User talk:Cronholm144/Archive 1

JD Ryan

Please only add sourced material to J.D. Ryan. It was blanked because there was so much vandalism that I could not tell what was correct and what was vandalism.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global dimming -> GA

Thank you for reviewing the article. Kgrr 14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the proper classification is: Category:GA-Class Environment articles Kgrr 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, when I went to change Good article registry I looked for environment but I must have missed it. Sorry for the oversight. I can change it if you like or if you want to correct it yourself that is fine by me.

Cronholm144 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Direction

Hey MGM, Thanks for your response on the help desk. However I still have one question, what is the appropriate forum for discussion of Wiki policy regarding the protection of FA articles? Thanks so much Cronholm144 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

How do you expect me to do that when Wikipedia is based on double-standards? Why is supporting Israel, Zionism, Likud, Yisrael Beytenu and Kadima allowed on Wikipedia and supporting Hezbollah isn't? Emбargo 00:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is a great proposition, but I'm still waiting for Jim Wales to reply. What do you suggest we do next? Emбargo 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calculus

Hi Cronholm, Era notation was first used in Calculus here [1]. As you can see it's BC. If you check edits either side of this you'll be able to confirm this. Also, the BC notation was used for a substantial number of edits thereafter. It should not have been changed if Wiki policy/guidelines were adhered to. Could you change it back? I can't, for fear of breaching the 3RR rule on this occasion. Cheers. 86.31.70.128 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Cronholm144 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know it's only a minor point, and this article is about mathematics, but I've detected an organised attempt on Wikipedia to replace BC with BCE for what would appear to be PC reasons. 86.31.70.128 22:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just isn't important to me either way, I go by the set policy. Frankly I just hate useless warring, notation doesn't change peoples convictions, ya know. Cronholm144 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in total agreement, hopefully this issue won't come up again on a mathematics article (wishful thinking I know, but we all have our dreams don't we?)Cronholm144 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note; i wasn't really bothered which one it was, i just thanked Cheeser for his efforts anyway (he originally reverted it). BC or BCE is fine, so long as it's not swapped around every 10 seconds -- i don't really care about that, but the actual calculus information. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 22:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just another note, though -- it's nothing to do with PC reasons. It was just to do with the fact Cheeser was attempting to remain neutral. I was thanking cheeser generally for reverting because i saw him do it on my watchlist and didn't really read the history. Apologies again, but this isn't a conspiracy or what have ye, and don't generalise 2 editors (one who was merely commenting; moi) as "Wikipedia". ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 22:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to generalise, just letting you know the situation. I assumed good faith on the IP and Cheeser and I knew you were acting in good faith. No worries ;)Cronholm144 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calculus apps

Great work on the applications Cronholm! Geometry guy 23:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I am convinced I am mediocre writer at best so please edit away at all my scribblings. Being bold is hard to do Cronholm144 23:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing fine! Thanks for your kind comments on my page, and for taking the trouble to look at my contributions. I think recently I have not been following very well two principles about editing WP that I have come to believe in.

  • When something needs to be done, don't just talk about it, do it!
  • When the lead needs improving, don't focus on the lead: improve the body of the article. The lead will follow!

With calculus, however, you (and others e.g. 141.211, Rick Norwood) have been doing this, so I feel it is in safe hands! Good work on the talk page: some of the resolved points could probably be moved into the archive. Geometry guy 18:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach GA review

On criteria 3b (focus), the scope of the article is intended to be the manga series Bleach, its derived media, and franchise. The title may be slightly confusing, but it is the correct one and in accordance with the project guidelines on disambiguation because the franchise as a whole is based around a manga series.

I am unsure what you mean by more citation for sales statistics. Is the problem with the sources we have used, or are you requesting that we find more than one source per sales statistic?

If you have any additional questions, please contact me on my talk page or the Bleach talk page. --tjstrf talk 05:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I see we've passed. Yay! Thank you for the time you volunteer reviewing pages, I get the impression it's a rather thankless job, especially when you have to tell people that their article isn't ready yet. --tjstrf talk 06:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey there

hey, i got your message. hope you're well.

thanks for your concern, that's really nice of you. however, i've also contacted many people directly through their talk pages, so have many people lined up for the project. i had pre-empted your suggestion of contacting through projects and groups :)

the questions will be coming out next week. as is the case with uni bureaucracy my ethics got stalled.... :( but should be good now.

tamsin 10:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: once my research leaves me with a bit more time on my hands i'll definately do some more editing....

