# User talk:MarSch/Archive 1

## Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, MarSch/Archive 1, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

## More welcome

The above was just a standard Wikipedia welcome. It has some helpful info.

The page Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics is not my pet project. Most of that stuff is not written by me, but rather, is a community consensus, long before I came here.

Before I moved that stuff to the current place, it was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics for around 2 years. By the way, I would encourage you to visit that page, and put it on your watchlist. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics is the place where the mathematicians hang around. If you have any questions having to do with math on Wikipedia, you can go to that page, click on the "discussion" link there, and just ask.

As far as the dx thing vs. \mathrm{d}x, I think the default accepted here is dx. Ultimately it does not matter of course which way we go, as long as we are consistent.

Please let me know if you have any questions about anything. I hope you like it here. Oleg Alexandrov 18:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS. You can post a question about dx vs. \mathrm{d}x on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics Oleg Alexandrov 21:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

## Still more welcome and the WikiProject Mathematics Participants list

Hi MarSch, welcome to Wikipedia and the Mathematics Project. Thanks for adding your name to the table of Participants on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, but as of now that table is only a prototype for a new format for the list. The real list is at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants, you might want to add your name there, as well as some comments by way of introduction (or not :) . If and when the new format is adopted your entry will be transfered with everyone else's to the new tabular format. If you have an opinion about the new format vs, the old one, feel free to express it here: Reformat of Participants list. Again welcome. Paul August 15:23, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

The participants list has now been converted into the proposed tabular form. I've taken the liberty of copying your entry from here: Reformat of Participants list, to here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants. Paul August 18:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

## Welcome!

There's room for the abstract dfinition, but make it farther into the article. Aim that presentation not at a genius, but at a first year math grad student, with average passing grades, or at a math professor working in non-diff-geom field who once knew but forgot the full abstract definition, or some particular relation.

So again, welcome, thanks for the hard work, but please keep in mind the audience. linas 03:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

## Cheer up

Hi MarSch. Sorry for that. Most of the time we are a friendly bunch and don't jump at people like that. We really need more people knowing serious math. And I did mean it when I wrote on Talk:Laplace operator that an article about the Laplacian on manifolds would be very good. Then we can link to it from Laplace operator, for people who want to learn more. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 23:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

## affine space

I find it regretable that you removed the story that constitutes an informal account of what "affine space" means, and very strange that you say it fails to explain the concept. It explains it much better than anything that is there now. Moreover, it is misleading to speak of physics as viewing physical space as an affine space, since physical space clearly has a metric, which is not part of the affine structure. The fact that the metric is not part of the affine structure is important and anything that would cause the reader to think otherwise should not be there. Michael Hardy 18:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

## Catfight

Hi MarSch. I've left a few suggestions on how to expand Catfight on the discussion page of that article. Interesting in lending a hand? —RaD Man (talk) 18:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

## Pears

You say "comparing apples and pears" instead of "comparing apples and oranges?" —Sean κ. 18:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I do, but then I am Dutch. Do you really say oranges in English? I guess you do. I have been meaning to check the wiktionary on it. -MarSch 13:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
We sure do. Interesting. —Sean κ. 15:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

## Mathematics

Saw your edits (well, more of a rewrite really) on mathematics. For what it's worth, I predict this will stir up a real hornet's nest. You don't happen to wrestle alligators in your spare time, do you ? Gandalf61 16:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

actually I do a fair bit of martial arts :) -MarSch 16:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

## Scalar field

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov 15:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello MarSch, thanks much for discussing the article. Since I am interested to keep the article I have overworked it a bit and I have added an explanation to the vote list. I would be glad if you had another look. Thanks. -- Karsten88 15:31, 21 May 2005 (CEST)

I've had another look and I no longer think that it is non-sense. I voted delete, because of the only 3 google hits it gave; now 5. Even though vfd is over now, I would be interested in knowing why it gives so few hits.--MarSch 10:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

## duplicated content

Hi - I've been trying to figure out for a while how the content in various articles has been ending up duplicated. This just happened on WP:TFD because of this edit (one of yours). Do you happen to remember exactly what happened? Did you perhaps see an edit conflict window, and perhaps then copy/paste from the "your changes" window? Please let me know what you remember, if anything. Thanks. -- Rick Block 17:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I did get an edit conflict on a few edits around that time. I was editing by section. I copied the text I wanted from the lower box, and because of the length of the article, I hit back a few times and then the section edit button again. But perhaps I did manage to find the section in the mess that was the top edit box and copied my stuff over, then hit preview, check and save. I also did get a few Sorry's then hit back and tried to save again and conflicted myself. Does this help? --MarSch 18:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't sound conclusive to me, but I think if you copied and pasted into the top box and then hit save that this would cause the duplication to occur (and seems like a very bad user interface). There is a bug report on this that I've recently annotated. Thanks for the info. -- Rick Block 18:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the confirmation about creating duplicate content. BTW - I'm not a wikipedia developer (I'm not even an admin), just a regular contributor. -- Rick Block 13:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I thought as much, but you seem to have been pursuing this for a while. Maybe you want to become a developer? This bug seems simple enough to fix :) --MarSch 13:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

## Manifold

Hi MarSch. Thank you for your recent contributions to manifold. I like how it is turning out, and the fact that you did not push the formal definition right at the top. The part after ==Formal definition== needs a bit more polish I think, but that's minor.

I would like to say that my response to you several days ago was a bit testy (I was pissed off that you left this article unfinished and unprofessionally looking). But I am glad you came back and continued to work on it. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 18:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I must say, in full honesty, that after rereading the old version of the article, I think the old version was a much finer essay. You removed a lot of things which were intuitive, and insisted instead of many technicalities, like the charts and hausdorfness. This article is now rather opaque to nonmathematicians, and the points you insist on do not add value even for mathemticians, unless you know all those finer details beforehand. What you wrote, would make a good chapter in a graduate geometry book, what was before, was a very nice encyclopedic essay. Oleg Alexandrov 18:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

## Introduction templates

See Template talk:Please leave this line alone for a discussion of why the templates are setup as they are. Trödel|talk 13:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand why and how they are setup thus. I actually provided that explanation on tfd, but I still think that the templates are misnamed and this was also said by others on talk of tfd when it was agreed to remove its entry. --MarSch 11:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your need to edit the Introduction templates. First of all such drastic changes should have been proposed on the talk page first. Secondly, you should not make the change on an active template that is viewed so frequently but used a sandbox, like User:MarSch/Sandbox. Third, why do you think that these templates need to be reformatted - I have seen some comments on the village pump that they need to be reverted frequently because of vandalism, but I don't know how you can have a page like Wikipedia:Introduction without vandalism unless you protect the page and redirect to an open sandbox.

