Welcome! Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --JYolkowski // talk 01:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Error estmates for distancesEdit

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Error_estimates_for_distances.

Thank you. I appreciate your arguments regarding the error estimate formulation. But I also had some other concerns which I put in the reply. — RJH 16:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"PROD for inanity, but this is no justification for deletion. De-PRODed."Edit

Hmmm... Interesting take. I think inanity is the supreme ground for deletion, given WP:IAR and all. You're being formalistic about setting out criteria. Nobody wants to see inane articles. If you agree that it's inane, and you'd hate to see it on WP (I dunno - do you?) perhaps you should not deprod. Now I am going to have to waste community time with AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I read your response at Crazy Russian's talk archive, Spacepotato. I don't agree with your assertion that "inane" means no more than "an editor dislikes an article". It means that the article is silly and useless. You may not agree with such an assessment, but you ought not redefine the English language for your own purposes. Get a dictionary! DavidCBryant 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
English is not a formal language. The meaning of the words in a sentence depends on the context and act in which they are used. Spacepotato 23:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiP+AnswerEdit

Hi — got your message; See: Answer... User_talk:Fabartus#On_deletion_of_Booting_(computer slang).

As a member of the welcoming committee, greetings and felicitations! If there is a question you need an answer to, I'm willing to help as I can. Take a peek at User_talk:Fabartus/TUP#THE_USUAL_PLACE, for starters. Best regards, FrankB 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks you for reverting my user page. It really was the first time I was proposed for deletion. :) Garion96 (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you fix Template:SCOTUS-case for me?Edit

I'm trying to make it show a warning to those who fail to subst: the template (as with the PROD template) but it's not coming out right - the syntax of the warning is screwed up, and the substed version has an extra "{". I'd appreciate a hand. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Perfect - thanks!!! BD2412 T 21:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Southsea HoverportEdit

Thanks for the help with Southsea Hoverport. It was 00:40 when I found that someone had it listed as a railway station, then I started an article before finding it listed for speedy deletion. then it all became complicated and I decided to sort it in the morning. I can assure you it was still operating when I was last along the coast (it,s about fifty miles from here).Britmax 09:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dog packingEdit

Hi Spacepotato,

I accept that it is seen as a conlict of interests to re-propose a failed prod, but I really can't see this article expanding much more beyond what it is now: is there any way you can think of sufficiently expanding it (Google reveals a rather poor result)?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this!

EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 19:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Ok: I'll use a Google search as a start point if I get some time. EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 23:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks; you made that counterstereotype page much more useful and less negative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GregMinton (talkcontribs) 21:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your msg. on my talkpageEdit

Thanks a ton, I did not know about the other template. Edited that as well, as I need the change to be effected in the template usage. A cursory look at your talkpage and contribs suggests that you are active in the PROD space, keep up the good work. --Gurubrahma 12:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

my editsEdit

Someday soon I hope to be an administrator on Wikipedia. I know that this is hard and a lot of work, but through insightful, high-quality, value-adding edits I believe I can get this done in no time -- all while delivering a consistently better product to the Foundation's end users. --Mathisreallycool 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Law of Attraction (New Age)Edit

I noticed you left a comment on the talk page of this article, and I have quoted this on the current AfD on it. Tyrenius 12:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Aeshna parthenopeEdit

Hi. Thanks for restoring the redirect - I had thought this to be a recent error, rather than an old name. Can you add some information to the Lesser Emperor article about the name change? SP-KP 08:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

CSDEdit

Thanks for your edits re CSD G4. They were good. Arbitrary username 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing...Edit

Hi, just dropping my oh-how-sorry-I-am note, that is about the mess I left on the rare disorders page. Without your keen eye... I usually preview (especially, with those glitches as of late) -- but this time, I didn't even look how the page rendered! bunchof thanks, take care - Introvert • ~ 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those references...Edit

...to Indefinite and fictitious large numbers. I have no idea why certain combinations of syllables like "kajillion" are in real use, and other plausible combinations like "hojillion" are not, but this will keep the paragraph under control and prevent its being used for peoples' original creations. Ditto the Stevie Wonder reference. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

TRUE programming language VfDEdit

Hi! I noticed you were the main author of the TRUE programming language page. Unlike most of the other esoteric programming languages which are up for deletion, this article is more complete than the one on the Esolangs wiki. Would you care to write an article there as well? --IanOsgood 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured list candidateEdit

I thought you'd like to know that List of United States federal legislation has been nominated to be a Featured List. It needs 4 votes by October 2 2006.

