User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Aside conversion regarding discussion on Talk:University of Michigan[edit]

I decided this portion of my response to the Talk:University of Michigan#bigoted vandalism discussion would probably be better placed here.

I know I can't speak for everyone that took part in this discussion last time, but I don't feel that we intended to deny that the bigotry you experience exists and apologize if it came off that way. I feel that (as I mentioned last time) you're hearing from the vocal minority of people that may call themselves "Michigan Fans." Consider this: It would be remiss of me to assume that everyone affiliated with the Ohio State University are bigots because of the number of vandalism attacks received on Wikipedia articles related to the University of Michigan and verbal attacks I have received from their so called "fans" over several years.

In addition, I do feel offended when I feel I am being called an idiot or bigot since they are very strong words. You may want to review WP:Etiquette which explains that using labels can put people on the defensive which makes discussion difficult. I would also highly recommend that you read WP:CIVIL since your last contribution to the discussion comes across as being uncivil.

Hopefully with the time off since the last discussion on this topic everyone will be more civil. --Terryfoster 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously it was not you that I was calling an idiot or a bigot. It was the person who vandalized the U of M disambiguation page.

More on this later...... Michael Hardy 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi Michael, thanks for making my stub on dialectica spaces conform to wikipedia conventions and for stopping its speedy deletion, when it didn't conform. as you probably noticed I'm just learning the conventions, so apologies if here is not the place to say "thank you". Valeria.depaiva 15:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Science Fiction. I'm working on becoming a pro writer, I work at an SF bookstore (in addition to doing freelance web dev, graphics, programming and journalism, according to my business card), and a large number of my friends are pros (and notable enough to be on wikipedia) so I've taken to shanghai-ing them at cons and social events for pics to release. :-) --Thespian 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me?[edit]

I wrote this to an editor who keeps harassing me. Can you help me?

why do you not like me? why are you so mean? why do you make me sad?

I mean no harm. I love numbers. Gauss proved all numbers interesting. Why are you mean to me? Why you make me sad? I am new here. I thought people are supposed to be nice. why not nice? please explain. AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC) AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC) AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC) AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the above you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alfred Legrand. CM (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions on many articles that have helped me for school. (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Randolph.mike (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Randolph.mike

You're welcome; I'm glad someone finds them useful. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction. Thank you.

That contentious circle business[edit]

The items you added are NOT metaphorical circles; they belong under either "artifacts" or "glyphs and symbols" depending on which sort they are. Something that has a circular shape and is included for that reason belongs under "artifacts" or "glyphs and symbols". When one speaks of Sigmund Freud's "inner circle" then that is a metaphorical circle; it does not have a physically circular shape. Michael Hardy 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Artifacts, glyphs and symbols may be renderings of metaphors by metaphorical extension. We simply have different working definitions and knowledge areas. Inclusion not exclusion is key. Extract from this 'category list' and inaugurate another specific mathematical list ensuring that the category heading specifically mentions mathematical exclusivity; then we will have no bone of contention. BTW... refer: Charles Sanders Peirce
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they may have metaphorical meaning, but their circular shape is not metaphorical; it's their actual physical shape. Michael Hardy 00:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I've rephrased the introduction to the article to read as follows:
This list of circle topics includes things related to the geometric shape, either abstractly, as in idealizations studied by geometers, or concretely in physical space. It does not include things like "inner circle" in which the word has no reference to the geometric shape.
Michael Hardy 00:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
To nail it within an inch of its life: I employed "metaphor" as conceptual metaphor. If we create a common ground, plane (mathematics), temenos, kshetra where all our dialogue could be accomodated and entertained, what would be the parameters and its quantification? Shall we keep the point in play and not push other teams off the field?
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 00:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mathematical series[edit]


The sum of an infinite series a0 + a1 + a2 + … is the limit of the sequence of partial sums
as n → ∞, if the partial sums converge to a finite value. If so, the series is said to converge; otherwise the series is said to diverge.

I had changed this, and you had undone the changes, perhaps editing my talk page would have been more helpful? I had changed this from two sentences to one. The first sentence is a defintion, the second starts with "If so". Consider these two sentences:

The result of 2+2 is 4. If so, great, otherwise...

I think it can only be made sense of if you are saying something about the framework in which we define things:

The result of 2+2 is 4. If so, we are not living in a totalitarian state, otherwise, you'd better hope they do it to Julia.

I believe it should read something like:

The sum.... as n → ∞. If the sum converges to a finite value, the series is said to converge, otherwise it is said to diverge.

If my understanding of the maths is incorrect, then it should read:

The sum.... as n → ∞, if the partial sums converge to a finite value. If the partial sums converge to a finite value, the series is said to converge, otherwise the series is said to diverge.

In this way the second sentence does not depend on the first sentence being true. Also note that I removed the ; and replaced with a ,

BananaFiend 09:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:
The sum of an infinite series a0 + a1 + a2 + … is the limit of the sequence of partial sums
as n → ∞, if the partial sums converge to a finite value, the series is said to converge; otherwise the series is said to diverge.
It said "A if B, C". Whether that meant
* A is true if B is true,
* if B is true then C is true
could not be discerned. So I changed it. Michael Hardy 14:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that it has now been changed. However, as can be seen, I did understand (I should also have split it into two sentences as I did above, though I disagree the meaning could not be discerned). Your comment was unwarranted, and as a respected editor I would hope that you would consider previous edits carefully. Except in cases of vandalism, insults when undoing cheapen wikipedia and discourage participation. BananaFiend 10:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry? Your unwarranted hostility and assumption of bad faith are beyond measure. I closed the discussion merely because it was deleted, and passed no judgment on the article. I demand you to retract your blatantly false and deceptive statements regarding my involvement. —Kurykh 03:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am utterly sick of the incessant holier-than-thou attitude of illiterate crackpot vandals whose only purpose in life is to delete Wikipedia articles because they're unwilling to understand what they're about. This is such a case. When you saw that the article had been deleted improperly, other courses of action were open to you. Michael Hardy 03:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
So it is my fault because my actions reflected reality? It is not my responsibility that the article was deleted. My closure was to only reflect the situation, not because it was done improperly. Perhaps you could have politely asked Sr13 or me to undelete the article because it was deleted by unusual means, but your initial (and still ongoing, for reasons unknown to all but you) incivility and personal attacks deserve widespread ridicule. —Kurykh 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion when some people are arguing in favor of keeping the article is clearly forbidden. The deletion was vandalism. It was not just "unusual" it was improper. If someone inserts the word "fuck" in a random location in the middle of an article, I could ask that person politely to revise it. If I describe it as "vandalism" you could then complain that by using that word I am uncivil and hostile. It's exactly parallel to the present situation. Michael Hardy 03:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not parallel by a wide margin. What you essentially did was bawl at me for doing a housekeeping task. Shameful. —Kurykh 03:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Michael, what Kurykh did was simply performing the formality of inserting the "close" tag (so that the discussion could be archived). The article was deleted by Sr13 more than half a day before, not by Kurykh. Perhaps you need a wiki-vacation or something. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was ongoing and should not have been archived. The deletion was an instance of something clearly forbidden; it was vandalism, not a good-faith edit. Michael Hardy 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion HAD been ongoing, a sufficient consensus HAD developed, and your wheel-warring, logic-chopping Wikilawyering, and objectively false characterization of what happened as "vandalism" makes me question your suitability to hold the admin bit. I've re-added the AFD tag and reopened the discussion, and in about half-a-day it'll comply with your over-legalistic interpretation of guidelines. If you have a reality- and/or policy-based objection, now might be the time to make it. Calton (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To say that a sufficient consensus had been reached is absurd nonsense. Michael Hardy 05:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's add "sputtering and hand-waving" to the list above.
Meantime, a math test, regarding the claims of this being improperly closed.:
  • Opening of AFD: 14:53, July 26, 2007
  • Deletion of article: 08:36, July 31, 2007
  • Elapsed time: 4 days, 17 hours, 17 minutes
  • Length of time this was "closed early": 6 hours, 53 minutes
  • Number of "Delete" votes: 6
  • Number of "Keep" votes: 1
  • Actual improvements/changes to article during course of AFD:
  • One addition of new factoid: [1]
As I said, if you have actual reality- and/or policy-based objections, now might be the time to make them. --Calton | Talk 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
(EC) The debate has now run for several additional hours (it was only closed a few hours early to begin with, that's pretty routine, we usually don't measure them down to the minute), and you've reversed three closes thus far. I would very much like to remind you that wheel warring is very much disallowed and has gotten people desysopped, and really is bad practice. We have DRV if you disagree with the close, but just continually undeleting isn't the way to go. (As I do believe very strongly that wheel warring is harmful, I will not delete again, but would strongly encourage you not to reverse any additional closes.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The way AfD is run needs to be scrapped completely and started over. I'm sick of the fact that the kind of people who hang around there are allowed to be considered good people. They're illiterate bullies. They hate people who have studied and who know something. There are lots of people there who just go around deleting stuff on the grounds that they're unwilling to be familiar with the subject matter. Most people on Wikipedia are the opposite of that. Michael Hardy 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You say I've reversed closes before. Be specific. I am not aware of such cases. I am aware of pointing out on previous occasions that those who spend most of their time on AfD are misanthropes not interested in anything.

Last I heard before today, the standard was seven days, not five. As for consensus, in the first place, the pool was minuscule, and in the second place, actually having heard of the subject matter before ought to count for something. Furthermore, it ought to be required to notify the relevant subject matter communities. That was not done. Michael Hardy 06:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Last I heard before today, the standard was seven days, not five - From the first two sentences of the Articles for Deletion page:
Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for up to five days [emphasis mine], after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus.
It even says "up to", not "a minimum of". At this point, your batting average on application of policy, guidelines, and even ordinary facts is hovering around .000. Perhaps when you're in a hole, it's best to stop digging. --Calton | Talk 06:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, last I heard it said seven days, not five. That's a fact. I don't keep up with amendments to these sorts of things.

The system is badly broken. A good faith editor urging deletion would not have notified the relevant subject-matter communities. In this case it was voted on only by outsiders to the relevant fields. Michael Hardy 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

List of cicle topics[edit]

Hi Michael. A just did a major revert at List of circle topics, which appears to have overtaken an edit you were making at the same time. You have a long history with this article. Feel free to fix as you deem best. Sorry about that! I have also cleaned up the talk page. Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning on Wheel warring[edit]

Let me preface this by stating when I deleted the page, I had done so from viewing the AFD, I had not seen the AN/I thread, nor previous deletion history.

Your actions are clearly and undeniably a wheel war. You have restored a page that has overwhelming consensus to delete at AFD THREE TIMES simply because you believe the outcome should have been different. This is entirely unacceptable behavior for a sysop. Heaping abuse on "deletionists" is not an acceptable response when you dislike the outcome of an AFD. Perhaps you should question your own sense of righteousness here: the community obviously begs to differ. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You're the second person to make this "three times" assertion. Did you just copy it from the first? Why can't you be specific? Michael Hardy 06:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Because it is clear from the logs. [2] You restored three times. Once at 22:46 August 5, Once at 01:21 august 6, and once at 01:35 August 6. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this one today was not one with an overwhelming consensus to delete. This was one where the relevant subject-matter communities were never even notified.

Most people who opine on AfD are good people. Most people who edit Wikipedia are good people. Most people who hang around AfD all the time are bad people. Something in the system encourages that. AfD protocols need to get scrapped completely and replaced. Michael Hardy 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That isn't THREE occasions; it's one. I restored an improperly deleted article. AFTER someone OTHER THAN ME reopened the discussion, I restored it again because obviously the article needs to be there in order to get discussed. What are the other two articles you're referring to? Be specific. Michael Hardy 06:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I never once said 3 articles. I said the same article 3 times. It was not improperly deleted in the first place, but irregardless the venue for that is DRV, not unilateral undeletion. Then after it was deleted again, you restored, causing a wheel war. Then, after I deleted it (not having seen this) you restored again, wheel warring again, putting yourself in 3RR danger, and clearly being disruptive. The community obviously does not share your opinion of this article. You need to respect it. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not the one who reopened the discussion; someone else was. Michael Hardy 06:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It should have gone to DRV, not been restored, not been reopened. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheel warring[edit]

You have been wheel warring over the deletion of Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. Kindly cut that out. We have discussion forums for that kind of thing. Specifically, if you dissent with a deletion, you can bring it up for review here. >Radiant< 11:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a set-up. Your initial statement is dishonest. The restoration of a deleted page and reopening of a closed discussion was proposed by persons other than me and agreed to by persons other than me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents; the discussion was reopened on the AfD page by persons other than me; I handled that other aspect of it. Then those same people who agreed to it and participated in it accuse me of "wheel warring". That is grossly dishonest. Michael Hardy 16:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that you have been wheel warring is literal fact, as plain from the page deletion logs (and I note that in one case you didn't even bother to enter an undeletion summary). Reversing other admin actions without discussion is bad form. Doing it three times in a row is worse form. And in your attacks here you seem to be confusing me with those people who agreed and participated in "it". >Radiant< 16:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Even if that is the case, we have a place for that: it's called DRV. There is a section for temporary undeletions for discussion. You being an administrator for a significant length of time should have been aware of this. Not to mention the lack of good faith in accusing this as a "setup". Are the wikipedia policies now part of a conspiracy against you? SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention when you restored MY deleted version, your argument falls flat: When I deleted it, it was because the AFD had ALREADY BEEN CLOSED by Seraphimblade as delete. The AFD was closed, there was no further discussion. You restored it but a minute or two later, without ANY discussion. THAT is the definition of a disruptive wheel war. SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael, could you cite with diffs to provide evidence to back up what you are claiming? Everything I read completely contradicts what you suggest. First of all, you undeleted the article with the comment:

  1. 02:46, August 6, 2007 Michael Hardy (Talk | contribs) restored "Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture" (68 revision(s) restored: This was improperly deleted without discussion. The edit summary by user:Sr13 that said "after discussion" was dishonest.)

and then left a comment at at WP:AN/I a few minutes later

It was then reopened by Calton (talk · contribs) at 04:47, August 6, 2007 (diff), with the comment, "reopening AFD to deal with unilateral undeletion".

Only two people suggested (and one assented) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents#Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture that the debate remain open [3] [4] [5].

The thing, you did, despite any attempt to say otherwise, undelete the article without discussion. Only after you posted to WP:AN/I did anyone suggest that the discussion be reopened (after which Calton reopened it). You wheel warred. You undid another administrators' action without consensus. You did not, however, reopen the AfD discussion. Do you deny this?

So, in other words, this recent comment of yours to WP:AN/I is absolutely false. Correct? Contrary to the comment,

"I did not restore the article until AFTER other persons proposed and agreed to reopening the discussion and one of them actually did reopen it"

a correct comment would be:

"I restored the article BEFORE other (three) persons agree to reopneing the discussion and one of them actually did reopen it"

Is this correct? If not, where was the discussion, and where are the diffs that verify the timeframe that you propose? --Iamunknown 18:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is what happened: After only three days of discussion, during which no people knowledgeable or interested in the topic had commented, since the relevant communities had never been notified per standard practice, someone decided that there should be what is called a "speedy deletion" while there was disagreement about whether to keep the article. I seem to recall that in fact only six people had commented, not one of whom was part of the informed community. "Speedying" such a thing is not proper---it is forbidden---and I restored the article. Then I complained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboad/incidents]]. Someone proposed reopening and someone else agreed, and I think at least three people were in agreement, not including me, and one of them then DID reopen the discussion. Then someone else deleted the article again, inconsistently with that new consensus, so I restored it and am now accused of "wheel warring" while those others involved are not.

The usual practice involves notifying the relevant communities. That was not done. Very likely no one who is knowledgeable about or interested in the article's topic besides me has posted on the AfD page on this article.

I don't contribute to articles about how to do open heart surgery, unless it's things like spelling corrections, adding a link, conforming to style conventions, etc., because I know nothing about that subject. The fact that "anyone can edit" in no way means that "anyone SHOULD edit" when they don't know anything about the topic. But among those who spend all their time on the AfD page, it is customary to angrily demand that those who actually know something about a subject bow down and act like plantation slaves addressing their masters. That's wrong. Michael Hardy 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you take this article to deletion review as several people have suggested. Discussion there, on a page that is much higher-traffic than an individual AfD, will not only allow additional eyes to review the article, but provide a forum for your concerns that input from subject-field specialists should be sought when articles in fields such as mathematics are proposed for deletion. Both your concerns about the deletion process and views of the merits of this specific article can there be presented, free from an atmosphere where one of the major concerns raised is about the extraneous matter of your own admin actions. My own input on the DRV, if there is one, is likely going to be to overturn the deletion and either relist or keep the article. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was fine with reopening the AfD, and when it closed, that was it. I was not fine with you wheel-warring, and nor is anyone else. —Kurykh 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What you call my "wheel warring" was part of reopening the discussion. And the reopening never properly happened, since the notice to the relevant communities didn't get there until after it had been reclosed. Your use of the word "fine" was insincere and dishonest. It was fraud. Michael Hardy 20:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop framing AfD at your whim. There is no requirement to notify anyone or anything except the article itself. You're making stuff up. —Kurykh 20:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
And I have a life outside of AfD and deleted articles (and, for that matter, Wikipedia), so go to WP:DRV and air your grievances there instead of ranting at me for a perceived farcical injustice. —Kurykh 20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether there is a requirement in AfD rules is a separate question. The subject matter makes it required by prudence, and it is normally and routinely done, and you first agreed to it, calling it "fine" (your word) and then acted as if it took you by surprise, calling it "desperate", as if you hadn't expected it and hadn't agreed to it. It was the proposed purpose of reopening and you called it "fine". Then you turned around and denied all that. And acquiesced in closing the thing again BEFORE the purpose of reopening could take effect. Michael Hardy 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem confused. It is not "normally and routinely done"; that would be a regurgitation of baseless assumptions. I said your canvassing was "desperate," so you're just building straw men. Implicitly calling me a hypocrite (an absurd suggestion by someone grasping at straws) does not bring you honor or sympathy, only ridicule and reprimand. —Kurykh 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed normally and routinely done when any of the articles in any of the subcategories of the mathematics category is on AfD. The purpose of reopening was so that it could be done in this case and you called that "fine". Then you renegged on that before the listings on those talk pages were even put there. Then you act as if you hadn't agreed to those listings and as if closing before they could be done was consistent with your word "fine". Even if you were right that it's not normally and routinely done, the fact is you first agreed to it, calling it "fine", and then renegged on that and acted as if you hadn't expected it and called it a sign of desperation, rather than the main point of the plan that you called "fine". Michael Hardy 21:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I already said that I called your canvassing (as shown with a link) as a desperate act. I will not repeat myself. Confusing and twisting the facts is your prerogative, but presenting them as truth is misleading and, frankly, stupid. The world doesn't work like "repeat a lie a thousand times and it will become truth." —Kurykh 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Stay away from my talk page until you get your facts straight. All future blind rantings on that page will be instantly reverted. You may return when you start making sense. —Kurykh 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You lie. You called my proposed action "fine" when it was proposed and "desperate" when it was actually done. Michael Hardy 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are continuing to misrepresent the situation. It was not speedily deleted. It was deleted as a snowball delete after an abbreviated AFD. That is considerably different than a speedy deletion. The speedy deletion has no review other than the deleting admin: it's just deleted on the spot. A snowball delete occurs when after review at AFD there is extreme clear consensus that the article will be deleted (i.e. it has not a snowballs chance in hell of staying).

