User talk:Cronholm144

Welcome to Wikipedia, Cronholm!

Welcome to Wikipedia, kind sir!

Dear Cronholm,

Your letter was so moving, and of course I would be happy and honored to welcome you to Wikipedia! :) Rather than listing the tutorials and other resources at your disposal, let me point you quickly to the Help pages (which I find very good) . Then let's walk together through the starlit garden, listen in silence to the nightingale and the piper far away; and then let's talk with one another of more personal things that may be helpful.

Wikipedia holds many treasures and pleasures, and I hope that you will taste them all: the friendship of kind, smart and wonderfully well-meaning people; the flush of joy upon understanding something difficult at long last; and the warmth of feeling that you are helping people everywhere. Grace is in the air, faith the gentle tissue that binds us together. Occasionally I feel down; I sometimes lose my faith that I'm doing any good, or that I'm helping people, or that other Wikipedians even like me. :( I suppose that such thoughts occur to us all from time to time; yet remember, when Wikipedia looks bleak, that you have a friend in me and I in you. There is magic in such friendships, silver threads we may follow back to a bright place .

You may meet opinionated people here, sometimes imperfectly informed, or speaking dismissively. I believe in gentleness and compassion for all flavors of people, especially remembering my own limitations and failings. A person's true strength, in the real world and especially here in Wikipedia, is measured not by bending bars but by opening minds, don't you agree? We share a common enemy, ignorance; we should work together selflessly and serenely to banish it from each other and from the world outside. If another editor throws a javelin at you, remember that nothing can truly hurt us here; we're ethereal spirits in this ghostly little world, and javelins pass through us. ;)

Wishing you everything good that Wikipedia can bring, Willow 03:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome from the Mathematics WikiProject

Please allow me to apologize on behalf of the Mathematics WikiProject for not welcoming you earlier. I hope I can persuade you to take this as a compliment: personally, I found your contributions to calculus and the discussions there so helpful that it did not even occur to me that you might be a newcomer! Anyway, I see you have registered as a participant on the project: that is great! I'm sure you also know that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics is a great place to share ideas which are not related to a particular article or which require a wider discussion. So it remains for me to add the welcome message that should have been placed here a week or two ago, but which probably does not contain any information that you do not already know :) Anyway...

Welcome!

Hello, Cronholm144, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Geometry guy 11:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. I usually reply on my talk page to messages placed there (to make the thread easier to follow). In particular, I replied to your message of 22nd April there. Similarly, when I leave a message on a user page, like now, I add the page to my watchlist (at least for a few days) in case you reply here.

JD Ryan

Please only add sourced material to J.D. Ryan. It was blanked because there was so much vandalism that I could not tell what was correct and what was vandalism.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Global dimming -> GA

Thank you for reviewing the article. Kgrr 14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the proper classification is: Category:GA-Class Environment articles Kgrr 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, when I went to change Good article registry I looked for environment but I must have missed it. Sorry for the oversight. I can change it if you like or if you want to correct it yourself that is fine by me.

Cronholm144 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Need Direction

Hey MGM, Thanks for your response on the help desk. However I still have one question, what is the appropriate forum for discussion of Wiki policy regarding the protection of FA articles? Thanks so much Cronholm144 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Most discussions of this kind happen on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I should note however that protecting the FA when it's on the main page has been discussed and rejected multiple times before. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

How do you expect me to do that when Wikipedia is based on double-standards? Why is supporting Israel, Zionism, Likud, Yisrael Beytenu and Kadima allowed on Wikipedia and supporting Hezbollah isn't? Emбargo 00:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yours is a great proposition, but I'm still waiting for Jim Wales to reply. What do you suggest we do next? Emбargo 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Calculus