I personally think that it is a very well done and elegant template that makes editing easier and hides the complicated formatting details. I also think that it is empowering for users to be able to edit the page that explains the power of the wiki to them, and have volunteered to help maintain the Introduciton templates in working order. Trödel|talk 15:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1) By drastic changing, I guess you mean the substitution of all subtemplates. This was done after a tfd on those templates.
2) Perhaps I should have.
3) I don't think they need to be reformatted much. I just did some minor tweaking and a reposition.
I agree completely with your last paragraph. --MarSch 15:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Sorry to seem so abrupt - have a lot going on and was suprised by the change. I didn't notice the TfD - I will raise any objections I have there. Have a good day. Trödel|talk 15:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WTF - you do realize that you need to coordinate your move with the sandbot operator and communicate that change to those in the cleanup department. I thought you said you knew how they worked. Trödel|talk 16:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have just communicated to the sandbot operator. The cleanup department should watch their pages, so that they know what is going on. I have used the talk page to propose the move, but have gotten very little response. --MarSch 16:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## TFD

Hi there... on Template:Protecteds, and also Template:Tfds, you voted Move to userspace for further discussion. Since all other 'small' variants of existing templates have been deleted by consensus, would you think further discussion necessary? If not please consider changing your vote to either delete or keep. Radiant_* 10:24, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

It was just a small hint to the creator of said templates. It seems he is going about changing the existing templates in the wrong way. The consensus seems to be to have one template for each purpose and I agree. If my changes to existing templates would get reverted I would make my own versions in userspace and try to get some support for them. Said user seemed experienced enough to know this. Well the discussion about sizes has been started... I will clarify my vote to delete, but I believe it is already in the explanation of tfd that userfy implies a delete. --MarSch 11:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks. You're right that it probably implies that, but TFD has been controversial enough lately that I'd prefer this clarified. It would have made the difference for a 2/3rds majority. Radiant_* 13:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

## More on manifold

Hi MarSch. I understand how you feel about me desiring to revert manifold.

No, I do not think the original version was perfect, and that you made it overall worse. I feel that you made it more concise and more technical, this in spite of many discussions earlier about not making things more technical. Oleg Alexandrov 17:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

And I wrote more on wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics about the topological boundary part. Technically you are right, the boundary was there. However, you removed a section before that (==Technical definition==) which did not deal with boundary, and you shortened significantly the section afterwards (about differential manifolds) which also did not deal with boundaries. And now the boundary was right upfront, to apply to everything afterwards.

So you have a point, but it does not mean that I compared your changes with an imaginary version. Oleg Alexandrov 17:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I did a (partial) revert as I had planned. I modified only the parts which you condenced to make things more concise and more formal. I am sorry that all this generated that much ill-will. If you decide to do a revert yourself, I will stop contributing to this article, as probably this will lead to a revert war, which is undesirable. Just keep in mind, don't formalize things, it is no good in an encyclopedia. Oleg Alexandrov 21:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Oleg,
I am glad that you didn't do a complete revert. I am tempted to do a revert, but I really don't like to work that way. I will be away for the weekend, but I intend to get back on this next week. Prepare for more discussion ;) --MarSch 09:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't do reverts that often either. :) We will arrive at some kind of solution in here. Oleg Alexandrov 15:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

## Punkas

I've completely redone the Punkas article. I hope you have the time to check it. It may not be as much a candidate for deletion as it previously was. Tx.--McDogm 20:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, I had already voted keep, so no need to convince me to change it I think :) --MarSch 09:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

## Portal

I think we really need to fix the portal skeleton. Have you ever used it on a new portal page? What happened to the old one that was used for United States portal and European Union portal? Why does this look different? - 68.23.96.151 21:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you already found the old one at template:wikiportal. The new skeleton is used both at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Physics and at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Middle-earth and perhaps some more. It fixes the space in the middle and the gap above the other {{portals}}, by using fixed heights which need to be adjusted manually. It is also much cleaner qua HTML. What do you want to fix?
It would be nice if you registered an account. That way I don't have to talk to some IP and you get to watch pages. --MarSch 12:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Thanks and some thoughta about Manifold

Thanks for your kind words, and vote in support of my admin nomination.

By the way, I've been following you and Oleg's (and others) discussion concerning Manifold. I haven't yet weighed in because I have somewhat ambivalent thoughts. I think the article should both be technically correct and accessible to the general reader, how best do that is not entirely clear to me. This has to do with the "audience" questioned discussed for example briefly here At any rate I'm glad to see that you and Oleg are able to discuss this amicably, and I'm sure we will figure out the right way to do it eventually.

Paul August 13:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

## Introductions

Please discuss your changes at Wikipedia talk:Introduction or Template talk:Please leave this line alone. Such drastic changes are not likely to be welcome on pages which have operated for months without change. — Dan | Talk 16:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

## Atlas (topology)

Hi MarSch, Hope we've haven't made enemies arguing over manifold. May I humbly suggest you direct your energies to Atlas (topology)? Although that article has a reasonable "layman's intro" now, it really really needs a detailed treatment using modern math lingo & etc. See also discussion on mnfold. linas 05:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good luck with that. If possible, it is good to keep the layman's introduction, and just add after it the more mathematical treatment. MarSch, you've got to learn to appreciate "vague" prose for the layman's sake. Oleg Alexandrov 21:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Billion

I rather liked the "wikipedia uses this type of billion" box in billion. Your edit summary says the template is going to be deleted - is that right? Could you point me to the vfd-ish discussion? - DavidWBrooks 13:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is logged at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/May_2005#Template:Project_usage. --MarSch 13:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Scalar and vector fields

Hi MarSch,

I have been thinking on your idea of merging scalar field and vector field. I think it is a great idea. But the new article should not overwrite any of these, because what you have in mind is issues intimately related to differential geometry. What if we do the following:

• Move there the section ==Algebra of scalars== from manifold. Both me and Linas agreed that that section does not add much value to manifold.
• Explain how a scalar field can be viewed as a linear differential operator of degree zero on the algebra of scalars.
• Explain how a vector field can be viewed as a linear differential operator of degree 1.
• Explain what happens to the differential operator of degree zero and of degree one when one changes coordinates (the stuff now in scalar field, so the comparison between scalar fields and vector fields).

If we do these, we would get a nice differential geometry article, which we can link from scalar field, vector field, and manifold. What do you think? I know much less differential geometry than you, but we could collaborate on this. Linas could join. Oleg Alexandrov 02:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, for your usefull suggestion. I don't agree though. I hope we can discuss this further on the various talk pages, before we make a decision on this: you may yet change my mind. Also I don't know what a "differential operator of degree zero" is. --MarSch 11:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

I think there is a mistake in the article on vector fields, in the formula given for coordinate transformations. I have commented on this on the article's talk page. Since you were active in editing the article, could you please have a look? Thanks. —Pouya D. Tafti 14:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi MarSch,
Thanks for your correction. I had a second look at the article and it seems to me that example 2 should also be corrected accordingly. I have made a note of it on the talk page. Would appreciate your input. (It could be nice to have an explanation of why vector fields transform the way they do, and indeed, their definition as differential operators, in the article. Something along the lines of your response on the talk page. What would you think?) —Pouya D. Tafti 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your clarification. :) —Pouya D. Tafti 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

## Wikify Categories

Could you explain your opinion on the wikification category issue? I think I agree with you. By what you said in the templates for deletion page, I want to hear more. User:Shanedidona

Well, what I mean is that it would be handy if somehow it would be possible to take a look at a category and have the different attention tags show up there. Also featured articles might be highlighted. If an article is in category mathematics and has a math-stub template stuck on then the info that this is a math article is there twice. Same goes for the wikify-tag. You want the right people to know about it, therefore someone created a foo-wikify template. Alternatively what we want is to view a list of articles which are in two different unrelated categories: wikify/stub and your favorite subject. Then you can do repairs where you care/know most or feel most comfortable. I don't think either of these things is yet possible unfortunately, so the foo-wikify template might be the way to go...--MarSch 17:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change your vote then. By the way, the story is this: Someone created some wikification sub-categories. I took the code and made more. I have placed hundreds of articles into these categories. I guess I have an interest in this matter, then.

