User talk:Vanish2

What is there to discuss? Welcome, Richard. Charles Matthews 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G Harrises

_ _ Let me add my welcome, and this further discussion: i noticed you via List of people by name: Harr#Harris, A-J, and i'm pleased to have someone especially well informed working on clarifying this pitfall.
_ _ My angle on it is pretty much standardization of the LoPbN-tree entries; i'm probably the one who substituted the generic "archaeologist" for "Egyptologist" and came up w/ "fl. c. 2000" for "your" GH. I'm hoping you can help me feel my way thru that task in the case of these two bios. Let me start by addressing both of those parts of the entries, in light of the underlying nature of the list: it is a navigational tool, designed to get users with a rough idea of a figure's name (or of its spelling) to the article with their bio, where info on them lies; conversely, it is not intended as a place for directly looking up info on those same people, and we make no effort to accommodate those trying to use it for that. (But we create an expectation on what to include, by using very seldom more than this very tolerable level of detail: time, nationality, and main cause of notability -- even where they are redundant: "WS (1564-1616), British playwright" is massive overkill, far beyond what is needed to distinguish him from all the other Shakespeares!)

If at all possible, we want some kind of year within the subject's life. Of course the gold standard is birth and death (tho only the articles distinguish month or day with a year), but when neither is available, we need some kind of date, for which we tend to bend the traditional usage of "floruit", avoiding the impedimenta of a range of years (or of decades or centuries) than help make the distinction. In the case of the "fl. 2000" you removed, it is better than nothing by eliminating confusion with similarly named Egyptologists of say 1940 or 1810. (Looking at her biblio, tho, i find "fl. late 20th century" more accurate -- and more helpful for distinguishing her from the "fl. c. 2000" one.)
Almost without exception we identify the main cause of notability, but keep it "low resolution": Physician, not pediatrician; politician, not usually their specific office(s); hockey player (notable athletes are too numerous not to have some indication of their respective sport), not field hockey backfielder. (Perhaps ignoring distinctions a bit cavalierly, i treat Egyptologist as simply the Egypt-focused species of archaeologist, and worry not whether the relative wealth of texts separates them from the dirt-sifters.)

_ _ I'm not satisfied that Gerry Harris is sufficiently notable for a bio (sometimes we talk about "the average professor" being "n-n", i.e., non-notable), but that's not your fault, nor would it mean your submitting it was wasted: IMO, your GH's bio will need a section listing works likely to be misattributed to her, if we sack the others bio.
_ _ So i guess i'm hoping for you to let me know

if our disagreement about "archaeologist" is simply abt your unfamiliarity with my "lo-res trmnlgy", and
if you'd agree that "fl. late 20th century" is better than nothing. (I'm not trying to wring a DoB out of you, especially since what we use is supposed to be verifiable, and it hardly makes sense to go about making it so.)

And you may well have questions for me.
_ _Thanks, and again welcome; don't worry that you need to establish yourself as a Wikipedian in order to accomplish your personal goals in cleaning up our GH mess, but it looks like you have the instincts of, well, care that make for good editing, and it looks like your subject expertises will be welcome. Those of us who are noticing you will be rooting for your sticking around.
--Jerzy•t 23:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaplin Society

FYI, this article has been nominated for deletion discussion Bwithh 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unabomber & Low-resolution terminology

Thanks for the Underwood brothers. As to the Unabomber, no one coming to List of people by name: Un is going to be helped reach his article by knowing his personal name, and that info is quite adequately accessible in the bio -- as is his death and injury toll, a more nuanced discussion (i assume) than LoPbN could conceivably accommodate of why he's described as a terrorist, the fact and nature of his doctorate, his current and prospective status, his fateful misjudgment that did him in, and, well, a full encyclopedic bio. Plz keep up the good work!
--Jerzy•t 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New AfD on LoPbN

Your continued good work on the LoPbN tree suggests you'd support its retention. At this moment, vote is 10 Del to 8 Keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people by name (2nd nomination). I would appreciate it, if you care to weigh in. Thanks in any case, and happy holidays.
--Jerzy•t 16:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Bristol

Hello, this is an invitation to join WikiProject Bristol.

Thank you for editing the article Bristol.

You may be interested in joining WikiProject Bristol. This WikiProject aims to improve the standard of all articles relating to Bristol, which includes all subdivisions of the city, major buildings, roads and other related articles.

You can help by:

Creating new articles.
Expanding stubs.
Adding photographs.
Referencing articles.
Research topics.
Anything else really...