Hi Cronholm, Era notation was first used in Calculus here [1]. As you can see it's BC. If you check edits either side of this you'll be able to confirm this. Also, the BC notation was used for a substantial number of edits thereafter. It should not have been changed if Wiki policy/guidelines were adhered to. Could you change it back? I can't, for fear of breaching the 3RR rule on this occasion. Cheers. 86.31.70.128 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Cronholm144 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I know it's only a minor point, and this article is about mathematics, but I've detected an organised attempt on Wikipedia to replace BC with BCE for what would appear to be PC reasons. 86.31.70.128 22:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It just isn't important to me either way, I go by the set policy. Frankly I just hate useless warring, notation doesn't change peoples convictions, ya know. Cronholm144 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in total agreement, hopefully this issue won't come up again on a mathematics article (wishful thinking I know, but we all have our dreams don't we?)Cronholm144 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a small note; i wasn't really bothered which one it was, i just thanked Cheeser for his efforts anyway (he originally reverted it). BC or BCE is fine, so long as it's not swapped around every 10 seconds -- i don't really care about that, but the actual calculus information. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just another note, though -- it's nothing to do with PC reasons. It was just to do with the fact Cheeser was attempting to remain neutral. I was thanking cheeser generally for reverting because i saw him do it on my watchlist and didn't really read the history. Apologies again, but this isn't a conspiracy or what have ye, and don't generalise 2 editors (one who was merely commenting; moi) as "Wikipedia". ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 22:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to generalise, just letting you know the situation. I assumed good faith on the IP and Cheeser and I knew you were acting in good faith. No worries ;)Cronholm144 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Calculus apps

Great work on the applications Cronholm! Geometry guy 23:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I am convinced I am mediocre writer at best so please edit away at all my scribblings. Being bold is hard to do Cronholm144 23:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You're doing fine! Thanks for your kind comments on my page, and for taking the trouble to look at my contributions. I think recently I have not been following very well two principles about editing WP that I have come to believe in.

• When something needs to be done, don't just talk about it, do it!
• When the lead needs improving, don't focus on the lead: improve the body of the article. The lead will follow!

With calculus, however, you (and others e.g. 141.211, Rick Norwood) have been doing this, so I feel it is in safe hands! Good work on the talk page: some of the resolved points could probably be moved into the archive. Geometry guy 18:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bleach GA review

On criteria 3b (focus), the scope of the article is intended to be the manga series Bleach, its derived media, and franchise. The title may be slightly confusing, but it is the correct one and in accordance with the project guidelines on disambiguation because the franchise as a whole is based around a manga series.

I am unsure what you mean by more citation for sales statistics. Is the problem with the sources we have used, or are you requesting that we find more than one source per sales statistic?

If you have any additional questions, please contact me on my talk page or the Bleach talk page. --tjstrf talk 05:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And I see we've passed. Yay! Thank you for the time you volunteer reviewing pages, I get the impression it's a rather thankless job, especially when you have to tell people that their article isn't ready yet. --tjstrf talk 06:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

hey there

hey, i got your message. hope you're well.

thanks for your concern, that's really nice of you. however, i've also contacted many people directly through their talk pages, so have many people lined up for the project. i had pre-empted your suggestion of contacting through projects and groups :)

the questions will be coming out next week. as is the case with uni bureaucracy my ethics got stalled.... :( but should be good now.

tamsin 10:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: once my research leaves me with a bit more time on my hands i'll definately do some more editing....

Good to hear, I guess I am a little bit of a busy body but I can't help myself. Thanks for your hasty reply--Cronholm144 23:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Capture-bonding

