedr. brug af WP:Trains skabelonen forleden. Beklager ulejligheden. Jeg blev lidt inspireret da jeg først kom igang, så nu skulle der være en mini-stub om alle S-togs- og metrostationer. Jeg har også rettet lidt i et par artikler vedr. rutenettet baseret på køreplanen på Det var noget med at Virum var talt med et par steder for meget. To ting, jeg gerne vil have lidt input på; 1) så vidt jeg har fundet ud af er Ellebjerg Station lukket og erstattet med Ny Ellebjerg Station, der forbinder både Kystbanen og Ringbanen. Det er sådan jeg opfatter køreplanen på og "Byens Net", men du må meget gerne kontrollere det. 2) Desuden har jeg brugt formen "Gammel Toftegård" station i stedet for "Gl. Toftegård". Lyder det ok? Jeg har kontrolleret rutenettet et par gange, så det skulle meget gerne være korrekt. Hilsen. Valentinian T / C 22:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I øvrigt tror jeg det er lettest ikke at inkludere trinbrættet i Høvelte, så jeg lavede ikke nogen stubartikel om det. Valentinian T / C 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
(0) Jeg ved ikke om det er din fejl eller bare min personlige kæphest, men det går mig på når en artikel bliver mærket op med at den vedligeholdes af et eller andet wikiprojekt, hvis deltagere aldrig har redigeret i den. (½) Glimrende arbejde. Næste skridt bliver så at få krydshenvist til evt. artikler om de bydele stationerne deler navn med. (1) Jeg er ikke øjenvidne til at Ellebjerg er lukket, men alle mine kilder (Jernbanen, publikumskøreplan, tjenestekøreplanen) er enige i at den er. ("Kystbanen" må vist være en slåfejl?). Alt tyder på at den nye station vil have fornavnet "Ny" i årevis; der fremgår overalt på skiltning og køreplaner. (2) Både køreplansfolderen, Rejseplanen og tjenestekøreplanen bruger formen "Gl. Toftegård", så jeg gik ud fra at det var det korrekte navn. På den anden side ser jeg nu at TIB skriver navnet helt ud som "Gammel Toftegård". I princippet ville jeg opfatte TIB som mere autoritativ, men TIB skriver også "Peter Bangsvej" i ét ord... (3) Tja, Høvelte kan vel godt vente indtil nogen skriver noget om den. Muligvis er der ikke brug for andet end et afsnit i Nordbanen og en redirect. –Henning Makholm 10:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Tak for dit svar. Ja, "Kystbanen" er en slåfejl. Grunden til at jeg sætter bannere på er for inddirekte at opfordre nogen til at evaluere / evt. udvide artiklerne. Og fordi jeg håber på at det på et eller andet tidspunkt bliver muligt at få et bedre overblik over kvaliteten af materialet om Danmark. Jeg er desværre ikke stedkendt nok i København til at kende de præcise grænser mellem bydelene, men tak fordi du er begyndt at udvide artiklerne. Valentinian T / C 14:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Det er fint med bannere, men jeg bryder mig ikke om når deres ordlyd antyder at det pågældende wikiprojekt ejer artiklerne. Jeg ser en klar forskel mellem "This article is within the scope of WikiProject FOO" (som er helt fint) og "WikiProject FOO are the maintainers of this article" (som generer mig). –Henning Makholm 14:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Nu har jeg i alle tilfælde ændret {{WikiProject Denmark}} i den retning. Jeg havde egentlig ikke lagt mærke til at teksten var uklar. Valentinian T / C 15:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Den var heller ikke slem. Det er mest de fleste options i {{TrainsWikiProject}} der giver en ordlyd som støder mig. Hvis jeg har rettet noget i Denmark-banneret, har det ikke været med vilje. –Henning Makholm 15:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Du har så vidt jeg ved aldrig rettet i WP:DK banneret, men jeg kunne lige så godt rette det til med det samme. Valentinian T / C 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Collge[edit]

I greatly appreciate the continued deletion of the controversy section on the Adrian College page due to the lack of sources. I have noticed that it is up again, with some citation from the College World (campus newspaper); however, they still lack citation for some information.