So it was not, as you say, a speedy deletion, but EVEN IF IT WAS, THE PROPER ACTION WAS TO TAKE IT TO DRV, NOT TO WHEEL WAR. (caps for emphasis). I can't make it any clearer than that. You did the wrong thing, your explanations are not up to par, and you haven't said "look I screwed up, it won't happen again" but instead you're saying "No, I was right, policy is wrong, and I'm going to make up new policies to justify my actions". There is no part of AFD that says the appropriate wikiprojects have to be notified of a deletion. None whatsoever. It has NEVER been a policy as far as I can understand, certainly not in the past nearly 2 years that I've been around. Your representation of that as some sort of requirement, or some sort of reasoning that the deletion is invalid is absolutely incorrect, and has no basis in reality. I implore you, visit the main AFD page some time and read the deletion policies there. You won't find the one you're citing; it doesn't exist. SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was a policy in AfD regulations; I said it was a standard and customary practice with math articles and required not by AfD policy but by conscientious use of common sense. I also said that something in the policies results in mean-spirited destructive people spending all of their time on AfD, so we need to look at why that's happening. Possibly a policy requiring at least 2/3 of everyone's edits to be elsewhere than on AfD would be a first approximation to something useful. Michael Hardy 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My best guess is that most editors spend less than 1/3 of their edits on AFD. I certainly do, this is my first foray into it in quite some weeks. As for your dislike for editors who spend all their time on AFD, while you may not like it, it's not a reason for deletion either. SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review[edit]

In an effort to bring some closure to this situation, I've started a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_6#Infinite_monkey_theorem_in_popular_culture. Since I'm in part representing your arguments, I invite you to clarify or add anything in case I missed something. Regards.--Chaser - T 22:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I don't even know who you're talking about in your primary comment in the DRV, but let's please not turn this into personal bickering, round II. We've done that already, and the result was zero benefit to the encyclopedia and lots of heat wasted on talk pages.--Chaser - T 03:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your language[edit]

I have made some suggestions above regarding how we can move forward with this particular deletion debate (in which I am inclined to support your position regarding the article) as well as addressing your suggestions for improving the deletion process. However, uncivil remarks such as calling another administrator a "liar" are not going to be even the slightest bit helpful. Please refrain from making any more comments of that nature again. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't an "uncivil remark"; it was a considered accusation. Michael Hardy 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge we've never interacted before on this project, but I strongly encourage you to listen to Newyorkbrad's advice. The wheel warring was bad enough, adding uncivil accusations against other admins is not helping. I suggest you step away from Wikipedia for at least a few hours until you're calmer. WjBscribe 22:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
So what is the proper way to formally accuse him of lying about this, if not simply by stating that he's lying? I don't understand how it can be viewed as other than lying when he first says a proposed reopening for the purpose of allowing people in the relevant communities to comment is "fine", then closes it after a couple more people post only to show off the fact that they know the word "bilge" and then says I'm "desperate" because I followed through on the plan that he called "fine" and acts as if when he called the plan "fine" he didn't expect me to go through with the plan that he later called "desperate" after first calling it "fine". He attempted to gain my goodwill by fraud. Fraud is a serious matter. Michael Hardy 22:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
For chrissake it's a freakin encyclopedia. Calm down, seriously. SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Sr13 deleted the article saying "Deleted after discussion at Articles for Deletion" [6] after close to 5 days at AfD. Sr13 forgot to close the AfD page which had 7 !votes. This is a normal amount and there were 6 delete including nominator and only 1 keep. Kurykh closed the AfD page saying "The result was speedy close. Already deleted by Sr13".[7] I think it should have said "The result was delete", and I suspect that was Sr13's intention considering it was close to common AfD time. At ANI Kurykh said "That's fine with me" about the possibility of a new AfD.[8] Calton reopened the existing AfD "to deal with unilateral undeletion" [9]. Seraphimblade and not Kurykh closed the reopened AfD as delete[10] and deleted the article. You reopened it [11], and Krimpet closed it [12] and deleted the article. Kurykh has never deleted the article and only closed the AfD the first time when the article had already been deleted. It was nominated for AfD by Eyrian [13] who didn't notify a WikiProject. That is actually common. Often somebody else does it or it happens automatically due to categorization. It didn't happen this time which is unfortunate but not a policy violation. I see no reason to think that Sr13 or Kurykh were aware that no WikiProject had been notified, and without notification, I'm guessing there would have been no more AfD comments if the article had remained the extra hours to reach 5 full days. PrimeHunter 06:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Close enough. Actually, ater Seraphimblade closed it, I was the one that deleted. After Michael restored it, that's when Krimpet closed and re-deleted it. SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Seraphimblade closed and then deleted the article the next minute. Michael restored it the next minute and you deleted it (which I missed). Michael restored it again and Krimpet deleted it. PrimeHunter 20:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? I must have missed his delete. Still, the end result is essentially the same. SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

A more useful question[edit]

All this happened because it had been made to at least appear to be an improper "speedy" deletion. It said "speedy close" and appeared to be happening after three days. So what would be the proper course of action for an adminstrator in case of an actual improper speedy deletion, if not restoring the article? Michael Hardy 20:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Restoring it once is one thing, if you genuinely believe something inappropriate has been done. (Though even then, it would probably be more appropriate to take it to DRV, especially since the discussion consensus pretty clearly was to delete at that point.) But when someone else comes along and says "No, this was fine", you don't just keep undeleting it. Reversing once is one thing, but reversing three actions from three different people is the textbook definition of a wheel war. When that's happening, it's time to start thinking "Hrm, maybe this wasn't as inappropriate as I thought, or at least several people apparently think it wasn't, it's something for deletion review rather than continued unilateral action." Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They didn't come along and say "no this is fine"; they just deleted without appearing to know what was happening. This was all within a few minutes. Only later did someone come along and say an improper speedy is not what happened. Michael Hardy 20:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Then once again, take it to DRV. That's what you do if you believe something was deleted in error but there's no readily obvious consensus on that point (or in this case, the consensus in the discussion clearly was to delete.) But you don't just reverse several deletions by several different people, by that point it should be clear that there is not a readily apparent consensus that the article must be undeleted. We're not talking about someone deleting Earth here; from the AfD, there was certainly significant support that the article should be deleted, and several different people read it and saw that very thing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the first step should have been to contact the deleting admin. That could clear things up if the admin or you had misunderstood something. If no agreement can be made there then take it to DRV. PrimeHunter 00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself[edit]

...with WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:FAITH. Frankly the tone of your comments lately has been entirely inappropriate. Try focusing on the issue at hand, rather than on people who you think may have wronged you - it's way more productive that way, and we are an encyclopedia after all. >Radiant< 08:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying that a person who was in fact dishonest is dishonest is not incivility. Michael Hardy 16:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You are effectively saying that circumstances justify your incivility. I agree that this is sometimes the case. I don't see it here; not even close. The tortured justifications for this repeated and destructive accusation is unhelpful and rather bizarre, and I hope it does not continue. Ideally, by your own free decision to settle down, as everyone requests.
Cheers Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I was saying that the cirucstances justify my accusations. Michael Hardy 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
And the point is that they don't. Pot and kettle. Perceived incivility by other parties does not excuse incivility by you. Your claim that "the other guy started it", regardless whether or not it's true, is not an excuse. >Radiant< 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not "perceived incivility" followed by incivility from me; it was an act of dishonesty followed by an accusation from me. And if I'm wrong about that, it doesn't change the fact that accusing someone of something is different from incivility. After I complained about an improper speedy deletion, someone else said "let's re-open the AfD", then another person expressed his agreement with that, then someone did re-open it; then the person who had expressed his agreement turned against his earlier agreement and accused me of abuses because I participated in the re-opened AfD that he had agreed to reopen. (I don't remember who actually proposed re-opening it or who did re-open it.) Michael Hardy 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Your accusation that I have made multiple delete votes on that article is nonsense. If you had taken anything near the slightest attempt to maybe count or read, you'll see I've only voted once on the article. Your conduct surrounding this whole event is outrageous. You really should evaluate whether you have the proper temperament to remain a Wikipedia administrator. SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

35W bridge[edit]

OK, my mistake :). Chris! my talk 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please know that I have given your comments exactly the amount of consideration they deserve. Otto4711 22:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ford.circles.gif listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ford.circles.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Angr 15:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists[edit]

Dear editor:

Given your extensive experience here on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your input on the following topic:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic.


Sidatio 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NYU in popular culture[edit]

This article was recently deleted and I am submitting it for deletion review. As I see you supported keeping Yale in popular culture - an article almost exactly the same as NYU in popular culture - please support me in restoring this page. As the creator of the page I plan on bringing it to the level of Wikipedia in culture should it be restored. Please comment on the process here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_14#NYU_in_popular_culture. Your support is appreciated. Thanks. -- Noetic Sage 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Infinite monkey theoerem[edit]

I've responded to the argument that was presented. I'd love to see a successful popular culture article, but per the reasons I've given at the AfD, I'm not sure if one is truly possible, considering the scope of the topic. Such an article would be better written in prose, because it seems that a list format for indirectly connected topics just pulls in original contributions. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 20:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

handfasting question[edit]

I highly doubt that it does; in classical world, women were 'lead' into marriage, handed off from the father to the husband, and in both greece and rome the ceremonies involved taking them by the hand (although in greece, it seems to be more grasping them by the wrist, and in rome, the couple would hold hands). It was part of the iconography of marriage. Here are some examples: I wouldn't venture to guess if the modern phrase is decended from that idea...but if I were forced to lay a bet on it, I'd put my money on it just being one of those associations that crop up across cultures and times, just some quirk of the human mind. It could also be that it is decended from some era's conscious emulation of something mentioned in classical literature (like the wedding ring on the left hand probably is). Novium 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

dashes in very low drag[edit]

I was just looking at your edit for Terminal ballistics and wondered why you added dashes to very low drag to make it very-low-drag? I've never seen it used that way in firearms literature, so I was curious. Arthurrh 01:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

See hyphen, and in particular the "examples of usage" section in that article. The more traditional way of using hyphens is useful and is a magnificently efficient way of conveying information. Michael Hardy 01:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but very unnatural for this particular term. I've never seen very low drag done that way in any firearms literature at all. There's a lot to be said for putting things in a way that matches common usage. Arthurrh 02:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hermite constant[edit]

Hello Michael,

I appreciate your interest in Hermite constant. A note about notation: I agree with the general principle that low-level commands at the html level are preferable to fancy math environments if the latter can be avoided. However, the square root of γ that currently appears at Hermite constant really does not look like a proper square root. There is a way of making an overline in html but I wonder if it is worth the time. In other words, one should either use proper html, or a math environment, it seems to me. Katzmik 07:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may intrude: Although √γn is not as beautiful inline as one would see in a TeX document, we are not dealing with a TeX document. The machinery we have will insist on creating an image for the formula, and that image will have an inflexible size and will be vertically centered rather than aligned with the text baseline. One consequence is that when a user needs to increase or decrease the displayed size of the text fonts, the mathematics cannot adapt. Our best compromise until we can incorporate MathML is to use HTML or wiki markup as much as possible inline, and relegate the TeX to displayed formulae. In fact, we routinely ensure consistency of displayed equation appearance by ending the formula with "\,\!".
It is impractical to use the CSS "style='text-decoration:overline'" markup, for several reasons. (Observe: √eAB) We have no reliable way to get the width and position of the overline right, partly because we cannot know which font(s) the user has available and has chosen to use. Adjust it to look good for one user and it may look horrible for another. With a more complicated expression inside the square root, or with an n-th root, we are forced to either use parenthesis and an exponent of 1n, as in (|x|n+|y|n)1/n, or split out a displayed formula, or grudgingly use TeX markup inline as a last resort.
This mixed approach as neither as pretty nor as accessible nor as convenient as we would like, but it seems to be the best compromise we can manage given the state of the MediaWiki software. For a glimpse of a better world, try blahtex. --KSmrqT 09:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I was never acting on a general principle that html is better than TeX; I was acting on the fact that TeX looks bad in some contexts where bad mismatches in alignment and size happen. Michael Hardy 03:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your addition to MOSNUM[edit]

Dear Michael

I'm unsure that your point about 1 versus one needs to be made. Can you point to the instance where it was a problem? Wouldn't it, in any case, be better to say "the number one", or something like that? Discuss on talk? Tony 14:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context, but in some mathematics articles writing "the number one" would be verbose. I didn't have in mind one specific article; I've followed this convention probably thousands of times. I was surprised by the omission of explicit mention of this distinction in the style manual. Michael Hardy 14:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile[edit]

WP Zimbabwe[edit]

WPZim logo.png

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Zimbabwe, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Part 12:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


In the article Nagel point, my intention was to make the maths symbols consistent: some of the formulae later in the article did not have the /scriptstyle included. The text appeared to me to display better without this parameter. Am I mistaken? You seem to be suggesting that this parameter is required – and you probably know more about TeX than me – so if this is the case, please add it back. If you do this, I would be interested for future reference to know why it's necessary. -- MightyWarrior 12:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

\scriptstyle prevents them from appearing as comically gigantic (maybe five times the size of the surrounding text). It reduces but does not prevent the misalignment that almost always plagues inline TeX on Wikipedia, thus:
Consider the quantity , which can readily be computed.
On the browser I'm using, the e appears as a subscript on the left, whereas in fact the e should be aligned with the letters of the surrounding text and the integral should be a superscript. ("Displayed" TeX, on the other hand, looks good:
Michael Hardy 19:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Significance with Student's T Distrubution[edit]

I've replied to your comment on Talk:Student's_t-distribution#Article_hard_to_understand.3F Robert Ham 09:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sound Synthesis Theory[edit]

A new wikibook at [[14]] has been started. It may interest you to edit / help out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You are being hypercritical[edit]

Listen, Michael, I am well aware that there are standards and practices here. However, you can't get a case of the vapors whenever you see a stub! You are obviously what they call an immediatist, and I am an eventualist. There is room for all kinds here. Those contributions fill an ABSENCE. That is the priority. It's a higher priority than the style guide. If you don't agree, then we disagree. Let's get along. I am a cab driver. If you and the rest of the math people want to make a project out of boxing me out of the wikipedia -- You will certainly succeed if you try hard enough (I am not saying that is what you are doing). My proper role here does not necessarily include the hardcore research that is better left to experts like you. I have plenty of good information to contribute. So why don't you stellar experts already have an article about "directly confluent"? You don't see me getting on your guys case about it!

Your words are intended as a prompt to improve my quality, and in that regard I appreciate it. I am improving slowly. However, your words are also chilling. I wonder how many people this tactic has scared off of the Wikipedia-- to our loss. This is a publicly editable space. The space is a lot easier to change than the contributors. So stay cool. Gregbard 04:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No one was trying to box you out. You were making mistakes that appeared to result from haste. Michael Hardy 03:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Characterizations of the exponential function[edit]

This section continues a discussion started on user:Stevenj's user page. It relates to the article characterizations of the exponential function.

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your quick reply. You say that "assuming only monotonicity and the functional equation [], you can conclude that for some , and then that entails continuity." How do you prove the continuity? Could you please point me in the right direction?

You also say that "if you're working only with real numbers then continuity plus that functional equation together are enough to entail that power series". How do you prove the function is derivable, especially if you define , where is a sequence of rational numbers converging to ?

Thanks in advance!

Deimos 28 09:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Start with x=y=0 to prove f(0)=1. Then consider x=y=epsilon, with epsilon small, taking the limit epsilon->0. linas 01:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Would that be proving continuity or derivability? I'm not sure what you're getting at... I think derivability can be shown fairly easily once you proved is continuous. You need to prove that or alternatively Deimos 28 10:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
First prove continuity at x=0; this should be straightforward. Then assume f(x) is discontinuous at some point, say y. Then consider f(y+eta)=f(y_)f(eta) where y_ is "just below" y. Note f(eta)=1+epsilon. This contradicts the assumption that there's a discontinuity at f(y), ergo, f is continuous everywhere. linas 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No I don't think that works. Use monotonicity to show that . Then suppose that and show you can find a rational such that which is contradictory. You can then define for , . I'm stuck there, but I think continuity should follow fairly easily...
Deimos 28 07:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
To conclude: Suppose is not continuous in . Then . This implies that , which is not true. Therefore is continuous everywhere. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Deimos 28 12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Knock yourselves out[edit]

I have been working on populating the category Category:Mathematical relations, which I don't agree is entirely mathematical. I have information on many such relations. At some point I would like to see information on the following topics. Many of these are present under a different article name. If there is something that you can contribute to expanding these before I do, I would appreciate it. Be well,

Gregbard 12:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. The vast majority of these should almost certainly be redirects to a small handful of articles. Many/most of these are already adequately covered in various articles, no ?? linas 01:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, ugh. Although user Gregbard (talk · contribs) wants to improve Wikipedia, I am too often reminded of an admonition to medical doctors: "First, do no harm." --KSmrqT 04:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this you?[edit]

Micheal, is this, Scaled Boolean Algebras, you? Or are there two probabilists having your name, and editing Cox's theorem? Which, BTW, I've tripped across while reading about reasoning systems in artificial intelligence. linas 01:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Must be you. FYI, your reformulation of Cox's theorem shows up prominently in the intro of a book on AI being readied for Springer. (and I presume it will survive the final cut). linas 01:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's me. (BTW, my first name is spelled in the usual way, NOT "Micheal"). I don't know about any book that that paper is mentioned in, though. Which book, and whose? Michael Hardy 03:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a terrible speller. The book, is, ah, pre-publication, I suppose I'm not supposed to talk about it yet, but I could direct you at the author if you are interested. The introductory discussion revolves around justifying the use of probability-type math in a different domain: in "real-world" reasoning, where one has facts, theorems, and assertions whose truth value is uncertain. linas 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Exponential error[edit]

Did you read this edit to exponential error? The fact that you edited the article immediately afterwards suggests you did, but I don't think any of the examples show exponential growth. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read it carefully. It just looked like a few miscellaneous examples. Michael Hardy 03:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

TeX Code[edit]

I fixed the code as you suggested. Thanks — xDanielx T/C 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects[edit]

Hi Michael. Regarding this diff, thanks for bypassing redirects in the list of mathematics articles. But I'd like to note that the bot removes redirects automatically (redlinks as well). Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sufficiency (statistics)[edit]

Over at Talk:Sufficiency_(statistics)#example you wrote that I was, "just belaboring a semantic point." I was actually confused by the definition on the page and thought that the two definitions were at odds. Now I understand the definition, but think that it's easy to misunderstand and am trying to reword said definition so that it's clear and others don't suffer from the same confusion. I'm telling you this because my edits are made in good faith with the intention of making the Wikipedia better, and think it works best when everyone assumes good faith (I'll spare you the link). I try very hard not to wordsmith, or worry about exactly which editors version is best--but when a phrase gets so twisted that I can't understand the authors intentions, I do try to fix it. Pdbailey 06:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment to Pdbailey referred to this comment of his, not to any comment of yours. In particular, to the sentence near the middle regarding good faith. To spell it out further, my comment was meant as a mild defense of yourself, and a considerably stronger encouragement to him. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Michael Hardy, the quote you pulled out is the genesis of the above comment. It implies that my edits to the talk page were not made in good faith but instead out of some sort of juvenile recalcitrance, or inability to be wrong. I was just trying to point out that my edits were made to make the article better, and I'd appreciate it if they were treated that way. It's not a big deal, just something I wanted to say to you on your talk page because it isn't apropos of sufficiency, but it's important to how editors are treated here, and how the encyclopedia works. Pdbailey 02:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


In the first example the + sign is attached to the "e"; in the second all letters and operands are evenly spaced. As for why this was achieved: is it because you are obsessed with detail?

What do I get for solving this one? :) Tkeu 17:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've said what the difference is, but you have not said either how or why it is done. And you really need to look at how before you can begin to think about why. Keep trying. Michael Hardy 17:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Without having looked at the TeX code (which I dread to examine) I would guess that the difference was achieved by having a single line of code in the first example and two independent lines of code in the second. Therefore, the second example is saying: ...positive e plus...which all goes to show that TeX(A+B) isn't the same as TeX(A) + TeX(B). That is, TeX(.) isn't isomorphic.Tkeu 18:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Both cases have two separate lines of code. I think you will find it rather painless to look at them. Michael Hardy 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I immediately spotted the attachment/disattachment of the the "+" and "e" but I have not done Tex for a while and will for the nonce skip looking for that (do not know how to view the page as text other than to edit). I suspect the attached version makes "e" the base of the natural logarithms and the other treats it as just a variable.

Carrionluggage (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Saw the space and attachment. Reason, nuance? Just cruisingJulia Rossi (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering how to make a guess without publicly giving away the answer, but since everyone seems to be talking about it openly and noone seems to mind, I'll just chime in:

The how and the why are related. TeX knows the difference between a unary and a binary plus. In the second line, there's no operand in front of the plus, so it's interpretated as a unary plus, which is placed closer to the operand than a binary plus. But since it's meant as the continuation of the first line, TeX needs to be told to interpret it as a binary plus. I haven't fiddled with these things in TeX for quite a while, but I presume the solution must have something to do either with a command like \mathop that changes the type of the plus sign or with an invisible dummy operand in front of the plus sign.