## Clicks and Social Groups

Is there a group of people that vote on the teplate deletion? Some names appear more than once on the page. User:Shanedidona

As with everything in Wikipedia anyone can vote on template deletions. It just so happens that some people do it more often than others.
PS Please start using four tildes to sign your name. --MarSch 11:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Submarine/Substitute/Subservient

Can you include usage instructions and a definition of subarticle? (SEWilco 04:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I have added a usage section to each, though I think they are pretty self-explanatory. Why did you choose the heading for this section? Does it mean subarticle is not in the dictionary? --MarSch 11:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## {{MNRR acc}}

Right now that's just a copy, but if I ever make a page for Metro-North Railroad accessibility it will redirect there, like {{NYCS acc}} and {{LIRR acc}}. --SPUI (talk) 15:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because you can't link an image to a page; it has to be done with a redirect. I looked in vain for a unicode wheelchair. --SPUI (talk) 15:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See what happens with {{NYCS acc}}. --SPUI (talk) 15:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The image description page is #REDIRECT New York City Subway accessibility. --SPUI (talk) 16:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Question

What was the vote for the deletion of the wikifcation categories. If it was for deletion, I will be more tha happy to replace {{category-wikify}} in the text with {{wikify}}

Please Shane, use the four tildes to sign what you write on talk pages.
I found this diff [1] which shows that Frazzydee deleted it. The count was 3 keeps and I count 11 deletes including nominator. --MarSch 18:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing Shanedidona 18:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should I revert the wikification pages? It will greatly increase my numer of edits.Shanedidona 18:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was 12 [2].
No it was up for 7 days and there was an 75% majority for delete, so I don't think that would help. Although I can't find that she(?) listed it in the holding cell nor took any action yet. You should probably ask her what she was thinking :)
Now that I think some more, I think you volunteer to change all specialized wikify tags by the normal one. I'd say just redirect them for now to wikify. Maybe you can find some more support for your templates at the various wikiprojects. I already mentioned this at mathematics wikiproject, but everybody seems to be sleeping so mentioning it again won't hurt.--MarSch 19:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Scalar

You've probably rendered the definition of scalar as the term is used in mathematics entirely useless to many physicists who may be reading it. Did you intend to make it comprehensible only to mathematicians? I don't think that's a good idea. Michael Hardy 21:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I must have been trying to make the article incomprehensible to everyone but myself. Please be a bit more specific with your comments. You might be interested to know I'm also working on scalar field and would value some critique on that. --MarSch 11:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I said specifically which one of the sentences you wrote I had in mind. That particular sentence would be incomprehensible to many physicists whose knowledge of abstract algebra is limited. I've now changed it back to what it said before. Michael Hardy 21:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't clear to me that you meant that sentence at all, especially since it was hardly the only thing I changed. I don't think the new def was entirely useless compared to the old one which you've reinstated; I think it is much clearer (also to physicists; they know what vector spaces are and maybe not what field is, but the old def mentions that too), since you don't have to search for it between all the words that mean little, like "In mathematics, the meaning of scalar depends on the context" and "when a ... is studied". I think I said it clearly and also gave the examples which are important to physicists and with half the words, which is a good thing. --MarSch 14:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Thanks

By the way, thanks for helping me in the Articles to be Wikified issue. Shanedidona 14:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Archiving

Hi MarSch. I would suggest that when you archive talk pages, you do not just delete the talk and make a link to the history. I think this is a very unreliable kind of archiving. If the link is removed, the page is gone for good. Making a real archive, like a subpage, and then linking to it, is I think much better. I am aware that this takes more Wikipedia resources, but you get a real searchable page. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov

Okay, I guess you have a point. I'll do so in the future. --MarSch 15:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Anatomy stub

Thanks for fixing that! Rich Farmbrough 17:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, this is my first NP patrol :) --MarSch 17:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Speedy deletions

Hi, please don't tag articles for speedy deletion unless they strictly fit the candidates at WP:CSD. Also, pages on votes for deletion aren't speedy candidates. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 18:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

which case(s) do you specifically object to? If a candidate is a clear speedy and listed on vfd I think that vfd page is a speedy candidate also. --MarSch 18:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, just looking through your recent contributions, Kingsway Hall is clearly a case for vfd, as is Marilu mercalina. Even if an article is a clear speedy candidate, if it has already been tagged as vfd, policy is that we allow the vfd to finish. And all deletion debates are kept, not speedy deleted. Yours, Meelar (talk) 18:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
they both have no useful content, although kingswsay hall is perhaps a borderline case. --MarSch 18:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's not a speedy deletion criterion. The criterion is "no meaningful content", but I could clearly get meaning out of both of them. They were valid attempts at encyclopedia articles, and thus must go through vfd. It's OK if you didn't understand at first, but be more careful in the future. Meelar (talk) 19:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Shaddam I is not a speedy candidate, because it has meaningful content that is not patent nonsense. I can write a gramatically correct article that is a speedy candidate (for example, if the whole text is "Grasshoppers doodle on jet-skis all the time"). However, any legitimate attempt at an encyclopedia article must be put through vfd. Meelar (talk) 20:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Also, regardless of whether the attached article is deleted. VfD discussion should be archived. Please don't add deletion tags to vfd pages. - Mgm|(talk) 19:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now I see why there is a vfd problem. --MarSch 20:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The criteria are purposely strict so people can't use speedy deletion in retaliation or so possible legit articles don't get deleted without a chance for expansion. Still, if you got a case to make to speedy delete a page, you can do so on the VFD page. Sometimes a case of vanity is so blatant it gets deleted anyway. Cheers. - Mgm|(talk) 20:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

## Speedy deletions (again)

You tagged Bunty Aur Babli (with the content Bunty Aur Babli(Released 2005) is an Indian Hindi Film.) as a candidate for speedy deletion. The information in this short article was easily verifiable as being correct and therefore was quite blatantly not a speedy deletion candidate. Please try to be more careful in the future and if you're unsure of the verifiability of any material you find in articles, google advanced search facility is a very helpful tool. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 22:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider this as meaningful content, but I seem to be interpreting the criteria too widely. I don't think any harm would have been done by deleting this. Anyone who knows this film should be able to produce something a little more inspiring then that short sentence. Nonetheless I will try to be more careful in the future. I did edit some 200+ new articles yesterday though and I didn't want to take the time to google search, when someone else cannot be bothered to write a little more.--MarSch 10:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Again, you have to interpret the criteria very strictly. For instance, spine (book) was clearly not a speedy candidate. Your work in stub-sorting has been very useful, but you're far too overzealous with the speedy tags. Meelar (talk) 14:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
sorry, I'm trying to better my life --MarSch 14:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you haven't got time to do a simple search on google to verify if information is correct before adding the speedy delete tag, then you shouldn't be adding the speedy delete tag. Do something else constructive that you do have time for. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 19:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## geo-stubs

