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 days before your deletes, notice five separate entries days apart and two editor agreements:

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.
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. [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)
5. 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. 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 instead of making senseless verbiage. You will also notice, that finally, the paragraph I original wrote on what is a whole number is on the natural number page .. well unless someone deletes between now and the time you read it.

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, and disrespect towards the authors of the integer page who provided a definition for 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, 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 knowingly false.

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, a) first making false allegations (your point 1 that here were no talk page entries), b) making it sound like I was some sort of loan wolf when there were two editor agreements in the talk pages c) diverting the subject of discussion (changing the topic of whole numbers being discussed on the integer page into the definition of whole numbers), and d)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? Don't you think it would be more fun to work together and let the text evolve instead of doing this stuff? I might know a thing or two about the topic too you know. Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

 

the following were posted and signed by me on the talk page days before your deletes, notice five separate entries days apart and two editor agreements:

You may have made a number of edits to Talk:natural number, but you never made any edits to Talk:Whole number as evidenced by The Whole number talk page history.

You ignored several talk page entries and the agreement of two editors when you deleted my contribution with no discussion of your own.

I did explain myself in the edit summary, and two people does not make a consensus. Nor was it discussed in the right place, where people who do care about it can weigh in, such as everyone who participated in the discussion on Talk:Whole number.

You employ techniques of a bully MjolnirPants

WP:AGF, WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL. If you require continual reminders to play well with others, you will end up unwelcome here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

How to link to a previous revision of an article

1. Look through the revision history of the article and find the revision you want to link.
2. Copy the link to that revision into your computer's copy/paste buffer (the column with the time and date has links to previous revisions).
3. Select the text on the talk page you want to display.
4. Click the link icon above the edit box.
5. Paste the link into the top box.
6. Click the "Insert link" button.
7. Click "Show preview" to see if the results are what you want. And test the link before saving.

NB: This procedure creates external links.
NB2: You will need at least two windows or tabs for this procedure.

--50.53.52.64 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your user page

Could you put something on your user page, so your name doesn't appear in red in edit histories? Red names are very distracting. --50.53.43.85 (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is some info on user pages. --50.53.43.85 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --50.53.35.229 (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Example talk page formatting

This is the first comment.

This is the second comment, a response to the first comment.

This is the third comment, a response to the second comment.

This is the fourth comment, a response to the first comment, again.

This is the fifth comment, a response to the fourth comment.

This is the sixth comment, a response to the third comment.

This is a new response to the first comment.

This is a response to the above.

This is a counter-response to the above.

This is a counter-counter-response.

And so on and so forth.

This way, threads can be easily identifiable.

This is an outdent, to bring the text blocks back.

 

If you read the link I provided to WP:INDENT above or right here, you can take what that page says and practice in the sandbox or on your user page until you get it. Once it clicks, it will be easy and more-or-less intuitive. Also, please read WP:THREAD. It is considered very poor form to edit another users comments as you did above. Instead, use the {{talkquote|quote}} or {{tq|quote}} templates to quote other users for point by point responses. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate section names were added in an edit to Talk:Natural number

In this edit you added two nearly identical section headers. Could you please remove one? Aren't you using the "New section" tab to start a new section? The "New section" tab is at the top of the talk page to the right of the "Read" and "Edit" tabs. --50.53.47.9 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I just realized what happened, because I have done it too. When you use the "New section" tab, the section header is created automatically. You do not need to explicitly add it. The text you enter in the "Subject/headline" box becomes the section header. --50.53.47.9 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, Thank you very much for the helpful pointers. .. surely there are some tools for doing this wiki stuff? The raw text editing gets the jobs done, but surely someone has made a nice GUI editor ..

Inadvertent reversion?

If you carelessly edit an old version of a page rather than the current version, then all edits after the version you edited will be reverted. Normally, that is not what you should be doing, and I hope that you did it by mistake at Talk:Natural number. Please see your edit. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice that this could also happen if you do a whole-page edit rather than a section edit or if you ignore the edit-conflict warning when doing a section edit. If I get an edit-conflict warning, I usually back-up, cut-out the text I wanted to add, abort my edit, then edit the section again and paste my text back into the section. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Using WP:RTP as an excuse to remove the other side of an argument from yours is wiki-lawyering and will get you into big trouble. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)