User talk:Purgy Purgatorio

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Purgy Purgatorio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! : Noyster (talk), 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Purgy Purgatorio, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Purgy Purgatorio! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse advice (thanked)

Shifting content in and out of a page[edit]

I have plans to remove some content of a page completely and to move an other part to an other page. I have anounced this plans on the talk pages of the target and the source page. Please, what is the time lapse considered polite and appropriate before I make my plans real? One more question, where do I apply for a reassessment of this page which is part of the WikiProject Physics, to get some hints what to improve or bring to Wikipedia standards? Thanks in advance. Purgy (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey ping|Purgy Purgatorio Welcome to the Teahouse. I can't really say that there's a particular time elapsed after which you can go ahead and do a move, but I do have a couple suggestions on how to get more editors to contribute to your discussion:
  • Depending on how much of the article you want to split, add Template:Split2 to the top of the article or Template:Split section to the top of the section you wish to split off.
  • If you're still not getting any input, try bringing up the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Since you are trying to split Jerk (physics), I'd ask for input at WikiProject Physics. Some WikiProjects are more active then others, so you may get varying results.
As for requesting re-assessments, simply leaving the assessment fields blank will place the page in a category of pages that need assessment. An editor from the WikiProject will hopefully assess the page in due time (or, you can make a request again on the WikiProject's talk page if you'd like one ASAP). Hope this helps! User:SuperHamster|SuperUser:SuperHamster|Hamster' User talk:SuperHamster|Talk Special:Contribs/SuperHamster|Contribs 19:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

How to alert other users[edit]

Hello Purgy! Since I do not want to add to the confusion at the Teahouse, I thought I might write a note to you here. There are several ways of notifying other user about things, and they are not always too clear to a newbie. I have not been here so very long myself so I remember it well. The talkback templates are mostly used by senior editors when they are on "official business" like leaving answers at the Teahouse as hosts. Most of us other mortals use less sophisticated, but just as effective ways, and even if we get involved in a discussion at the Teahouse, most of us do not use the fancy templates, we just use the more common ways of communicating. They all result in the same thing: a notification on your page, similar to the one you got from the thanks.

  • First is the one mentioned at the Teahouse where you write {{U|Purgy Purgatorio|Purgy}} or shorter {{U|Purgy Purgatorio}} These result in Purgy
  • Then there is my favourite [[User:Purgy Purgatorio|Purgy]] resulting in Purgy. If you use this you can substitute the last part for another thing you might want to call the user like [[User:Purgy Purgatorio|My friend]] resulting in My friend.
  • Then there is the "ping" {{ping|Purgy Purgatorio}} resulting in @Purgy Purgatorio: or the tiny ping if you think the user might be looking for the message, but you want to notify anyhow {{tping|Purgy Purgatorio}} resulting in @Purgy Purgatorio:

All of these are lazily called pings, "Just ping me." ect. And my explanation here at your page may have triggered a whole bunch of mysterious pings at you. Sorry, it was for a good cause. Pings on your talk page also generates a yellow-highlighted text next to the red number at the top of your page. If you have any other questions about life here as a newbie, please don't hesitate to ping me or leave a message at my talk page. It might be less scary or formal that at the Teahouse. All the best, w.carter-Talk 12:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

First-order logic[edit]

Hi!

When you edited First-order logic#Loving relation, did you happen to understand what is meant by "they are examples"? I saw you added sentence 6 as another exception.

I have no idea who is "they" (The individuals a,...,e? The sentences/formulas 1,...,10? The matrices?) and of what they are examples. Can you help me with a brief explanation? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Jochen Burghardt:, I am sorry that I missed your question which meanwhile has been answered, I assume, by just not being exhaustive for the given formulae. I was somewhat busy and fully off Wikipedia. If I find time, I'll have a look at that article again, but please, leave a note, if I might be useful. Regards, Purgy (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction of typo.[edit]