-AC pr office 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)AC pr Office

Alaska pre-1903[edit]

I'm fine with your correction on that, but what was it, then, between 1867 and whenever it got territorial status; a Possession or some other designation?Skookum1 01:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this beyond what I read in Wikipedia, but District of Alaska claims to cover the period immediately prior to 1912. Even earlier than that it seems to have been the Department of Alaska. –Henning Makholm 01:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Henning. I liked the copy editing you did at CBC-MAC, good work! --David Göthberg 10:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! –Henning Makholm 11:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Calculating Pi section[edit]

Hi, I didn't understand your comment about the purpose of the section when you reverted my edit, the mathematical explanation on the last paragraph was really unhelptfull for a generall audience unless some picture was added. So I decided to emphasize another empirical approach and the idea of the approach that was there before. If this doesn't belong to this section where does it belong? I also posted in the discussion page. Ricardo sandoval 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(This was not in fact posted to Talk:Pi, but I copied there, and also replied there). –Henning Makholm 21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ to Jesus of Nazareth[edit]

thanks for the point --Java7837 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for readjusting the Railway station layout remarks on stationsby - I must confess I'm not that much into Danish history, so my edit contained some guesswork... thanks for correcting me. Do I understand correctly that a Stationsby would not be the station that originaly is intended for a town further away, around which then a new town grows up? Classical geographer 07:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Stationsby literally means "station town"; it denotes the town that grows up around the station. Usually the station is called just by the name of the original town; renaming the station to "X Stationsby" would only happen in special circumstances. I cannot recall any examples, but I suppose it could have happenend once or twice if the original village later got a station of its own such that a need to disambiguate arose. –Henning Makholm 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Occam's Razor[edit]

Hi there! I believe you were too hasty in reversing my change in the line: "some theists consider creationism to be more believable than naturalistic explanations for the diversity and history of life on earth." Based on the information in the WP article creationism, there is no need for the "some". I think you are unintentionally thinking of creationism as it is commonly understood in popular culture, rather than what it means in the context of the WP articles in question.

Normally this would not be an issue at all, except for the fact that some editors are using the word "some" to justify a citation request. It just seems like nonsense to me to demand a citation for the line (as it essentially reads): theists believe in a creator. I don't like seeing cite requests that basically can't be addressed, and that are trying to document something that doesn't need to be documented.

Best regards, --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if you take "creationism" to mean merely the abstract idea that a creator exists, it is still false that all theists find this abstract idea "more believable" than evolution. There is at least a nontrivial fraction of theists who reject the implicit claim that the existence of a creator conflicts with evolution, and who therefore do not feel that it is meaningful at all to compare their believability. This fraction will get misrepresented if you remove the "some". Without the "some" the sentence makes a strong claim which needs to be sourced; with the "some", it is close to a truism and not controversial at all. The sad fact that some people slap citation tags on uncontroversial statements should not be a reason to rewrite them into controversial, divisive statements. –Henning Makholm 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

In response to your comments on Talk:Aurora, should it be said the the following, quoted from Wikipedia:Disambiguation "For a prime example of an actual disambiguation page, see Lift." that the Lift page needs to be edited to remove the following recent entry:

But then I have a hard time following your logic of removing one single redline entry while leaving 18 other redline entries. Where does one draw the line between a pure Disambiguation page and a pure Set index article and a hybrid page which is a combination of the two? which Aurora seems to be. Dbiel (Talk) 01:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional countries[edit]

