# User talk:CRGreathouse

## User : Drift chambers etc

category Reality also contains the article Potentiality and actuality

so perhaps there was a mistake on your part to remove this category, as at least some content of the article would in the future contain information relevant to this aspect of philosophy and would therefore be helpful to person's in navigation , so will be returning this category Drift chambers (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is useful to include because of the nature of infinity in the spatial infinite is that in an infinite universe the material elements are sharing a border with the supposed vacuum of empty space that is around the most outer stellar formations.→ [1][2]

will be returning Cat : Philosophy of Science on the grounds of this :

the stars etc of the universe (i.e. the stellar formations ) are availble to science to examine but infinity currently isn't (i.e. the furthest object observed by telescopy isn't the actual furthest universally) so is necessitated in science but also at the same time unavailable to scientific methods

will be returning Category : Belief on the grounds of these , with references available at → [3]

The notion of an infinite God, perfect in every way, is true of Christian belief. [34] God is defined as that which transcends the infinite Good, [86] The acceptance of the infinity of God is the decree of ecclesiastical dokein [88]

Drift chambers (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

in response to your reasoning that the categories were not useful to the understanding, be assured that the infinity itself is of no use at all, the term has no practical application (that is no practical application in science that might be of use so the term is useless in the world really - known of by this editor anyway, in respect to infinitity relevant to division i.e. the division of matter in science i.e. quantum physics) the concept is very much like the statement:

All art is quite useless.

O.Wilde ( contains adverts [4]) → [5]

Drift chambers (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Infinity is quite a useful concept, at least for mathematicians and probably for others. On the other hand, I don't see how adding that category would be. Certainly category membership is not transitive across links in the article -- I don't see why the article would merit the category just because Potentiality and actuality does. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

## Preon star

To avoid collapse into a black hole the mass m and radius r of a must satisfy

${\displaystyle r<{\sqrt {\frac {3c^{2}}{8G\pi \rho }}}}$

or equivalently

${\displaystyle m<{\sqrt {\frac {3c^{6}}{32G^{3}\pi \rho }}}}$

where G is the gravitational constant, c is Einstein's constant, and ρ is the density of the preon star. For ρ = 1023 kg/m3, this gives a radius of at most 40 m and a mass of at most 2.7×1028 kg.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, CRGreathouse. You have new messages at OwenX's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

## About the "Author" field in the {{MacTutor}} template

Hello, CRGreathouse. You have new messages at Template_talk:MacTutor#A_proposal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Daniele.tampieri (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

## Eidos RfC

Hello, there is an RfC concerning the Eidos page in which you have shown interest in the past. This is a small notification in case you may wish to take part in the discussion. Salvidrim! 20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you please explain how the following uses of rollback follow the rollback policy?

• Here, you revert the apparently innocuous change of "common" to "some".
• On Sieve of Eratosthenes, you rolled back a minor addition.
• In these three edits, you reverted an apparently sourced addition of content which unfortunately contained one sentence of original research. Couldn't you have just removed the comment?
• How does this follow the guidelines for rollback use?
• This was merely an inaccurate wording change.

Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

## Help desk item you might find of interest.

You may be interested (as de facto OEIS liason) in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#number of non-isomorphic hamiltonian cycle on n-cubes?.--RDBury (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

## MSU Interview

Dear CRGreathouse,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

## Your continued use of rollback

I see that you have made no response to Reaper Eternal's message above, and also that you have continued to use rollback in ways that do not, on the face of it, appear to comply with the provisions of Wikipedia:Rollback feature. For example, this and this both look like reverts of good faith edits, and I cannot see anywhere where you explained your reasons for those reverts. Please do explain why you think your use of rollback is acceptable, as a user has indicated that they think you have been abusing rollback, as you can see at User talk:WillNess. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There's not much to say -- when I edit (especially from mobile devices) my fat finger often hits "rollback" instead of "undo". Occasionally I make a null edit to explain, but usually it's not worth the hassle. Certainly whenever it becomes an issue I discuss it on the Talk page.
I wasn't aware that that WillNess was mounting this sort of campaign against me, thanks for pointing that out.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

## Sikorav

Hi, Please restore the page Jean-Claude Sikorav if you get a chance. Tkuvho (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like CBM already did. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

## Block this IP

To prevent accidental vandalism, please place a block on this IP [anon-only, account creation enabled] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.204.34 (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

## Akritas2's edits

Hi,

I acknowledge the revert of Akritas2's edits you have done in Sturm's theorem. There is a similar problem in Root-finding algorithm (see [6]). Could you look at this?