As I have labored hard on the article, I would appreciate your looking it over. You can find a discussion here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States federal legislation.

Thank you!

Markles 23:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Inductive symbolEdit

Hi, Spacepotato!

I see that you removed the PROD tag from this article, Now it's up for deletion under AfD. So far, you haven't cast a vote. Aren't you going to vote to keep it? If not, why delete the PROD tag?

I'm fairly sure inductive symbol is a hoax, or a spoof. If you had good, solid reasons for removing the PROD tag, I'd like to hear what they are, either here or on my talk page. Thanks! DavidCBryant 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an update, as long as I'm in here. From the discussion page on deleting Inductive symbol:

Delete as a tutor in Maths in Australia who did two years of it at uni and have marked the odd exam, I've never seen it before, and it appears to fail WP:ATT Orderinchaos78 14:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sending more Australians to look at it! DavidCBryant 16:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

drinibotEdit

thank you, but it wasn't my bot's fault... See [1] from where my bot extracted the names. Somebody made a typo. I'll fix it, thanks for noticing it. -- Drini 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Christina SormaniEdit

Hello again, Spacepotato! I keep running into you.

I have nominated this article for deletion. You removed the PROD tag a few days ago, so I thought you'd like to know – you might want to participate in the AfD discussion. Please read WP:BIO first, though. If that guideline had been fresh in your memory, you would not have removed the PROD tag from this non-notable biographical article. Have a great day! DavidCBryant 16:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hoosh and proposed deletion in generalEdit

 
In recognition of your efforts to fix articles that are worthy of inclusion (or at least further consideration) but in desperate need of improvement. Thanks, Black Falcon 06:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the reference (I had not thought to search any book sources). Also, I want to thank you for your efforts at Category:Proposed deletion. On dozens of occasions over the past two weeks I've noted that you've removed prod tags from improperly tagged articles (e.g., articles that were previously de-prodded or had been at AFD) and/or improved articles that were encyclopedic, but simply poorly written or inadequately sourced. I myself began prod-patrol about a month ago and have found it to be an activity that takes up much time and effort. As I usually bookmark articles on the day they're nominated and revisit them on the day before they are to be deleted, I've been pleased to discover on a number of occasions that you'd fixed and de-prodded articles which I had bookmarked. So, thank you. -- Black Falcon 06:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You get a barnstar from me too, there is far too much deletion going on. --Merceris 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to dispute this praise, but it looks like you have removed ProD notices a few times where the article was a perfect deletion candidate, there was no discussion or improvement since the ProD, and you only removed the notice without improvements or rationale either. Just saying that it is "contested" isn't enough, per WP:PROD. See e.g. Torsten Lenk (which I've Reprodded) and Gino D'Addario (why would you want to keep that?). Fram 11:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ProddingEdit

If it's a bad faith prod, it very well SHOULD be reverted. I see no reason to assume that an anon just happened to remove those four prods with no reason given - and also never make any other edit to Wikipedia at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is not legitimately contesting it. What other explanation is there to a random anon removing prods from random articles for no reason whatsoever, and on that matter, never doing anything on Wikipedia BUT that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be amazed if three people randomly deprodded three articles in four minutes with the same edit summary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sidney McKnightEdit

I have proposed the article Sidney McKnight for deletion as not notable. Discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 24#Sidney McKnight. --Bejnar 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

AstronomyEdit

Thanks for doing a great job on the Giant star page. Timb66 12:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yellow dwarfEdit

If you want to see how many wiki-links you broke by moving the page, please see here. It's not a googol but close ;-) --Friendly Neighbour 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dogon beliefsEdit

Hello.. Please try not to hastily revert edits with out discussing or reading the source. No biggy, just informing you and I will be courteous enough to point out to you the references being referred. The claim is attributed and I've provided another source as well anyways. This is what the initial source has to say as speculation of "probable" European contact isn't enough to merely explain away the mystery as there are more dimensions to it, and it isn't as simplistic as merely shunning it away and attributing indigenous knowledge to Europeans.