I've restored the first change you made in the article. Thank you for correcting the typo. As for the other change, I suggest you discuss it in Talk. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Rick Norwood:, since you reverted my addition, I honestly would primarily like to get to know your stance to my statements on this topic. Especially, if just the poor use of the english idiomatics of me being not a native speaker, or additional, technical reservations caused that rebuff. I am not that much interested in this here topic to search for majorities to have my humble additions persist, if there are technical reservations, and be they barely yours. I just want to know about them and revise my own stance in case. Please, feel free to revert my edit of your talk page, I am not very accustomed yet to the habits around here and I certainly don't want to clutter your page. Feel welcome on my talk page in any case. Purgy (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It is fine to post to my talk page, but you would do better to discuss changes to an article on that article's talk page. Note: always post at the bottom of the talk page. If you post your suggested changes on the article's talk page, I and others will be glad to discuss them, and help you with a rewrite if necessary. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Rick Norwood:, since I saw both of my independent, small annotations in the axiomatic section simply reverted, and now see you meticuously avoiding to answer, from your POV, my prime question above about the technicality of this, I have to ponder again my interests on this article, before I involve the whole specific community in this matter. I'm not interested in entering fields others consider their claim, I intended to shift the debate about 0/1, which is led mostly for wrongly understood reasons, imho, out of Peano's axiomatic realm to the scope where it belongs (monoids), and found that my only few, explaining words on a non-FOL-axiom and its exchange to an axiom scheme of FOL would improve the article, both for calming a debate on wrong premises and for slightly hinting to deeper material.
Perhaps you insert some words, fitting to your native speaker level, yourself, or take the lead in the discussion on the talk page there? Purgy (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not avoiding answering. I am telling you that the place for your question and my answer is the talk page of an article. I'll take a look at "monoids".

Hi, @Rick Norwood:, meanwhile I feel increasingly reprimanded: after seeing two or three informative sentences reverted for poor writing (instead of them being improved) and learning that denying answering here (as politely asked for) is not avoiding answering, I'm told where I have to place my questions and to humbly expect possible answers: not here at my place! - and all this, when the elementary technicalites of my addenda are left to be looked up. Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Honestly, I am, for the time being, not in the mood to discuss this topics on the talk page there, I rather refer to my paragraph above, encouraging you to be bold and, after your looking for monoids, to add or not to add remarks, you consider appropriate, in the article. Perhaps looking at additive semigroups for naturals starting at 1, and first order logic for the induction axiom might be advisable, too. Purgy (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Ilc 9yr moll4096.png You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology

Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed and it seems that this new Wikiproject would be interesting to you. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers

Tetra quark (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Square root of 2[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Square root of 2, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Young at heart[edit]

Hey Purgy, I certainly did not mean to be patronizing in the physics forum. I used "kid" in the "atta boy, kid!" sense, as your strong bold voice reminded me of youthful intensity. I am so glad you read this vortex of recursive tendentiousness just right!! Regards, Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC) But the bullying never stops there Sigh... Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Cuzkatzimhut:, somewhat I feel honored that you let me know of this saddening development, and I feel like I wanna help in this bad end street, but I have no idea how.
As you will have noticed, I've seen the disaster regarding Linas Vepstas, who's blood has been brought to boil by diehard bureaucrats and who started to lose self-control as a consequence. The Prokaryotes, who caught my eye already a while ago with his, imho, exaggerated need for citations in articles which are far from that need, is now on this trip with two victims. From his personal interest, he seems to mix up the activities of IPCC and quite solid physicist's work. He is however, also imho, perfectly convinced that his activitites are for the higher glory of Wikipedia.
Is it sensible to try to get some assistance by WikiProject Physics? is it possible for YohanN7 to calm a bit down in the use of harsh words (I just lean on my age for this patronizing, sorry.)
Please, let me know, if you think I could be of some help. All the best. Purgy (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Purgy; no, I have no specific ideas. I asked the subject to propose in the talk-page of scalar field theory what he believes he'd like to see in the article, without trashing the article, which is what raises people's hackles and gets them outraged. Much of the (justified) alarm at the subject's depredations is his legal-vandalism revert actions, not his absurd rants and recriminations. Focussing on the content itself, while leaving the actual article frozen temporarily, might be the best solution. On your part, just awareness of the situation is sufficient. The subject's peremptory spasmodic acts are all made possible by the misperceived isolation of that page, and the illusion that nobody is watching! I don't see how the physics forum is relevant, yet. The subject is self-righteously and aggressively clueless, so I doubt there a bona fide scientific issue that needs to be settled. It's all bullying. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Electronic oscillator[edit]