Hey Sadi, I read your RfC and would like to help out in any way possible. If you could outline your problem with Keith with a little more depth I would be really appreciative. Hopefully your dispute can be worked out quickly. Thanks so much--Cronholm144 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cronholm, in short, an editor named User:Hkhenson, i.e. Keith Henson, wrote a 2002 article on the topic of capture; in addition, on various web pages he claims that he is the first to propose the theory, such as this webpage, where Henson claims “Until I proposed capture-bonding it had been a completely unexplained slice of weirdness.” Myself, before I stumbled upon this article, I had read about capture bonding in psychologist John Money’s 1980 book Love & Love Sickness – the Science of Pair-Bonding, where he applies the concept of capture bonding to abnormal psychology situations, such as in a bad marriage that a spouse seems to be trapped in or kidnapping cases where given chances to escape the captive paradoxically remains bound to the captor, etc. I found the term and concept used in other published sources as well. Hence, over the last year, I have been attempting to edit and add to this article with these various sources, but Henson continuously reverts, because it is not according to his point of view. Your comments would be appreciated here, at the Mediation Cabal in progress. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 13:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a comment on Keith's page, but it looks like we will have to wait--Cronholm144 02:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank's for the look. --Sadi Carnot 04:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Calculus?

Arise, Squire Cronholmius, and accept thy title as a wikipedian squire :-)

Think it'd be a good idea? ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 19:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I fear that a full fledged new Wikiproject would be subject spotty attendance and structure issues etc... maybe we could make a calculus subgroup as a part of Wikiproject: Mathematics and if it grows sufficiently we could branch it off. For now I think the focus of the group, such as it is, should be Derivative, Integral, Calculus, and other top importance articles(although it seems derivative is almost to FA). Then we can work our way down the list. That is of course if there is enough interest.--Cronholm144 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As a humble squire I shall work tirelessly toward attaining my knighthood. For King and Country!

Assessment of maths articles

Many thanks for assessing all those unassessed articles, and congratulations on having more than 400 edits — a well-deserved squirehood indeed! You are right to note that many articles have no assessment at all, but there are about 15000 articles in the list of mathematics articles so there is rather a lot to do... Geometry guy 20:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That number is very frightening... but stubs take roughly 30 seconds to assess and edit, 45-60 for start class plus 15 for general comment. B-class take 3 minutes and another 2 for a good comment, at least. So it looks I have my work cut out for me. ;) and assessing the article doesn't even constitute real improvement of the article...sigh.--Cronholm144 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Looks like it will take me most of today to get through the 0-9 articles, but I suppose that is the best place to start.

It is probably not a good idea to assess all 15000, as it will overwhelm the system (and the editors!). However, it would be nice to at least double the current coverage, and make it a bit less haphazard. If we rate many articles, then it is particularly important to get the importance parameter right, since that helps to focus our efforts. There is a problem at the moment that it is unclear what the context is for determining this parameter. For example motives are of low importance in mathematics as a whole, but quite high importance in algebraic geometry. In my view the importance of an article should be rated within its field or category, as this allows for a finer discrimination. I would therefore uprate some of the importance ratings you have given: for instance, the Mandelbrot set is rather important in complex dynamics and fractals. Geometry guy 21:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. Have you heard of AutoWikiBrowser? This can dramatically reduce the time it takes to go through a list of articles making a similar edit to each. You need to register to use it: for that it helps to have more than 500 edits, but hey, you are nearly there!

I am not planning on assessing all 16000 just adding articles that seem important. I have my AfD ready too. Sorry if I rated Madelbrot set incorrectly. In guess I should have put it at mid importance, but I was thinking about its importance to the average reader who probably doesn't know what the complex plane is and just thinks that mandelbrot sets and julia sets are just pretty shapes. I will assess importance as it pertains to its field from now on.--Cronholm144 21:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A noble goal! At the moment it is unclear what is correct or incorrect for importance ratings, but at least one thing is clear: ratings, like everything else on talk pages, is information primarily for editors, not readers. Geometry guy 21:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I must commend you on your assessment, it's a good idea to keep track of the articles that are important. If you require any assistance with actually creating/adding information into the article; i am but a humble mathematical-chemist :-) ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I am becoming a mergist. Right now I am going through various divergent series and negative number articles and have been suggesting quite alot of merges. Any input would be appreciated. The only article I added thus far is 0, 1, 4-manifold, and multiple article having to do with Abel and Abelian. I will keep you posted. Thanks and no need to be humble;). Also, do we have a plan on where to go next on calculus, it has been eating at me.--Cronholm144 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I can easily use AWB to assess importance and field for stuff that I know about, which I hope makes your work easier, since you then only need to assess quality and correct my mistakes. Geometry guy 23:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a comment on your talk page, Thanks for the help!--Cronholm144 23:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Go Cronholm go! 500 edits and an AWB candidate! Let me know if there is any way I can make my preliminary maths ratings more useful. Geometry guy 00:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, your edits are great, The problem I have is with my own understanding of where the various fields overlap, I.E. Set theory, Analysis, Topology, etc... they all begin to blur. So whenever you categorise an article for me it takes a load of my mind.--Cronholm144 00:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Unfortunately I don't have that many mainspace edits, so AWB may be out of my reach for a while. But the worst they can say is no. Right;)--Cronholm144 00:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stopped at the end of the affines for now. going to take a break.--Cronholm144 04:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work Cronholm! I'm sorry to see that your mergist ideas had a setback. There may be a case for a partial merger of some of the divergent series examples. I'll have a look.