It is not hard to imagine, argued Sagan, that the Dogon incorporated such details into their mythological framework and then, a generation or two later, repeated them to an anthropologist who was unaware that there had been any cultural contamination. This, however, is not the end of the Sirius mystery because the Dogon include in their traditions the belief that Sirius once appeared red, as indeed it would have done when it passed through its red giant phase in the remote past (see stars, evolution). http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Siriusred.html


^Then they go on to elaborate on the significance of the Dogon's claim of a red star.

Oberg doesn't put too much weight on speculative claims of "probable" European contact either, even being the skeptic and debunker that he is. He writes:

Meanwhile the Dogon myths continue to baffle investigators. The obviously advanced astronomical knowledge must have come from somewhere, but is it an ancient bequest or a modern graft? Although Temple fails to prove its antiquity, the evidence for the recent acquisition of the information is still entirely circumstantial.

Then concludes:

So where does this leave the mysteries of Sirius? The antiquity of the Dogon astronomy is not so obvious as ancient astronaut enthusiasts claim but neither has it been disproved. The ancient records are filled with unanswered astronomical questions -- including the "red Sirius" and the possible Sumerian Ea-Oannes references to the spectacular Vela-X supernova. The Dogon myths may or may not be related to these other putties (or even to Kepler's supernova, which has been seriously suggested.) It seems likely that we will never know for sure. Whatever their place in the search for extraterrestrial contact, the Dogon myths are certainly odd. The Stone Age storytellers speak by their campfires of other people on other planets and of other mysteries. Our mysteries may be different but our questions are the same and we are no wiser http://www.debunker.com/texts/dogon.html.Taharqa 03:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

IK Pegasi BEdit

Hello,

I am not sure what you modifed the estimated mass of IK Pegasi B. The article [2] states that the mass is 0.0091 (P521) the solar mass. Would you mind explaining where you found the 0.006 figure ? Thanks. Poppypetty 13:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. The figures you mention are radii, not masses.
  2. In the reference, [3], which you cite, the middle paragraph of the second column on p. 520 is about IK Pegasi, and gives a radius of 0.006 solar radii for IK Pegasi B. The two succeeding paragraphs, which continue on to the first column of p. 521, pertain to HD 15638. (The second paragraph starts with the phrase Following the approach outlined above, for HR 8210. This means that HR 15638 is being analyzed with the same method which was used for HR 8210.) The second paragraph gives a radius of 0.0091 solar radii for HD 15638B.
Spacepotato 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Recolor imageEdit

Hi Spacepotato,

I'm curious to know what basis you used to recolor the IK Pegasus image? The primary is late Class A, which is normally portrayed as white. Likewise yellow for the Sun, rather than a pale orange. The current image seems odd now. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The color values were found by convolving spectra with the CIE color-matching functions to obtain tristimulus (X,Y,Z) values representing the human visual appearance of the spectra. The (X,Y,Z) values were then converted to sRGB color space.[4]
For IK Pegasi A, I used the color #rrggbb = #D5DEFF, obtained from the spectrum [5] of a type A8V star.[6].
For IK Pegasi B, I took the spectrum of a black body of temperature 35,500 K, resulting in the color #A2B8FE.
For the Sun, I used the color #FFF2EF.[7] Since sRGB uses illuminant D65 for its white point, and the Sun is somewhat redder than D65, its (R,G,B) values are shifted towards the red. In the picture, it appears slightly pinkish to me, presumably because color adaptation[8] makes the display white point appear white.
I do not know how the convention of calling type A stars white, type G stars yellow, etc. came about. It may come from the convention of setting color indices equal to zero for Vega,[9] sometimes described as steel-blue.[10] Presumably, low light levels also play a role; the method above computes colors suitable for daytime photopic vision. For the color of the Sun, sunlight may appear yellow by contrast against a blue sky,[11] or the Sun may be yellowed by atmospheric scattering.(Minnaert, p. 262)
Star colors are discussed in detail at Mitchell Charity's web page What color are the stars?, from which some of my colors were taken. Spacepotato 19:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the colors do not match my (or other people's) real-world experience of looking at stars. Sirius, which is class A1V, is quite clearly white, not blue. The difference may be due to how the human eye perceives a color from a saturated source, rather than under normal viewing conditions. Comparing the two may not be realistic. I'm just not happy with the way it looks now, so I'll do a little more investigation. — RJH (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this article covers the topic fairly well:
  • "The Colour of Stars". Australia Telescope Outreach and Education. December 21 2004. Retrieved 2007-09-26. Check date values in: |date= (help)
It looks like your coloration is based on an interpretation of the "Stellar Colours" section, while mine is drawn from the "Measuring Colour - Colour Index" section on B-V. This could potentially cause confusion for readers. — RJH (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
An F0V star (say) will be yellower than Vega, but since Vega is bluish it won't be yellow per se. BTW, the reproduction of Charity's colors in your reference is inaccurate. This page shows the relation between B-V index and color by displaying representative values of both for various spectral types. Spacepotato 20:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 
Sun.
 