Hi, Purgy. I didn't quite understand your last comment on the Talk:Electronic oscillator page. Are you saying you have changed your mind, and you are against adding the sentence "Quartz crystal oscillators can only be tuned over a small frequency range, of a fraction of a percent" to the article? --ChetvornoTALK 15:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Chetvorno:, I'm sorry that I wrote a text which led to this misunderstanding, and I hope to have it amended accordingly. I tried to express, that I am not sufficiently motivated to fight on against that spirit of conserving the holy texts as they are. I am afraid that in ongoing efforts to persuade the guardians to agree to SOME change, I might lose my countenance. Already in the medium range I try to avoid the paper shufflers. ;) I wish you all possible success to get that info into the article. Purgy (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you are tired of arguing with them; I feel that way myself. It's just that your sentence: "I see, "high quality" and "stability" are properties worth mentioning, "meager tuneability" is not. Be it." is not translated into English well. In English it is confusing; it sounds like you changed your mind and agreed with them. I think a better translation is: "For some strange reason, you think that "high quality" and "stability" are properties worth mentioning, but mere "tuneability" is not. So be it." This expresses what you meant to say. --ChetvornoTALK 17:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
A non-native is always thankful for hints like these. Nevertheless, I modified your suggestion slightly, and kept your "mere tuneability", even though I wanted to express "meager" tuneability. :) All the best. Purgy (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Pigeonholes[edit]

Hi Purgy,

I recently smoothed out the English of your contribution to Pigeonhole principle without changing any of the intent of the edit (I think!). However, I am now thinking that the statement isn't totally correct. If you had a reference this would help. The two meanings of pigeonhole have been around since the 1600's, and up until fairly recently the primary (or first) meaning has been about pigeons. I assume that with the decline of pigeon raising as an activity, the open slot of a desk meaning has moved into the first place. My take on the etymology is that the term was correctly translated to the then second meaning, but non-English speakers would have translated the term from English to their own languages with the first meaning (and thinking that the English are a little strange as well). I don't have any references for this, but it does make sense. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@Wcherowi:, thank you for smoothing out my non-native pigeon :) English. I am not a linguist, and have no sources about the timely gradients in the change of meaning for pigeonhole. I also have no sources about young Dirichlet being influenced to use "Schubfach" by his father working as postmaster in a pertinent environment of "pigeonholes". But I am, as native German speaker, able to supply the information, that associations of "Schubfächer" with "Tauben" are necessarily very far fetched, whereas pigeonholes and pigeons seem to me to be obviously related.
I can only speculate if Dirichlet's word choice "Schubfach" was intentionally transcribed to a word offering both a literally as well as an associatively satisfactory translation. It appears to me to be obvious that the furniture-meaning of "pigeonhole" is easily masked behind the "pigeon-in-holes" metaphor for non-native speakers. As the next paragraph in the article shows, the "Schubfach" was translated to more literally transcriptions without any pigeons in many other languages, and the mentioned "Taubenschlag"-principle is certainly an effect of back translation, and admiration of the pigeon metaphor.
I certainly will not go into any further linguistic research to save my, imho quite amusing, remarks against any puristic desire to delete not sufficiently sourced content. On occasion I'll have a look for possible refinement. Purgy (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Bot's misconception aka MOS:LQ[edit]

Hi there, re this revert: I agree. FYI, whenever I come across such edits, I revert and point to MOS:LQ example 2 in the edit summary. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