Good to hear, I guess I am a little bit of a busy body but I can't help myself. Thanks for your hasty reply--Cronholm144 23:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


not at all :-) the world could do with some more friendly and well-meaning busy bodies from time to time.... tamsin 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture-bonding

Hey Sadi, I read your RfC and would like to help out in any way possible. If you could outline your problem with Keith with a little more depth I would be really appreciative. Hopefully your dispute can be worked out quickly. Thanks so much--Cronholm144 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cronholm, in short, an editor named User:Hkhenson, i.e. Keith Henson, wrote a 2002 article on the topic of capture; in addition, on various web pages he claims that he is the first to propose the theory, such as this webpage, where Henson claims “Until I proposed capture-bonding it had been a completely unexplained slice of weirdness.” Myself, before I stumbled upon this article, I had read about capture bonding in psychologist John Money’s 1980 book Love & Love Sickness – the Science of Pair-Bonding, where he applies the concept of capture bonding to abnormal psychology situations, such as in a bad marriage that a spouse seems to be trapped in or kidnapping cases where given chances to escape the captive paradoxically remains bound to the captor, etc. I found the term and concept used in other published sources as well. Hence, over the last year, I have been attempting to edit and add to this article with these various sources, but Henson continuously reverts, because it is not according to his point of view. Your comments would be appreciated here, at the Mediation Cabal in progress. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 13:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a comment on Keith's page, but it looks like we will have to wait--Cronholm144 02:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's for the look. --Sadi Carnot 04:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Comment @ User talk:R

I saw your comment on R's talk page, and I just wanted to drop in and say that you need at least 500 — yes, I know it's a lot, but I don't make the
rules — mainspace edits before you are likely to be approved. However, when you are approved, to check the mathematics articles, just select "Pull From Category" from the drop-down menu on the bottom-left side and type "Mathematics" (without the quotation marks) into the box underneath the drop-down menu. I hope that wasn't too confusing; when you use AWB frequently, it will become very much easier. ~ Magnus animuM Brain Freeze! 16:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help, if I don't get it this time around that's ok by me. I just thought it would be useful for my work and thought you might make an exception. Right now, I am on an organisation kick and I guess you could call me a timid mainspace editor. again thanks--Cronholm144 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Harrop

Hi. I saw your post on Jon Harrop's page and wanted to say a few things to you in private. I know Dr Harrop and he is a very clever and passionate person. He is a strong advocate for many different topics such as computer programming languages and contributes widely to those topics (not just on wikipedia). I think the personality clash with Requestion has escalated. Many issues and problems have arisen that may have been avoided had a neutral party stepped in. It is obvious looking at Requestion's user page that Femto is not neutral as he often leaps to Requestion's aid. As such his involvement could be seen (rightly or wrongly) as ganging up. Personally, I find the way Requestion talks to people as quite aggressive and I don't think I'm the first person to get the impression (again rightly or wrongly) that he is bullying. I can understand why Harrop thought Requestion was out to delete all of his contributions and hound him off the wiki.

I can see how I would be viewed as a meat puppet and so am staying out of any disputes from now on. I have taken a few deep breaths and calmed down. I am new to the wiki and didn't even know until recently what WP:MEAT is. I have two degrees and was thinking of getting involved in the wiki community but this has somewhat put me off. Maybe I'll come back at the end of the year and start making contributions. I'm sure I won't get in trouble if I write on totally unrelated subjects.

I think it would be wiki's loss if it lost Harrop altogether. He has a lot to contribute. However, I think that is the case. It would have been possible to reform him into the kind of wikipedian everyone would be happy with but not in the way Femto and Requestion went about it. It isn't easy to have a civilised discussion when you don't know the other person and have to rely on posts alone to talk to them. Their warnings and verbal attacks only add fuel to the fire. Dr Harrop is the kind of person who is going to argue his case and not just back down when intimidated. Quoting WP rules and shouting does not equal a reasoned response to a person's objections which is something I don't think Requestion realises.