Artist's impression of Sirius

Well as V represents how the human eye perceives a star, I think it is a better representative of how we would observe it. I would expect that the coloration you have introduced would only appear in the darker limb region. It appears to me that what you're doing is providing the mathematically correct, digitized approximation of the stellar radiation. But it is not the way the human eye views those bodies. Unless you're color-blind, you can't tell me that you can step outside and see a light orange-hued Sun. To me it always has been a golden white, just as Sirius will always look pure white.

It appears to me that this conversion has taken an artistic representation of the stars as seen from a human viewpoint and transformed it into a "machine-readable" image. When I look at the picture now I see a comparison between a class B star and a class K star. It just doesn't look right to my eye.

The top illustration on the Sun page (at right) is how it is normally portrayed. I think if you converted that to a pale orange image, people would object. Likewise Sirius is normally portrayed as white. I would expect to see the blue color in the fainter part of the atmosphere, where the light does not saturate the eye's receptors. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Americas terminologyEdit

Hello Space:

I noted you changed the header "geopolitic regions". As you said the article is about terminology involving the Americas and there are geophysical terms, linguistic and cultural terms as well as geopolitical terms. The problem with the renaming is that "group of countries" could be any group, economical group, cultural group, linguistic group. Those terms are geopolitical, and so the header must clearly indicate that. Thanks. AlexC. ( Talk? ) 23:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty with this is that the regions defined here are not specifically geopolitical in nature. For example, when the countries of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama are referred to collectively as Central America, there is no reason to think that the speaker feels them to be united politically. Despite its vagueness, I think the term "regional group" is preferable. Spacepotato 00:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Separately, thank you for enhancing this article. Happy editing! :) Corticopia 19:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

MergeEdit

Done. I guess they didn't have the "move" function back then.--Cúchullain t/c 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Panoramamty.pngEdit

I already talked to him to solve the problem, but could you please show me where did he put the request to remove the picture so I can see it. Supaman89 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The request to remove the picture is here. Spacepotato 19:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually that wasn't a request, he was talking to me about the picture and in one of his messages he told me so, but then we kept talking and I explained him the situation, so he's got no problem with it, we already talked about it. Supaman89 19:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You talked about it with him, but instead of becoming convinced that there was no problem, he got angry. That's why he's asking for the picture to be removed. Spacepotato 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know that's what happens when you don't listen to what the other person ahs to say, fortunately it was solved. Supaman89 20:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