OMG! It never came to my mind, that reasonable behaviour were a question of style, and that there really could be a whole, citeable paragraph with examples dedicated to deprecate irrational punctuation in an overwhelming WP:MOS. But leaving only a few scent marks in Wikipedia taught me already about there being for some the necessity of such bureaucratic monsters. I honestly apologize that I am not prepared to dig into these and similar effusions (especially about safe spaces, urbanity, and the like), simply relying on my rational and decent upbringing. I also learned already that it is fully in vain to protest against the application of bots infusing commata everywhere after a "therefore,". The last comma is just to deceive them, and now I wait for a bot, making it "therefore", and then for the outbreak of bot's edit war, and then ... ;)
Getting serious again, I want to report that I greatly enjoy being addressed in a positive air, and therefore want to return gratefully your thanks. Cheers! Purgy (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
My pleasure entirely. There used to be an anon who was constantly pulling the punc within the quotes—ugly and illogical, yuck. Reverting with edit summaries like "not an improvement" did not help. Looking for something about punctuation in the MOS, I found this pointer. Finally I had something to wave with, so to speak. One mention was sufficient. Relief! Face-smile.svg - DVdm (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Speak softly, and wave with a big stick — be an admin, so to say? :p Purgy (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

German speakers generally misinterpret the English word silly as only meaning doof, albern, or dumm. It has a lot of other meanings too. Depending on the context, for example I, as a native German speaker, would have to consider nicht geeignet, nicht angemessen, ụnangebracht, unaufrichtig, belanglos, usw. Anyway, here is something for you to read. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: "Wilkommen in meiner bescheidenen Hütte!" For politeness' reasons in the en.wikipedia the rest in my awkward English:
I did not want to refer to any interpretation of the word "silly" at all, I just postulated the general existence of a bias, which assumes properties preferredly on one side, but I consider both given examples to be silly reasons for a vote. Maybe this two-sidedness is not sufficiently expressed.
Just for improvement of our(?) non-native understanding I looked up "silly" in Merriam-Webster: "(1) having or showing a lack of thought, understanding, or good judgment : foolish or stupid, (2) not practical or sensible, (3) not serious, meaningful, or important". I admit that this is just the simple section and does not cover archaic or rare uses. Nevertheless, I claim that my native understanding of the German language is far from associating some notions you suggest to consider ("unaufrichtig"?).
May I also mention that I did not, and still do not intend to vote on this RfA, but, when I read about the claim that there were not enough "positivity", and, especially, that there were too much "negativity" (or sillyness on one side!), I feel urged to speak up against this, because I am strongly convinced that nowadays already the mere mentioning of (evident!) downsides is deprecated and frowned upon in a manner absolutely preposterous to reason.
For these reasons, I also do not indulge in really reading your link about RFAV, it suffices to me that, in skimmimg, I found that, obviously uninvitedly, I "joined discussions about back-room stuff"(sic!).
Let me wish you -in all civility- "Happy admining!" Regards, -Purgy (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Purgy Purgatorio. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Li ion battery[edit]

Hi, I just saw that you might be still having Lithium-ion battery on your watchlist. I used to watch it and it was one of the first articles I worked on, I don't anymore. I've recently discovered something that you might want to watch out for while digging through the archives there: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright, the editor you recently engaged with Special:Contributions/Elektrik_Fanne and an older Special:Contributions/DieSwartzPunkt, all socks. They've (singular) done good work I think, that is, in uncovering the dubiousness of batteryuniversity.com but they've been blocked nonethless. Be wary in future. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You are right in me having this on my watchlist, and, just faintly recalling my question about battery-university being blacklisted, I looked up my conversation then. I think I reacted quite cautiously to a lengthy but somewhat intransparent reply. Thanks, if your remarks are a warning, and please, let me know, if -in your opinion- I did something not de rigeur, or perhaps dangerous. I did not perceive up to now that my wanderings in WP would need wariness. There are nice guys and others, about whom I thought I couldn't care less: WP will be the same w/wo my remarks. :) Purgy (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
In retrospect, I don't know why I alerted you, ignorance is bliss after all, especially if you're trying to stay clear of trouble and such pointlessly complicated issues and focus on content. There's nothing we can do, actually, from my experience, it's frustrating to realise someone who you thought was a new editor and helped out, turns out to be a sockpuppet later.
Regarding batteryuniversity.com though, the only issue now is per the archives, it was just that editor who investigated it--no one else besides me who was just tagging along. Still there is no evidence of that site's reliability and the SPI investigation just shows the editor has behavioural issues but was good at editing. In my mind, there's a very tiny probability of finding something wrong with that editor's claims, but if you feel it necessary and have time, you can try to verify and fact-check whatever he said about that site in the archives--no harm done in the long run. I'm interested as well and can help. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
You are right again, I try to stay clear of trouble, even if I like to discuss almost pointless complicated issues in math, but that's an other story. Maybe I pity slightly that unconditional verdict on batteryuniversity.com, but I fully understand WP's requests on this matter and agree on them. OTOH, my current interests and this pity do not warrant an investigation by my side establishing batteryuniversity.com as a reliable source.
Even though I do not care much about sockpuppets (any group of ganged up editors is equally dangerous to me), I want to repeat my thanks for your caring caveat, and to assure you that I really enjoy any friendly encounter in WP. Looking forward to meet again. :) Purgy (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Then it's fine and no need to thank. You too as well. Have nice day. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Field (mathematics)[edit]