Hi - I see you just labelled a large number of articles as geo-stubs. Good work, but... most countries now have their own geo-stub categories, so it'd save someone a bit more work later if you could also add the country name, if there is a separate stub category (there were a huge load which needed {{philippine-geo-stub}}, for instance). If you could it would be a huge help! Thanks, Grutness...wha? 03:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do hope you see the irony in that redlink. I try to add as specific a stub as I know, and I don't know that many yet. I thought it was still more useful to add geo-stub and let someone who knows all those improve on that. Otherwise it would have to have been stub :) and that would be even worse. --MarSch 10:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
the speediest way for me to learn is to check what becomes of my geo and other stubs and I will do that. --MarSch 10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah - it should, of course, be {{philippines-geo-stub}} :) That's Good way of doing it. The other one is to simply go "countryname-geo-stub" and preview, see if it redlinks. I don't normally complain about this, sorry. Usually only about ten arrive in Category:Geography stubs each day. It's just that yesterday there were 53 new ones! Grutness...wha? 01:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not meaning to pile on, but the {{US-geo-stub}} has recently been split (see Category:US geography stubs for more detail). We do appreciate your labeling of stubs. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:56, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
thanks, I will try to remeber that. --MarSch 16:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Skufia

Hey, there. I took your {{fashion stub}} off the Skufia article. It may be short, but even adding everything else that might possibly be said won't make it much longer. On the other hand, feel free to categorize. JHCC 03:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. A picture would be nice, though. --MarSch 10:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Jordan Declaration

Thanks for the reli-stub. I was gonna do it myself, but ya beat me to it.

And welcome to Wikipedia! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

thanks. Welcome to Wikipedia to you too. --MarSch 13:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Void (Java)

I notice that you replaced my stub article at void with a redirect to Java programming language. What I was basically hoping for is an encyclopedic entry on the function of the keyword; there were a lot of red links on the Java keywords article, and I think that a computer science student looking for information on the functions of each of these keywords would be well served by having articles or at least anchored sections of other article that explain their functions. It doesn't necessarily have to be its own article, but the Jave programming language article doesn't even have any mention of the function of the void keyword anywhere, so I'm not sure the redirect is really appropriate. Do you have any specific reasons not to have a void article? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I just don't think it is possible to write an article about this. Why not add an explanation directly to Java keywords? --MarSch 15:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, if you think the topic is not notable enough for an article, the proper process is really VFD, not blanking. I'm going to revert the article back to the stub form, you can mark that article for vfd if you like. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
However, to make it more like the other generic programming construct articles, I've changed the page to be about Void return types in general, and moved it to void return type. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

## Hi!

Can you help me some more? You put a stub that says that the Tim Gallagher article is a newspaper related stub, but it isn't really newspaper related. It's bird related. :-) Is there a different template we could use?

I apologize for not knowing this myself, but I'm not a very experienced editor.  :-)--Jimbo Wales 17:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Wow the Jimbo) I've changed it to

is that better? --MarSch 17:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sweet. I'm going to try to upload a photo of him, too, if I can figure out how. --Jimbo Wales 17:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Thanks you!

Thank you for correcting my report.
Traianus 14:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't know anymore what I did. --MarSch 11:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I think I found it the geo-stubbing of Zakuro zaka? Hardly a corerction, but you're welcome. --MarSch 13:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## The White Stag group

I see you have added a Theatre-stub to the White Stag group article. Were they related to the theatre; I didn't know. Can you add a couple of lines to article explaining? Thanks a million. Notjim 20:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems I was a bit hasty. I've changed it now to art-stub. --MarSch 13:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Notjim 15:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Pop Metal

Pop Metal has alread passed through vfd with the answer as delete. Someone had obviously saved the page and simply recreated it. I took the quickest course of action, and should have put a note on the discussion page. It would seem someone else has reverted back again. Do you wish me to track down the archived vfd entry? --KharBevNor 22:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I've already found it:Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Pop_metal --MarSch 13:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## List_of_Star_Wars_RPG_stats/Temp

The version you reverted back to was just a reproduction of the original article, the very same content that's been marked as a copyvio. A certain user was upset that I marked the original page as a copyvio so he copy and pasted the original (disputed) content to the temp page. Sorry for the misunderstanding. — Phil Welch 23:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Template:Cleanup

why'd you change 'higher' to 'minimal'? — Mac-arena the Bored Zo (talk) 05:36, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

I explained why on the talk page and since no-one replied I changed it. --MarSch 13:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Cleanup template

I saw your request for some dialogue regarding the cleanup template. I'd be glad to help out :-) HappyCamper 23:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## WikiProject Physics

Hi and thanks for signing in on Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. I hope that over time we can make it a usefull resource. Cheers! Karol 08:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Do you mind actually doing some research before marking an article for speedy delete next time? You then caused it, when it didn't last long, to be up for vfd, but only reluctantly, and although it looks its going to be kept, you caused a lot of unnecessary hassle. For your info, Dhanabalan was cited in a national rally, and is involved where the government is trying to cover up his assault by the now current prime minister in a cabinet meeting in the 1990's, so please get the context first. You've just insulted half of the Singapore democracy movement with your tag. Nothing personal, just a bit of advice. -- Natalinasmpf 12:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please state your case clearly: you are talking about S Dhanabalan. If you take a look at the state of the article when I put this tag on, you might not say this. It had already acquired a cleanup-context tag and a stub-tag, because people didn't know what to make of it. It speaks of a rumor. Hardly would you would call encyclopedic. Therefore I think the delete tag was justified. The tag explicitly says that you may remove it if you disagree with it, so it is not my doing if it ends up on vfd. I am glad someone fixed it up though. You might want to try processing 500 new pages yourself sometime. Stub sort as much as possible and delete-tag the muck. Then tell me whether you think I should research gibberish articles. --MarSch 12:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It was also initially rumored that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. I guess, just a rumor, nothing encylopedic eh? But it later turned out to be something significant. Its a political allegation, more of, "rumor" is sort of incorrect, but its down to that level when your government starts censoring the media so that unsanctioned reports of the slapping and other various assaults can only be passed through word of mouth. It WAS inevitably addressed in the national rally concerning Lee Hsien Loong's though, so it become more than just a rumor, and it clearly gave a link to a book describing the incident (thus, a tedious way of acquiring context, but still context). -- Natalinasmpf 12:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Nana context tag - OK now?