Joriki (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the \mathop thing, but the code for the "binary" case is this:
{} + following material, etc.
whereas for the unary one it's just
+ following material, etc.
One of the reasons for being aware of this sort of thing is of course to know when to use the two curly braces with nothing between them in TeX. Another is to remember when using non-TeX mathematical notation to write
3 − 5
with spaces before and after the minus sign in the "binary" case and
with no space between the minus sign and the 5 in the "unary" case. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hilbert space[edit]

Thank you for asking me how to improve (instead of others trying to boycott GA system). Try using the last 2 references and tell me where they are used. The problem right now is that even if the references are indeed valid, there's no way to show to me that they are used appropriately. Not targetting you in particular, I just want to say that simply telling others that there are enough references is not good enough, you need to demonstrate so that it convinces others that there're in fact enough references.

This is my analysis:

  • Lead looks good.
  • "Motivation and intuitive meaning" needs referencing. If it's a bit too hard, at least try reference "One of the first examples of such an analysis was given by Joseph Fourier's mathematical theory of heat: a solution of the heat equation can be decomposed into infinitely many independent parts, which is closely analogous to the way of representing a vector from R3 as a linear combination of three orthogonal vectors." This shouldn't be too hard as I think a textbook mentioned in the reference section may have covered on this matter. Just make sure you link them together.
  • Defintion section looks fine to me
  • I like this section - Genesis of Hilbert spaces. References are adequate without overkilling and at the same time demonstrated that they are referenced.
  • I also pass the example section, since it's governed by a different MoS guideline.
  • You definetely need reference(s) under "Application"
  • The last 4 sections are fine. Good examples.

Please note that Wikipedia articles are intended for normal audience. Since I have strong background of knowledge in calculus and discrete math, I can understand most of the equations listed in this article. Others who have less background in math may raise even more doubts or concerns because they don't understand or follow through the equations. One final note, you don't need to rush through and address these problems in 7 days. The 7 days is only apply to those that don't receive much attention. If you need more time, by all means leave me a message on my talk page. I am granting this article a "fast-track" status, that is, as soon as all the problems are addressed I will pass it as GA right away without going through another GA review. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I have been reading your very nice contributions. I would like to extend you an invitation to join us at WP:TIMETRACE. What we help with is:

  • Where dates or periods are mentioned that are important to the article's subject, we see that those are clear, accurate and have citations to reliable sources
  • When an article's subject should have its orgins and development described, we see that the article has a history section and that this is accurate and has reliable sources.

You can read why this is important and more information at WP:TIMETRACE. You don't need to dedicate special time to this, you may for example, while editing diverse articles, check if they have sources in their history or chronology (or when they mention any important date. If they don't, you can either fix it if you have that information, or you can place inline {{Timefact}} calls where those citations to sources are missing, this will display [chronology citation needed]. There are also other resources and templates you can use, just visit us to know more. We will be very glad if we can count with your help. Regards Daoken 10:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for adding the spaces around the equations in Morera's theorem. I didn't know that this was possible, and I wouldn't have found out if you hadn't taken the time to fix it. I'll make sure to include extra spacing in all my future edits. Jim 01:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test[edit]

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


I don't think it's a good idea to change

x2 + y2


x² + y².

If one wishes to write

x2 + a + y2 + b,

then the "2" in the superscript should look the same as the "2" in the superscript in

x2 + y2.

Michael Hardy 01:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, also, and more "in your face" is the treatment of x2+y7. I have already requested that this particular feature be removed, or at least reined back in AWB, I will follow up. Rich Farmbrough, 14:57 16 September 2007 (GMT).

Exponential family[edit]

Hi Michael, I hope you can continue helping us with the draft version of exponential family (being written here). I've run into some measure theory stuff that I'm not sure I'm qualified to do myself, and I know you would do a great job at it. I am talking especially about the Interpretation section, although any and all help would of course be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Zvika 18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. Regarding inline TeX, as you probably know there is no consensus on this issue. I personally prefer to use TeX. But let's just agree to disagree on this one. --Zvika 06:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi Michael, Z-statistic is called Z-score for a reason. It is not actually a statistic, because a statistic, by definition, is a function of a sample which does not depend on the underlying distribution. The z-score on the other hand depends on the unknown parameters of the distribution, and . Z-score is not technically a statistic for the same reason as the true mean of the distribution, is not a statistic. A more proper definition of z-statistic (in my opinion) is any statistic with normal distribution. I may be mistaken however, I will check the books tomorrow. (Igny 22:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC))

OK.... One could base it on a sample mean and sample SD, but I suppose then maybe you'd want to call it a t-score.... Michael Hardy 06:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, TeX (math formatting)[edit]

Hello Michael:

Thanks very much for the tip - I was uncritically cribbing format from other articles and didn't get it right. I'll try to fix. Zero sharp 14:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

whups you already fixed. Thank you! Zero sharp 14:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Double Redirects[edit]

Please do not interfere with bots correcting double redirects. Double redirects should not occur as they do not work & confuse readers.

I'd suggest tagging the redirects to pattern-avoiding permutation with {{R with possibilities}} and provide a comment regarding changing the target if an article at that location is ever written. Another option would be to create a stub on the topic.

Your block of User:Computer was inappropriate and I have unblocked it. The bot was doing its job in accordance with Wikipedia consensus on double redirects and under an approved BRFA.

Thanks. -- JLaTondre 17:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, double redirects are problematic to the end user, the readers. The bot processes Special:DoubleRedirects page in accordance with Wikipedia:Double redirects. You are welcome to break the "double redirects" using the method mentioned above or by the use of {{softredirect}}'s to avoid the double redirection problem. Special:DoubleRedirects is a maintenance page almost completely processed by bots so anything showing there will be processed. I am not the only person operating a double redirect bot. Even if I did adjust my bot, someone else's bot would preform the edits. I hope this helps. -- Cat chi? 18:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

JLaTondre, you did not take the trouble to inform yourself of the situation. You suggest I tag pattern-avoiding permutation with the {{R with possibilities}} template. I already did. BEFORE this bot's behavior that caused me to block it. At least one other bot does the same thing except that it does not touch pages that have that template. This bot ignores the template and "fixes" the pages anyway. Michael Hardy 20:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you did not understand my comment. I said to tag Patern-avoiding permutation & Patern-avoiding permutations in the same way that you already tagged pattern-avoiding permutation. However, these two page should still point to Stanley-Wilf conjecture.
The bots should ignore those tags on a destination redirect as there should not be double redirects, period. I do not understand your insistence on changing these back to double redirects. You are going against community consensus and making a confusing experience for our readers. Our readers come first. -- JLaTondre 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"there should not be double redirects, period" (?)

Is that quoted verbatim from an official policy? Can you point to it? Are there no exceptions, even in cases like this one where "fixing" the double redirect can obviously have destructive consequences? Michael Hardy 20:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Double redirects and standard community practice. There are no "destructive consequences" with fixing these double redirects. If a page is ever created at one of these redirects, the other redirects can easily be updated at when that page is created. As for your concern that they will be forgotten, I have already suggested a way around that: put an HTML comment after the redirect that mentions the others. Example:
#redirect [[Stanley-Wilf conjecture]]
<!-- If you change this to an article, please be sure to modify [[Patern-avoiding permutation]] & [[Patern-avoiding permutations]] to redirect to here -->
Your insistence on double redirects is what has negative consequences. To quote Wikipedia:Double redirects, "These situations create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing." Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added this paragraph to those three redirect pages:

This page should redirect to pattern-avoiding permutation if the latter redirect with possibilities becomes are article. Please leave the link in this paragraph intact so that those editing that article will learn of this page's existence when they click on "what links here".

It's not visible when you view the page; it is when you edit the article. It causes the page to appear when you click on "what links here" at pattern-avoiding permutation. Michael Hardy 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That works as well. You are correct that it doesn't need to be an actual HMTL comment. Wikipedia ignores everything after the redirect. It looks good. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

fwiiw, I understand your position, Michael, and sort of share it. I still don't lose any sleep over it, since it can be dealt with at the time the "possible" article is actually created. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

what happened?[edit]

hi, Michael. what happened [here]? Mct mht 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

...not sure---I suspect I intended some minor edit. Michael Hardy 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
ok, had me wondering since it's kinda uncharacteristic of your edits. will put stuff back when i get a chance. Mct mht 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Career Entry[edit]

Hello M Hardy. I saw that you contributed to the "Career" entry and I am interested in printing the article (or a similar article) for reference/background in a student publication. I am hoping you can guide me to it in its original state. (You are the earliest contributor with whom I have the option of Talking.) If you wrote it, or know where it exists outside of Wikipedia, I would be much obliged.

Best, Voorhees EliVoorhees (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive of Fourier transform Talk page[edit]

Hi, the Fourier transform Talk page is now rather long and I believe that at least the content related to discussions up to 2005 (possibly also 2006) could be moved to an archive subpage. I dont't know if this is an admin-task or can be done by non-admins. Any advice? --KYN 17:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to be an administrator to do that. Maybe I'll do it if no one beats me to it.... Michael Hardy 01:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case I'll make a try for it, and have already posted an announcement on the talk page. Thanks. --KYN 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry Balfour Gardiner[edit]

Information.svg Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Henry Balfour Gardiner. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you. – Zedla 00:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment was commented out so that readers of the article would not see it, and it was located EXACTLY where those working on the article could best make use of it. Michael Hardy 00:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 01:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move requested for rope length --> ropelength[edit]

Hi I have a new account and cannot move pages yet (also it was moved once before). I noticed you edited the article and appear to be an admin. Please see my reasoning and data on Talk:Rope_length which you can verify for yourself. "Ropelength" is just much more common as a knot-theoretic term than "rope length". Thanks. --Horoball 02:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Meetup in Minneapolis[edit]

Flag of Minnesota.svg
Minnesota Meetup
Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00)
Pracna on Main
117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Please pass this on! RSVP here.

Spam delivered by -Susanlesch 16:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Just thought I'd mention my amazement when I came across your name on the wikidragon page, and tracked you a bit. You seem to be one of the few remaining legendary wikidragons. This is my primitive version of a big fat smiley face graphic on your page, beacause I don't know how to make one of those.

Zantaggerung 03:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind! I just learned how!

Zantaggerung 03:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know I was listed there. Michael Hardy 02:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I did not see that μ was the mean of the log in log-normal distribution. Acct4 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How NOT to fix a double redirect[edit]

#REDIRECT[[estimation lemma]]

If [[ML inequality]] ever becomes an article rather than a redirect, then this page should be changed to redirect to that.

The redirect page titled ML Inequality currently reads as above. To change the second link to "estimation lemma" makes no sense at all. Please don't do that. Michael Hardy 17:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot processed the list at Special:DoubleRedirects.
Any link1 → link2 → link3 will become link1 → link3
This is the recommended action as per WP:2R
I am uncertain what exactly the problem is. Consider using {{softredirect}}
-- Cat chi? 18:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a clearer case of unwillingness to understand. Please look at what the page says. Look at the profoundly stupid form in which your bot left the page. Look at my edit that fixed the problem. My edit is consistent with the policies you cite, so you should have no objection to it on those grounds. On the other hand your edit obviously defeats a purpose that helps Wikipedia. "Softredirect" is for a different purpose. Michael Hardy 23:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My bot processes data as it appears on Special:DoubleRedirects. Anything beyond that is not my problem. If there is something wrong with Mediawiki's Special:DoubleRedirects page, that is a bug with Mediawiki, not my bot.
From what I can see the bot is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. You are creating a self redirect chain by linking to a redirect page (from a redirect page) and hence cluttering Special:DoubleRedirects.
What is the purpose of linking to ML inequality on ML Inequality (mind the case difference).
-- Cat chi? 23:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I disbelieve your statement that your bot's absurd edit is required by that page. Damage done by your bot IS your problem. Why do you ask what the purpose is? The purpose is obvious. Don't come to me citing policies that say different things from what you claim they say. I have no problem with fixing double redirects; if that's ALL your bot did I'd have no problem with it. But it did something else. Michael Hardy 23:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Look closely. you are/were linking to a redirect from a redirect. That is a double rediretc as far as mediawiki is concerned. You should not be having wiki-links on a redirect aside from the actual redirect link. Use an html link if you must - or just create a stub. Please stop fighting mediawiki. -- Cat chi? 00:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fighting mediawiki; you're fighting common sense. You say "That is a double redirect as far as mediawiki is concerned". That defies common sense. Policies exist for a reason.

And if you're against even that kind of so-called "double redirect", why didn't you just remove the link, so the words would appear there with no link, instead of replacing it with something absurd and incomprehensible? Michael Hardy 03:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Take it to ANB/I. I have nothing to add here. With the amount of words you have told me you could have simply started a stub. -- Cat chi? 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This would be quite simple to fix by simply telling the bot not to edit the page that is the redirect in question. Instead, it can remove the square brackets that make a link. I tend to agree with Michael that the bot's edits in this case defy common sense; they are just the result of your bot's loigc not handling this case in a reasonable manner. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Simplistically usage of a template solves the problem: [15]. Why is it so hard to do that? -- Cat chi? 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

template:Redirect future article[edit]

I hope this template meets your needs. Had I understood the exact problem sooner I would have offered this solution sooner. Does this completely meet your needs?

Also it may perhaps be better to tag the redirects talk page. This is merely a thought.

The key problem is, it takes a lot of resources (time wise) for bots to process a lot of text on redirect pages. Even in their bald form 200 redirects can take a good 2-4 hours to process especially when wikipedia is slow. If there is extra text on redirect pages, that is an extra strain on bots. A handful of redirects wouldn't have an impact but if "lots of pages" contain extra text thats lots of extra strain. With this I was merely expressing my standpoint.

-- Cat chi? 18:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment requested[edit]

Hi there, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. Comments are welcome. Tim Vickers 20:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

G. Whitehead[edit]

Thanks! I was beginning to wonder how long it would take someone to get the hint. R.e.b. 04:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

George W. Whitehead[edit]

The article was created at 23:11 October 8 2007, and the hangon tag was added at 23:32. I deleted the article at 23:46, because it was only a one-liner (easily a CSD A1) and I thought (incorrectly, apparently) that there was not an assertion of notability. I'm sure if this was not your area of expertise, you might have made the same judgment call. Nishkid64 (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if the user places a hangon tag on an article, then it is their responsibility to actually provide their reasons for keeping the article on the article talk page. I would think 15+ minutes is enough to make this assertion if this subject is clearly notable. Nishkid64 (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I did restore the backlink here, so I did recognize the possible notability of the subject. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Easly a CSD A1? No context? How is saying so-and-so is a mathematician who invented J-homomorphism, no context? Would you also CSD A1 an article that consisted of "so-and-so is a baseball pitcher who pitched a no-hitter"? There is just as much context there. In both cases there is a claim that a professional of a certain type did something worth having a Wikipedia article about. If you make a mistake deleting fine, but what is worrisome is that you don't seem to realize you made a mistake out of ignorance. Instead you seem to have the attitude that it's something that clearly would be deleted. You also say there was no "assertion of notability". What CSD criterion is that? A7? Nope, that explicitly says not about notability. I think it would be wise to carefully read over the criteria and actually apply them strictly. Don't just make up a reason to justify some feeling that an article should be deleted. --Horoball 17:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you should judge an article to lack an assertion of notability only if you KNOW there is none, not simply if you don't understand it. Michael Hardy 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being too hard on the deleting admin here. A7 is about whether it is clear just from reading the article that the person is notable. We can't assume the deleting admin will know which parts of advanced mathematics are important and which are not, or to research the subject of the article to decide whether it asserts importance. It's not really a burden to start each article with four or five sentences that clearly explain why the person deserves an article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
No, A7 is not about notability. Please read the criterion again, where it explicitly says it's not about notability. Besides, Nishkid64's reasoning is A1 not A7. I would like to see some consistency in the reasoning given by people supporting the speedy deletion. --Horoball 17:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with the CSD criteria, and the way that they are applied in practice. I think you are misreading my comment above. If an article can be deleted under two different CSD criteria, that's a stronger argument for improving it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Any time you read an article on a subject with which you are not familiar, you may fail to understand why it's notable, no matter how well explained it is. That's not enough reason to conclude it doesn't assert notability. Michael Hardy 17:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some people won't see an assertion of notability even in a 1000 word article, and we can point out that they are being stubborn. But a one-sentence article that only states that a person conducted research using jargon that I don't recognize, without explaining why this is important, is a different matter than a 1000 word article. As a mathematician, I am likely to be more patient with jargon than the average admin.
In practice, to avoid deletion, the text of a new article needs to clearly point out that the subject is important in a way that an average admin can clearly understand. I realize that there was a time when one-sentence stubs were normal, and even encouraged. But that's is no longer the case. My interpretation is that the encyclopedia is at a point where the need to create new articles is not as strong as before, and the requirements on new articles have increased accordingly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I used A1 as a backup claim. Apparently, Michael Hardy says A7 shouldn't apply, so I reaffirmed my position with CSD A1. I admit A7 was a mistaken rationale for deletion. The article has been restored. All is fine. Michael, stop badgering me on this deletion or other deletions. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think Nishkid64 is mature enough to have the priviledge to speedily delete articles. The article creator has made a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Rather than waiting and seeing what comes out of it, Nishkid64 "would think 15+ minutes is enough to make this assertion if this subject is clearly notable". And what harm would be inflicted if it were 24 hours, and not 15 minutes? For example, for me personally, almost any significant edit takes at least one hour. This comment itself reveals that Nishkid64 is more interested in asserting his ego, by abuse of authority, if necessary, than in maintaining high standards of articles on Wikipedia, which should have been his motivation. Additionally, making up reasons to back up one's past actions contravenes the process where there are clear criteria under which the decision has been based. You can't go down the list of possible explanations saying "Ok, someone didn't like X for the reason, then let me quote Y, Z, and W instead to reaffirm my position". Rather than "reaffirming a positon", it is "reaffirming the absence of a position as well as the relativity of the judgement". Not a good trait for someone entrusted with making unilateral decisions whose soundness is unreviewable by anyone save a minority of editors.

By Wikipedia's rules, if someone, anyone, decides to put a speedy deletion tag on it, whether good-heartedly or out of malice, the author should not remove it, all he can do is to put a "hangon" tag. In the case at hand, the author not only put the hangon tag, he also posted a note on the math project page to alert other people with the knowledge of the subject (anyone other than the author is allowed to remove the speedy deletion tag). Clearly, the intention is not to punish people for creating articles, it is to filter out inappropriate content. How do you determine that the content is appropriate? Here are a couple of quotes from the official policy "Criteria for speedy deletions" (with emphasis added):

Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead.
Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved or reduced to a stub; if so, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate. Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets, and consider notifying the page's creator.
Very short articles. Short articles with sufficient content and context to qualify as stubs may not be speedily deleted under criteria A1 and A3; other criteria may still apply.

Thus, in case of doubt the prudent thing to do seems to leave it alone and wait for the author's or an expert reaction first. And having made a mistake, one should admit to it gracefully. Arcfrk 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And one shouldn't be attacking the deleting admin who admitted earlier to having made a mistaken call on the CSD A7. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
And a request: will people just drop the matter already? The article has been restored. There's nothing more to see. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

George Whitehead[edit]

On User talk:Bobo192, Michael Hardy said:
Your sandbox link to George Whitehead now links to a disambiguation page listing three men of that name. None of the three is a cricketer, so if you create a stub called George Whitehead (cricketer), then you should add that name to the new disambiguation page. (This came to my attention only because I created the dab page and then clicked on "what links here".)

Thank you very much for your note. I have changed the link accordingly. If you come across any other links on my page which need fixing on my sandbox, please feel free to do so.