Hi, I see you have just reverted my link to Narnia, yet "The Land of Oz" is already on the list, how do you determine one can be included, but not the other. So far as I can recall, there is nothing in the books that indicates Narnia is not earth-based (admittedly, it is a while since I read them!) Please explain. Regards, Lynbarn 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no firsthand knowledge of the Oz series, but the Land of Oz article claims that the original present Oz explicitly as present on our Earth (see "Location" section). In contrast, the Chronicles of Narnia unquestionably present an alternative universe. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader describes some of its internal cosmology in some detail, and it is quite incompatible with being located on our Earth. Further, The Magician's Nephew explicitly develop a theory of parallel universes (and explicitly states something like "an entirely other universe, not just another planet"), and we even witness the creation of the Narnian universe from emptyness. –Henning Makholm 21:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said, it is a while since I read the books, and having looked at Dawn Treader in the library today, I do agree, it was incorrect to include in the List. Sorry for the making the edit in the first place. Many thanks, Lynbarn 23:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your SPA demand[edit]

See your comments to me in the COI Noticeboard. I responded.

meats vs. socks[edit]

I wrote in the COI page: Technically, I'm more like a "meat puppet", but I don't like the sexual connotations. He's ok but I'm really not attracted to him that way:-) Seriously, we only use the same computer when we are both in the same office. We should talk more about our arguments so the wiki-cops aren't so suspicious.BillGosset 18:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Barefoot image[edit]

On July 5, I added a nice image to the barefoot article. You reverted me later that day, saying "Please discuss changes to this on the talk page first." It was later deleted as an orphan. Is there some reason you objected to the image? (Please reply on my talk page.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Zero to the zero power[edit]

Hello, thanks for your comment at WT:WPM. The main problem with that section is it's unencyclopaedic. Trying to come up with "explanations" or "justifications" of something that is not defined strongly smacks of "original research by synthesis". Clearly, a0 is a singular case of the exponential notation and has to be handled differently from ab with natural, non-zero integral, or non-zero rational b. However, adding a random list of contexts where "defining" it leads to a contradiction, or is useful, is more of an amusement than serves any constructive purpose. (It's better to give explanations in context whenever necessary on the corresponding pages.) My rough impression, based on reading the talk page, is that all these "justifications" were added under pressure of a single rather persistent editor with unclear mathematics background and even less clear goals on wikipedia. Two sentences,

  • "The choice whether to define 00 is based on convenience, not on correctness."
  • Defining the value to be 1 is useful for shortening combinatorial identities and removing special cases from theorems.

should be sufficient. Any discussion based on properties of functions of the type f(x)^{g(x)} only makes things worse (it may be appropriate to include it at Indeterminate form or l'Hôpital's rule, which deals with functions, but not here). Perhaps, the description of how different software treats 00 could be kept as a curiosity, although, frankly, it doesn't appear to be of a high encyclopaedic value, either. Best, Arcfrk 00:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting my update to first order logic[edit]

Why was this update reverted? The beauty of wikipedia is that it can be at the cutting edge of new developments. You've obviously not seen the news recently, gardeners in Scotland have been conducting trials since 1989 about the logical patterns behind planting trees, and other assorted plants. They represent their findings using first order logic, because propositional logic does not easily allow for the domain (that is, the particular area of planting), to be taken into account. A simple search on google should confirm this if you are still unsatisfied, in the meantime I will be reverting to my edit of the article. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:01:20, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

"no need to link random variable letters to an article about the letter"[edit]

... no need for you, of course. Though I defer, I disagree. This was not intended as a prank, test edit or vandalism. While the use of Greek letter "random variable"s in mathematics is common it is not so elsewhere, whence other wikipedia readers may arise. The edit was intended to make the article more readable and accessible as a service to the non-mathematician/non-scientist. I believe this goal to be only beneficial to the sciences, wikipedia as a resource and its users as a whole. Of course one can just bring up the Wikipedia article Greek alphabet, but that's not as useful as gliding a mouse over the link and having the name of the Greek letter pop-up while staying on the same article. I suppose the benefits of hypertext need not be wasted on the reader so generously. Pardon my indulgence. :) -regards, Onceler 18:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm not in an edit war. I'm preventing disruption. Look at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Abtract_-_disruption. Jooler 01:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