Thanks for your context tag and music tag and language tag for article nana (echos). I tried to provide the context, then removed the context tag, and the language tag. Nana (echos) is strictly related to music, not to language. If you still believe the context is not clear enough let me know, and I'd be glad to review, discuss and improve if needed. Iani 17:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what I wanted. Thanks --MarSch 17:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## 0-0

I've made this a redirect to Chess notation; you might want to create a section there that explains some of the main examples of notation, including this. As it stood, it wasn't a disambiguation page (unlike 0-0-0), it was a sub-stub that had no chance of being extended. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Template talk:Welcome

Hi, I saw your comment on Template talk:Welcome (to which I replied there). I wanted to let you know that, even though I can edit it, I also strongly dislike the fact that it's protected. One of the problems is that a lot of people transclude the template instead of substituting it (as should be done for all user talk templates), so changes to it affect way too many pages. To help, you might want to consider substituting the template when welcoming new users. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 21:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thanks, I'll do that, --MarSch 08:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## eerste nl.wikimedia.org ontmoeting

ik zou iedereen graag willen uitnodigen te overwegen of zij een rol willen en/of kunnen spelen in de oprichting van een nederlandse wikimedia-organisatie. een eerste ontmoeting wordt momenteel georganiseerd, zie daarvoor hier, op de nl.wikimedia.org wiki. er zijn nog vele stappen te nemen, en meer wikianen nodig, om e.e.a. op verantwoorde wijze verder te ontwikkelen. Radiant_>|< 10:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

## Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning

I can understand why you would want to move the dispute out of the way, but you did so undiscriminately, thus including everything usefull as well. Why? --MarSch 09:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I included something useful. Feel free to move what you consider useful back to the talk page. - Sikon 09:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Sorry

Sorry for deleting your comment. The upgrade to Mediawiki 1.5 temporarily broke the edit conflict system and for a while newer edits were simply overwriting the old. This is what must have happened here. - SimonP June 29, 2005 17:09 (UTC)

## Derivative (generalizations)

From your edits at manifold and its new version, I conclude that you are full of energy. How about helping with derivative (generalizations)? See also its talk page. Oleg Alexandrov 1 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --MarSch 1 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)

## CSD templates

Please don't put {{d}} on VfD subpages. That template is for tagging the page itself as a candidate for speedy deletion, and therefore the CSD notice ends up in the middle of the discussion. If you want to vote to speedy the article, just vote like you would normally. Thanks, AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 1, 2005 17:29 (UTC)

• I don't want to vote speedy. I think the vfd nomination is vandalism and should be speedies along with the article.--MarSch 1 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)
• I'll admit that Glaucous is a CSD, but vanity pages such as Sandeep kumar are not and need to be dealt with at VfD until such time as the CSD rules are revised to allow deletion of patent vanity. Calling such VfD nominations "vandalism" is rather nonsensical, as the nominator is correctly following policy, while you are not by applying the CSD tag to something that is not a CSD. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 1, 2005 17:52 (UTC)
• Ignore all rules says it is a speedy. --MarSch 1 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)
• "Ignore all rules" is useful, but shouldn't be applied to something as drastic as article deletion, and that still doesn't address the rather serious accusation of vandalism you made. In any case, adding CSD tags to VfD discussions is counter-productive at best. I suggest you instead direct your energies toward the proposal at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal if you feel more kinds of articles should be speediable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 1, 2005 18:09 (UTC)
• article deletion is not drastic for most new articles. They contain hardly a sentence between them. I am not accusing anyone of vandalism. I just view there very well intentioned vfd that way. Vfd is needlessly work intensive. The nomination itself is a pain. Speedying Sandeep kumar is the best for everyone. If he really deserves an article, someone else will come along and write it. --MarSch 1 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
• You said above, I think the vfd nomination is vandalism. Worded that way, it's an accusation; there's no such thing as well-intentioned vandalism. Anyway, I hope I've convinced you that adding the CSD tag to VfD discussions is A Bad Thing™, and your input at the policy proposal I mentioned above is welcome. (For what it's worth, I agree with you on the speedy deletion of vanity articles like the one we are discussing; I'd just rather have some rules set in place than unilaterally applying tags to things.) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 1, 2005 18:21 (UTC)
• The vfd nomination creates a lot of work. I think it was not necessary according to IAR and also because of precedent. Therefore i think it is vandalism. I'll be glad to call it by any other name you suggest. Otherwise I might have to write the article Well-intentioned vandalism. Calling one edit of someone vandalism is hardly accusing them of being a vandal. You've made it very clear that you think my edits were vandalism. In light of what they accomplished they probably were. --MarSch 1 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)
• No, I don't think your edits were vandalism, and I never implied that they were. As I said, there's no such thing as well-intentioned vandalism, and I believe your intentions were good, just not your actions, which were inappropriate and counter-productive. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 1, 2005 20:56 (UTC)

## Re Wikipedia:Requested articles/mathematics

Well I guess I'd be inclined to just leave them. Somebody thought they were important, and Google isn't all that reliable as a measure of notability, and besides they do little harm there. I would just remove those which have articles. Paul August July 1, 2005 22:22 (UTC)

## Re: My use of the {roman-stub}

None of my articles have been about ancient Rome, but instead mediæval Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. I'd use a "Holy Roman Empire", "Mediæval Germany" or even a "German History" stub if such stubs existed. Since they don't, I'll continue to use the standard {hist-stub} for stubbed articles Nomadic1

The Roman Empire was divided into East and West in 395, with the West falling in 476, and the East in 1453. The Holy Roman Empire was founded in 800 by the Pope, who crowned Charlemagne the successor of the Western Empire. That empire pretty much fell apart within a century, with a new Holy Roman Empire created in 962. It lasted until 1806 when Napoleon Bonaparte abolished it. How do I go about creating a new stub? ("Holy Roman Empire") Nomadic1

## stubs

Please use {sport-bio-stub} for your articles --MarSch 1 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Sorry, but I use {{olympic-stub}} for the stub articles on Olympians that I create because that's the easiest category to use to find those articles when I get my hands on biographical information about those people. Therefore, using it gives a greater likelihood of the stub being expanded. -- Jonel | Speak 2 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)

Please use stubs for new articles such as {australia-stub}. --MarSch 1 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

I was wondering which articles you meant, then I noticed you put a {{US-geo-stub}} on Division of Jagajaga, which was odd since it is not in the United States. I changed it to a {{Australia-gov-stub}}. --bainer (talk) 2 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

## Template:Main_article

Hi MarSch!

The problem was a double redirect. The first one (from Main to Main_article) was being followed, but when you put another redirect, the redirect itself was being rendered instead.

Sorry for any inconvenience caused!

Regards, Marco July 2, 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Hi, i'd like to express my unhappiness over the redirect you placed at Template:Seemain to Template:Seesubarticle. They are two different things. For example, the section "Aesop" under the article Aesop's Fables should include a link to Aesop, which is a "main article" and not a "subarticle". While in some cases people do mean "see subarticle", in many cases they just don't. i hope you realize that this change that you made had a wide impact throughout Wikipedia, and i'll in all respect have to change it back. --Plastictv 2 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)

Hi please retore the current text to what it was before: Main article:XYZ. Thanks. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 12:33 (UTC)

I've used {{main}} in a lot of my articles. I not really concerned if there is a redirect etc. but I don't like the current wording. It should be rendered as:
Main article: History of XYZ

This is a standard followed by other encyclopedias too. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Since it is getting popular to complain here, I have decided to include this general answer here.

Because these templates are very confusing they are not used consistently. For this reason two new templates were created which serve the same purpose but are not ambiguous.