Meanwhile I have finished a first pass at the letter A. I will have made mistakes e.g. rating an already rated article (as you noticed once already), rating a redirect or disambig, or misforming the rating because of a typo. I also skipped some where I wasn't sure how to rate them. Still, my hit rate was probably a bit high: I tagged about 1/3 of the articles in the list — at that rate, we'll end up with about 5000 assessed articles! Geometry guy 13:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:Comment @ User talk:R

I saw your comment on R's talk page, and I just wanted to drop in and say that you need at least 500 — yes, I know it's a lot, but I don't make the
rules — mainspace edits before you are likely to be approved. However, when you are approved, to check the mathematics articles, just select "Pull From Category" from the drop-down menu on the bottom-left side and type "Mathematics" (without the quotation marks) into the box underneath the drop-down menu. I hope that wasn't too confusing; when you use AWB frequently, it will become very much easier. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 16:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, if I don't get it this time around that's ok by me. I just thought it would be useful for my work and thought you might make an exception. Right now, I am on an organisation kick and I guess you could call me a timid mainspace editor. again thanks--Cronholm144 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics CotW

Hey Cronholm, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 18:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Jon Harrop

Hi. I saw your post on Jon Harrop's page and wanted to say a few things to you in private. I know Dr Harrop and he is a very clever and passionate person. He is a strong advocate for many different topics such as computer programming languages and contributes widely to those topics (not just on wikipedia). I think the persoanlity clash with Requestion has escalated. Many issues and problems have arisen that may have been avoided had a neutral party stepped in. It is obvious looking at Requestion's user page that Femto is not neutral as he often leaps to Requestion aid. As such his involvement could be seen (rightly or wrongly) as ganging up. Personally, I find the way Requestion talks to people as quite aggressive and I don't think I'm the first person to get the impression (again rightly or wrongly) that he is bullying. I can understand why Harrop thought Requestion was out to delete all of his contributions and hound him off the wiki.

I can see how I would be viewed as a meat puppet and so am staying out of any disputes from now on. I have taken a few deep breaths and calmed down. I am new to the wiki and didn't even know until recently what WP:MEAT is. I have two degrees and was thinking of getting involved in the wiki community but this has somewhat put me off. Maybe I'll come back at the end of the year and start making contributions. I'm sure I won't get in trouble if I write on totally unrelated subjects.

I think it would be wiki's loss if it lost Harrop altogether. He has a lot to contribute. However, I think that is the case. It would have been possible to reform him into the kind of wikipedian everyone would be happy with but not in the way Femto and Requestion went about it. It isn't easy to have a civilised discussion when you don't know the other person and have to rely on posts alone to talk to them. Their warnings and verbal attacks only add fuel to the fire. Dr Harrop is the kind of person who is going to argue his case and not just back down when intimidated. Quoting WP rules and shouting does not equal a reasoned response to a person's objections which is something I don't think Requestion realises.

It is very unfortunate that it has all gotten so out of hand.Petdoc 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)