no apology then. Fine don't worry. Jooler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooler (talkcontribs) 22:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Apology for what? I count four reverts on the same page within a 24-hour period. Not much to discuss there; the 3RR is nothing if not objectively applicable. –Henning Makholm 01:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
A common sense application of the rules as per WP:BURO negates any objectivity of 3RR or any other rule. I think that someone editing a Wikipedia policy page, that effects every single article, against the long held consensus without any discussion whatsoever and who repeats that change four times in order to justify changing articles to reflect their own version of that policy is not only engaging in disruptive behaviour but vandalism and indeed the user went on to revert the page at United States 11 times before being blocked. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#User:Abtract_-_disruption., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Abtract reported by User:DCGeist (Result: 24 hours) It is certainly not advisable to leave a WP: policy page displaying a policy that does not exist and is the opposite of what the consensus has agreed. It was 8 days before anyone noticed that Abtract had changed this policy page. Jooler 07:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not a defense against 3RR that the revert was appropriate or needed, or that the opposing party is a bad guy. As the policy itself pots it: If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable.Henning Makholm 23:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation in the Lead discussion[edit]

You and I are going to get along fabulously if you remember to stay civil in your Talk page responses to. The shots you have taken, I'm giving you for free. The next time you veer off the profesionalism and politeness paths, the gloves come off. Keep it in mind, Henning or Reuben or whatever you choose to call yourself. You might want to consider keeping things uniform in that regard, btw. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I call myself Henning. Reuben seems to call him- or herself Reuben. What incivility do you refer to? –Henning Makholm 22:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


How come I didn't see the positive in the section title? I should have read the article better. In principle one should prove that this definition of fractional powers is consistent, for example that x^(2/3)=x^(4/6). I don't know if that level of detail would be interesting. Maybe it is interesting to remark that x^(2/3)=(x^2)^(1/3)=(x^(1/3))^2 to make the order of exponentiation less arbitrary. Ricardo sandoval 06:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:STogLogo.svg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:STogLogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

on edit summaries[edit]

[1] I assume you're aware that "rvv" means "reverting vandalism" yet, strangely, what you've removed looks like a good-faith addition. Maybe it doesn't belong in the article, due to lack of sourcing, dubiousness, etc, but it certainly doesn't seem to be vandalism. It only takes a few seconds to type a descriptive edit summary. And always remember to AGFRandom832 13:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I was a bit too quick there. At the time I thought it looked very much like nonsense vandalism to claim that carrot is the name of a typographical mark. In retrospect I can see that the anon was perhaps trying to spell caret (which is still wrong, but certainly a good-faith possibility). –Henning Makholm 13:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

“Weight”, “Mass” and “force due to gravitiy”[edit]

Makholm, please see Talk:Mass#Disruptive_edits and Talk:Kilogram#Disruptive_edits. Gene Nygaard’s position (“weight” doesn’t mean “force due to gravity”) is absolutely without foundation and his attempts to change reality in the Mass, Kilogram, and Weight articles are proving disruptive. If you respond directly to me, please do so on my talk page. I will look primarily for your opinions on the merits of the issue on the Talk:Mass and Talk:Kilogram discussion pages. Greg L (my talk) 16:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I sincerely appreciate your change of an internal wikilink in Barefoot. Thank you very much.