Thus some places may now use the wrong wording. You can simply solve this by changing directly to {seesubarticle} or {subarticleof}. If you want to tell me about such problems, please tell me which articles are concerned, so I can take a look and fix it locally. Don't "fix" these templates, just because one article doesn't use them in the correct way doesn't mean these templates are wrong. Unfortunately these templates are used in very many articles so I can't change them all myself. Therefore please leave the redirects in place so problems can be identified. --MarSch 3 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)

In what way are they confusing? The {{main}} should the text: Main article: XYZ. The text now reads: For a more detailed treatment of this topic, see the subarticle Geography of Mumbai. When we summarise a section in an article and use the {{main}}, it means that there is a more detailed article to be read. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 13:06 (UTC)
This is explained at template talk:main. Main and seemain are worded the same but main means something different in each case. Thus they were used as if they were the same in most cases. --MarSch 3 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)
In reply to your message on my talk page, i can't stress more the danger of assumption. And anyway in this case i don't see why you'd believe "seemain" means "see subarticle". Let me give you another example. In the article Cao Cao, there are two subsections on two battles, each of which has an article of its own. They are neither sibling articles nor subarticles of "Cao Cao". If people used "seemain" when they mean "see subarticle", that is a problem and should be fixed. --Plastictv 3 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
Looking at those articles, I'd say that those battles are formulated as if they are subarticles. The second battle mentions 3 warlords, (of which it might all be a subarticle) which not all link back in the same way. If an article is summarized in another article then it is just too long to be incorporated in full, otherwise it would have been. Thus it is a subarticle. If this is not needed then a simple wikilink should suffice. You don't go and say for every link that there exist an entire article. I see no particular problem. --MarSch 3 July 2005 13:34 (UTC)
Exactly because not every link warrants a "seemain" link, although of course every link brings you to another article, we need "seemain" links for particularly important or special links within an article. The two battles are certainly not subarticles of Cao Cao. There might be readers interested in the battles but not the warlord (to them Cao Cao might seem like a subarticle to the battles).
To put things clearly: "main" or "seemain" templates are meant to direct the reader's attention to another totally independent article which is so vital to the current article that it warrants one entire secion or at least a subsection in the current article. --Plastictv 4 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

I get what your saying. The {{main}} should be used at the top of the articles eg. use it in Indus Valley Civilisation to point it to History of India and {{submain}} is used to link History of India from the India page. Am I correct? =Nichalp «Talk»= July 3, 2005 14:18 (UTC)

No, you are not correct. India seems to be the main article, History of India a subarticle of India and Indus a subarticle of History. Thus in India in the history section you can indicate that there is an entire article about this with {seesubarticle|History of India}. You can indicate at the top of History of India that it is a {subarticleof|India}. Similarly for Indus Valley.--MarSch 3 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)

Your trying to impliment some kind of system or structure on Wikipedia that does not exist. There is no standard for this AFAIK. You cant redirect articles (or templates) if there is debate about it otherwise your in 3RR territory. I would suggest you approach this from another direction, and write up a proposal on how this should be structured, and get a vote and official approval, then come back and impliment the system. Stbalbach 3 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

I perfecty agree. I find the subarticle system unfortunate and not based on any discussion or consensus. Oleg Alexandrov 3 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

I have listed {{main}} and {{seemain}} on WP:TFD for the purposes of determining consensus with respect to what should be done with them. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 21:20 (UTC)

## "Merge" template voting

I've set up two separate votes on the "merge" templates' discussion page. One pertains to the templates' wording, and the other pertains to the templates' visual design. Users may vote on neither, either or both of these issues.

Please note that I've posted this invitation on the talk pages of everyone who has expressed a preference for either wording and/or visual design. —Lifeisunfair 3 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)

## Subpages

The notion of subpages is not used on Wikipedia, it has been replaced with the new Category system .. if you want to create heirarchies with sub and main, use categories, thats what they were designed to do. If you insist on reverting and implimenting your personally designed system of templates, I will take it to RFC and/or start the process of arbitration against you and your misguided, stubborn and knee-jerk actions. At some point the problem becomes more than just the technical issue as your talk page seems to hint at. Stbalbach 4 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

MarSch (and anybody else), please also comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Hierarchy in the math articles about the subarticle thing. Oleg Alexandrov 5 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

## merge template CSS styling

My change added a hook (similar to that used in template:disambig) which allows you or anyone to customize the look of those templates. Try this. Add this text to User:MarSch/monobook.css (or whatever equivalent based on your skin preference, see m:Help:User style).

#merge {
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
text-align: center;
background:#f5edf5;
width:85%;
border:1px solid #cf9fff;
border-collapse: collapse;
margin-bottom: 1em
}


This will make the mergeto and mergefrom templates look very much like the colored box you prefer, while allowing me to customize it in any way I prefer as well. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

## tfd main / tfd subarticleof

You really gave the answer to your question within your query. You said they are "...just a more specific and perhaps restricted version of the {main} templates." The way that I looked at them, for whatever problems that {{main}} has, I thought that your suggested replacements exaggerated those problems.

There are hierarchies of information within the Wikipedia, although rarely are the connections nice tree-like relationships. They go from the very general overviews to more specific and detailed information, down to the the lowliest meager bit of fancruft, so there needs to be some way of showing those connections. Your solution to me, however, suggested a dependency between the different levels of information, whereas each article should stand on its own. Also, your description using "subarticle" just grates in my ear.

I'm not sure what would be a better replacement for {{main}} and {{seemain}}. Until there is some concensus on replacements for them, those two templates are at least acceptable for the task they are used for. Perhaps a pair of templates worded something like "For a more detailed discussion of foo, please see...", and For a more general discussion of foo, please see...". Or for a more minimalist approach, "For more on foo, see...". BlankVerse 6 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

## Template:Steven Spielberg's films

As the result of a dispute over its previous TFD, the template showing Spielberg's films has been folded into a discussion of similar templates and renominated for deletion. I am contacting everyone who voted on the original TFD so that they will have another chance to make sure their opinion is heard.

The new vote is here.

Dragons flight 01:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

## Enlisted jobs copyvio...

I noticed you added the wikify and stub tags to this article. A google test(pick a random phrase, search in quotes on google) quickly identifies it as a copyvio. Please check for copyvios before adding such tags. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia! JesseW 22:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

## TfD nomination of Template:Seemain

Template:Seemain has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Seemain. Thank you. Template has been removed from articles. SEWilco 01:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

## Babel template

Thankyou! I have replied on my talk page. ntennis 00:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

## Categorization

Hi. I noticed that you wrote "I sometimes use a stub to get someone more knowledgeable to notice that a new article has appeared and categorize it." I just wanted to let you know that there is a template for pages needing gategorization. It is {{catneeded}}. Cheers! -- Reinyday, 16:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I obviously didn't know that, but now I do. :) --MarSch 17:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you please advise me if I should nominate Authentisoft for deletion on the grounds of AD/Not notable? Thanks for your help. --Marco 21:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

## Areas of Edinburgh merge

Hi. I removed the merge tags regarding your proposal to merge Areas of Edinburgh with Edinburgh. It's been two weeks since you made the proposal, and (as far as I can tell, at least) there's been no discussion (at least not on the talk page of either article, which would seem to be the smart place). I can't even find where you argued for the proposed merger. If you still think the merger would be a good idea, can I suggest you make a case for it at talk:Edinburgh. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