Hello Purgy. I did not think you were rude, though I find D. Lazard is. He's probably Parisian so he cannot know any better, poor man. ;) I always sign my talk posts and I simply forgot this time. Cheers Vincent (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crelle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Purgy Purgatorio. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll put this here as well as at ANI so you can't claim not to have seen it[edit]

Regarding your personal attacks on other editors and your making accusations of misconduct against other editors without providing evidence, if you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I completely understand that English is not your first language, but this is the English-language Wikipedia, but that doesn't absolve you from en-wiki's rules. If you don't have the ability to edit in English without spewing insults and unfounded accusations, I strongly suggest you don't attempt it. ‑ Iridescent 16:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent:, pinging just to sooth your assumption I would claim something I myself considered dishonest, and to let you know that I am not interested in hiding. I also do not want to blow up that miserable fight at WP:AN, so I try to answer here. However, I consider your formulation as distinctively offensive, both here and there, and I will try to explain, why I plead innocent.
Explicitely, I do refer to that edit by Hasteur on 17.08.2017, which I consider, without any special WP background, in the meaning known to me, as canvassing for an arbiter - nothing to critisize about. Furthermore, I do consider the wording "Taku-cruft" as remarkably offensive, and, since the whole posting contains no mentioning of Hasteur's own involvement, I consider it, imho rightfully, as intentionally biassing. In no way I claimed that Hasteur were successful in his indisputeable efforts to bias Stifle. Finally, I assume that stubbornness is not an insult, but just a word for an unpleasant behaviour.
In my perception I gave a correct report on the facts, and so I deny having put forth any accusation of misconduct, and having spewed insults. I do perceive massive threatening from your side via blocking, and especially by "strongly suggest you don't attempt it", leaving it and any consequences of it in the open. Purgy (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Since you take such offense with the term, I note that Stifle used the word themselves at Deletion Review. Please the content of the remarks before you make unfounded accusations as you make yourself look incompetent. cc Iridescent. Hasteur (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I've noted this discussion but I don't consider a response merited. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Lithium-ion batteries[edit]

It's the "generally" that is the problem since the article says that such batteries use organic solvents, so unless you can provide a reliable source for there existing Lithium-ion batteries that use a non-flammable electrolyte solvent the "generally" stays out. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Purgy Purgatorio. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

As you requested...[edit]

I'm pretty sure Wikipedia will have automatically notified you that your name was used in vain. But just in case, I thought I'd drop you a note inviting you to check out the discussion of my intentions that you had requested.