Regards, --Kushalt 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Aurora, tak[edit]

Hej Henning. Tak for denne forbedring. Jeg var iøvrigt ikke klar over at man kun bør have ét link per entry på en ambiguity side, men det giver selvfølgelig altsammen mening nu jeg tænker over det. mvh. -- Slaunger 12:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Selv tak. Ja, man lærer jo ting undervejs... –Henning Makholm 12:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


This article has been categorized as Computing, but that is the top of that category tree and not appropriate for most detail articles. Coupa appears to be be related to business software. If you'll take a look at Category:Application software most of the tree of Application software is listed and with a little exploration you should be able to find a more appropriate category. Thanks tooold (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right, but in order to make a better decision I would have had to actually read the article.
Later: I notice now that Category:Computing is actually so nice and tidy that I couldn't bear leaving Coupa there for others to refine. Now moved to Category:Business software companies. –Henning Makholm 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the "nice and tidy"; some 70 or 80 articles had to be correctly categorized to get it that way. Thanks again, tooold (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


In response to your comment in COIN [2]:

  • "but calling them "spam" is quite over the top"
Have you looked at any of my explanations of what I mean by "spam"? For example, "I think Wp:spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer pretty clearly explains the situation. My concern has nothing to do with the quality of the links, but how you Stustu12 added them." Do you disagree with my explanation? --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have still not seen you explain why you think the links are spam. The general essay you refer to contains no mention of the three links in this discussion, and pointing to "how you added them" is not an explanation of how that how-ness lead you consider them spam. –Henning Makholm 01:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In the spam report. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "I don't think I really see what the conflict of interest would be"
Have you read the COIN report? I've detailed exactly what his relationship is with each of the links. Should I update the report to explain further? If so, please let me know why the current descriptions are insufficient. --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have read your report. In it you assert that there is a conflict of interest, but you do not explain what you think the conflicting interest is. If you read WP:COI, you will find that a conflict of interest is an out-of-Wikipedia goal that somebody might further by making edits in conflict with the interests of the encyclopedia. You have not explained which out-of-Wikipedia goals you think Stustu was furthering by inserting the links. –Henning Makholm 01:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I listed his relationship with each website: "his program's website (, the website of a tool created by the program (, and the website of a workshop he's running ( to these articles." These are all conflicts of interest. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Also, the "harassment" edit summary Piotrus refers to is a clear sign of needing to cool down considerably."
I agree on the part of Stustu12 and Piotrus. As you can see, I responded to it first, then removed it as harassment. You may not have noticed that I moved it to Stustu12's talk page where I continued the discussion in a completely cool and civil manner. What do you suggest I should have done instead? --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that whenever you feel the need to describe somebody disagreeing with you as "harassment", you should immediately do nothing and take a long break from Wikipedia until you have cooled down enough to see straight. –Henning Makholm 01:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Not very helpful, but I appreciate the humor. It does remind me to do something that I've been meaning to for some time to WP:TALK in my talk-page header. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Now I can say something like "removed per my talk-page header" when removing/moving inappropriate comments from it. --Ronz (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Positive reinforcement needed[edit]

See [3]. I hope some kind words can fix this misunderstanding; -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alas, that wouldn't come from me. I found myself being more upset at the matter than it seemed to warrant, so I took my own advice (to Ronz, above) and had a long wikibreak instead ... –Henning Makholm 22:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Angle brackets[edit]

Your dogged insistence on using only the "real" angle-bracket characters has become annoying, so I wanted to start a conversation on this topic here. (I've copied this to the article's "talk" page, so you can respond there if you prefer.)

I think your insistence on using only the "official", "approved" versions of the angle-bracket characters is counterproductive to this article.

1. Consider the context: this is supposed to be a general article for a lay readership, not a specialist article in an academic journal. If this article were in a journal of mathematics, for instance, then it would be entirely appropriate to insist on the typographically-correct characters, and even to warn readers that they must have current software installed on their computers in order to correctly render these characters. But there is no such requirement with Wikipedia. So far as I know, there are no warnings or alerts to readers that they must have certain versions of software installed in order to see the content of articles here, so the assumption would be that anyone with a functioning web browser should be able to read articles here and have their contents rendered correctly. (This leaves aside the matter of text-only browsers, but that's not relevant to this discussion anyhow.)