For more information, see the project page, and if you have any questions you can leave them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol and someone will get back to you. — ~~~~

—Gasheadsteve 11:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnell

Hi- can you explain your edit to List of mayors of Portland, Oregon? I don't find any Allison Bonnells via Google that match Portland. Seems like an unusual name for a man, and I know Portland didn't have any female mayors that far back. -Pete 07:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Bonnell is redlinked as successor in the article Hugh O'Bryant. I have no better source ... Richard Pinch 16:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good 'nuff! Thanks. -Pete 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Ronald True

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ronald True, by Senordingdong, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ronald True seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ronald True, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Ronald True itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Office of Works

Greetings,

I notice you originally laid the groundwork for this article, and supplied some references on its history. Do you think you could supply a little more information on the composition of the Board of Works at various times? Beatson's Political Index, for instance, makes reference to a "Surveyor of Private Roads", alias "Keeper of the King's Private Roads, Gates and Bridges", a "Paymaster of the Board of Works", and a "Surveyor of Gardens & Waters, etc." It would be interesting to be able to describe some of these offices in brief. Yours, Choess 16:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness

I have been asked to do something about effective results in number theory, which has been a slow developer (well, we do at least have articles about the main results now, which wasn't true in 2003). It would be interesting to have, for example, something about how examples of the Mordell equation were solved post-Baker. Charles Matthews 20:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compton House redirect

Can you explain the significance of the Compton House redirect that you made. I wanted to send that redirect to Arthur H. Compton House. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.iciam07.ch. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 21:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Smith

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Archibald Smith, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.strath.ac.uk/archives/cat/jhill/asmithdnb.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Smith

Copyright problem: Archibald Smith

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Archibald Smith, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.strath.ac.uk/archives/cat/jhill/asmithdnb.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Archibald Smith and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Archibald Smith with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Archibald Smith.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Archibald Smith/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Archibald Smith saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Nburden ^(T) 21:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Inman

Thanks for adding information on James Inman -- I had been meaning to do this since I added his name to the Garsdale page. I will expand slightly when I get further information via some of his descendants who still live in Garsdale. Dbfirs (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Senior wranglers

I have nominated Category:Senior wranglers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More maths grads

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of More maths grads, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.moremathsgrads.org.uk. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Emma Wilson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Emma Wilson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Wilson. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Redfearn v. Serco Ltd

I've replied to the note you put up on the 2003 Reg's page. Any other way I can help, just ask! Wikidea 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for references

Howdy, thanks for supplying references and marking unreferenced articles. The state of references in our math articles is quite poor. I sometimes think we need a "referenced" tag instead to mark the few articles with adequate references. :)

BTW, I tend to prefer adding ==References== {{unref|date=Whatever}} to the bottom of the article (above external links if it has any) instead of at the top. It makes it clearer where to improve the article. It also works out nicely if one wants to use the {{refimprove}} template instead.

If you have access to MathSciNet, then there is a wonderful tool called zeteo by User:Jakob.scholbach for converting BiBTeX to wiki references (and making them reusable). JackSchmidt (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Glen Camp

I have made some changes to the page and responded to your original message on the talk page. Please take a look. Also, a note, I forgot to log in at the beginning of my editing session, so the edits from IP address 67.161.192.55 are me. Sorry about that, is there a way to go back and change that for the record? Thanks. SpadePrince —Preceding comment was added at 05:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary divisors

Hello. I see you created a new article titled elementary divisors. You started with the words "The elementary divisors of a module....", just as if you're assuming the reader is a mathematician and will know what that means. I put in the prefatory words "In algebra..." to notify the lay reader in advance that mathematics is what the article is to be about. In at least some cases, such a context-setting phrase is the reader's only way of knowing that.

The next editing question that comes to my mind is whether the article title ought to be singular? The page titled elementary divisor was a redirect to Smith normal form. I've changed it so that it redirects to the plural, ie. to your new article. The edit history for the singular is not altogether vacuous (i.e not just redirects or disambiguations), so the possibility of merging the two and their edit histories arises. I'm not adept at merging edit histories, but there seem to be some people for whom that's routine. Generally Wikipedia conventions prefer the singular in article titles except when there's a specific reason for using the plural. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminant of a number field

Hey There, it's nice to see someone adding stuff to Discriminant of an algebraic number field. I just had two questions. Firstly, I was wondering if you had a reference for the definition of root discriminant. I had never heard of it, it seems to be more prevalent on the computational and analytic sides of number theory (which I know less of), so the only book I have that I could find a definition of it in was Gras' book on Class Field Theory (which seems like a weird place to reference for such a definition). On a related note, can you think of any results or such that could be added to that section? Secondly, this is a much more nitpicky question, and I certainly don't have a strong opinion on the subject, but regarding your reference to Frolich-Taylor for the relative discriminant in a tower, I was wondering whether it would be better to replace that reference with one to Neukirch (Corollary III.2.10), since all other such references in this article are to Neukirch's book. This would make it easier for someone trying to look up statements, as they would only need to acquire (from a library say) one book. Sorry to be so verbose. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS stalking

Just to let you know, Michael Hardy edits virtually every article on my watchlist. A lot of us tend to patrol recently edited articles. For instance, if you make a change to a math article, Giftlite will come along soon and wikilink iff. I think most people would be pleased as punch if you patrolled recent edits and marked all the unreferenced math articles!

Anyways, I'll let M.H. speak for himself, but just generally speaking, he means no harm, and just has a particular facet of wikipedia style and policy that he enjoys fixing. Presumably he is annoyed today, as his edit summaries seem to reflect someone who is displeased at having thousands of articles to improve (in exactly the same way as he has done a thousand before), whereas I think normally it fills him with a sick sense of joy.