I do occasionally check a certain number of the bluelinks to articles for which I know I'm not responsible, but I hadn't gotten around to checking this link as yet. When I focus more on article creation than I am currently doing, I shall make sure to double-check links. Bobo. 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Derrick Gardner" article deletion[edit]

It meets WP:CSD#G12. The entire text (all except the last line) is taken from CD Baby. That is grounds for speedy deletion. If the user who created this article (and a number of other articles that were deleted as copyright infringement and/or have notability issues) wants to recreate the article, then he/she may do so. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, did you happen to see the article's history? Hangon tag was added 15:03, I deleted at 15:57. Adding a hangon tag does not mean administrators have to sit around until the author argues his case on the talk page. The article can be deleted if it's clear the article meets speedy deletion criteria, regardless of whatever persuasion the author can muster up. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is grounds for speedy deletion, it is still no reason to say that it "unquestionably" violates copyright. The word "unquestionably" was used. That is nonsense. You can't conclude that under those circumstances. Michael Hardy 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that. That's what the policy says for CSD G12. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If you think it needs to be changed, then go ahead and change WP:CSD or discuss it on the talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Jewish American fashion designers[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Jewish American fashion designers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American fashion designers. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


I was not aware of the prior post when I wrote that. -- But|seriously|folks  03:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quantum logic[edit]

Could you help me figure out what happened to the revision history of the quantum logic article? In the recent renames, it got obliterated. I also sent John Baez a note. The original rename is probably where the disappearance occurred. Thanks. --CSTAR 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I resolved the problem.--CSTAR 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed: Missouri Collegiate Mathematics Competition → Mathematical Association of America[edit]

It has been proposed to merge the content of Missouri Collegiate Mathematics Competition into Mathematical Association of America. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 16:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


"It is certainly not true that I have ridiculed this user nor am I going about attacking his every deletion. I have, however, paid some attention to his deletions after I noticed that his talk page has complaints from various users about his excessive haste in deleting articles. Michael Hardy 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)"

If you have noticed, anyone who does deletions gets bombarded by complaints from new users. They expect their articles will be on Wikipedia because they fail to comprehend policy regarding notability. Also, you saw only one deletion complaint on my user talk page. That matter was quickly handled, because it was indeed copyright infringement (according to WP:CSD policy). Nishkid64 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover2 nature.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cover2 nature.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 19:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ivor Wilks[edit]

It said "Ivor Wilks is a noted British Africanist, with a specialism in Ghana." Please tell me where the claim of notability is. It was a valid A7 speedy, and that's why it was deleted as tagged; if you believe that it should not have been speedied then you might want to talk to the admin who clicked the Delete button. Or not; after all, I did tell Johnbibby what the problem was: lack of any sources, claim of notability, or "hook" to tell anyone why they shold care.

As to "people like me", you have absolutely no idea. None whatsoever. And I don't think I'm going to enlighten you. But I don't think your attacking me for daring to add an A7 tag to a non-article like this is going to change anything. Your analogy was pointless. Do you really think that Ivor Wilks and William Shakespeare have anything close to parity of name recognition? It was a silly example. Of course I don't know who Ivor Wilks is, and the article didn't tell me who he is or why I should want to know, but please be assured that I unquestionably would know William Shakespeare from a hole in the ground, whichever spelling of his name he was using that day. I'd also recognise Francis Bacon or Kit Marlowe for that matter, provided you gave me one of the better-known portraits to identify.

So please do resist the temptation to rudeness and sarcasm - it looks from Nishkid's coment above that this is not the first time you have fallen into this trap. You may well be an ardent inclusionists, inclusionist admins are good, and I have no problem with assuming good faith and helping Johnbibby out, but you really ought to recognise that the main issue here lies with his original article: "foo is a noted bar" is classic A7 material, since there is no tangible or referenced claim of notability. I take it you have read WP:BLP? It does make quite a point of sourcing for biographical articles. Cruftbane 06:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: you did not use common sense and you should have. The content that was there would have told you that google would settle the matter in seconds, and so it did. Michael Hardy 15:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You are being rude, and unnecessarily so. People who write articles that say "John Does is a professor" and then act hurt when somebody tags it as A7, are more of a problem that the people who tag them as A7. Completely unsourced articles on living individuals are a serious problem, and I'd say that applies even if they are half-sentence stubs. Cruftbane 20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I repeat: You did not use common sense and you should have. When you find something is validly tagged as A7, that's not when you should stop thinking about whether it should be deleted; it's when you shoud start thinking about that. Michael Hardy 21:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Again I repeat: you are being rude and aggressive, and completely failing to acknowledge that unsourced sub-stubs on living individuals that fail to make a proper claim of notability are fair game for A7 - which is why an admin deleted it on that basis, so two people agreed there was a problem. And with that I'll bid you goodbye, since you clearly have no intention of admitting fault and neither do I. Cruftbane 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Everyone, try to be a little more civil please. Comment on the edits, not the editors. Mr.Z-man 04:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Template correction[edit]

Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl 00:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeisel number[edit]

Helmut Zeisel is an austrian Mathemacian. He is not famous and not lucky about naming this numbers after him. In the german Wikidia the Article "Zeisel-Zahl" was deleted after i wrote an AfD. I wouldn't delete "Zeisel-Zahl", but most of other Wikipedian, who wrote to the AfD, were for the deletion of that article. I wouldn't be lucky, if Zeisel number would delete here too. --Arbol01 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


MH, have you had a look at the ongoing mess at Least-squares spectral analysis? Any comments or edits you can contribute would be welcome. It's got a call for expert help on it (presently removed, but see talk page). Dicklyon 04:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics of bookmaking[edit]

Thanks for all the Further Reading references... much appreciated. Could I trouble you for a short comment at [16]? Cheers! AirdishStraus 22:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

LEIS mess[edit]

Thanks for helping clean up the errors on the LEIS page last week. With regard to the leis/LEIS mixup, I had no idea Wikipedia links were case-sensitive, hence the horrible link. With regard to the same, I was under the impression double-redirects were disabled, so I was surprised to hear any other links (e.g. flowers, Hawaiian culture) would somehow have brought a reader to the page I was working on. Is this not the case? Runningamok19 13:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Disregard-I was just thinking about this and realized it probably wasn't a double-redirect, but a link to leis which redirected to Lei (Hawaii). Runningamok19 14:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and a request[edit]

Thanks for restoring that page. I was just about to do that and had left a message to that effect on the author's talk page.

In future, please attempt to consult with me before reverting my administrative actions, particularly when the situation is not urgent. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  02:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

panjer recursion[edit]

thanks a lot for your help with Panjer recursion --Philtime 10:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Military Sexual Trauma[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Military Sexual Trauma, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Military Sexual Trauma is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Military Sexual Trauma, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I put Benford's law of controversy up for afd[edit]

regards, Rich 02:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope that "passion is inversely proportional to information" is saved from deletion. It may explain the movement which deleted the category Erdos Number. Pete St.John 19:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi Michael, could you please have a look at the Variance article? Someone deleted the "elementary description" section. I think that is a bad decision, because previously there were many complaints about the readability of the article. But I don't want to undo that action if I am the only person with that opinion. Regards, Jules JulesEllis 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Commendable honesty[edit]

In this summary: [17]. Yes, your comments were indeed disrespectful and abusive. Perhaps instead of merely identifying them as such you could have thought of a way of putting your point acroiss that wasn't abusive and disrespectful, but nobody's perfect I guess. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. You're edit summary said "can you say 'linkfarm', children?" I called that "disrespectful and abusive". That was my point. Was it unclear? Michael Hardy 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was unclear. And the edit sumamry was associated with removal of... a link farm. Multiple deep links to the same site. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nats & Bits in the Kullback-Leibler divergence for the multivariate normal distribution[edit]

Hi Michael,

I just made a small addendum to the equation for the K-L divergence for the multivariate normal distribution to indicate that the formula only works for nats and I suggested that to get to bits you need simply to divide by the natural logarithm of 2.

You swiftly changed what I wrote to state that a simple change of the base of the logarithm from e to 2 would give the correct answer in bits. While this is often the case in many formulas for information-theoretic quantities, I don't believe that's the case here. Try it for yourself in your favorite computing environment if you wish (I'm using Matlab). Simply changing the base of the logarithm gives you the wrong answer. I believe this is due to the fact that there are other quantities being added to the logarithm, so you must divide the whole expression by log_e(2).

Short of re-deriving the appropriate equation for bits, I think the best thing to do would be to suggest dividing by log_e(2).

Thoughts? Errors on my part?

Cheers, Dylan —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

PS Can you provide a reference for the formula?

Thanks! Dylan —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you divide the natural logarithm of any number x by the natural logarithm of 2, you get the base-2 logarithm of x. However, there may be complications here because of the additional non-logarithmic terms. I'll look at it more closely. Michael Hardy 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see that you finally believe me! ;) I still think that it would be prudent to mention the subtlety of converting from nats to bits in this case, lest someone naively try to do it by simply changing the base of the logarithm (like I initially did!). Oh, and I also think it would be very nice to include a reference that has the derivation for the formula, since it is not something that is found in a standard text like Cover & Thomas, and it is not readily found with a Google search. --Dylan

Conditional probability and expectation[edit]

I have replied to your message at User talk:Jmath666/Conditional probability and expectation. Jmath666 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

AWB "clean up"[edit]

I was using AWB and didn't notice that x² looks so bad. Sorry, I'll go back and revert those. Lantonov 05:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think all (or most?) of them may have been taken care of. Michael Hardy 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry again for the inconvinence. Lantonov 05:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem---just one of my particular points of sensitivity. Michael Hardy 05:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I supposed n was the base. So, if someone has the correct picture... Maybe the best would be upgrade the picture on commons, because this stupid ln(0)=-1 graph is used in all languages wiki.Barraki 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

'Delete and salt'[edit]

When the term 'salt' is used in a deletion debate, it normally refers to 'salting the earth' after deleting the page in question. By analogy with crop-growing, salting the earth prevents any new page from growing in its place, and it is done either by creating a blank or warning page and then protecting it from editing, or by placing the page title on the list of protected titles. This page has what is known as 'cascading protection' which means anything linked is also protected from editing, and is a way of preventing non-admin users from creating a new page. Sam Blacketer 00:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Michael Hardy 01:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Erdős numbers[edit]

I think you intended this edit to go at the new DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 10. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

history of computing[edit]

I'm going to fix the links into and out of history of computing, unless you have some objections. I think you'll agree that the article is mislinked. See the talk page. ---- CharlesGillingham 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello. As you have seen, I am attempting to put an elementary treatment of the results of Gauss et al in the section on the differential geometry of curves. It is aimed to be at a final year undergraduate level and does not use the language of forms or covariant differentiation.

It is almost impossible to get formulas looking OK in text using WP maths. I do not believe there are any hard and fast rules for mathematical type-setting, since including math symbols in text is always problematic. That is why it has to be most often entered as a mixture of text and math symbol, breaking every rule in the TeXbook.

Were you just referring to the insertion of extra lines and the use of the sup and sub commands? I appreciate your efforts to improve the look of the article, although that is not my main preoccupation at the moment.

A more complete (but of course never final) version will be up in a few days time for people to play around with. Cheers, Mathsci 10:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For simple inline math notation, non-TeX notation looks good if certain convetions are followed: italicize variables, but not digits and not punctuation; put spaces before and after "+" and "=" and ">" and the like (non-breakable "nbsp" spaces if line-breaks would upset legibility), use proper minus signs rather than stubby little hyphens (5 − 3, not 5 - 3), and a few other things. For "displayed" rather than inline notation, I use TeX and it looks good. When TeX is inline rather than displayed, it often gets badly misaligned or is the wrong size---comically so. Mixing TeX with non-TeX notation on the same line often looks terrible. Michael Hardy 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your 2c on Talk:Evolutionarily_stable_strategy[edit]

Hi Michael, You've probably come across things like this before so, I was wondering if you could look at this discussion (re: this edit and reversion). I do kind of agree with User:Bueller 007, but not sure whether to address this with paragraph in article, or stick with current minimal mention, etc. ... Best regards, Pete.Hurd 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment[edit]

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Linksto.pdf[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Linksto.pdf. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Statistical survey or questionnaire?[edit]

Your edit is just fine by me. I was removing disambiguous links to survey and was making lots of similar decisions in a row. I considered statistical survey, but chose the other. I'm happy to accept your improvement. SlackerMom (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ren Potts[edit]

Thanks for your three edits to Ren Potts; I find it helpful to have someone else run their eye over an article I'm constructing.
I'm a bit puzzled by your third edit - I can't spot any difference between the before and after. Is there any difference?
(Or is it an extension of the puzzle on your user page? ;-) ) Thanks again, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In the third edit I put a blank space between each of several parenthesized expressions and the preceeding word. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah ha! (Far too subtle for me.) Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Weight space[edit]

Do you have any interest in merging weight space and weight (representation theory)? There was some discussion on the Talk:weight space page, and I copied it to Talk:weight (representation theory) after adding the mergefrom/mergeto tags.

I don't mind doing it, but it is certainly probable others have a deeper grasp. I would likely just cut/paste sections of weight space into weight, until weight space was empty. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


I know it can get tedious cleaning up the grammar and language of so many articles but don't sigh and despair. Your efforts are, at least by me, appreciated. I know that my typing and grammar can be downright hideous and it the "wiki-gnomish" work of folks like you who do a great service to the project in making our articles more presentable to the world. Thank you and keep up the good work. AgneCheese/Wine 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for the vote of confidence. "Refers to" is the most overused phrase on Wikipedia. A giraffe refers to when an animal has a long neck. Etc.... Maybe we need a "refers to"-bot. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


for cleaning up Tidal resonances. David Webb (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Help wanted[edit]

Can you please look at Talk:Gamma distribution#Generating variables? -- Paul Pogonyshev (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello Michael. Could you possibly look over the LaTeX formulas (mostly taken from Robert Kanigel's biography of Ramanujan) at Srinivasa Ramanujan? Also, someone here commented that the integral in the "Contacting English mathematicians" section is incorrect. Could you look into that? The level of mathematics exceeds my educational background (I'm going to start multivariable next semester), so I would appreciate any possible assistance. Thanks in advance, Nishkid64 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Please mind WP:CIVIL; I will not inquire what you have or haven't read, and what is your level of education with regard to political sciences. While Germany is an interesting case, its division into zones was not followed by annexation of that territory into occupying forces. We would need to expand the article and find more refs to decide whether the term partition can be applied in the case of post-WWII Germany or not.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Notation[edit]

Hi Michael,

Yup, I omitted to syntactify (or −1), writing it as -1: hyphen vs. minus. Normally I'm scrupulous about these (generally wrap everything in <math> and let MediaWiki handle it), but I was getting a bit tired -- thanks for the catch, and sorry for the bother!

Nbarth 03:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I ran into your request[edit]


for a better photo of the mausoleum at Lakewood Cemetery and decided to just photoshop the picture that was there. Although I've been to the cemetery and even posted a few monument shots, I did not get one of the Mausoleum. However I don't quite know how to do the copyright stuff since I don't want the person who took the original picture to get cut out. if you can figure out how to deal with that, well here is a slightly better version of the pic. Carptrash 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)



You seem to know most of wikipedia's mathematical notational conventions (thanks for helping me with shift theorem). Could you help me out with the article constant?

Thanks, Randomblue 15:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

Surface diffusion[edit]

Thanks for the math corrections in the article. I had been meaning to send you a message earlier regarding the article since there was a math redlink in the same name on a different page. I changed that link to surface diffusion (mathematics), knowing it had little or nothing to do with this materials science perspective. As a mathematician can you speak to the importance (or obscurity) of surface diffusion as a concept in math? Runningamok19 (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think many probabilists would find it to be of interest. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nimbers contradiction[edit]

Howdy, I think you reverted a delete and said you would look into it. The delete was redone today with a better explanation, and a comment added (to the article not the talk page). I reverted the last two edits because the first directly contradicted the cited sources and the second belonged on the talk page. However, surely has some valid point worth making. I put my guess on Talk:Nimber and suggested how they could make a better version of their point (basically, by adding new material with a source, not deleting old material that has a source). Could you check on it again? Perhaps you will see a simple way to fix the edit or otherwise clear up the confusion. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello Michael,

Long time no hear. I keep running into articles edited by you. Just now I looked up Pattern theory, and sure enough, you were the last person to edit it. Thanks for the great work.

Where are you these days? I'm at CMU.

Guslacerda (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC);

User talk:Guslacerda


Perhaps that's a problem with your browser? Or are you saying that in this particular instance the math characters are too big? Because otherwise, you'd have to add \scriptstyle to every inline math formula on Wikipedia. ;-) In other words, unless it's a problem with this particular formula, I'd leave it alone and wait for it to be fixed in MediaWiki. (It certainly does look too small in my browser if you add \scriptstyle.) -- Ddxc (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've edited Wikipedia every day for more than five years, on a variety of different browsers, working on many thousands of mathematics articles, and the effect I've described always happens on all of them. (I have heard claims that there are exceptions, but I haven't seen one.) Michael Hardy (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed speedy deletion of Boubaker polynomials[edit]

A tag has been placed on Boubaker polynomials, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Boubaker polynomials is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Boubaker polynomials saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear colleague can you help me writng this letter : B with the sign ~ on it?? (which is pronounced B-Tilda, in french?) I do have a lot of problems learning writing style. Thank you for help and understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmbmmmbm (talkcontribs) 13:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are close. João Pessoa is not far from Recife.

Are you at UMN Stats?

Btw, I wasn't able to find your email with Google. Mine is at

Guslacerda (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC);


Response at my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

School of Statistics[edit]

Hello, Michael Hardy. I have not seen the talk page yet for Leonid Hurwicz but I did receive your message on my talk page. Thank you. I believe that school was renamed later. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


The article on Stephen Cole Kleene already gives the pronunciations of his name. I dislike the redundancy of including it in every article that mentions him; I don't want to see it added to Kleene's T predicate, Kleene's recursion theorem, and so on. Also, the claim in the Kleene algebra article is somewhat misleading. Although Kleene may have pronounced his name with a diphthong in the first syllable, a common pronunciation among U.S. logicians does not have one. (Similarly, many well-educated mathematicians pronounce Goedel with an r at the end of the first syllable.) This could be covered in some depth in the biography, if there is a source anywhere about it. Interestingly, you were worried about the fact that someone might misread it as 'clean', while I was concerned for the feelings of people who pronounce it like 'cleany'. Can we compromise on "two syllables" in the algebra article? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No on suggested putting it in every article that mentions him. In this article his name is actually part of the name of the article and the thing that the article is about. It is a case in which incorrect surmises about the pronunciation of the article's title are very very probable. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Kleene, and ignoring the redirects (italicized), there are at least seven article names starting in Kleene and referring to S.C.K. How many of those should have a pronunciation guide for his name? I don't think any of the computability-oriented ones have it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Liquid state machines[edit]

Hi Michael,

I see that you have added a dash to Liquid state machines. Again. Do you have a source in the field that states that that is how it is spelled? Otherwise I would request you to revert it back please, like before, which is the usage in the field.

Thanks -Kaushik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kghose (talkcontribs) 18:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

I've changed it back. Thanks -Kaushik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kghose (talkcontribs) 15:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

An Archimedes puzzler[edit]

Hi. I seem to recall that you have been active in editing some Archimedes related articles. In this vein, could you look at Talk:Ostomachion to see if you can shed some light on the question I pose there? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Ezechiel Plessner[edit]

Hello Michael Hardy. I am happy to know that you are a mathematicians. I have created the biography of Abraham Ezechiel Plessner. Please see the biography and add information if you can. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack cautions[edit]

Information.svg With regard to your comments on wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totient function/Proofs: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This is not acceptable. I suggest an apology. TableManners (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is also disconcerting. TableManners (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Look: I do not insert information into Wikipedia articles on how to do open heart surgery because I don't know anything about that. If I were to do so, and someone who does know that subject were to respond to my content by saying "You're crazy. You're a lunatic.", I don't think that would really be a violation of Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. That's what's going on here. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt-in. I would just like to say that when users pretend to have mathematical expertise, when they really do not, then they are using bad etiquette, if not being downright deceptive. At the very least, there is an implicit insult when someone steals the glory of a true mathematician in this context. Just my opinion. I say, you were justified. Your point was right-on, suggesting humility on technical matters where one has no expertise. Tparameter (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Your exchange in the relevant discussion on whether the totient proofs should be deleted or not were contrary to the notion of an open exchange of ideas. You may find the ideas repulsive, but you need to confine your comments to the ideas, not the provenance of the ideas. That you failed to do. Based on your comments, the relevant individuals have every right to complain about your behavior, as do onlookers such as myself. From the [No personal attacks] page: As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.Beetle B. (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I said that certain users were abusive. So far, the best objection I've seen to what I said was from user:r.e.b. who proposed that perhaps those users were simply stupid. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Coupon collector's problem[edit]

Hi Mike, I was teaching this and my students complained that couldn't read about it anywhere. Take a look. Igorpak (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the page! I don't know enough conventions - it took me a long time to make it as good as it was... Igorpak (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

C. P. Ramanujam[edit]

C P Ramanujam needs to be moved to C. P. Ramanujam, but this seems to need admin tools to do while keeping its history, as the latter article already exists as a stub. (I think the stub can be quietly deleted; I wrote most of it anyway.)