2. Your insistence on the "correct" characters leaves readers like me with missing information in the article. This is a bad thing. Instead of recognizable characters, I see "? ?" throughout the article. This is not a tolerable situation.

3. Again, considering the context, what is the big deal with insisting on the "correct" characters in any case? Let's look at what we're talking about here: a couple of characters consisting of two lines joined in a vertex, pointing left and right. I still fail to see how the article would not be well-served by simply using the ordinary keyboard charcters "<" and ">" in most places (not all, as explained below) in order to actually show those characters to the reader, without requiring them to have any particular level of software installed on their computer? The "correctness" that you so doggedly insist on is a barely-perceptible difference between glyphs, perhaps in the thickness or length of the lines, or the angle of the vertex. So what difference does this really make? What compelling case can you make that accuracy is being ill-served here by using the ordinary, garden-variety characters on everyone's keyboard? Characters that most people (i.e., those who aren't academic specialists) call "angle brackets"?

I'm not saying that each and every instance of "< >" should be replaced here; it is appropriate to discuss the subtleties of differences and the use of different glyphs, as well as coding systems such as Unicode, etc. But the article should show instances of these characters to all readers, regardless of the state of their browser or operating system (within reason, of course; nobody's saying that we should expect correct results on a machine with, say, only three fonts installed, or something equally ridiculous).

Please, let's not become so anal here that we only create confusion, rather than imparting information, which after all is (supposedly) the whole point of this exercise. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force[edit]

Henning, The argument last year was about whether or not centrifugal force is real or fictititious. The argument this time is different, so you cannot walk away claiming that this has all been discussed before.

The argument this time is regarding the double talk in the introduction. You cannot resolve a controversy by splitting a subject into two to please all parties.

I accept that the official position nowadays is that centrifugal force is fictitious. That is not my own opinion, but I am willing to have the official opinion stated in the introduction.

You reverted an introduction of mine without as much as giving a single reason. That introduction stated what centrifugal force is in the simplest terms and then went on to state that the modern view is that it is fictitious, but that in former times it was considered to be real.

The version which you replaced it with is not the consensus version. There is never a consensus version. The wikipedia is open to ongoing edits and the version which you have chosen contains a serious error.

You are not in a position to tell other people to leave the page alone. If you believe that centrifugal force is a term appllied to two different forces, then I want to see a reference to that extent because I know that such an idea is totally wrong. It is sheer double talk.

And I don't know who removed the citation tag but it's against the wikipedia rules to remove such a tag prior to the citation being produced.

And further, for your information, I am not 'electrodynamicist'. David Tombe (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to discuss this on personal talk pages instead of on the article's talk page. –Henning Makholm 04:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dionysious II[edit]

hello Henning , Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionisious is not really Marthoma IX.The lineage of Marthoma Metropolitans ended with Marthoma IX .After the reign of Marthoma IX ,the ruling power was transferred to Malankara Metropolitans.Hence Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionysious I -- who was also known as Dionysious II as he was the second person to be ordained as a bishop with the name Dionysious ( Marthoma VI was known as Dionysious I)became the first Malankara Metropolitan.He was called Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionysious I because he was the first person from the Pulikkottilfamily to became a bishop.Much later another person from the same Pulikkottilfamily became the Malankara Metropolitan.He was known as Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionysious II ( also as Dionysious V,as he was the fifth Metropolitan with the name Dionysious)

I hope this clears your doubt .Feel free to ask if you still have any doubts regarding this. Thank you Arunvroy (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Danish doors[edit]

I noticed your contribution to the 'Monty Hall' problem. As you're Danish, and I saw the same flaw in the similar article in the Danish Wikipedia, may be you have a look into there as well. I don't know your Danish 'bruger' identity, thats why I address you here. Nijdam (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that specific problem (p/(p+1) where 1/(2-p) is correct) in the Danish article. In any case, I'm not very active on da.wikipedia -- for whatever reason it does not really catch my interest. –Henning Makholm 21:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


