User talk:Galactic Citizen 299495038858569

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page layout

Your comments on Talk:Natural_number are not following the talk page indentation conventions. In particular, when replying, you should indent your reply. Your signature should immediately follow your comment. You can experiment in the sandbox. Also, your comments would be more persuasive, if you cited some reliable sources. --50.53.61.13 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Natural Numbers Redirect

I reverted your change for the following reasons:

1. You did not explain yourself. There are absolutely no edits by you to the whole numbers talk page preceding your change of the redirect. Discussing it elsewhere is not appropriate, especially when the discussion elsewhere is of a tangential nature to the redirect. Per WP:TP changes to a page should be discussed on its own talk page, not another talk page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Walker Lynch (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

the following were posted and signed by me on the talk page, Thomas Lynch before your action of deleting my contribution based on lack of discussion:

1. 1. 4) the zero question is obviously of central importance for this article, this is what the discussion circles around. It belongs in the head. Furthermore, counting numbers and whole numbers now redirect to this page. I came to the page though such a link, read the header material and still had no idea why I was on the redirected page. That isn't right. If pages redirect here the topics need to be mentioned. With my edit they now are.

1. 1. I've pointed out the inconsistency of redirecting whole numbers here, and then instead of defining them, using them to define naturals. Another editor points out above that well this was not the way he would like the situation - and then put the circular definitions back in while deleting text that provided non-circular definitions. All I can say is, 'what they hey?'two circular paths or reasoning do not a linear reasoning make .. Isn't it the case there are only two ways to fix this issue: a) provide a page for whole numbers and turn off the redirect b) define them here? I did the latter, and the editor deleted it, but he did not do the former. Am I not justified in just putting the other text back? Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

1. 1. The thing I would like to know first is how the whole number circular definition thing is to be fixed and why you reject the use of integer in the definition in its place.

Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

1. 1. [another editor starts here in agreement]ck, as Trovatore points out your position is inconsistent, as positive whole numbers do not include 0 and that is the lead in sentence. Thanks for the note about the four tildas. Uncle Stan is in fact a professional mathematician, and just having a quick look here his publication list is longer than yours ;-). I don't understand the adversity to bringing the "convention" sentence into the lead. And you say there are more conventions than you can enumerate? Help me understand that, perhaps give me three schools of thought that have a different convention than that used by the "set theorists, logicians, and computer scientists" mentioned in the article.

as the lead goes into the box on Google, it is important to provide the most common convention in the first paragraph instead of giving a decree that natural numbers are positive whole numbers 'period'. I just noticed that is what shows in that box. I moved the convention language there, though seems the wording could be improved. If there are other modern conventions they could be given next, or a 'it hasn't always been this way' could be added. IMHO Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

1. 1. The whole numbers page redirects here yet there is no definition for for whole numbers found here, even worse, the definition given for natural numbers builds from it. T.. 218.187.84.185 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

and here is another supporting reply from one of the other editors:

I agree that anyone looking for counting number, natural number or whole number should quickly get a clear statement of what the phrase means. Before 14 September, there was a "disambiguation page" [1] which explained that "whole number" has 3 different meanings, and it included a link to Natural number#History of natural numbers and the status of zero. For that reason, in August 2013 I concentrated all the information in this article about "whole number" into that history section, as explained at Talk:Natural_number/Archive_2#Counting_number_and_whole_number. But since 14 September, "whole number" redirects to "natural number" and the lead now needs to contain the information. I think that from just the lead it should be clear to the reader that they should not use any of these three phrases unless they state which definition they are using. JonH (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You ignored several talk page entries and the agreement of two editors when you deleted my contribution with no discussion of your own. -- you do not appear on the talk page. It would sure make me feel better about the time an effort I've taken to put good information on this natural numbers page if you would apologize to me for having made such an outrageous allegation.

1. You arbitrarily changed a redirect which had just been implemented in the past several weeks by a consensus of editors to the relevant pages. You neer sought a new consensus, and your arguments are in the minority on the natural numbers talk page. Your editing of the redirect was inappropriate for this reason, if no other.

hardly. See the prior references to further discussion on the topic. Furthermore the whole number information was deleted from the page. There is however an very nice explanation on the Integer page which no one disagrees with. You show a great deal of disrespect for my contribuations as well as disrespect for the wikipedia readers who would come to wikipedia to learn about whole numbers.

1. Integer is not the most closely related concept to whole number. Natural number is. Your arguments do not even attempt to dispute this. The argument at the natural number talk page not only has you in the minority, but is completely irrelevant to the meaning of "whole number".

First off, I any other reader who comes here please note that "MjoolnirPants" here again refers to "Your arguments" -- when his first point was that I had not made talk page entries. This seems to indicate that his frist point was purposely falsely contrived.

Speaking to this point I said there is an explanation on the Integer page. I made no statement about their definition. And this is true, go look at the page. Now on this new point you raise 'that wholes are not related to integers, is flatly wrong - even though it is immaterial to this discussion. The very word integer is Greek for 'whole' and many authors treat whole numbers identically to integers. The main facet of whole numbers is that they do not have fractions. So you suggest an unsupportable argument that the two are unrelated.

I am reverting again. My advice to you would be to leave the whole number redirect as it is until you can either get a consensus to change it. Changes to the whole number page should never be the result of an argument at the natural number talk page.

You employ techniques of a bully MjolnirPants, first making false allegations (your point 1 that here were no talk page entries), diverting the subject of discussion (changing the topic of whole numbers being discussed on the integer page into the definition of whole numbers), and making false assertions of fact (that whole numbers are not related to integers). Bullies online often feel enabled because they are anonymous. May I have your real name? Can we discuss offline perhaps? In any case I hope you will raise the level of professionalism and mutual respect.

Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)