I notice from some of the comments above that you have been forgetting to apply Hanlon's razor again... R.e.b. (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert regarding your behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totient function/Proofs[edit]

Per instructions at Wikiquette Alerts, this message is to inform you that you are the subject of such an alert. More information may be found here. Ra2007 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I just moved to close the Wikiquette alert. It's not getting anywhere, and it is appearing more and more to be a tempest in a teapot. Ra2007 (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page[edit]

I appreciate you taking the time to write a note on my talk page and I appreciate the candor with which you make your argument. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and therefore am not yet fully acclimated to the written and unwritten rules governing this little corner of the web. However, being bold was my only intention in commenting on that particular AfD discussion, and I apologize if my opinion caused you any distress. You seem to be an intelligent and educated person from your writing, but I take exception to some of the comments you made about me on the AfD nomination page and your own talk page. While you may feel strongly about a certain article or subject manner, I would appreciate it if you do not accuse me of acting in bad faith or being stupid. Such statments constitute personal attacks and I will not abide them. Thank you again for posting a comment on my talk page, I sincerely hope our future dealings are under more civil circumstances. Cheers. --SimpleParadox 17:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

List of United States business school rankings[edit]

FYI: Your additions to the subject article are under discussion (for deletion) at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States business school rankings. --Orlady (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird misuse of TeX in Abstract family of acceptors.[edit]

Compare to (, , , ). Both are legitimate uses of TeX. Which is more readable? In the browsers I checked (Safari and Firefox on Mac, Safari and IE on Windows), it is the latter, i.e. the one you say contains "a weird misuse of Tex". I prefer not to have the commas jammed against the next symbol making it more difficult for my old eyes. The formatting instructions for the former may be simpler, but I always err on the side of legibility when publishing a paper. I assumed legibility was important on the web and Wikipedia also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vantelimus (talkcontribs) 13:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

They certainly do not look jammed against anything in TeX on the browsers I've looked at them with: both Firefox on Windows and Seamonkey (formerly Mozilla) on Linux. But the latter version looks badly misaligned---some character higher and others lower---and the two bounding parentheses that are not in TeX look jammed against the two adjacent characters. I am the foremost champion of legibility on Wikipedia and possibly the only Wikipedia in whose edit history you will frequently find the word legibility in edit summaries; in many cases that word has been my whole edit summary. When people write the ordered pair (a,b), I often change it to (ab) both for the sake of legibility and for the sake of making non-TeX mathematical notation match TeX style as closely as possible. Generally I prefer to avoid "inline" TeX on Wikipedia because on the browsers I've used, inline TeX often looks far bigger than the surrounding letters and often gets placed too high or too low rather than properly centered. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Very strange. I'll look at them Firefox on Windows and on a Linux box Vantelimus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Quiche-eater[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Quiche-eater, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiche-eater and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Szász-Mirakyan operators page[edit]

With respect to the Szász-Mirakyan operators page, do you know who Mirakyan is? « D Trebbien (talk) 00:37 2008 January 2 (UTC)

Sorry---no. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like an Armenian last name, if that helps. -Ben pcc (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Holocube, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:2004-07-31 Nena at the opening of the Berliner Olympiastadion.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:2004-07-31 Nena at the opening of the Berliner Olympiastadion.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation inside <math> tags[edit]

Hi Michael,

I have been noticing how you have been moving punctuation inside <math> tags, presumably because the LaTeX rendering of the commas and periods are better typeset. In this regard, I agree completely that the default look of commas and periods is too small and awkward next to math images. However, the reason why I don't move punctuation inside is that I feel that math tags should only contain mathematics. Also, I can edit my monobook.css user page to make the text font different.

Everyone can alter the styles that they see by adding Cascading Style Sheets to their monobook.css user page, so everyone has more control over how things render on their screen (while logged in) when the punctuation is text. « D Trebbien (talk) 07:27 2008 January 6 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:2004-07-31_Nena_at_the_opening_of_the_Berliner_Olympiastadion.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:2004-07-31_Nena_at_the_opening_of_the_Berliner_Olympiastadion.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECUtalk 15:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Unfortunate 'Spelling' Article...[edit]

Thanks: I thought it was rather hilarious that there were spelling and punctuation errors in an article on spelling! Nct26 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC) By the way, is this how you 'talk' to people on Wikipedia: by editing their 'talk' page? I don't really know.

That and the article discussion pages. And discussion pages that accompany WikiProjects and the like. It seems virtually that the hilarious nature of the "Spelleng" was intended by the anonymous user who did it. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion[edit]

Hi Michael, If you could spare a bit of your time, I would really value your opinion on an RfC I have opened concerning the page info-gap decision theory. There is a new user there who has published a paper saying info-gap is totally wrong. He agrees that his interpretation is a minority view but wants the info-gap article to endorse it all the same. Right now the article is really messed up because of this and he won't agree to what seems to me a fair compromise. I would really appreciate an outsider's view on this topic. Thanks! --Zvika (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pinsky phenomenon[edit]

There might be a slight error here. Instead of < there should be <= . See Pinsky's book, around p. 142+ about this. Maybe you can correct. Wikipedians editors do not like me and call me names. Maybe you can help instead of me. AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me?[edit]

I wrote this to an editor who keeps harassing me. Can you help me?

why do you not like me? why are you so mean? why do you make me sad?

I mean no harm. I love numbers. Gauss proved all numbers interesting. Why are you mean to me? Why you make me sad? I am new here. I thought people are supposed to be nice. why not nice? please explain. AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC) AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC) AmeliaElizabeth (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Inline TeX Clarification[edit]


Sorry to bring this back to life, but I just noticed the following (pretty old) edit summary in Chebyshev polynomials:

Got rid of some hideous inline TeX. I'm inclined to suspect that it looks just as hideous on the browser of those who do this stuff as on anyones, but that those people just don't mind hideousnes.

I really don't see what's so hideous. Here is a screenshot of what I see, old and new edits: [18]

I'm a student, so I often use (and contribute with) shared computers. I've never seen anything but what you see in the screenshot, not on any machine. The manual of style for math doesn't recommend one over the other, as long as the inline math does not get rendered as an image. Neither edit shows images, ever.

I want to emphasize that I really don't care because they're equivalent as far as I see, but I'm letting you know so that if something isn't right in your user preferences, you wouldn't have to spend any effort fixing my edits; also Wikipedia in general would look nicer as my edits are not the only ones with non-image TeX.

Sorry for bringing up this annoying topic, — Ben pcc (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your screen shot doesn't look hideous, but on several different browsers I've used, characters in TeX look far bigger than the surrounding text and are often not aligned with it, being either too high or too low. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Still true if you're logged out? Just curious. -Ben pcc (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Harry Binswanger Image[edit]

The discussion is here. -Nv8200p talk 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

By any chance...[edit]

...dou you live near Philadelphia? Editorofthewiki (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No---for the Time Being I live in Minneapolis. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On "that" and "which"[edit]

You replaced my "which" by "that" in C-minimal theory, citing the article restrictive clause. A more exact pointer would have been English relative clauses#That and which, where it is noted that this is a frequent point of dispute. I would suggest being a bit more careful in this area, as most of us (me not excepted as you can see) have stronger feelings on such trivial little things than seems rational.

I consider "which" to be slightly better style in this case than "that", although here the difference is so small that I don't care enough to revert. In every restrictive relative clause that I write I make a choice between "that" and "which". I don't agree at all with Fowler or his followers, and I believe that my point of view is shared by many professional linguists even in the US. (In the previous sentence "which I write" would have sounded awkward, and more so than "that" usually does in cases where it's the other way round. I suspect that that's where Fowler's recommendation came from: He wanted a simple rule. But I don't want to follow simplified rules in cases where I have a feeling for the more complicated original rule.) Also, although I try to stick to Oxford style "ize" spellings for the Wikipedia articles I start, I generally write British English, where Fowler's rule definitely doesn't apply. I would generally recommend against this kind of "corrections" at all, but at least you could check for clear indicators that the article was started in American English before changing BE to AE. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Vague topology[edit]

It's really inappropriate to begin a Wikipedia article by saying
Let X be a locally compact Hausdorff space
just as if you could assume the reader is a mathematician. You need to give
some initial context-setting first, informing the reader that mathematics is what the article is to be about.

A simple "Please provide some more context for the article" would be nice. I find the tone to be a bit scolding an uncivil, which hardly seems to be called for. I had started the article late one night, and never got around to finishing off the stub context. If you still find the article inappropriate, I can place a prod tag on it, and we can forget the whole thing. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

your puzzle[edit]

Of course to anyone with typographical training there's a huge difference between etc. (where "+" is a "unary operator") and (a part of a multi-line formula, for example) where "+" is a binary operator. Just adding "{}" in front of "+" will tell TeX to make that operator into a binary operator. The difference in the spacing is instantly obvious to a trained eye!  :: (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • PS haven't looked at your code, of course; I'm just using this sort of thing every day in my own work! Feel free to delete these comments so as not to give clues to future visitors of your page :) :: (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosin Rammler distribution[edit]

I think a few people editing this article are misunderstanding an important point. Take a look at talk:Rosin Rammler distribution and see if what I am saying makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle snacks (talkcontribs) 03:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Grip (tennis)[edit]

I don't get it, what did I do? I followed the link you gave me but I can't view it because i'm not an admin. мιІапэџѕ (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be an administrator to read that. It says you moved "grip (tennis)" (with a lower-case initial "t" to "grip (Tennis)" (with a capital "T"). Michael Hardy (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

standard deviation[edit]

Sorry about that Michael, thanks for your message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowolfe (talkcontribs) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Nucular, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

You are officially responsible for the creation of the single worst article on Wikipedia. This kind of article is why people don't take it seriously. You've made a joke of what could have been--indeed, should have been--a great institution of knowledge. Instead, you have turned it into yet another bad joke on the internet.

A Concerned Netizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allende's Last Radio Boadcast Message[edit]

A tag has been placed on Allende's Last Radio Boadcast Message, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

statistics WikiProject[edit]

Great idea; I would participate with probability 1. Btyner (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost sure I would too. Statistics is a mathematical science, not a branch of mathematics, after all. I've occasionally thought of starting some discussion on the talk page for WP:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Probability and statistics but i'm not sure anyone would notice. It took me several weeks to find that project page and i suspect no-one watches it. --Qwfp (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Changed my mind. Just found out about task forces and now think a statistics task force sounds more appropriate. Or maybe a probability and statistics taskforce would be better, as that would fit in with the existing structure of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0. Any thoughts? Qwfp (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sections: Casuarina Tree[edit]

Hi Michael Hardy, just a wikistyle thing – apologies if it's not you – it looks like there's some misunderstanding about the sections in the article The Casuarina Tree, they are titles of short stories so need to keep their caps, but they aren't the main title of the book, so they aren't in italics. I noticed no-one has given you a reason which would help I guess, so this is the reason. Hope it helps, cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC) My bad, I see you caught on. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Webster Theater[edit]

Hi, thank you for your input on the Webster Theater article., its much appreciated. -kevin talkemail 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

typography for internal links[edit]

Michael, thanks for several recent improvements. Looking at my Watchlist today, I feel I'm probably missing something, but alls well that edits well. I just want to note why I use [[Foo_bar|foo bar]] instead of [[foo bar]]: the former preserves the actual name of the item in the database underlying the wiki, as the first term, and makes the human-presentation explicitly distinct. The latter form requires a wiki-aware parser, to convert "foo bar" into "Foo_bar" before accessing the DB. I'm willing to sacrifice the few bytes in redundancy because first, it's not visible to the casual reader, second, it's pedagogical for people figuring out the system, and third, to aid automata. My habit is useless however as several editors just replace it exactly as you did, so I'll try to drop the habit. Pete St.John (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Confidence intervals[edit]

I saw your edit summary on Confidence interval that "It's been a while since I've looked at this; I may do some content edits later."

I hope you do; I think some recent edits (particularly this one) have made the article rather less clear, rather than more clear.

I'd also welcome your input on a dispute I'm in with some editors at Talk:Bayesian probability with my assertion that a confidence interval for a parameter θ "has nothing to do with getting a probability distribution for θ".

They claim on the contrary, that θ can be expected to fall in a 95% C.I. 95% of the time.

Particularly, I'd welcome any comments on this example, which (if I've understood Confidence Intervals correctly) shows how one might be led to think that a parameter t had a 100% C.I. of {0 <= t <= 0}, when, if one calculated the Likelihood for t, one would find it given by

-- so an expectation value with a uniform prior would actually diverge!

I think I've followed the rules properly, constructing an estimator, and then calculating a C.I. for the value it gives; but I'd welcome if you could have a look over it.

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Stub :)[edit]

Hmm, I tend to take things conservatively.... Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A Thoughtful Foundation[edit]

FWIW, your style standardization applied to Vector (physical) is a significant first step in the development of the article. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you---I appreciate having things like this noticed. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Watch your manners, Bub[edit]

RE: Bogus "copy edit"

Please don't use the phrase "copy edit" when you make a crucial change in the meaning of a sentence. That's what you did here. list of mathematics articles and lists of mathematics topics are TWO DIFFERENT lists, of very different kinds. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw a red link and I fixed it. Watch you accusations when they have no basis in fact. I have no need for your insults. RichardF (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. It was not a red link. It was a working blue link. You changed it to a different working blue link in a way that drastically altered the meaning. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists of mathematics topics in portal namespace[edit]

I have replied to you on the talkpage of Wikipedia:Move navigational lists to portal namespace. -Halo (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Methodist Union[edit]

You're welcome to do style edits. As a new-comer, I have a few things to remembr and get used to. AS you noted, in the case of the hymn book, it is commonly known as The Methodist Hymn Book, or MHB for short when preachers are choosing hymns. The difficulty when writing about some subjects like Methodism when you have grown up in the Manse is that you are used to somethings being CAPITALISED - like the word Manse, from the days when our address was "Wesley Manse, Village, etc." I have also asked someone in the Wesley Reform Union to take a look and comment on that section. Anyway, the thing about Wikipedia is that improving an article is a team effort. And I need help with sorting out my revised pictures in H B Kendall (I have a contact to ask about this). Best wishes Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC) And on reflection, to fit Wiki style it should be titled "Methodist union" not Methodist Union". I have got ued to lots of Capitals in the old books. I am happy for anyone to make this edit, and ad Redirects as required. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello Michael,

A user called "halo" recently deleted some content for the "PowerBASIC" entry in wikipedia. His comment was "who cares if they have a forum. I would address this question to him directly but on his talk pages he says "Im leaving Wikipedia for at least a month... Im sick of it"

The answer is that thousands of users of the product depend upon the user support forums to get started and get help as they develop software. The user forums are more valauble to a new user than the product itself. After more than a decade with this product I am very familiar with this. New users need to be aware of what they are getting into should they be counting upon the forums when purchasing the product despite the companies attempts to sanitize their track record.

I am not sure how the moderator structure works at wikipedia, but I would like to find out and make sure that my edits meet your standards for truthfulness and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealWorldExperience (talkcontribs) 01:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There's not actually a "moderator". I haven't looked at the material that was deleted, but my first guess is that he may have thought it amounted to advertising, and that's normally considered a reason to delete material. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects to non-existent pages[edit]

Hi, Mike. I saw your post at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects to non-existent pages and was going to suggest that it would be useful to find diffs, but I see you're already looking into that; and you've mentioned the approximate time period, which is also useful in itself. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me[edit]

Hi Mike. I posted a question about the use of "integration by parts" and "differentiation by parts" in the "Integration by Parts" article. Forget it. I posted the question in the wrong article. I removed it already. Just to let you know, I was referring to the Smoothed_particle_hydrodynamics article. The question was correctly posted there now. Thank you for your attention, and excuse me for the mess. [ ]s Capagot (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernoulli numbers, Carlitz identity[edit]

Hi Michael. Could you please let me know a reference for the identity of Carlitz appearing on the Wikipedia page "Bernoulli number" in the Assorted Identities section? I see it has been entered by you on 21/9/2006, and I couldn't find a reference to the paper of Carlitz or to an article mentioning it. That would be extremely valuable. Thanks very much. Zephyr75 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyr75 (talkcontribs) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I remember entering this, and now I'm wondering why I didn't say then where I found it. I'll see if I can find it. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have trouble finding a reference let me know and I'll do what I can. I'm not on an academic campus where math libraries are handy, but they are nearby and I have friends. I knew Carlitz; my claim to fame is to have been the only freshman he ever had (in fifty years teaching) his Number Theory class :-) so I'm mindlessly loyal. Pete St.John (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
NB: there are 106 entries for Carlitz (as sole author) at [[19]] Bernoulli Numbers bibliography; that's like, a seventh of his total work. Pete St.John (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Jacqueline Eales[edit]

I was reading over your comment left under my delete recommendation, and have to say that you were being pretty rude. Comment on the subject at hand, not the commenter. Thank you. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess people are touchy about English usage. I do wonder why I keep seeing that one lately. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not touchy about grammer... I'm touchy about personal attacks and you implying that I am not educated. Thanks. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I neither said nor thought you were uneducated. I was and am puzzled about why that strange locution has started turning up repeatedly and that is what I said. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Experimental design[edit]

Maybe you go back farther than me (though that is hard to believe)! The only books I could dig up at the moment are:

  • Quasi-Experimentation Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings (1979) by Thomas Cook and Donald Campbell
  • Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (2nd Ed.) (1971) by B. J. Winer
  • Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research (1973) by Donald Compbell and Julian Stanley
  • Experimental Principles and Design in Psychology (1970) Herbert Kimmel

I remember the name Fisher and thought I had a book by him, but my books are in chaos right now. Anyway, what's in a name? Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, searching Google Books for those with the title "Design of Experiments" immediately brings up more than a thousand books, the first of which is Fisher's 1935 book that started the whole thing. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Pointing Out my Error[edit]

I have replied at my talk pageRandom89 05:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Golden ratio symbol changes[edit] (talk · contribs) is persistent. This anon continues to change the notation in the Golden ratio article even after your revert and mine. Is there anything you can do? If he or she persists, I will continue to revert. I am concerned about WP:3RR, although I believe my actions would be a permissible exception. Finell (Talk) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)


I was reading about your ordeal with the deletionist crowd. I've had the unfortunately experience of having my first two articles CSD-A7. You can find a "discussion" of their handywork at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tefosav and on my talk page User_talk:Zenasprime. The system is broken at it's core. I'd like to see it get fixed but I doubt it can be done considering the current climate. Good Luck friend.  ;) Zenasprime (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Z00r (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sum(s) of Random Variables (Central Limit Theorem)[edit]

It is still important that the CLT will not work if there is zero variance (I think). If the population contains 1 value, any sample will return N of that value, All the sums will be the same and their distribution will not be normal, it will just be a spike. Or is this ok because a normal distribution with zero variance is still normal, formally speaking? It isn't normal in the ordinary sense... I note the "classical version" in the CLT article does require .

Take care.

Tombadog (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any major problem with a normal distribution of variance 0. As σ approaches 0, the normal distribution of variance σ converges in distribution to a degenerate distribution of variance 0. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Almost every discussion of the CLT talks about rolling dice and coin flipping which I find very easy to grasp. Let me see if I have this straight, using dice as the example. The first roll of the die, X(1) is 2. I am thinking the "random variable" at issue here is the value X takes on in any roll. You only need one random variable to sample from, right? And as everyone knows the possibilities for a single die are uniformly distributed, so X itself is not normal.