I didn't revert Crank to any previous state. I just got rid of the patronizing POV that crank ideas do not often become mainstream. In truth, this is the only way science makes progress.Likebox (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(Replied on User talk:Likebox, where I started the conversation. –Henning Makholm (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
What?? I didn't revert. Honest. I just edited some stuff. I added a bunch of examples. I can't believe that somebody else previously wrote what I just put up. It's statistically impossible.Likebox (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
For the third (or fourth) time, look at the diff. There is one word in difference between your version and that from three years ago. There are paragraph upon paragraph of change from the version immediately before your first edit today. –Henning Makholm (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I looked--- I don't know how it happened. I did a one-word edit to what I thought was the current version. Something really screwy is going on.Likebox (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Good. You just managed to avoid a block. Next time please consider that somebody may have a point before you blindly revert again. At least look through the provided evidence of trouble. –Henning Makholm (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't care about being blocked. I didn't see what was going on. I'm sorry. I still don't know what happened.Likebox (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Yes I did. But the method for not linking looks cumbersome and more work, other editors had already mentioned that. They had also mentioned about excessive links, but I felt it better to add something than nothing at all. --JD554 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

But if I'm happy with doing the extra work in order that the reader of my text can see dates in his preferred format -- without links -- why should I be forbidden to do so in my edits simply because you don't want to do the work in your edits? –Henning Makholm (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You've had your vote, I've had mine. Note doubt we'll both comply with community consensus. --JD554 (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to control whether you add additional markup or not, but apparently you want to control whether I add additional markup or not, despite the fact that it won't cost you anything or change how the article you see looks. I just don't get why. –Henning Makholm (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)



Please, see here.

Budelberger (   ) 12:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC).


Thanks very much for dispatching to take care of those edits and articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


Dear Henning Makholm, regarding the article Blåvandshuk I could'nt stop my bot or another to put an inappropriate wiki. But perhaps for your understanding, I should explain how a bot work :

a bot scan a page on his home wiki (for my bot it's french) then he follow the interwikis links found on the first page.
for all of this second page, he search if interwikis match with the ones on the first page.
he then check if all the page linked with interwikis exist. If it's right, he add all new interwiki link on all languages pages. If a link is broken, he removed it on all pages, and if a page have been renamed or a link change to point another article, the new link is modify on all wikis.

In the case of a false link, a mystake made by a user that link with an incorrect page, the bot couldn't verify. He take it for a rename or an improvment not for a mystake. So he update all pages, also by error. The only solution to solve it is to remove all incorrrect link on all wikis. Sincerely --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 09:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Logically out of place[edit]

Could you explain why you thought this argument was out of place? The section was discussing the 0 exponent. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's take that on the talk page. –Henning Makholm (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, if you'd prefer. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Magniwork PMM article[edit]

Hi, I've written a stub on Magniwork, and saw your contributions to the Perpetual motion article. Since i fear, nay, expect attempts to change this article by the people behind Magniwork (they seem to have done a lot of search engine optimization work already), i though you might want to put it on your watch list as well.

Cheers, Arru (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Monty Hall problem[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Monty Hall problem#Changes suggested by JeffJor, Martin Hogbin, and Glkanter. Rick Block (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

December 2009[edit]

As I assume that your assumption was in good faith, I clicked edit, and there was no edit conflict, possibly a glitch in the software. I have never done this before, so there is no reason for you to believe that I do this all the time, since I have participated in hundreds of AFDs, and this is the first time this has happened. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I have heard of such problems before. Sorry for possibly overreacting. –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello, I am new to the site so I do not know where to post my comment but please leave my contribution on plagiarims as I am doing a project for my class. I am the teacher of this class and I would like for them to get a feel for wikki. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itclass (talkcontribs) 01:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The first "feel for wiki" you need to get yourself is that this is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost, a discussion forum or an IT education tool. The articles are supposed to be encyclopedia articles, and if you enter text in them that is not appropriate content for an encylopedia, it will be deleted. –Henning Makholm (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC

Thank you for your sarcasm, you seem to have a lot of that to go around for everyone I suppose. How unhappy for you to spend all your time deleting others' contributions. If Wikepidia is indeed for everyone to use and contribute in then it loses it's reputability-I am sorry to burst your huge bubble on that. A people's encyclopedia, if it is what Wikepedia is about, then must be able to provide content/knowledge that comes from many perspectives including those of young students. Anyhow, perhaps in your end of the world Wikepedia has a lot of credibility-from our end it does not-just thought you should know since you are so preoccupied with its' content.

Thanks, and keep up the good work[edit]

Refdesk barnstar candidate2.png The Reference Desk Barnstar
You deserve a big thank you for your continued efforts at the maths reference desk. You always seem to have something helpful and thoughtful to add to almost every post. You're always polite, and you never cause drama. I wish there were more people like you on the reference desks. Give yourself a big pat on the back. Fly by Night (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm learning a lot myself :-) –Henning Makholm (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

redlinks on dab pages[edit]

In this edit, you pointed to MOS:DABRL as justification for removing a redlink. However, the cases where a redlink should be removed are "articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics". Secondary high schools do not fit this criteria.

I'm made the issue moot by creating a stub for the redlinked school. tedder (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, the text I find at MOS:DABRL is: "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link.". –Henning Makholm (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Aha, good point. tedder (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia Rollback.svg

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nick Miller (writer)[edit]

Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. It was a knee jerk reaction to the tag indicating he had reverted an anti-vandal bot. I didn't notice that in his reversion, he took the time to eliminate the youtube link. I am confident that the article itself would never stand AFD, but I will post an apology to the editor for my hasty mischaracterization of his work. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from "Lagrangian" poster[edit]

Hi I'm the person who originally posted the multi-variate calculus question on the math board. Thank you for all your help. So by inspection we see the minimum. But what I am wondering is if there is a systematic way of arriving at the same conclusion, through the use of perhaps Hessians? Somehow I feel "by inspection" is not a very convincing argument to use in mathematics.

And what about a more generic function such as f(x, y, z, w) = x² + 2y² + 3z² - w²? Would a Hessian be the only way to solve it?L33th4x0r (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've answered this mostly on the refdesk. It sounds a bit to me like you want to have a method with a cool name that sounds like LASTNAMEian, but that's no reason to reject the simple, direct, strategy of setting ∂f/∂xi=0 for each input xi and solve, just because the simple strategy does not come with an advanced-sounding brand name.
In your particular example it is clear that f can take any value at all, just by considering inputs (x,0,0,0) and (0,0,0,w). –Henning Makholm (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Henning for all your help. I have learned much from you. L33th4x0r (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Alternatives to conventional railways[edit]

Category:Alternatives to conventional railways, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC[edit]

You are invited to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

about "axiom of global choice"[edit]

Hello, my name is Sergei Akbarov. If I understand this system correctly, you are one of those who edited the article "axiom of global choice", Is this true? If yes, then I want to draw your attention to the fact that the books listed as references in this article tell nothing about what is called "strong form of the axiom of global choice" there. Moreover, this notion seems to be senseless, at least when I asked people about it at a mathematical forum,, nobody could give a convincing reference. What should be done in this situation? Eozhik (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eozhik (talkcontribs) 20:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Sjö. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Whopper, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit too quick on the trigger and unfortunately managed to rollback an anti-vandal edit instead of the vandal one I thought I was aiming at. Someone undid it before I could self-revert, though. –Henning Makholm (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of H. C. Ørsted Medal for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article H. C. Ørsted Medal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. C. Ørsted Medal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Copenhagen University College of Engineering listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Copenhagen University College of Engineering. Since you had some involvement with the Copenhagen University College of Engineering redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). BDD (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)