Also, Budan's theorem is a page written by Akritas2, which is entirely devoted to the personal views of Akritas on the history of mathematics. What to do with it?

D.Lazard (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently familiar with the material at Budan's theorem to be comfortable editing there. My conclusion was the same as yours, but I feel out of place making changes without more topic knowledge.
I've been thinking about how to address the issue at Root-finding algorithm where I am more knowledgeable. I'm not sure if the material should be reverted, shortened, or rewritten. As I'm able I will make edits there.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks D.Lazard (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I am astonished that the author of the Sturm article claims that Sturm's method is available "in every computer algebra system". That is simply not true; he admits as much by claiming in his other article on root finding algorithms that maple has the Vincent-Collins-Akritas method as the default method! Mathematica, always had the VAS algorithm. (S works for Mathematica.) Sage also, etc etc ...

Besides, Sturm's method is to be compared with other methods; why does he not want this comparison? I believe that Lazard (whom I have never met or interacted with in the past) is the one who tries to impose HIS limited point of view on the readers. Besides, (assuming good intentions) his knowledge of English did not allow him to differentiate (in the article on root finding algorithms) between "Uspesnky's method" and "modified Uspensky's method" and he thought the two were interchangeable.

Also, on Sturm's theorem he talks about bounds and the only one that came to his mind was what he calls Cauchy's bound; Cauchy gave a bound ONLY on the positive roots and NOT on the absolute value of the roots. The mathematicians of the 19th century knew better. See my article on root bounds and Bourdon's algebra.

In summary, I have only ADDED material to the above mentioned articles and DID NOT ERASE anything Lazard wrote. I expect the same courtesy from him as well. He got his point and I have mine and I think both need to be taken into consideration. But we both have to write accuracies. So, I expect Sturm's method to be reverted to the previous version where I was saying that Sturm's method was used by "everybody until about 1980 --- when it was replaced by methods derived from Vincent's theorem", along with the supporting references.

And I close with the following: If Lazard does not like anything on my Budan article he should say so and explain the reason he does not like it. Saying that the article is "... entirely devoted to the personal views of Akritas on the history of mathematics" proves nothing; he should tell us his own views -- if he has any. My views have already been judged by peers.

Alkis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akritas2 (talkcontribs) 10:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're discussing matters! But the best place for that is on the Talk pages of the affected articles, not here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

## Talk:Yerba mate

A move discussion has started again on the article: Talk:Yerba mate#Requested move: ? Ilex paraguariensis. I am notifying you since you expressed an opinion in the topic in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

## Talk:Mate (beverage)

A move discussion has started again on the article: Talk:Mate (beverage)#Requested Move: ? Maté. I am notifying you since you expressed an opinion in the topic in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

## Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of conjectures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Hales (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

## Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

## The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

## Firoozbakht's conjecture

Please explain at the article talk page why you are attempting to reinstate this material. Repeatedly reinserting this material without discussion or explanation, and against a consensus achieved at the talk page, is Wikipedia:Edit warring. Deltahedron (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any discussion. I still don't see anything -- perhaps somewhere above, mixed in with other topics?
Further, I haven't seen any justification for the removal of the sourced material here. Should I take this to WP:DRN, or shall we discuss it here?
CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems hard to believe you have not seen this in which I explain the problems with your proposed material.
You need to obtain consensus before inserting this. Please revert this yourself and show willing to discuss the issues at the article talk page. Your constant reinsertion of the same text against consensus and without discussion is clear edit warring. Deltahedron (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't, thanks for the pointer. I'll respond there. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
In future, read the article talk page and achieve consensus before inserting this material. If you reinstate this material in its present form without addressing the issues raised at the talk page and achieving consensus there, the next stop is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Deltahedron (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

## Ping

Your input is requested at WT:WPM#Draft:Reckless Xi function. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've recently done some revamping at Jevons paradox and would appreciate it if you had a look. Also, someone has apparently taken umbrage that the article doesn't declare that Jevons paradox dooms us all and there's nothing we can do about it, and has nominated the article for GA reassessment. As a co-sponsor of the original GA, it would be great if you could comment.[7] Best, LK (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See my Talk message to Temeku here: [8]. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Much thanks for your prompt action. LK (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

## The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

## Extended confirmed protection

 Hello, CRGreathouse. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy. Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas. In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions: Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort. A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard. Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)