State codesEdit

Thanks for the links. Interesting reading, even if utterly confusing. Yeah, I've often thought it'd be nice if Mexico adopted a set of short-and-snappy two-letter codes (preferably not overlapping with US/Can, altho' that's quite hard given the status quo with their abbreviations), but that's really a job for the government, not the ISO (which, at the end of the day, I've always been very suspicious of: commercial business trying very, very hard to pass itself off as an international organization). Regards, Aille 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

fair to say that neither the ISO codes nor any set of two-letter codes are generally used by the public in Mexico? Yes, absolutely. Of course, it's hard to prove a negative, but they're not used on letters sent through the post (other than DF, NL, etc, which have conventional two-letter abreviations, but even then the standart use is to write them with periods: D.F., etc.); not used on car license plates (most of the states now write the name in full, but the previous system used the conventional abbreviations in block caps: TAB, TAMPS, COAH, etc); not used on our electoral registration ID cards (they use the two-digit numbers identified as 'INEGI' on that url you sent me; which I think appear in small type on car tags as well); not used in newspaper datelines; not used by the ministry of education on its enormous flash-animated map. Etc. Aille 15:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

MexicoEdit

In Mexico, there are certain places that have "city" (Ciudad) status, their boundaries are all laid out as would be typical in an incorporated city in the U.S. There are Municipios which are municipalities that cover areas that are also laid out, and are similar to townships in some U.S. states. Then there are the pueblos, poblaciónes, poblados, colonias, which are to the best of my knowledge ill-defined, like a hamlet or village or unincorporated place in the U.S. A city may contain several of these smaller entities. A good example can be found on this website which gives postal codes for various Mexican places, but typically you address things by colonia, ciudad if there is one, state - I don't know anyone who would address things with municipio (like adding county or township to a US letter). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No objection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

List of minor Time Crisis charactersEdit

The user in question who contested the prod also systematically removed prods from other articles without explanation, and was seen as disruptive by user Daniel Case. I notice that WP:PROD does not specifically state that systematic removals are against the afrementioned policy, however. You don't think it was the kind of vandalism that nulls the objection? hbdragon88 (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with our policy, I take these removals to be contestations of the deletion, and not vandalism. There is nothing to prohibit systematic de-prodding. People generally edit systematically, rather than at random. Spacepotato (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay then. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Time Crisis characters. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Aguascalientes (municipality)Edit

Hello. It looks like you are in the process of building this informative article. However, I noticed there are no sources listed. Please cite some reliable sources for this article. Otherwise, the article may be tagged as a candidate for deletion at some point in the future. A full list of citation templates is available here. If you are already in the process of adding sources now, please continue to do so and ignore this message. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Diophantus II.VIIIEdit

Hi. Thanks for the very professional 'makeover' you have done on the Diophantus II.VIII article. The first paragraph now looks very scholarly, very 'encyclopaedic' if I may put it that way! And the referencing is a whole lot more detailed and clear cut.

Just a couple of small quibbles I have: firstly on a historical level I think it's important to retain the English translation as close to the Latin as possible (and trust to 16th Century scholarship that the Latin in turn faithfully renders the original Greek). I don't see any evidence in the Latin for saying we add x^2 + 16x otherwise you would see at that point in the Latin something like 1 Q + 16N. One can only admire the crisp and elegant brevity of Diophantus' work and I wouldn't want the article to detract from that in any way. Nothing more than a rudimentary knowledge of algebra is expected of the average reader to reach 5x^2 = 16x from 4x^2 + 16 - 16x = 16 - x^2. (4Q. + 16. - 16N. haec aequabuntur vnitatibus 16 - 1 Q.)

Secondly in the final sentence you have altered my 'Diophantine triple generator' to 'Pythagorean triple generator' and that is technically incorrect since a PT is strictly integer and the t based triple generator will produce rational (but not necessarily integer) triples. My original point of contention was that both historically and theoretically the 'strictly integer' definition is not needed and PTs should be defined more simply as right triangles with rational sides. Furthermore all PTs have a t value which corresponds to that magical "arbitrary coefficient of x" referred to by Diophantus.