## Mathematics FA template

Peace offering

Hi, MarSch. I'm really sorry I seemed to stir up a hornets' nest about the mathematics FA template. I didn't spot your request further up the WP:FA talk page. I have a lot of sympathy with the view that no response = no objection; I've done that myself, and will probably continue to do so. It needed you to actually make the change for everyone to realise what the consequences would be. Hope you won't let it spoil your day. --RobertGtalk 16:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

## 'Test' cricket

Re. your edit in [3] 'Test' is the standard form used when referring to 'Test cricket'. In WP:Cricket we even had a poll to decide which one to use. 'Test' won handsomely Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/archive2#.22Test.22_or_.22test.22.3F. Tintin 15:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any specific reason for capitalizing Test, but that is the convention that has been followed in news reports and cricket literature for a long time. Tintin 15:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nah. Article was complete crap, clearly evidenced just from reading it. No point in an AfD. It takes me too long to singled handledly wade through dozens of CSDs without moving obviously bogus stuff to AfD. If you want to find someone else to undelete it and send it to AfD, go ahead, but it's a waste of my time. AfD is way too overcrowded as it is. -R. fiend 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I undeleted it to be allowed to be AFDed. But if no one AFDs it before long I am likely to redelete it. -R. fiend 16:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

## Gravitational instanton

Hi, MarSch, did you see that I requested clarification of the exact solution of the EFE back on 5 Sept? Today I tentatively recatted this to Category:Theories of gravitation; change it back if you disagree but please justify the claim. Note that at least for now, all other articles in Category:General relativity use real smooth manifolds.---CH (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

## Please vote on list of lists, a featured list candidate

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

## Special:Recentchangeslinked/List_of_mathematical_topics_(0-Z)|Recent changes in all mathematics articles

I am not sure if adding this to the list of mathematical topics was a good idea. That will take forever to load, we are talking about around 8000 or more articles after all. Besides, you used a template to create List_of_mathematical_topics_(0-Z) which I think means that unless you edit it by hand from time to time, it will not have the most up to date entries from List of mathematical topics (A), ....

By the way, it is indeed good to take a look at the recent changes. These days I have more time and I have been doing that. Not too seldom I find undetected vandalism. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

## D'Alembert operator

>>Hi AugPi, I see you've added a " "derivation" of box^2 phi ". I guess it is a bit more elaborate for the uninitiated explicitating that a_i^i = g_ij a^ij, but I think we could itnegrate it into the very first equation. What do you think? --MarSch 09:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)<<

You're right. I have moved the "derivation" up and integrated it with the defining equation, and this despite of my relative dislike of the notation ${\displaystyle \Box }$ for d'Alembertian and ${\displaystyle \Delta }$ for Laplacian: would rather use ${\displaystyle \Box ^{2}}$ and ${\displaystyle \nabla ^{2}}$ respectively, since then both operators clearly relate to the nabla like so: ${\displaystyle \Box ^{2}=\Box \cdot \Box =\Box ^{\mu }\Box _{\mu }}$ and ${\displaystyle \nabla ^{2}=\nabla \cdot \nabla }$. But Wikipedia should be descriptive (as in inclusionist), not authoritative, and it is a fact that some authors do use Δ for Laplacian (throughout their entire books), so am leaving that notation there as it was rather than quibble over notation. It was a surprise, though, to find out that there are three alternative notations for d'Alembertian, not just two. By the way, should mention that Einstein notation is being used. —AugPi 15:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, the notation ${\displaystyle (\Box ^{2}-m^{2})\psi }$ for some reason immediately appears as if the box were an empty blank, which when filled in yields ${\displaystyle (\partial ^{2}-m^{2})\psi }$, so now can say that now that have been exposed to it, the ${\displaystyle \partial ^{2}}$ notation for d'Alembertian seems more natural, especially when ${\displaystyle \partial ^{2}=\partial ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }}$: then its naturalness is obvious. —AugPi 15:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

## D'Alembert operator

Hi Laura, you said here that ${\displaystyle \Box }$ and ${\displaystyle \Box ^{2}}$ are always used for the same thing, but it seems that ${\displaystyle \Box }$ is also sometimes used as the covariant derivative. At least that is what the article now says. All in all there are now a lot of conflicting notations used. Any ideas about cleaning this up? --MarSch 10:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article's notation has gone crazy. It's one thing to mention alternate notations, but another to switch repeatedly.
In physics at least, when you use ${\displaystyle \Box ^{2}}$ it's understood that you're using it like you use ${\displaystyle \nabla ^{2}}$ (so in the back of your mind you're thinking about ${\displaystyle \Box }$ as a vector operator), but since it's not uncommon to use just ${\displaystyle \Box }$ for the d'Alembertian it's really sloppy to actually use ${\displaystyle \Box }$ like ${\displaystyle \nabla }$. Besides, if you're doing anything with the covariant derivative, you're probably using ${\displaystyle \partial _{i}}$ notation anyways.
I think the cleanest thing to do is to make sure that the notational differences are confined to a single discussion and then pick a notation for the examples and go with it. I'm not sure which one would be best though, any ideas? — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Well if you're gonna ask me, I'd stick with math notation and only mention that physicists have their own notation and what they use. Then I wouldn't use it in the rest of the article. That means ${\displaystyle \Delta }$ for the D'Alembertian and ∇ for a covariant derivative. Is that acceptible? :) --MarSch 16:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I would've done ${\displaystyle \partial _{\mu }}$ notation everywhere, but that's just a personal preference. I'm fine with any notation so long as it's consistent and clear. Do you guys use ${\displaystyle \nabla _{\mu }}$ type notation to distinguish from the Laplacian? — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I think I understand now how your notation would be better. My way there'd be all sorts of metrics running around for curved spaces. — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

## List of mathematical topics (0-Z), again

Please note that the List of mathematical topics (0-Z) you created has a problem. Being made of templates, it never refreshes when the individual lists of which it is made get updated. As such, using that list to look at the recent changes is not very helpful. You would need to either ask Jitse very nicely to use his bot to force that list to refresh, or otherwise remove the List of mathematical topics (0-Z), which I find too slow and a server hog anyway to be of real use. If you decide on the latter, I can help with a speedy. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

## The Details Template

Dear MarSch, I made a change to the "details" template that provided more flexibility in wording to an editor. I understand that details is used for the summary format, and I read the whole rationale for the format, which is like news format, in which the reader gets to choose how much detail they want to read. Rather than attempting to defeat or circumvent the spirit of the format, my change was intended to make the format more accessible to editors. In particular, my change wasn't intended to allow editors to move the "details" template to parts of the article other than immediately following the heading.

Consider the section on state symbols in the Washington article. That section once said simply, see Washington state symbols, and had no content whatever. This wasn't particularly helpful to the reader, because it didn't give even enough information for the reader to decide if he was interested in knowing more. So I added a single sentence to the section giving some examples, and I wanted to put a "details" template at the top. This is how it looked:

 State symbols Template:Rellink The State song is "Washington, My Home", the State bird is the American Goldfinch, and the State fruit is the Apple.