Looking forward to your response.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You certainly can rely on me watching a page where I asked response at, and yes, I'm into replying there. No pings, mentionings, TP-threads, or other measures required. :) Purgy (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Definition of algebraic number[edit]

Hi, Purgy. In restoring the word “essentially” in Irrational number#Transcendental and algebraic irrationals in the passage “real algebraic numbers (essentially defined as the real roots of polynomials with integer coefficients)”, you expained in the edit summary that this is “neither the only, nor a strict definition, just covering the "essentials"; including the argument)”. Could you help me by elaborating on that? (1) why is it not a strict definition, and (2) what other definition is there? Thanks, Loraof (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(2) I think (real) "Algebraic numbers" denotes a well circumscribed and agreed upon field of numbers. In an elementary approach this notion may be defined via polynomials with coefficients either from the domain of integers or the field of rationals. It may not be immediately evident that both approaches, via a domain, certainly not a field, or via a full blown field, end up in the same construct, and maybe, they have different advantages for theoretical musings. Of course, to make up reasonable definitions these must be proven to generate objects, which are at least isomorphic (if not canonically isomorphic) to each other and to the targeted field. A third well known possibility to approach the Algebraic numbers is to characterize them as the algebraic closure of the rationals, by extending the field of rationals by adjoining additional elements. This way the coefficients for the polynomials are taken from a still broader construction, the Algebraic numbers themselves. I am no expert to name a fourth obvious way for "defining" these numbers, but would not be surprised of additional concepts.
(1) Honestly, I am surprised to have to reflect on why a small apposition cannot supply a strict definition in all necessary rigor. E.g., the zero-polynomial is not excluded, the range of the substitution of the indeterminate is not made explicit, while the domain of the coefficients is crucial, not to talk about the polynomials themselves, certainly not rigorously available in an article like this (The lead of Linear differential equation just scared me).
"Essentially" is to me exactly the word, not to express in a weasely way some vague "more or less", but the word purporting confidence that the following phrase contains the "essential" details of a definition, and is just omitting some "clerical" details, without claiming that this essence is the only way to look at this notion under scrutiny. If you still estimate this word as a weasel word, go ahead and remove it, I won't interfere. Purgy (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, let’s just leave it there. Thanks! Loraof (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Numbers[edit]

Hi there. I saw you undo my edit here.
Don't you want to leave some links to the Large and Small numbers in this article? Why it should be discussed?
There almost no linking between Numbers and its highly related large and small counterparts that surely should be mentioned.
Don't you want to bring these changes back by yourself or explain why you reversed them? 109.206.156.72 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

First, it's up to you to discuss your amendments on the appropriate TP, and, no, I won't bring back your suggestions, because I object both to the place, where you inserted them, and also to them belonging to this article's topic at all, covering "numbers", where "large" and "small" are not even definable. Besides, I estimate the untagged "small number" as worse than the already tagged "large number". However, I would not object to links in a "See also" section. Now that I have declared myself, please, in case you desire, continue any discussion on the TP there. Purgy (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Purgy: I'm just asking you to provide reasons that you presumably followed when removed my contribution. Just want to know if your intervention was justified or not.
If you simply «object» the place where I've inserted titles and you know nothing about wiki rules (especially about WP:AGF) then I would consider to revert my changes back.
So, what do you mean by «not even definable» and «untagged» and what the article you think the Large and Small numbers should be referred by? Thanks.109.206.156.72 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Prime gap argument[edit]