Neil Parker (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. Thanks for your message. Re the adding/subtracting, the Latin runs "Communis adiiciatur utrimque defectus, & à similibus auferantur similia". A translation close to the original could read "I add the negative terms found on both sides, and similarly subtract the common [positive] term". The paraphrase by Bashmakova which I used spells out for the reader what the subtracted positive term (16) and the added negative terms (x2+16x) are. This has the advantage of making the mathematics clearer for the modern reader but the disadvantage, as you point out, of moving further away from the Latin text. If you think the disadvantage outweighs the advantage, I have no objection to using a closer translation.
  2. The problem with the use of Diophantine triple is that Diophantine triple is used to mean something else, viz., a triple of rational numbers such that the product of any two is one less than a square (cf. e.g. [12]. The reference here, in the numbering used by Heath (1885), is to Arithmetica IV.20.) Since   will generate integral triples after clearing denominators, I believe the statement currently in the article is correct, with this clarification.
  3. For the role of t, in modern language, what is going on is that a Pythagorean triple is equivalent to a rational point on the unit circle, which, over the rational numbers, is birationally equivalent to the line. So, under a suitable birational equivalence (implictly found by Diophantus), any rational point on the circle gives a rational point on the line, which is t. Spacepotato (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch on Robert MorrisEdit

It looks like there's little left in the dup article; can we just stick a redir there now? --- tqbf 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the articles and redirected Robert S Morris to the Robert Morris dab page (the middle initial S was incorrect.) Spacepotato (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletionEdit

Your prod removal, at Logical necessity of inconsistency, was not quite well formed. To contest the prod all you need to do is to note your reason for taking the template off: Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion.

So you have a reason, but I'm really here because I don't understand it. (By the way, the article itself is now at AfD, which may interest you.) Your reason for contesting was the existence of sources written by Carl Hewitt? I just wondered whether you were aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt, with the October 2007 ruling and so on. Prod would be a lightweight method of dealing with articles in apparent violation of what the ArbCom has ruled in the matter of autobiographical editing. Lightweight is good: because if we have to decide each time at AfD on the worth of one of Carl Hewitt's papers when he posts an abstract of it here, it's not good for him and it's not good for us. Charles Matthews 14:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. The article was previously contested, but the proposed deletion template was re-added, in violation of our policy. This reason is sufficient by itself.
  2. As for the consequences of the Arbcom ruling in this case, I believe these are better decided by the community rather than unilateral editorial action. Spacepotato 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tesco Controls IncorporatedEdit

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tesco Controls Incorporated, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesco Controls Incorporated. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 12:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Deletion of OmniplanEdit

May I know what is your reason for opposing the deletion of Omniplan when it appears to be more like a self advertisement page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryTonos (talkcontribs) 15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a brief article, not an ad. Spacepotato 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Xen: Ancient English EditionEdit

Regarding the prod from this article, are you aware that the user who originally removed it is a sockpuppet of a vandal who has been doing nothing but removing prods to disrupt things? If you still contest it, that's fine by me, but I just wanted you to know the circumstances. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the circumstances. I don't think the article is eligible for proposed deletion at this point. Spacepotato 01:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

booksEdit

I will be nominating the book(s) from which you have been removing prods for afd. If you have any book reviews from reliable independent sources add them now--maybe they are in fact notable, I dont want to do them injustice . DGG (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of CoolattaEdit

An article that you have been involved in editing, Coolatta, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolatta. Thank you. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of University of Limerick Computer SocietyEdit

An article that you have been involved in editing, University of Limerick Computer Society, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Limerick Computer Society. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

surcomplex numberEdit

Thank you for finding sources for the complexification of the surreals. But what did Conway call them? We really ought to using his term rather than rolling our own. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In On Numbers and Games, Conway used no name; he simply called the field of surcomplex numbers No[i] (No being the field of surreal numbers.) The term surcomplex is used by Alling (ISBN 0-444-70226-1, §7.10), who called No[i] a surcomplex number field. Alling also defines other surcomplex number fields by restricting the surreal numbers used to those having birthdays <κ, for some regular cardinal κ>ω. Spacepotato (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the lone MathSciNet hit was by Alling, presumably a draft of the section. I suppose then this is the established name. If you can add something about the restricted fields, and the effect of the restriction, that would be good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fictional towns and cities in MexicoEdit

I have nominated Category:Fictional towns and cities in Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Antonio Carmona AñorveEdit

Thanks for adding some more references. Picaroon (t) 01:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Parental Consent ActEdit

An article that you have been involved in editing, Parental Consent Act, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parental Consent Act. Thank you. Burzmali (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Spacepotato/Archive 1".