It is very unfortunate that it has all gotten so out of hand.Petdoc 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all points, I left a comment on Femto's user page, I think the way they bullied a new user into leaving is wrong. however I am aware that personalities clash and good judgemant goes out the window. It was quite outside that Jon was not a vandal and instead of being reverted and threatened he should have been welcomed and mentored, but this is all in the past. I hope you choose to continue to edit here the Mathematics community is typically much more friendly and open than the anti spam community. So as long as you avoid them I think you will have no problem here. If you do encounter problems, know that your friends here(check WP:M frequent contributers) will come to your aid if you ask. I just hope there is still room for reconciliation between these parties--Cronholm144 20:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that Jon is a new user. I'm actually the new user. I know user: Marie Mason and she is pretty new as well. I have a degree in genetics and a second degree in pharmacology. Marie has a degree in maths and PhD in physics. I've spoken to her and neither of us will be returning to wikipedia (we just read Requestion's post on wiki:spam about us). I am already an admin for two other wikis (smaller but friendlier). I came on here to take a look at the debate that was raging and how it was resolved then I would decide whether I would get involved in a big wiki. Spam fighters might want to be a little more careful when upsetting WP:MEATs as some of those people could actually be encouraged onboard to make useful contributors.
As for the link that proves Dr Harrop has been spamming for years. More precisely a link that leads to a debate Dr Jon Harrop had with Dr T Fischbacher years ago over spam - there's a bit more to it than is revealed on the wiki. The two Drs were very familiar with each other and often had debates on user forums and wikis. Dr Harrop objected to Dr Fischbacher selectively removing his links and leaving links to other commercial (and competing) sites and blogs. In fact this was a very deliberate act on Dr Fischbacher's part. This is an issue I have with all spam fighters and why I think Requestion's actions are often very unfair. Spam fighters should remove all spam from a page and not just links that they consider spam from certain select sources. When Requestion removed links to free material provided on Dr Harrop's website but left links to a commercially sold book then it was unfair and when Dr Harrop questioned that he should have received a civil answer not just repeated warnings on his website.
Anyway, it isn't just Dr Harrop that wikipedia has lost (and he has gone - so Femto and Requestion can rejoice) - Marie and I are definitely not coming back. We were only argumentative with Requestion in defense of nasty and unnecessary comments about either Dr Harrop or ourselves by Requestion himself. Everyone (whether a new user or old user) has the right to defend themselves or people they know from attack. I joined the wiki during this discussion solely to observe how the issue was resolved. I stayed out of the debate until I felt compelled to say something.
As I have been discussing this with Dr Harrop privately I know that he would have contributed to pages without adding any links. However, I have just read Femto's user page. Jon has over the years provided free articles, demos and tutorials on various sites on the web. That should also be taken into account and not just the fact that he has spammed on occassion. Some of the links classed as spam were links to free artciles (which I wouldn't class as spam anyway).
Anyway, as far as I know nobody has died so hopefully we can all go on with our lives and never cross paths again.
Thanks for your friendly welcome. I wish I'd spoken to you earlier. Have fun contributing. All the best.Petdoc 00:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have and I will continue to have fun contributing, and despite your words I hope you will do the same. As you might be able to tell from my talk page, I have lived a charmed wikilife thus far. However I think this need not be a unique experience. The wikiprojects, especially math and science related, are bastions from the kind of disputes Jon involved himself in. Sadly I think he has seen and interacted with the worst of wiki, hot heads, bad decisions, etc... I hope that you stay and interact long enough to enjoy the positive aspects of wiki before you make your decision to leave. I have met many wonderful people here: in the wiki love department, Willow and Phaedriel, in the maths, Geometry guy,Minestrone,Salix,Oleg,Jitse, and many more. I encourage to interact with your fellow users and form the kind of relationships that I have here. I wish you all the best and hope that you decide to stay.--Cronholm144 04:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics CotW?

You left a message on my page about the "collab of the week"...could you point me to this project page? Its been awhile since I participated in project math and I don't really know my way around...

Thx!--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your Talk page but for all who want to know WP:MATHCOTW--Cronholm144 01:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic function

Haha... No it was me! Actually, I don't have a strong preference either way. It seemed more natural at the time to classify it as analysis, but now that things have taken shape with the article a little more, it's starting to lean in the algebra direction. If only it could be both... (G.G. says that's not possible though *sigh*.)

Oh, and the inverse Galois problem miscategorization: don't worry about it. I don't hold it against you. I just found it odd that in two different ratings which suddenly popped to the top of my watchlist, you mentioned set theory. A little warning light went off in my head, and I was worried it might be an epidemic. But it turned out to be a coincidence. Silly rabbit 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I am glad that I didn't do much harm, I also just nominated Algebraic algorithm and Algebraic bracket for deletion if you want to take a look.--Cronholm144 02:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of these I agree with, the other not, but no worries: lets see what happens at the AfD! Geometry guy 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Algebraic link too (it's almost A3)--Cronholm144 03:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a def, gives a link, and has a ref, so I would give it the benefit of the doubt, or pester MarSch and Chan-Ho to move it along a bit. Geometry guy 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On my way--Cronholm144 03:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]