Thanks for your edits to prime number again, and all the edits you made over the course of the GA review. As you probably saw, I undid your edits again, but it was not because I thought there was anything particularly inappropriate about them. The issue was that the factorial argument for large prime gaps was supposed to have been moved to the elementary properties section in the reorganization of the article that happened during the GA review, but there was a little bit left over in the summary of the analytic properties section that accidentally got left behind. Your edit expanded that left-behind bit, but I think the better thing to do was just to remove it. So the problem that led to the undo was actually from something I did earlier (neglecting to remove a passage) rather than anything in your edit. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Unaware of the reviewer's preference I faced the decision to remove the duplicate gap argument either from the "Open questions", which it is certainly not, or from the "Analytic properties", where there are a lot more of math-tags. Sorry, I took the wrong way. (Honestly, it is more "wrong" to me now). Anyway, cordial thanks for bringing that much glamour to my humble TP. :)
BTW, I did not change this one class-attribute in the TP-header because I thought it to belong to Version 1.0 on CD, only. Regards, Purgy (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Curious about suggestions[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
1,036 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Hazing (talk) Add sources
119 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Analytic number theory (talk) Add sources
412 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C (ε, δ)-definition of limit (talk) Add sources
1,070 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Riemann zeta function (talk) Add sources
1,283 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Pencil (talk) Add sources
896 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Limit (mathematics) (talk) Cleanup
32 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Mertens function (talk) Cleanup
301 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Positional notation (talk) Expand
82 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: B Austria–Prussia rivalry (talk) Expand
112 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Plastic number (talk) Expand
304 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Tetration (talk) Unencyclopaedic
1,381 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA BASIC (talk) Unencyclopaedic
23 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Mathematical folklore (talk) Unencyclopaedic
246 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Network science (talk) Merge
1,403 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Maximum likelihood estimation (talk) Merge
40 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Inductive type (talk) Merge
53 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Harmonic conjugate (talk) Wikify
87 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Instantaneous phase (talk) Wikify
12 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Timeline of numerals and arithmetic (talk) Orphan
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Repetition variation (talk) Orphan
26 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Quantum optimization algorithms (talk) Orphan
153 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Argument of a function (talk) Stub
12 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Ernesto Cesàro (talk) Stub

Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mathematical induction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Range (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

... repaired. Purgy (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hawking revert[edit]

Re: [1]

Hello. I gather you feel that |newspaper= is meant only for the paper version of a newspaper, not the web version. That has not been my experience, and if it were true the template wouldn't allow |url= with |newspaper=.
Regardless, you could have changed |newspaper=The Telegraph to |website=The Daily Telegraph or |work=The Daily Telegraph—they are all aliases of the same parameter and the choice has no effect on what readers see. If you'll look at the infobox in the article The Daily Telegraph, you'll find that the value of its Website field matches the domain name of the |url= in the citation template. The media group is a holding company and has no place in that parameter. Nobody reads Telegraph Media Group. ―Mandruss  18:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I was led to the article by the link The Telegraph, which was given in the References section, being a disambiguation page. My concern is not that The Daily Telegraph or the The Sunday Telegraph would not both use the url: www.telegraph.co.uk, but rather that both newspapers are not immediately involved in the linked content of the references. The content displayed with all these references is licensed to Telegraph Media Group, which is, as you stated, not a newspaper or a work. In damb'ing I removed the link The Telegraph and re-replaced with the plain text "Telegraph Media Group", and hinted to my reservations in the edit summary. I am still concerned that e.g. ref#171 in the article, which still contains the text "The Daily Telegraph", may be wrong, because of the content, belonging to this ref, is explicitly attributed to the "Telegraph Media Group", and I see no reference therein to any rights of "The Daily Telegraph".
I know that the users do not see this parameter, but to me it is questionable, if just any actual newspaper of the factual content owner(?) should be inserted under "newspaper". Purgy (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Seems like overthink to me, but if you see a significant problem here, you could use |publisher=Telegraph Media Group instead. ―Mandruss  20:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I copied the above to the article TP. Please, start a new thread here, or comment there. Purgy (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

regarding Scalar (physics)[edit]

I just published an explanation for my edits to Scalar (physics). Please comment there or send me a message. Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I will comment there within reasonable terms, if I decide to; no notifications of any kind necessary. Purgy (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

regarding Scalar disambiguation page[edit]

My edits to the disambiguation page removed links to unrelated articles, video games, angelfish, and a double link to pseudoscalar. None of these articles have any reason to be on disambiguation page. Brian Everlasting (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I will comment there within reasonable terms, if I decide to; no notifications of any kind necessary. Purgy (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit revert: Enyuropean/European[edit]

I'm sorry you had to revert that. But the awkward fact is, I didn't alter it in the first place; or at least, not intentionally. I was scrolling down through a particularly long chunk of prose to edit something right at the bottom (as I recall, it was to edit compareably to comparably). If I hit something else on the way, and accidentally jammed a couple of letters in, I certainly never noticed it at the time, and it must have been completely by misadventure. So, thanks and sorry. Nuttyskin (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

... that's what the summary typo was intended for to express. No problem. :) Purgy (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)