If you want to patrol, there are a couple of nice ways. New articles always need M.H.'s magic touch, and are listed at User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists. WP:WPM/CA lists lots of status changes for articles. List of mathematics articles has some nice recent changes lists, or you can do more subject oriented things like Special:RelatedChanges/Category:Algebra stubs (where I just added Matrix congruence to my watchlist). JackSchmidt (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IFS and Compression

Hi Richard, thanks for your suggestions for the IFS page. I've been editing that page for a long time and am happy to have your help, will definitely follow up on these. The page though that really needs attention is the related one on Fractal Compression. Please note in particular the talk threads starting at [1]. Thanks, Spot (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G_delta space

Dear Richard,

I would like to know why you wrote that a G_delta space is a space where every open set is a G-delta set. I would also like to know why you called a space, X, perfectly normal if X is normal and every open set is a G-delta set. Evidence that you wrote both these things can be found at:

[2]

According to 'your definition', the following statements hold:

Every space is a G-delta space

Every normal space is perfectly normal

If I am not mistaken, what you meant to say in both cases is the following:

A space X is a G_delta space if every closed set is a G_delta set

Anyway, I fixed this (see G_delta set). Perhaps you just weren't thinking when you wrote this.

Thanks

Topology Expert (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Richard. Just dropping by to say hello. It's nice to see you around here! You made some very nice Young diagrams for me in TeX back in the good old days, before Los Angelisation hit the fens. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Richard Pinch (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypotheses of Brun sieve

Hello! What's your source for the statement of Brun's pure sieve in Brun sieve? The first two hypotheses look wrong. If you compare with, for example, the book of Cojocaru and Murty that you cite, p. 86 Theorem 6.1.2, your first hypothesis is |R_d| \le w(d)/d where C&M have R(d) \le w(d), a much weaker condition. For your second hypothesis you have w(p)/p < C where C&M have w(p) < C, a much stronger condition. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have corrected the hypotheses and given a specific reference. --Uncia (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G delta space

I have been looking for references that use the term "G-delta space" for this type of space, but my limited collection doesn't have any. Do you know which field uses that terminology? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fast reply. I have that book right here, but I had looked at page 16 instead of page 162 (and neglected to look at the index after that). — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information: the article is much better with the inline citation. I still vaguely suspect that the majority of general topologists say perfect space to mean G-delta space, but the articles are now clear and sourced so that's good enough for me. Plclark (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to your comment on my talk page:

There is no page 162 is the book 'Counterexamples in topology'; if what you wrote is a typo, could you please tell me from which page you got your definition? I have browsed through the book and have not encountered the author/s using the term G-delta space.

I am sorry that I did not ask you what your citation was beforehand.

Topology Expert (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted to his talk page, also copied here

I am holding in my hand "Counterexamples in Topology", second edition by Lynn Arthur Steen and J. Arthur Seebach Jr. It is a yellow paperback published by Springer in 1978 with ISBN numbers 0-387-90312-7 and 3-540-90312. This is the reference I added to Gδ set in this edit (and which JackSchmidt changed to the Dover reprint, which I have not seen). The book is open at page 162, on which I see "A space in which every closed set is G_δ (or equivalently, every open set is F_σ) will be called a G_δ-space; a normal space which is also a G_δ-space is called (by Čech [29]) perfectly normal." This sentence is located in Part III, "Metrization Theory", in the second headed section "Basic Definitions". The term G_δ-space is in the index (p. 239) with a misprint but referring to page 162.

Furthermore, the Dover edition which is now in the references to that article happens to be accessible via Google books here. You will see that the highlighted sentence, on page162, is the one I quote. The term G_δ-space is again in the index (p. 239) with the misprint correct.

I am unable to understand how you can have failed to find this. If the book you have consulted has no page 162, then you simply cannot be looking at the right book.

Richard Pinch (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Richard,

I have seen your reference and I now believe you. I will strike out any wrong comments (regarding whether your definition is reliable) that I have made and I am sorry. Please understand ,though, that the only reason that my book has no page 162 is because I have the first edition.

Thanks

Topology Expert (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, glad to hear this is now sorted out. Richard Pinch (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lemniscates! :)

Hi Richard,

I've been meaning to return to the lemniscates for ages, so I'm super-happy that someone more qualified than me is tackling them — thank you! :) I agree with your suggestion of merging the lemniscate of Booth into hippopede. I toyed with that idea, too, but I didn't know enough and didn't want to discount anyone's hard work. I'm glad that our paths have crossed, see you around, Willow (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somersville Towne Center

I have quite recently expanded and properly sourced the Somersville Towne Center article. As I see you have participated in the deletion discussion, I would request that you review the article as it now stands. Thank you for your time and effort in this matter. - Dravecky (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

florence flea market 'conflict of interest'

I'm a freelance writer, and the owner of the flea market posted an ad on Guru.com seeking someone to write, and post, an article about his flea market to Wikipedia.

That is how the article came about.

Mjpeanut26 (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]