User talk:198.53.108.48

June 2021

Hello, I'm Edipio. I noticed that you recently removed content from Noel Gallagher without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Edipio ^💬 02:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Please don't put insults in edit summaries. Just describe the change, thanks! WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 03:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Excellent yeoman's work on adding lots of mathematical information. jp×g 23:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Requests for comment.

Whatever it was you posted at Talk:Inertial frame of reference, it wasn't formatted remotely like a Request for Comment in the way Wikipedia requires, and accordingly, I've removed it. If you actually want outside involvement in a discussion, I'd recommend taking a look at the recommendations of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and making at least a token effort to comply, since nobody is going to respond favourably to what might very well come across as a deranged rant accompanied by threats of violence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Archimedes, (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 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.Template:Z183 --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

On agreeing to disagree on Archimedes

Hi, user 198.53.108.48:

I hope my note finds you well, and that you do not take my views as a rebuke to you personally. I welcome the opportunity to debate and appreciate your insights into the work of Archimedes and what it means to you. I just wanted to reply to your last comments but felt the Talk page under "Archimedes" is already too long on this subject and in any case, I think these matters are better discussed here than elsewhere.

I found your analogy of the wall beautiful; however, I also found it somewhat misleading. Mathematics is an activity and a way of thinking, in addition to a language. And like all activities, ways of thinking, and languages, it develops and changes over time. Some of those changes do build on previous work, much like brick goes on top of brick, but not all of them do. Some changes become sterile and die off. Some of them live on but take on new meanings. I prefer to see mathematics as growing organically, like a tree, rather than statically, like a wall.

By this, I do not wish to diminish Archimedes' mathematical work. Quite the contrary! I think his work is brilliant and should be known by lay people as much as by mathematicians. This is why I invest in his Wikipedia page, and I have a feeling this is probably why you too do the same. That being said, there is nothing written in the stars that says we shouldn't compare Archimedes' work with anyone. And in any case, the quote of Leibniz you used implies that a comparison is being made. Note also that I was not arguing that Gauss is greater than Archimedes, but only whether he was influenced by Archimedes. I don't think there is anything unfair about that.

I also do not wish to diminish your concern about the infobox becoming unwieldy because of too many names being included. Quite the contrary! This is precisely why I advocated two-form criteria. So allow me to repeat what these are and see if perhaps we can find common ground:

1. That Archimedes' influence on person X is substantiated by evidence. By which I mean not only that person X read and understood Archimedes (which is great!), but that said person used that specific knowledge substantially in their own investigations. This could mean extending Archimedes' results to other areas (e.g., check out Dr. Rorres work here: https://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Floating/floating.html) or using Archimedean methods extensively (e.g., like in this book: https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/The-Illustrated-Method-of-Archimedes.pdf). This would reduce the number of people from those who are merely acquainted with Archimedes (think high school student writing a 1-page paper on Archimedes) to those who are not only acquainted with him but actually have visible signs of Archimedes' influence in their own work. Let's called this the criterion of utility.

2. That person X is closer to the times of Archimedes than our own. Even if we enforce the first criterion, we will still end up with a huge number of people if we go back and add every person that meets criterion 1 since Archimedes' death. So we need to reduce this further, and that is why I suggested "closer in time" as another bar to clear. Hero, Pappus, and Eutocius fit criteria 1 & 2, Rorres and Assis (the authors on the links above) meet 1 but not 2, so they could go to the "Legacy section" if we feel strongly inclined to do so. Let's called this the criterion of proximity.

I hope these arguments clarify my position better, and that you'll be able to see commonalities between your views and mine. If all else fails, and the community decides otherwise, I would not stand in the way of getting the Influence/Influenced categories removed. I'm not married to said categories and in any case, our time can be best spent doing something else.

Best regards, Guillermind81 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, I recently added a standard "welcome" message and "shared ip" template to this talk page, which you then promptly removed with the edit summary: "wikipedians" are so cute with their big splash "welcome"s on talk pages. not a static ip btw. it may stick around after a router restart, but it's not a guarantee". Per Wikipedia's userpage guidelines, you can remove the "welcome" message if you like (though not the "shared ip" template), but I was curious why remove them at all? And why do so with the hostile comments? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thank you - wolf 00:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse!

Hello! 198.53.108.48, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

- wolf 14:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Boston, you may be blocked from editing. Template:Z188 Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Roxy the dog: my apologies roxy. i thought i was genuinely contributing to improving the article. i will be more careful in the future. 198.53.108.48 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You know, some of your earlier contributions to mathematics/physics articles in the past were actually halfway useful, reading past the incredibly irascible tone. If you were a little nicer and a little less extravagant you could've easily collaborated with people and successfully argued your point. Instead we have this mess, and with vandalism like that edit to Boston I doubt you'll be able to continue without a block for much longer. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: father? is that you? i'm allowed to have a little fun here and there. people even monitor my talk page which is the most flattering thing. why not give them a chortle. bahstun is the capitalla ireland!! you know it's true!! ;) obviously i have to starting adding some more useful stuff shortly here. that part is clear, but i think i did some good work/research on the space challenger stuff that, in my view, is being held up on unreasonable grounds. to each their own, though. it's moments like those that make additional, worthy contributions more challenging. i know what i'm doing and usually when i make meaningful edits, they're well-sourced. i just dislike the fact that there have been memorable cases where, in spite of the evidence, some editors just take control of a page and want it that way. 198.53.108.48 (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)