We create a sample of, say, 10 rolls and we add them up, getting 38 as the result.

This is what a "sum of a random variable" seems to mean. I may be wrong.

We have one measely sum, so there is no distribution for the sum as yet.

We go on to create 100 sums of 10 rolls each. We plot the frequency with which we encounter particular sums and viola: it's normal. So we have in hand an example where the sums of a uniformly distributed random variable are normally distributed. Now that's the way I'd put it, an artifact of the way I see the process working.

The CLT text says something a bit different to me. It refers to "the sum of independent identically distributed random variables".

In the case of Moivre or the die roll, exactly what are the variables? I see just one, but many sums thereof..

Thanks much,

Tombadog (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You wrote:
We have one measely sum, so there is no distribution for the sum as yet.
But you could have said the same thing about rolling the die ONCE. We just get one number, so there is no distribution yet. But instead you say it's uniformly distributed. Now imagine throwing the die, not just one time, and not yet ten, but rather twice. Here's what you get:
Now the number 2 appears only once out of 36 possible outcomes, and so does 12, so we have
And 3 appears twice, and so does 11, so we have
And so on:
And we get a non-uniform distribution with a peak in the middle, thus a little bit closer to the normal distribution. If you throw three dice and take the sum of the three numbers, the possible outcomes are 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and the probabilities are:
(You should check my arithmetic.) So we have a sum of three random variables, and it has this probability distribution. And notice that as you move from the right edge leftward, it gets steeper, then near the middle it gets less steep. So this is still closer to being normal. For a sum of 10 throws of the dice one similarly gets a probability distribution, this one quite close to normal. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --

I think you have answered my fundamental question which was "what do people mean when they talk about random variables in the plural?" I would prevoiusly guessed the would be the sort of thing one would give a different letter name to in algebra, as opposed to an index number to in a list of different intantiations of the same entity in a list. You know x is age and y is weight. X is a set of ages, X(1) the first age. But above you talk about tossing three dice as the sum of three random variables. I would have thought theres was only 1.

Tombadog (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The sum of three random variables is one random variable. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Eternity, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Categorical bridge[edit]

Hi Michael, I noticed that you edited the article on Categorical Bridge. Do you know about this stuff? I'm trying to figure out whether it is really worthy of an article. As far as I can tell, it stems from an unpublished and uncited draft manuscript. If it's not worthy of an article, maybe it should be deleted sooner rather than later, before anyone invests too much time in it. Not sure. Sam Staton (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the material; I just knew that the lack of context-setting was inappropriate, and I edited accordingly. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the "unencyclopedic" template for the time being. Sam Staton (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

removed cis(x) discussion from the list of trigonometric identities[edit]

Hi Michael, After some infrequent comments on the discussion page, I deleted the entire section on cis from List_of_trigonometric_identities. I know you put some effort into it, but I think an identities page is the wrong place for it. If you can find a better place, I'd encourage you to add it back. Sorry, Derekt75 (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Solar variation[edit]

You wrote:

Solar variation is about variations in energy that the sun emits. It has nothing to do with seasons on EARTH, or anything about the earth at all.

Please try the following:

  1. Go to Solar variation
  2. Open a page-search window of your Web browser. Usually CTRL-F does the trick.
  3. Enter the search term "earth". Check if case sensitive is off.
  4. Search.
  5. Repeat step 4 until you have progressed to the end of the article, counting how many times you find the search term.

Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You make no sense. Yes, solar variation affect the earth. I know that. I do not need to be convinced. But (1) solar variation would still exist if the earth did not, and (2) the topic of effect of sun angle on climate would still make just as much sense if there were not solar variation. There would still be seasons without solar variation and there would still be geographic variations in climate without solar variation. That is simply a separate topic from the topic of solar variation. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but to be about variation in energy output only, the article is not limited enough; it throws all the sun's effects about merrily. I thus thought that contra the introduction, it was about the varying amount of solar irradiation emitted and received, regardless the cause of the variation.
Consequently there should be some revamping done. Effect of sun angle on climate should be tied in with Solar variation and Milankovitch cycles, but in a different way as it is now (which suggests that it is a topic falling under the SV article's scope). I'd be glad to be able to keep my hands off that.
Effect of sun angle on climate is also in need of sourcing, which is another reason I porposed the merge. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Michael, I notice you've been adding {{WPStatistics}} to lots of articles. Are you doing this manually? There are much easier ways, e.g. WP:AWB. I would offer to do this for you through AWB, but to be honest, I am not sure that this serves any useful purpose. I never quite figured out what those talk page WikiProject notices were good for. Could you enlighten me? Thanks, --Zvika (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring![edit]

Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations[edit]

  • Keep Not a high-priority article, but legitimate. The assertion that Myrzakulov himself created this should be backed up with evidence. People who cite that reason in AfD nominations usually seem to get it wrong. Until evidence is given, the denial alone is sufficient to reject that particular proposed reason for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As indicated in the article history page, it was originally created by G.N. Nugmanova. The references given are two joint papers by her, Myrzakulov, and two other authors. She has, in all, three published papers mentioned in the Scientific Citation Index, dated 1997, 1998 and 1999, all of which are jointly with Myrzakulov. She works at the same 'Institute of Physics and Technology', Almaty, Kazakhstan, and is evidently a junior colleague, probably a former student. There are six other preprints by her, posted at the ArXiv, [20] of which two are jointly authored with Myrzakulov, and the third has his name in the title. The first of these, dating from 1994, while she was presumably a student, and probably remained unpublished, may be seen as a preprint posted at the ArXiv [21]. It looks much like a sketch of an early version this article, with the same coinages. Furthermore, the anonymous postings by the main contributors to this article, from IP addresses, as well as the one from by the unsigned contributor to this page who claims to be the author, are all from the same location, in Alamaty, Kazakhstan, or from Astana, Kazakhstan, as may be verified by consulting the locator page [22]. R_Physicist (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm the author of page Myrzakulov equations. To edit and to communication I used and continue use just one computer. Really I don't know why here arises many IP addresses. This is question for Kaztelecom. Ngn (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about the many IP addresses. That's perfectly normal for people who use a telephone line for internet access, and nobody will try to draw any conclusions from that. I believe R Physicist's point was merely that the article was probably written by a single editor from Kazakhstan, and you have confirmed that anyway. By the way, welcome to Wikipedia, and sorry for the somewhat rough start. Unfortunately this happens frequently to people who begin here by writing on a subject that is really close to them. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I'm the author of the article Myrzakulov equations and I'm not the author of these equations. But I would like ask you to keep this my article. Ngn (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Integrable systems[edit]

Hello. ( I guess this is a small interlude from the great "Deletion debate".)

I noticed that you moved the article "Integrable Systems" to "Integrable System", just after I had done the converse. I am not sure why you did this, since the standard usage, when referring to this area, is "Integrable Systems", since it is the whole collection of them that is being referred to, and not one individual example. If you are not sure about this, please just check the net for titles, e.g. of books on the subject. (One is cited in the article itself.)

Writing it in the singular would be as inappropriate, say, as writing "Dynamic System" instead of "Dynamic Systems" when referring to this area, or "Dynamic" when referring to the are of mechanics usually called "Dynamics".

I will try to revert to the standard usage. R_Physicist (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Please note that a site-wide convention to use singular forms is used, with only a few exceptions. The title refers to something particular, in other words it defines the concept of "integrable system". It doesn't refer to the research field as such. I hope that helps. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I see that there is some convention here, but do Wikipedia conventions override those of correct English usage (or the common practice of how a domain of research is called)? Since you are, I believe, mainly a statistician, let me make a comparison; what would a statistician think if the article on Bayesian Statistics were named "Bayesian Statistic"?

(In fact, I see the article has been, in this case, renamed "Bayesian inference", but the logic is exactly the same.) R_Physicist (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Weiner sausage[edit]

Hi, sorry but I was not on Wikipedia (as I am not awake all 24 hours of the day and i'm located on the East Coast of America) when the changes were made and how it was speedy kept, yadda yadda. It's kinda funny that the only AfD comments that show up on my talk page are for the 2% that i voted too early on or without googling. Anyway, thanks for giving me heads up on the AfD. Doc StrangeMailbox Orbitting Black HoleStrange Frequencies 15:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Derivation of the Routh array[edit]

Per your advice, I added some introductory lines before the math in Derivation of the Routh array. Thanks for dropping me the note. There has been quite a response to your posting in mathtalk. --Zaxxonal (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AGF much?[edit]

Please see a response on my talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Michael, I am a little dispointed to find that you have started this thread at WT:RFA, not only without leaving a note on my talk to advise that you felt my remarks warranted the thread, but also that you have only quoted part of my original comment and made no real attempt to provide further context to my remarks. Sorry, but I feel it would have been polite to advise me, if not initially certainly as the thread expanded. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Aviasud Mistral[edit]

Hey Michael, thanks for stepping in to this article and probably helping save it from the deletion bin. I've been corresponding with the author on his/her talk page, and it seems like we have a good faith editor on our hands. Do me a favor and watchlist this one; if someone noms it for deletion in a way you can't really refute, just userfy the article for me and I'll take care of it on the author's end. Thanks! Obviously, I'm open for questions/comments on this one. Tan | 39 00:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I saw you had erroneously posted a message to my talk page, then deleted it, and being nosey I read it. However, I totally agree with what you wrote: I'm no expert and I don't have any real knowledge of religion, but it was absolutely obvious to me that context demanded that the intended word was "mythology". If I had thought the message was incomprehensible, I would have thought it was better to keep quiet and let others remain ignorant of my ignorance, rather than remove all doubt on this matter by announcing my incomprehension. I certainly wouldn't have taken such extreme action as deletion!  DDStretch  (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

recent RVs[edit]

you just rved an anon editor over at Exponential family, I'm not sure why you rved his edit that added in "or log-partition function". Is there a reason? Pdbailey (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Pdbailey (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bochica & Bite the newbies and get rewarded with an adminship[edit]

I have read trough the Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship section, and i have to say: I am quite irritated that this edit, which is over a month old, somehow served as some kind of "Proof" for your statement. Even worse is the fact that you come to my user page, and somehow seem to claim that i violate WP:Bite on purpose to get some sort of good reputation if i even wanted to become an admin.
Let me tell you, i'm offended by this to say the least. If there is any behavioral guideline that i value it are WP:Civ and WP:Bite, simply because they create a pleasant, non violent editing sphere. As of such i regularly find myself upon a new user page, dropping a few lines about how to create Reflists, How to link articles, explaining what could be improved be improved in their article and so on. And what is the response to this? A cutout of 1 of my (On average) 2500 edits a month showing i missed some time. How wry is that?
Now for the explanation: I have been, up till about a month ago, been exclusively a vandalism patrol. For a change of work i decided to give WP:CSD a try, mainly because it seemed to be a bit linked to my normal WP:CVU work. The edit you singled out there is one of my early CSD edits, at whose time i was still busy learning the rules, and adapting to the different edit style required for this task. I have stated in the past that my first edits there were quite overzealous, mainly because i tagged anything that seemed to miss even the slightest thing. My reasoning therefore was that if i did something wrong i would get a little nudge from a seasoned editor, and i could always look which pages were, and which were not deleted (Those who are not deleted must have been good articles, and therefor an example of what NOT to delete).
I have already been whistled at for this editing style, and as of such it has long gone been adjusted to get rid of the deletionism habit i seemed to suffer from. So please, the next time you feel the need to scrub around for an example, please take a recent one. Or at least, you might not want to imply that my tagging is just to "Win favors (To get) upstairs", as i at this time have no desire whatsoever to become an admin. Maybe in the future, but not now. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 06:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


I've seen your important contributions for the article Recurrence relation. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression for the exact trigonometric constants of the form: , when n is natural (and is not given in advance). Do you know of any such general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression? (note that any exponential-expression-over-the-imaginaries is also excluded since it's trivially equivalent to a real-trigonometric expression).

  • Let me explain: if we choose n=1 then the term becomes "0", which is a simple (non-trigonometric) constant. If we choose n=2 then the term becomes , which is again a non-trigonometric expression. etc. etc. Generally, for every natural n, the term becomes a non-trigonometric expression. However, when n is not given in advance, then the very expression per se - is a trigonometric expression. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression equivalent to , when n is not given in advance. If not for the cosine - then for the sine or the tangent or the cotangent.

Eliko (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Lists of mathematics topics[edit]

I said "delist, per above", meaning that I was agreeing with the above reason regarding the references. Then, my second statment was that this list "is just an outdated featured list". By saying that, I was trying to explain why it lacked proper referencing (it was promoted in October 2005). If you take a look at recent featured lists, you'll see many references cited in-line. So, by saying "outdated", I meant that the method of referencing information in this list was outdated. I hope I made this clearer.--Crzycheetah 22:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your remarks on my talk page[edit]

Beeblbrox (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


The record of my edits has disappeared. In the edit history, it looks like you made all the changes I made. Are you going to cut and paste the other contribs history into the history? Just curious. The Transhumanist    21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It see "Princess Janay" in the edit history, so I don't know why it would look as if I wrote it. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I made all the changes in this version, which has your name on it. Where's the record of my changes to the article? The Transhumanist    21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. The Transhumanist    21:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll look into whether someone skilled in these edit-history merges can do something. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Alene B. Duerk[edit]

Michael, Thank you for the constructive comments on wikipedia conventions. After spending a great deal of time on the 15-plus articles I recently created or expanded on Navy Nurse Corps directors, I am pleased to see that you have taken the time to polish up all the headings so they will look their best. That's what this collaborative environment is all about. Mhjohns (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Abstract polytopes[edit]

Just a quick "thank you" for tidying the markup, some of which was mine. I owe you an apology for that horrible <=. I had a headache coming on, couldn't remember the HTML entity, and just wanted to get it down quick. -- Steelpillow (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Order statistic[edit]

Regarding "expert" tag, I have now placed something on article talk page. Melcombe (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Conway triangle notation[edit]

Thank you for editing work and advice on the above. Can you advise on policy? I have some further 20 useful formulae in Conway notation. Rather than clutter up the original article, I was planning to build a catalogue as a sub heading under my user page and cross refer to/from original article. Is this good practice? Frank M Jackson (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where, if anywhere, it's stated in official policies, but I don't think links to user pages from article are supposed to be there. Possibly a separate article listing formulas would be appropriate, with Conway triangle notation and the separate article linking to each other. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Michael, You say "I can't believe someone redirected the correctly hyphenated page to this page with the incorrect title. Now the edit history of the correctly titled article will be destroyed." I understood that if moves were done correctly the page histories and Talk pages moved correctly, and that the edit histories had to be preserved for GFDL reasons. The Talk pages are now in a mess - could you please look at them and tidy them up? There is a lot of discussion at Talk:Three letter acronym, and the page at Talk:Three-letter acronym now starts with "This page, "Talk:Three-letter acronym", should not be used for any further discussion, as the corresponding page is now a redirect.". Please tidy up after your move! Thanks. (Or, can we just move it back to where it was? A quick Google search suggests that there more uses of the phrase un-hyphenated, and the article title should reflect this.) PamD (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Smile, you're on ANI[edit]

I thought you would like to know that you are being talked about at ANI, here. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thought I'd drop a link to our discussion here. I'm happy to continue discussing this--here or elsewhere--if you have any desire to. Best, Darkspots (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: synergetics coordinates[edit]

In Synergetics coordinates you wrote:
>This is utter crap. I'll fix it soon unless someone beats me to it.

I could also insult the article you redirected it to because it is ambiguous & incomplete about synergetics coordinates. According to they are coordinates based on regular simplexes, which includes tetrahedra besides regular triangles: Triangular coordinates does not specify regular triangles. How about trying to improve Synergetics coordinates instead of being rude without explanation?--Dchmelik (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article stated that they are barycentric coordinates, but the definition given at MathWorld was quite inconsistent with that. It seemed as if you were not paying any attention to the item you were citing. Triangular coordinates does specify regularity, i.e. the three axes meet at 120° angles. Why should there be two separate articles that say the same thing, and why are you calling them barycentric when you go on to state a definition that makes it clear that they're nothing of the sort? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently I was wrong that they are barycentric coordinates. However, triangular coordinates do not necessarily use regular triangles, and regular triangular coordinates are only the 1st type of synergetics coordinates: tetrahedral coordinates and higher are not merely triangular coordinates. That is why there should be two articles; they did not say the same thing. I restored Syergetics coordinates and gave such explanation. If you still want there to be only one of the two articles, it would be better to move them to a new article perhaps with the name that has been proposed 'simplex coordinates.'--Dchmelik (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Barking dogs and barking mad[edit]

Maintaining the patriarchy page can be a nightmare. Unless weasling is reverted at once, it leaves traces in the most surprising places. Before:

  • Patriarchy is rule by fathers and, by extention, male responsibility for society.


  • Patriarchy is a word that has been used by some to describe a concept that was used to oppress women. Mary Daly says, "Oppression of women is natural to men, they do it without thought ..."

There's been sufficient interest from good editors recently, that I think I'll start restoring lots of lost text. Weasling will probably end up on more watch lists now.

Anyway, thanks for dropping by. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see....
A giraffe is an animal with a long neck.
A gifaffe is a word that has been used by some to describe the concept of an animal with a long neck.
I wonder which way of saying it is better.....? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Isomorphism theorem needs your magic[edit]

Frightening as is. Italic tildes, images of greek letters in running text. Notes to the editor in the article. JackSchmidt (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Confidence interval[edit]

Your input at Talk:Confidence interval would be appreciated, if you feel it's worth the frustration. Thanks. darin (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project[edit]

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple-Try Metropolis[edit]

Thankyou for your alterations to the page. I was unaware of the LaTeX code for the angle brackets. Velocidex (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


I created a page on local finiteness and I don't know why someone changed it. I want to challenge this article. Also, how do I challenge an article?

Thanks for your help

TopologyExpert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topology Expert (talkcontribs) 09:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If by "challenge" you mean nominate it for deletion, the instructions are at WP:AFD. As to why someone did particular edits, you can ask about that on the article's discussion page or on the user's talk page. Normally an article is to be expected to keep getting changed forever, and one hopes the changes will improve it. Of course, some changes don't improve the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vertex angle[edit]

I noticed in one of your recent edits to Vertex angle [23] you mentioned that it was "certainly different from what [you] had in mind." What exactly did you mean? Is there a different kind of "vertex angle" that you were thinking of? --pbroks13talk? 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant the sort of thing referred to in the red link I created at polar sine, that linked to vertex angle. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

don't forget the edit summary![edit]

Michael Hardy, I recently noticed a few edits on my watchlist that you executed that do not have edit summaries and I peeked at your contribution list and this appears to be more popular with you now with 16 of your last 50 edits having no summary. This is just a friendly reminder that they are useful to others, especially when a frequent and long time editor such as your self add them. Cheers, Pdbailey (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

don't forget reality[edit]

It's the concept, not the book title. "Affective Computing: italicize book title" And, don't edit when the page is locked. Dig? (C'mon, as an admin you should know that ... right?) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 10:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's the concept rather than the book title, then when is the initial "C" capital? As for the page being locked, I was not aware of that. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Compact Spaces *[edit]

I have nominated Compact Spaces * (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Purpose[edit]

If you read through the section, you will see it is essentially a trivia section, or collection of misc. facts. The first fact was already mentioned in earlier paragraphs. The next fact had to do with purpose as it pertains to running a business, which seemed unrelated, and un-notable. The last thing was a random fact on a broadway play, also unrelated. Hope this helps. Danski14(talk) 16:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Locally finite collection[edit]

Hi, thanks for cleaning up the style in the Exercises section of Locally finite collection. As I'm sure you're aware, there are somewhat bigger fish to fry then just making the section look pretty per the manual of style. Specifically, the issue is WP:NOT#TEXT. I am of the view that the section should be deleted altogether, but User:Topology Expert keeps reverting it. I have already incorporated all (or almost all) of the information in the Exercises section into the article in a more encyclopedic style. I have already informed the user about the policy, but he/she doesn't seem interested in discussing it. silly rabbit (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Topology Expert and Local Connectedness[edit]

Dear Michael Hardy,

As you are aware, I have created a new article on local connectedness. Does this follow the standard Wikipedia conventions? Also, I thought that components and local connectedness have very important relations to each other. Therefore, I decided to add a section on this. I can't see any other article on components. Is it possible for me to change the name of the article from "Locally connected space" to "Local connectedness and components"? This would be a more appropriate name for the article in my opinion.

Also, the article I created on "locally finite collection", I think that the exercises are a key part of the article. Because, even if the reader doesn't wish to solve them, the exercises can be treated as information. This information is indeed part of the article. For example, I gave an exercise regarding the Nagata-Smirnov theorem topology. This can be treated as a fact. I just put it as an exercise. Also, an interested reader may be willing to solve them. They are not in any way a "bad part" of the article. Also, regarding what "Silly rabbit" says, I don't see why he doesn't give a reason why the exercises should be removed. Truthfully, I see nothing wrong with them. Could I please have your opinion on this? Thankyou very much for your help. I have really learnt a lot from you.

Topology Expert (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Michael Hardy,

I have also noticed (when browsing through Wikipedia), that many pages have included the word "local connectedness". All of these words provide a link to the page on connectedness. I think that was perhaps, earlier, the article on "locally connected space" was a stub. Is there away to change all these redirects? I think that if people click on these links, they expect to go to the page on "locally connected space". Thankyou very much for your help.

Topology Expert (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I found one of those and edited it like this. Doing the same or something similar with the others should take care of it. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lommel–Weber function[edit]

You may wish to use the 'preview' button in future before saving a half-written article, or to make the article here Special:Mypage/Sandbox. I have a feeling I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs - if i am apologies. ninety:one 21:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Actually that was occasioned in part by my hastily trying to check some links, and also by the fact that I didn't want some bot to delete the redirect page I'd created to that page on the grounds that the target didn't exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been confusing Heinrich Friedrich Weber (physicist) with Heinrich Martin Weber (mathematician); they lived at the same time and both worked on mathematics. I think I've sorted them out. R.e.b. (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Equal incircles theorem[edit]

When I added a new section I guess I trampled on some of your edits. I didn't actually realize they were there, as I had only gotten to the point, of "Gee, I don't remember doing that." I wanted to use latex for some of the formulas and ended up adding a bunch of inline math formulas. I'm not entirely happy with that either, so I'm open to guidance on the whole question of math formatting.--L mammel (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Football pool[edit]

Could you please explain your rationale for moving Football pools to Football pool? In my experience, the British English usage is always in the plural.CJPargeter (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly heard the singular used. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've started a section on the article talk page in an effort to gain a consensus. CJPargeter (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jennings is dead[edit]

Howdy, I wrote on the talk page that my info was very incomplete (but gave citations where I could find them, for instance that he is almost certainly dead for over a decade). I might email the math department at UVic to try and at least find the right time period for an obituary. I'm pretty sure he was alive in 1974 and dead in 1997, but not very sure about the middle part. I'm guessing he died in the late 80s to mid 90s and was born in the 10s or early 20s, probably both in Canada. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion policy[edit]

Since you expressed an interest at some point in Systolic geometry, I suggest you check out the situation with Systolic geometry for a beginner. Katzmik (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Creating new articles[edit]

Hello, Michael. I'm new to wikipedia and I noticed you've been here for a long time. Could you help me out by telling me how to create an article?

If you enter the title you want to the article to have in the search box, and you're told there's no article with that title, you should see a thing to click on that will take you to the editing page and you can start entering the new article.

Generally at the very beginning you should give sufficient context that the reader can tell right away what general subject area the article is to be about. My favorite example remains the article titled schismatic temperament. The usual meanings of the words schismatic and temperament made me think the article would possibly be about a psychiatric disorder, and nothing at all in the first sentence suggested otherwise, nor told me what it was about. Reading further, I realized it was about musical tuning. So I edited the article to begin with the words "In music, schismatic temperament is..." etc. That's often all it takes.

The title phrase should be set in bold at its first appearance as in the sentence in quotation marks above, usually in the first sentence. Note that Wikipedia conventions call for rather sparing use of capital letters in article titles and section headings. Thus it would be incorrect to have titled that article Schismatic Temperament with a capital T. However, it is a good idea to create redirect pages from such incorrect titles, redirecting the user to the correct title. The same applies to plausible alternative titles and commonplace misspellings or misnomers: make them redirect pages. Also, after creating the article, you should figure out which other articles should link to it, including, but not limited to, lists (e.g., see list of circle topics, list of inequalities, etc.). The first letter of a title generally appears as capital but is case-insensitive in links; the later letters are case-sensitive in links.

To create section headings just follow the format you see in articles you edit. Type == for a main heading, === for a second-tier heading, etc.

Generally External links should be the last section the reader sees, and category tags and links to counterpart articles in other languages should come below everything the reader sees.

And you should follow the norms of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
How do I redirect? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Normal distribution[edit]

This is continued from User talk:Somebody9973. Thank you for explaining what means to me. And I apologize about the other edit. I was just treating every value like a variable, without realizing the context, that was actually a function. I am wondering however, what this function means. May you please either refer me to a wiki page or explain it on my talk page?

The Piano Man (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Kramers–Kronig relation[edit]

Hello Michael. You improved the integrals in the Kramers–Kronig relation article. What I am wondering about, is whether in integrals the "d" in the infinitesimal, like dx, should be upright, as is done in Differential form article. Or should it be in italic, dx, as in the Integral article. In most text books and scientific papers it is upright, so that is what I often do on Wikipedia. What is your opinion on this? Crowsnest (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I always write them as italic, and that's how I usually see it. I think there are some communities, e.g. possibly physicists, in which the other convention prevails. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that may explain the different uses. Thanks, Crowsnest (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you comment on this article[edit]

I posted on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Moshe_Rubashkin about an article that you edited. Please, could you go there and comment on the situation? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

could you please do me a favor?[edit]


I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

  1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
  2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.


JnWtalk 07:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


This section has beeen moved from the YouTube talk page as it is not strictly article related:


A distinctive and very consistently practiced part of the culture of youtube is the habitual and seemingly rehearsed boorishness of its management personnel. I would like to write to the CEO of youtube about this. Can anyone tell me the name and postal address of that person? (You can click on "email this user" on my user page.) Michael Hardy (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The postal address of YouTube is

YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave. San Bruno, CA 94066 USA Phone: +1 650-253-0000 Fax: +1 650-253-0001 and the CEO is Chad Hurley.

--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. For some reason I'd thought Hurley was no longer the CEO. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Handfasting and capitalization of neopagan[edit]

Hi! Thanks very much for quoting the part of WP:MOS which led you to change occurances of "neopagan" back to "Neopagan" in the handfasting article. To be clear, would you also prefer to see every occurance of "monotheist" changed to "Monotheist"? That term isn't the name of a particular religion; it is a description which applies many religions. Isn't the same true of "neopagan"? (sdsds - talk) 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say "monotheist" should be lower case since it names only a particular doctrine and religions that share it are not generally related to each other. Neopagan on the other hand, seems to refer to any religion derived even if tenuously from a certain family of related ancient European religions. There's no precisely defined single doctrine relating them, like monotheism. It's like people referring to a "Judeo-Christian ethic" or the like. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Sample deleted"[edit]

Music samples are "generally" not supposed to be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter. They're also generally 96kbps, when "reduced quality" is suggested to be 64kbps. I would send them through IFD normally, but this particular uploader had uploaded a few hundred such samples, even after realizing in 2005 or 2006 that the length was problematic, and has since stopped uploading media, and ignores the IFD postings.

I sent one of his uploads through IFD a few weeks ago, and there was no objection to that one, so I've been speedying about 10-20 at a time every few days, waiting to see if anyone objected; if you or anyone else would like to have some of the files undeleted, cut them to below 30 seconds and 10% of the original length and reduce the song quality, I have no problem with that. Ral315 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FAR Trigonometric functions[edit]

Trigonometric functions has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


Dear Michael,

I normally do not use LaTex; I write mathematics by hand. In fact, I do not now how to type mathematical symbols. I am viewing other pages and learning how a certain symbol is typed and then copying that into my edit. I was planning to do this with the page on the Perfect map but haven't done so yet. It probably takes time to get used to typing LaTex so it will take a while before I can properly type on Wikipedia. I hope that I am not making it difficult for other people. However, I will try to type everything else as best as I can.

Topology Expert (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect map[edit]

Dear Michael,

Please have a look at the article on perfect maps. I think that I have improved it to meet Wikipedia standards. Could you please give me your opinion on this?

Topology Expert (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely looking much better now than it was. (I just did a few minor edits on it a minute ago.) Michael Hardy (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Correctional facilities...[edit]

Thanks for the clean up and minor corrections. :-) --JeffJ (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Central North Correctional Centre[edit]

I saw that you removed the Stubs. I thought the article still seemed a bit stubbley. Your thoughts? (This is still a learning process for me) --JeffJ (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to reserve the "stub" notice for articles that leave obvious basic questions unanswered. The mere fact that an article is much shorter than it ideally should be doesn't seem like enough. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I also think that I've managed to track down all the Correctional facilities of Ontario, Canada links in other articles and have updated them. Thanks for your help there, too. --JeffJ (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Countable set[edit]

Dear Michael,

I believe that the user JRSpriggs has given an invalid reason as to why he deleted what I wrote in the article on countable set. He stated that what I added (a topological proof on the uncountability of the real numbers) was 'incompetent and irrelevant'. I don't see why it is 'incompetent'. Also, how can it be irrelevant when it is on countable sets? Could you please have a look at this?


Topology Expert (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


aww phooey on fixing it, I was thinking that kocation was such an interesting twist. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess we're all to staid for that..... Michael Hardy (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Barwise Compactness[edit]

Thanks very much for your contributions! Zero sharp (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the Tube Lemma[edit]

Dear Michael,

Please see the page on the Tube lemma. I have nominated it for deletion for several reasons which are given on the discussion page. The main reason is probably the fact that the article doesn't even hint that there is a relation between the tube lemma and compactness but there are other reasons too.


Topology Expert (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Singular plural[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the existence of both elementary divisor and elementary divisors — I hadn't spotten that. I've always used the plural, it's just a habit I suppose. Thanks also for the reminder about context. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Minneapolis reply[edit]

Nay, I meant in the Minneapolis article we have a tradition of avoiding linking to businesses because there would be far too many businesses to add. But of course you could say "well we link sources" which is of course profit businesses. The point being for now is that we don't necessarily endorse one thing over the other in the External Links section because then we would have every news agency down the block. But you are free to use MinnPost as a source, it is credible in that arena. .:DavuMaya:. 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are asking me. .:DavuMaya:. 22:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was asking what you intended to be the meaning of that odd locution that you used. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll defer you to User_talk:Michael_Hardy#AfD:_Jacqueline_Eales. A qualified linguist might be able to answer you. .:DavuMaya:. 23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to systolic geometry[edit]


User:Loom91 is unhappy with the page. Could you please comment? Katzmik (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tube lemma[edit]

Dear Michael,

I have made some appropriate changes to the article on the tube lemma. Could you please have a look at it and let me know if there is something wrong with the style of the article? Also, it would be helpful if we could have an image to go with example 1 in the 'examples and properties' section. If you can suggest such an image, that would be great.


Topology Expert (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I saw your note on Hu12's talk page. Hu12 has removed a huge number of relevant links (many to Gresham lectures) and blocked a contributor for adding them. He has also reverted some link corrections, leaving broken links (these include some to author profiles in Granta magazine). I'm tempted to simply use rollback to undo the damage he has done, but am concerned that I would be blocked for rollbacking on an admin, so I am undoing them all, which is much slower. Do you think a not to AN or ANI about his odd behaviour would be worthwhile? DuncanHill (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll do an ANI on user:Hu12. I've been just reverting his edits. I hadn't noticed he was an admin, but I've complained to him and about him (see my edit history of the last half-hour or so). I hadn't noticed he was an admin. He's a clear newbie-biter. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
PS: I unblocked the user that he blocked. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way the now-unblocked editor isn't all that new - some of the links Hu12 has removed had been in articles for about a year, and incorporated in reference sections by other editors. DuncanHill (talk)

Strongly disagree[edit]


I strongly disagree with your objection to my gently worded warning. Given the problems we have with spam an editor who does nothing other than add links to a single site may be of good faith but many would regard them as unwelcome. Doing so with a clear link between your name and the site you keep linking to is very worthy of a warning. By the way for the sake of good form could I suggest you use the block review template for dealling with appealled blocks. --BozMo talk 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would reasonably regard the particular links to lectures by professors that that user was putting in as in any way objectionable. Moreover, if there's a conflict of interest, he still hasn't added anything that a neutral user could not very reasonably have added. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I do apologise but I am not impressed by the amount of fuss which has been stirred up by what could have been dealt with simply by an (arguable) second opinion on a block. And if a clear SPA only adding links who chooses his link target as his name isn't enough then the fact that according to this the communications officer for Gresham College is called James Franklin might suggest it too? I think you need a long look in the mirror and then to apologise to Hu12 for all the fuss you have tried to cause him on a completely reasonable course of action by him (which I would have just over-turned on a block review). But I am sure you take a different view of the constructiveness of your behaviour. Perhaps cleaning up a few thousand real pieces of spam like Hu12 does most days would be a good penance. --BozMo talk 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You still need to look at the nature of the actual links. I don't think there's anything about them that could offend anyone. The conventions on conflicts of interest, the way some people seem to view them, are far too extreme. Supposing he's officially affiliated with the organization he's linking to, as in this case you say he is. Some people in that position would fall into all the pitfalls that go along with such situations and cause us to have a cautions about such situations in our policies. But some are level-headed and avoid those problems, and this appears to be such a case.
I'm not the one who started objection to Hu12's actions; at least two others beat me to it. And if you want to talk about stirring up a fuss, that's exactly what Hu12 has done. What he did was far too extreme. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought in your own terms you thought you did fine. My judgement remains the same. His was the molehill perhaps but it is extremely unusual for self promotion by the press officer of an entity as an SPA ro be acceptable (thousands of cases of the other for each one of this) and the fuss was disproportionate. Why AN/I over a block review? The others brought it to you as an admin. You could have put it to bed. --BozMo talk 21:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I the one whose "fuss" is disproportionate? The point is that the fuss raised by Hu12 was disproportionate by a HUGE margin. And I think the policy is flawed, and the fact that it led to something so absurd as objecting to these external links is proof that it's flawed. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from your userpage...[edit]

Thank you[edit]

I'm the author of the article Myrzakulov equations and I'm not the author of these equations. But I would like ask you to keep this my article. Ngn (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Michael, I just noticed this message someone left at the bottom of your userpage. Cheers, Sarah 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I remember this being an AfD matter a few months ago; I posted my views in the AfD discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


I thought hard about mentioning this but here goes. A more sensitive person might be starting to feel a little uneasy. It really does seem as if you're "looking over my shoulder", which could put a chap on edge: I would have welcomed a friendly "Let me help you improve your style", or "Why don't I check over a few of your articles for you", or even "I've noticed some things you might do better" first. Furthermore, some of your edit comments like "I guess Wikipedia's formatting conventions for mathematical article are less than universally understood", "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) doesn't exist for the purpose of being completely disregarded" and "This article disregarded Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) in a number of respects" might be more usefully phrased. In particular, pointers to specific stylistic matters, left on my talk page, where I'm likely to see them (or on the page of the editors who actually wrote the words, which wasn't always myself in the articles I mean), would be both helpful and welcome: if you have issues with my style, by all means tell me. I'm saying all this now in what I hope and intend to be the friendliest possible way. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend to imply that your contributions were not valuable, but rather that you can adhere to conventions you see followed in other articles (e.g. you don't see so many capitals in section headings). Things are codified in Wikipedia:Manual of Style and various more specialized manuals like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), but you don't need to learn every detail of those to get the most of what you need. In particular, variables (but not digits and not punctuation) should be italicized in non-TeX mathematical notation. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit of Discriminant of an algebraic number field[edit]

Having completely rewritten that article a while back, I was unhappy with your edit summary [24]. I put a lot of effort into a careful selection of content and presentation and citation, and I even asked for feedback before replacing the page with my new version, and it just seems like your summary is insulting my efforts. Am I wrong? Your edit, while appreciated, certainly didn't warrant your comment (and I'm not sure any of your corrections are related to the math MOS specifically). RobHar (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Initial context setting[edit]

Hello Michael, thanks for your note. Ok, I get it- Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia of mathematics :). Delaszk (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello and Good Day[edit]

Resolved: image added Darkspots (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello sir/maam I am a new user here in wikipedia so i cannot edit protected articles like Angel locsin, i am only just concern of the article because it has no image. I am calmly requesting you to Put this image Angel_in_Dubai.jpg click here to see the image, the image was already proven licensed under creative commons and it was already inspected by Flickreviewer,please put it inside Angel Locsin's article with the caption of Angel Locsin at the Lobo Tour in Dubai. Please give me your kindness. Thankyou so much. God Bless You! Watcher Wiki (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded on Watcher Wiki's talk page. Darkspots (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please cut it out[edit]

OK, enough. I have yet another post, reiterating (again) the same thing, from Michael Hardy on my talk page, and I personally am fed up. I am reminding users, and especially Michael Hardy of the following from WP:CIV, an official policy of Wikipedia. These must be avoided:

Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap") or talk page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen").

In my personal opinion, Michael Hardy is in violation of this policy in referring to two users' contributions as "talking nonsense" and referring to one's as "irrational comments." Cut it out NOW, please, or I will have no choice than to bring this to the attention of WP:WQA. There are strong feelings here, but this is not how to express them. I will leave a copy of this on Michael Hardy's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Those quotation marks do not indicate quotes from anything I wrote.
The net effect of my efforts to bring some common decency into this matter is that I feel treated abusively and I'm surprised that people who claim to care about the welfare of Wikipedia acted as if the matters I brought to their attention were not a problem. Some of them were willing to care about Wikipedia's actual content only after their lack of interest in content was emphasized. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Face-transitive vs. Isohedral[edit]

Michael, I have started a discussion at Talk:Face-transitive. Your input would be welcome. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]


Could you please delete the article Serre–Swan theorem? I started the article, and so far you and JackSchmidt are the only two editors to have made changes to it (minor typo fixes in each case). I would like to move the existing article Swan's theorem to this location. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah. I came across this because this left the redirect Serre-Swan theorem hanging loose. You have to watch things like that, because if the move is delayed for too long, then the redirect will get deleted by a bot or admin, and will need to be recreated. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Integral of secant cubed[edit]

Hi there. I'm a big fan of the article and of calculus, however I don't think that it belongs in wikipedia, due to WP:Notability and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and should instead be part of Wikibooks:Calculus. Gyro Copter (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't lack notability. And a textbook would treat the topic differently from the way that page does. Look at Wikipedia's coverage of mathematics generally and you'll start to see that it fits in. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nielsen transformations[edit]

Howdy, I defined Nielsen transformation for you. I don't have my references at hand to fill in the rest of the article, but I think the basics are there for you. Basically a Nielsen transformation takes an ordered finite subset of a group to another ordered finite subset of the group. A finite subset of a group is the image of a basis X of a free group under a homomorphism f. For an automorphism a of that free group, the Nielsen transformation takes f(X) to f(a(X)).

In other words Nielsen transformations are the only "generally true" ways of taking (ordered) generating sets to generating sets. In vector spaces, an invertible matrix is the same idea. Just like in vector spaces, it is useful (and historically prior) to break these into smaller pieces. In vector spaces, there are the elementary row ops: switch two rows, multiply a row by an invertible scalar, add a row to another row. In groups, we have the same: swap two elements of a generating set, invert one element of a generating set, multiply one element of a generating set by another.

The set of generating sets of a group is partitioned into equivalence classes by the Nielsen transformations, and the study of how many classes is a pretty huge deal in several areas of math. I only care about finite groups. Given any two generating sets of the same size, X and Y, of a finite group, it is always true that X ∪ { 1 } and Y ∪ { 1 } are Nielsen equivalent. This has reasonably deep implications in computational group theory, since it says that for most purposes sufficiently large generating sets are all theoretically the same, so we are free to choose computationally convenient ones, not aesthetically pleasing ones. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far, although it will take me a while to absorb it all. I notice that when I click on "what links here" I find very little. So in the near future you should think about which articles ought to link to this one. I think there's a list of group theory topics, and then there may be various articles where it should be in the "See also" section, and others where it should be in the text of the article. Then you should think about whether there may be other names for the concept or commonplace misspellings or misnomers that ought to redirect to the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I created some inward links. This is mostly not my area, so I could only do this when it was easy. List of gt topics is ... woefully incomplete. There are major headings missing, for instance combinatorial and geometric group theory. I just stuck them in at the end under misc. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Einstein (typography)[edit]

My experience is just the opposite — "math" tags have generally produced better-looking equations, symbols, etc. in-line than attempts to use italic, superscript, etc. with normal text, and the latter produce inferior results on some browsers (which is why I originally selected math tag for the cited equation). I don't know why you are getting misaligned results; it worked fine for the browsers I tried (IE6 on XP, FireFox on Solaris). The one visual issue I've seen is that the math font uses serifs while the surrounding text is sans serif. Since the equation is supposed to be somehow delimited from the text, that seems acceptable. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This misaligned texts problem has been discussed heavily and incessantly for five-and-a-half years, since we first got TeX at the beginning of 2003, with no resolution. You must be the only one who's unaware that it's been a big issue. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wishart distribution[edit]

Thanks for the enlightenment on fractional degrees of freedom. I am happy with your version of the article. Perturbationist (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Multivariate adaptive regression splines[edit]

Thanks for taking care of some of the details in this page. I admit the first section "The basics" is not very encyclopedic in tone, I will try to improve that as I gain wikipedia experience Stephen Milborrow (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi! Well... it maybe sounded to her like nena because that was what she was actually being called. Nena and niña are synonyms. No "derivation" there, you can take my word for it ;) --Will vm (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I answered your question as well at Talk:Spanish language ;) --Floridianed (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Just in case there is any doubt left, I'm a native Spanish speaker and I can guarantee that nena is a common Spanish word meaning little girl. --Jotamar (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Megaliths incomplete[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Megaliths to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

  1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
  2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
  3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

merge templates on Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and Maxwell speed distribution[edit]

You put up merge templates in this articles last October. I can't find any argumentation for this on either talk page. Moreover, the two are separate concepts so I would oppose any merger of two. Would you mind if I remove the merge templates? (TimothyRias (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

harmonic mean over at the reduced mass page[edit]

Thanks for answering my question on the ref-desk math page. (i was the ip#, just forgot to sign in) Sentriclecub (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Linear regression[edit]

Please have a look at the recent edits: "26 July 2008 (Talk) (28,676 bytes) (Corrected several errors. See discussion.)". I fear that they are seriously misguided. Petergans (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an obvious way in which they're seriously misguided, although I have some qualms about the assertion that the assumption of normality has no consequences under certain conditions. What specifically did you have in mind? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Positive-definite matrix, help![edit]

I need some help. I'm pretty much sick of the math editors on this page, am I out of line, or are these recent edits just disrespectful. These recent edit on this page make me seriously question if my input is helpful here (and maybe it isn't). Pdbailey (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"From each according...."[edit]

At Jimbo's page you asked about where in Ayn Rands' writings the above appears, See Atlas Shrugged--Buster7 (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's more than 1000 pages, I think. Can you specify a page number? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem...I'll reread the book and get back to you....IN 6 MONTHS. Just kidding. Now I'm curious, too. I thought it was from Marx's Das Kapital, but now I'm not so sure. Will advise.--Buster7 (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)--Buster7 (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Stages of growth model[edit]

Hi there. Two thing about the article. Any reason why you moved the page? I've never seen it used with the hyphens and I think it's incorrect to do so. Secondly, this is not a new article nor been expanded recently over the last five days, so I'm wondering why it's on DYK. Thanks --Patrick (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not about the "stages" of a "growth model". Thus, the hyphens disambiguate. That is why the traditional standard way of using hyphens like this is useful. (I have no idea why it's on DYK.) Michael Hardy (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Math notation[edit]

Must be a mixup. I don't think I wrote that. Anyway, I am usually careful to put &nbsp's in, although I do slip up every now and again. There are many worse offenders than I in this regard, but thanks for your tireless work fixing others' mistakes. Happy editing, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here it is. It's not just the "nbsp"s; it's also that the minus sign needed viagra. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess so. Yes, you're right about the minus signs too. Old bad habits die hard. ;) siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Partial leverage[edit]

You are correct of course that leverage and partial leverage are more generally applicable throughout statistics and not just linear regression. However, we should make it clear that the formula given for the hat matrix there is only for OLS. Btyner (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. You can't write "In multi-linear regression,..." as the first words of an article and expect the lay reader unfamiliar with statistics to understand that statistics is what the article is about. But if you write "In statistics,...", then that is clear. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


Hello. Please notice my edits to Rotation operator (vector space). You don't need to write

Instead you can write

Michael Hardy (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)



it is suggested to use the signs + - < > = | (directly)

Do you see any disadvantage?

Stamcose (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously in TeX if you want to say that x is less than y, you write
But when you wrote
you were not trying to say anything is less than or greater than anything. You were using "<" and ">" as angle brackets. That is incorrect. you should have written
I don't think the page you cite says that you should have written it the way you did. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Decidable sublanguages of XXX[edit]

Hi Michael,

I noticed your comment in Decidable sublanguages of set theory:

This is not about linguistics; it's about mathematical logic. You can't assume the lay reader is familiar enough with the subject matter that they don't need to have that pointed out.

I never implied in the article that it was about linguistics. I tagged it with Computer Science, Proof Theory, Logic and Model Theory.

There are a lot of small mathematical theories that are decidable. (Notice that both of the wikilinks in the previous sentence go back to (Logic) variants of the respective word.

I would like to see a path in Wikipedia that branches from theory to decidable theory, and from domain (arithmetic, set theory, propositional logic, etc.) to decidability. There are a huge number of results in mathematical logic about decidable theories, but I don't think Wikipedia is very well organized in this area.

However, this is not a layman-type area. If you are worried about linguistics quasi-laymen stumbling onto this article and being confused, I'm not sure what to do to make it clear that it's not really about linguistics, which has it's own hierarchy of languages and concept of decidability, e.g. see Context-free language. The concept of decidable theory in logic and the instances of decidable theories discovered goes far beyond the Chomsky hierarchy of more-or-less restricted grammars.

What do you think?

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But you need to tell the lay reader right away what the general subject matter is. Your initial sentence could have confused the reader about that, using the word "language" conspicuously and treating subject matter that the non-mathematician would never have heard of. Saying "In mathematical logic,..." does that. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, good edit. Erxnmedia (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
One issue is that the article is written in a computer science terminology that isn't well known outside its immediate area. Even as a trained mathematical logician I had to look at one of the references to figure out what a "sublanguage of set theory" is. The reference I looked at proved that the set of satisfiable, quantifier-free sentences in a particular signature is decidable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That's my fault, I was just making a stub article. I have about 20 of the papers collected from when I cared about this subject in the mid-90's, giving 20 or so fragments of set theory that are decidable. When I can dig these out of a box, I will type in the actual fragments that are decidable and make a bigger list. However if someone has a copy of Cantone's book, they can probably see the whole list.
In general for all decidable languages it would be nice to have a summary of the language and a pointer to the proof.
I'm not sure what you mean about computer science terminology. Decidable is decidable, it means that a procedure exists which in finite time will tell you that the sentence is either
  • Provable (derivable from axioms and proof rules in a finite number of steps, given by the procedure)
  • Valid (true in a model of the language for all assignments of values to variables)
Or something like that (memory fades, if I ever knew what I was talking about to begin with).
Outside of set thoery, a notable example of what I think should be in a Wiki branching tree of decidable languages is Presburger arithmetic, which is 0, 1, +, variables, negation and equality. This is decidable. Peano arithmetic, less so (there are statements in Peano arithmetic which are valid but not provable, which makes it interesting).
All in all, Wikipedia is not knitted together well in this area.
Erxnmedia (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


Please see my comment on Grushko theorem Katzmik (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

counterfeit coin problem[edit]

i've seen you contributing to this article, would you be so nice to review it in light of new source added or find someone who would be interested in this? thanks in advance, konradek (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

math formulas question[edit]

Thanks for your message at my talk page. I am reading up on the math style guidelines and have started working on bringing up the articles I created to coform with them. (I have cleaned up Grushko theorem for the most part and will clean up the others as well). One of the recommendations WP:MSM makes is to discourage the use of inline latex formulas and to only use latex code in displayed formulas. I see the point of that but there are a few things that I don't know how to do without latex. I hope you don't mind if I bother you with questions about them. For example, I'd like to use the standard tilde notation for the universal cover of something, such as . Is there a way to do that without using the latex markup? I could not find an answer by looking at various links at WP:MSM. Also, is there an analog of the latex commands \widetilde and \widehat in either the latex markup mode or otherwise? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have a situation of different browsers displaying things differently. Some things like the tilde above the variable may be impossible without TeX. When I put those inline I use \scriptsyle and that seems to bring their size down to something comparable with that of the surrounding text on a variety of browsers. But maybe not all. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will experiment with \scriptsyle. But it would also be nice to be able to put a tilde over an object other than a single variable or to make the tilde over a single variable. Somehow \widetilde does not work here at all (it gives an error code) and using \tilde{xyz} produces this: . Is there any way to make the tilde here appear longer? Thanks again, Nsk92 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Brun's dots[edit]

Yes, those were multiplication, thanks for picking them up. BTW do you know a good way of setting two or three lines in a stack in the lower limit of a summation? That sort of thing crops up a lot in analystic number theory. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Are these what you mean?:

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a useful example, thanks. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Michael Hardy. You have new messages at Elipongo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

stubs tag[edit]

Hi there, may I ask why you remove the stub tags so early ? Maybe some editors like me browse these cats. Which are your basics to do this ? (Friedhof Ohlsdorf) ;-) Thank you (pls answer here) Sebastian scha. (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think every article that should be expanded should be called a "stub". I think of a stub as an article that's unsatisfactory because it omits essential information without which it cannot be understood, or information that it would be uncontroversially unreasonable to exclude. I think "stub" tags should be deleted BEFORE the article is half as long as War and Peace. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hm, okay. That's my opinion also. But how do you decide for example the quantity ? Information aviable for Ohsldorf cemetery is sure less then for Alsterdorf (e.g.)? I can think of much more things to edit to the quarters, but I have no proper references (or no time to look for refs). And I don't think the kB should be the only point to decide the article quality. (sorry I'm no native speaker, my English is not perfect) Thank you Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Olympics attack on American nationals (2nd nomination)[edit]

I have re-nominated this article for deletion. Please provide your input to the discussion. --Elliskev 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Todd Bachman[edit]

Well I am an American and I've never heard of him before. He may have been a "noted horticulturalist" in his home town, but this person was never in the wider public eye before his tragic death. --Tocino 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You've probably never heard of MOST people who are notable. Neither has anyone else. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Estimation of covariance matrices[edit]

Hi Michael. Please have a look at Talk:Estimation of covariance matrices. Regards Bo Jacoby (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC).

Re: Who wrote what[edit]

Michael, I did not accuse you of writing the lead in estimation of covariance matrices. I was merely looking at your userpage as you said you had been involved in a lot of maths articles, and I picked one of the articles that it says on your page that you originated at random, to see if it was an example for the discussion at the Village Pump. Picking one of those on your page was easiest, as they were at my fingertips so to speak. Just to clarify then, I didn't say you wrote the lead, only that it was one you had originated it. That wasn't to fault you. In fact, if you had written the lead, I wouldn't say that was a bad thing: after all, a complex article is better than no article at all, right! Sorry for the misunderstanding. Deamon138 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I just want to drop you a personal (as if anything as open as wikipedia can ever be 'personal'!) note that I have a lot of respect for your contributions to the stats articles here. I hope that you don't take my AfDs the wrong way - I'm just trying to help as much as I can. Regards—G716 <T·C> 07:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly different note - I'm astonished that there's no delsort page for mathematics (or for a lot of other sciences for that matter) AfDs. Do you know how to get one? I went over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting, but couldn't figure out the process for proposing / creating a new delsort page.--—G716 <T·C> 07:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad[edit]

Sorry Michael I must have missed that :S thanks for correcting me, Mikola (Nick). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapkam13 (talkcontribs) 02:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


Mike or is it Michael? I have moved the page as you undoubtedly have noticed. I do not think there will be any disputing the move. If you have a few questions, ask me. I am a little tired of the drama on wikipedia; it doesn't serve anyone to have this crazy stuff going on. How about some feedback, but please let's leave the games out of it, deal? I think the term stabbing or stabbings is a really terrible term. You can't possibly argue that a stabbing isn't an attack anyway. One last point, why can't the diehard or Wikipedians that are on here more than ten hours a week let regular people (by the way, I could easily be an expert on certain things) have their edits? Regards. Overmoon (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Also I noticed you don't have another way of contacting you. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss math or similar topics with you. Overmoon (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if you click on "email this user", the address is current, so that should work. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-tip ;-)[edit]

I know you were fixing items in Joe Bottom to better reflect style, and thank you for selflessly helping out --but be careful not to tweak the hidden wikilinks, in which case you'll break them; i.e.: by changing [[World record progression 4x100 metres freestyle relay|4x100 meter freestyle relay]] to [[World record progression 4×100 metres freestyle relay|4×100-meter freestyle relay]], you broke the actual left-side wikilink to World record progression 4x100 metres freestyle relay. The stuff on the left of the "|" should be left alone if its not a red link or redirect. --Bobak (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This raises the obvious question of whether
World record progression 4x100 metres freestyle relay
should be changed to:
World record progression 4×100 metres freestyle relay
Michael Hardy (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: ndash rather than hyphen[edit]

The answer is yes and no.

Yes, the user may write:


producing the following: Genesis 5:12–13.

We cannot force this to be the case, as there is no function template (to my knowledge) that finds and replaces a substring. The dash isn't part of the template itself. What we can do is recommend the use of ndash in the template documentation.

jnothman talk 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I've changed to all ndashes in one article. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Red links are desirable[edit]

Thank you for your advice regarding this matter. I shall heed it when considering the removal of red links next time. Myominane (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dumbing down[edit]

Wowsers! Congrats in finding that edit. :) Long long time ago. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, somebody pointed out your edit on the talk page; I didn't actually find it myself. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Michael Hardy. You have new messages at Fatal!ty's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Irrational edit[edit]

This is what the article was the article looked like when I placed a a CSD tag on it. The new article was simply copied and pasted from this article, and it seemed to me as the user was just fooling around. I also based this inference on the fact that this was the user's first Contribution, and the action may have simply been infamiliarity with Wikipedia policy. Cheers --Fatal!ty (T☠LK) 01:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

non-standard analysis[edit]

I notice you were interested in the subject at some point, please see my comments at the article discussion page. Katzmik (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nena word in the RAE's dictionary[edit]

The dictionary of the "Real Academia de la Lengua Española" says about the word "nena" [25]:

nene, na. (Voz infantil). 1. m. y f. coloq. Niño de corta edad. 2. m. y f. coloq. U. como expresión de cariño para personas de más edad, sobre todo en la terminación femenina. 3. m. irón. Hombre muy temible por sus fechorías.

Into English:

nene, na. (infantile word). 1. m. and f. coloq. Young boy or girl. 2. m. and f. coloq. As an expression of affection for people of more age, mainly in the female. (Like "baby" in English). 3. m. ironically. Very frightful man by its misdeeds.

Ascosphaera (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Apparently Nena herself was confused about some details of the origin of her adopted name. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Adaptive Audio article[edit]

Michael - I want to write a specific article for Adaptive Audio - the product, just like Microsoft Outlook, with references to the official web site, like velcro. I have read the notability guidelines and believe I have enough independent references in magazine articles etc to meet these standards. Should I just go ahead and add these and make the article more Adaptive Audio product specific, without sounding sales oriented? I can keep the tone neutral - I just wanted to makes sure there is no COI here with me editing this article under those circumstances. Also, do I need to run this by Calltech and the other that edited my article so far to remove the external links etc?

D3innovation (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Greathouse at some point created this template but seems to have lost interest in working on it. I recall you were interested in something of this sort. The current version of the template cannot handle books (only articles). Do you have any experience in this? Katzmik (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Proof that pi is less than 22/7[edit]

In response to your post on my talk page:

The textbook says: circumference of a circle / diameter of same circle = pi.

In school, one is taught this and looks at circles and manages to work out a couple of decimal places of pi. Mathematical people have proved time and time again that pi ~ (from memory) 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944. That is less than 22/7 (work it out). Ergo, pi < 22/7.

I think many people who are not as well versed in maths as most of the editors of that page would not understand why that page exists, and it needs to be made clearer to them (me included). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelb4 (talkcontribs)

That is a truly bizarre way of viewing things, almost bordering on psychotic, as it appears to me. We face a question:
Question: How do we humans know that pi = 3.14159..., etc., so that we can assert that in our textbooks?
Thelb4's Answer: Because our textbooks tell us so. And "mathematical people have proved it".
Question: How did they prove it?
Thelb4's Answer: The textbooks and the history books say they have. That's how.
You stop BARELY short of asserting that that number was brought down from Mount Sinai by a prophet and that that's how we know it. The article on which you comment, on the other hand, tries to EXPLAIN how it can be known (although not as many digits as you quote above). Michael Hardy (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Mu Sigma Rho[edit]

  • 17:16, 19 April 2008 Stifle (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Mu Sigma Rho" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance)
Is there a reason for this deletion that does not apply equally to all of the honor societies in the long list at Honor society that have Wikipedia articles? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I personally think they should all be deleted, but that's not the consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

re Block[edit]

[26] Please shorten that to 24-31 hours, it is an IP, and we don't know whether it has has potentially multiple users behind it yet.--Tznkai (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

transfer principle[edit]

Hi, Thanks for your comments on the transfer principle. I find the material in your version very good. I have a small quibble concerning the discussion of the hyperreal interval [0,1]^*. At some point there is a slightly ambiguous statement that might be interpreted as meaning that ALL hyperreals infinitely close to points in [0,1] are included, whereas in reality there is an extra condition at the endpoints. Katzmik (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Please respond to my comment at talk:transfer principle. Katzmik (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

and again Katzmik (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Spacing in math formulas questions[edit]

Sorry to bug you with this, but since you are sort of an expert on math style issues, I'd appreciate a bit more advice. As you suggested, I looked up WP:MSM, but I don't really see spacing in math formulas being discussed there. Is there another place where this issue is addressed and discussed in detail? In particular, I am still not quite sure how to deal with inequalities and predicates. In particular, which is preferable:



g ∈ G?

Similarly, HG or HG? Likewise, n ≥ 0 or n≥0? And would there be any difference between how these issues are treated in displayed and in-line formulas? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is dealt with at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), which says spaces should surround such binary operation and binary relation symbols, thus matching TeX style (it's been a while since I've looked at that manual). With binary operations like "+" I prefer to make the space non-breakable. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No, actually, WP:MSM does not say this now. It is probably a good idea to add it back there. What about g∈G vs g ∈ G? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Same thing. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fourier series[edit]

Thank you for fixing up my math notation. A good deal of that was copy and pasted together because I'm not too fluent in using the math syntax. RJFJR (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please check my math notation at fourier series. The section on determining coefficients was changed into a second example so I added it again and this time expanded more of the calcualtions. I think the equations need a line break added but don't know how to do it. Also, I think I had an and bn mixed up and one point. If you could also check the math it would be appreciated. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


My apologies for the slip [27]. However, I do hope you noticed that the subsequent paragraph says "...perhaps we need a suitable criterion...", so I'm not illiterate as your post appears to imply. I do object to having English grammar lessons, even from fellow mathematician-pedants, when I'm not in need of one.

I also noticed that you interrupted the discussion solely to point this out, and not to actually say anything relevant to the discussion as to whether a criterion is required. I wouldn't have minded as much if you'd actually contributed something worthwhile. --RFBailey (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)