This was OK, and I suppose I could have left it at that, but I wanted to stay in the spirit of "summary format" and yet provide better cues to the reader. That's why I boldly proposed a change to the template (by actually making a change to the template). Now the section looks like this:

 State symbols User:GraemeMcRae/Details The State song is "Washington, My Home", the State bird is the American Goldfinch, and the State fruit is the Apple.

Why am I going on about this instead of just taking your advice and using Template:For? Because the most important reason to use the Details template is not to generate text. I could just type the text myself. No, it's because if editors embrace the summary format and use Details just under every heading, then (1) the Wikipedia will contain a much richer source of "subject breakdown data", and (2) the Details template could be changed later to systematically provide an icon or other cues to the reader that would enrich the reader's experience of the encyclopedia -- something that changing the "For" template just couldn't do. In short, the change to Details was done to allow the Details template to be used more often by editors for exactly the purpose it was designed for.—GraemeMcRaetalk 16:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

## The {twoversions} template is up for TfD again

FYI, the {twoversions} template is up for deletion again: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Twoversions. zen master T 19:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

## AfD aka VfD on Philosophical interpretation of classical physics

I have nominated as original research but feel that it is important to solicit additional opinions on the matter before an administrator is forced to make a decision. As I mention in the discussion on the [[AfD page - I think the underlying idea - to discuss the impact of classical Newtonian physics has had on other discpiplines and the impact that QM should (but in many cases has not fully) had on those same disciplines - is an interesting one; however, I need help in determining if existing article should be the starting point for such a discussion (or if this topic is covered elsewhere). Thx in adv -Trödel|talk 10:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

## Nonlinear eigenvectors

Your comment at Talk:Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace seems to imply that you agree that nonlinear operators also have eigenvectors. Since I am having trouble believing it (see the discussion further down on the talk page, in the section "eigenvalues of non-linear transformation?"), I am curious whether this is indeed the case, and if you could give some support for your opinion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

## Sudoku

### Latin squares

re: must latin squares be square at Talk:Mathematics_of_Sudoku#latin_squares

Since every row and col must contain each digit exactly once, Latin squares and Sudoku must be square. The regions of Sudoku like puzzles are not constrained to be rectangular. See Go Duko, which uses pentomino shaped regions. [4] -- LarryLACa 17:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ausgezeichnetes BenutzerSeite! Ich werde mir manches entleihen. Danke. Deutch ist mir auch recht, obwohl selten benuzt, wie das Rechtschreiben bescheinigt. -- LarryLACa 17:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

## Tangent bundle

Any particular reason why you removed this statement from the tangent bundle article?

When this happens the tangent bundle is said to be trivial. Just as manifolds are locally modelled on Euclidean space, tangent bundles are locally modelled on M × Rn.

-- Fropuff 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

## Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

## VWN en WCN

Beste MarSch Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 17:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

## Request for comment

Back when I joined, you (probably automatically) sent me

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page.

and I'm looking for someone who knows Wiki Math Realpolitik. If you'd like to comment on the applicability of WP:NOR/WP:NPOV as questioned in Talk:Number system I'd appreciate it. I don't really want to stir up controversy--I really was suggesting a matter of skating close to the edge, rather than a violation--but I'd like to have an informed opinion on where we are supposed to draw the line. I am even less sure of whether there is anything fishy about Mathematics Magazine or Rick Norwood, but if so, you could mention them, too. On the other hand, if there's no issue, you're welcome to edit this question off your talk page if that has the potential to reduce embarrassment. -- Dan Hoey 18:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

## WikiProject C++

The WikiProject C++ aims to increase the quality of C++-related articles on Wikipedia, and has discovered that you have participated in the editing of them! So don't hesitate, join us! --Deryck C. 15:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

## cyrillic in Eo article

Hi MarSch,

Ðe sirilik in ðe Eo ahtikl iznt dzhust mispeld. Ai ðiŋk wi šud ask sumwun tu du it on ðe tak peidzh. kwami 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

## Thanks

Thanks for your work at the Wikipedia:Missing science topics. Many of the redlinks there are redirects indeed, and it is good to create them, as that kills the redlinks and avoids duplication of articles in the future (as well as making it easy for people to find the concepts they need). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Oleg, I'm glad we can agree for a change :) --MarSch 10:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

## Merged with other articles

MarSch: You first brought up the idea of merging Nozzle with Flow through nozzles ... and I have now done that and also merged De Laval nozzle and Exhaust velocity into a new article called Rocket engine nozzles. That seems to have upset User:Wolfkeeper, and he and I have had a dialogue at User talk: Wolfkeeper item 13 ... which I thought you should know about. I would very much appreciate it if you would also join in that dialogue on that Talk page. Please read below is what has transpired to this moment:

This article has just been merged into a new article, Rocket engine nozzles, along with Flow through nozzles, Nozzle, and Exhaust velocity. - mbeychok 03:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What the? You do know they aren't only used on rockets? They're used on jet engines, and they're also used on various chemical and fluid processing systems. Don't you think you should have discussed this?WolfKeeper 04:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

WolfKeeper: On Talk:Flow through nozzles some days ago, User:MarSch said he thought that Flow through nozzles should be merged with Nozzle. I responded that I thought it was a good idea and suggested that perhaps we should also merge them with De Laval nozzle. No one objected to that idea, although admittedly it was only out there for a few days. Why did I feel it was a good idea? Because after studying the three articles, it was quite obvious that they were about 98 to 99 percent devoted to the use of nozzles in rocket engines and jet engines and they overlapped each other. Earlier today, I also queried the Village Pump (see here) as to how to merge three articles and followed their advice on how to do it. After the relevant material was extracted from the three articles .. there were only a few words left related to non-rocket and non-jet engine topics.
You are quite right that nozzles are also widely used in various chemical and fluid processes ... but those three articles did not discuss those uses to any extent other than a few words. What we need now is an article entitled simply "Nozzles" and devoted entirely to non-rocketry and non-jet engine uses. Yes, I was quite aware of that and I have decided to start work on such an article in the next few days (see my To Do list on my user page at User:mbeychok). Would you like to join me in that? Or would you prefer to tackle it yourself?
I will watch for your response here on your Talk page. Regards, - mbeychok 04:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
There's lots of ways to skin this cat. The architecture was poor to start with, but I'm sorry the current one seems to have become worse. For example, the idea that turbojet nozzles should be discussed under an article called Rocket engine nozzles is just wrong. Making bold changes is one thing, but something like this needs more thought.WolfKeeper 05:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It is now 11:20 PM in California and I will check here again in the morning for further dialogue. Regards, - mbeychok

## European Union motto

The EU motto "In varietate concordia" according to you is "United in diversity" and not "Unity in diversity". However as far as I can tell from [5] concordia is a noun and not an adjective. The adjective seems to be concors, although it seems that this could have an ending -dia. I'm sure you can enlighten me. Please respond on my talk --MarSch 10:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I changed the motto from «Unity in diversity» to «United in diversity», is because, if you look at European symbols, it says...
The European motto is In varietate concordia (Latin for Unity in diversity). It was first established through an unofficial process in 2000. It was selected from entries proposed by school pupils submitted to the website "www.devise-europe.org" [6], and then accepted by the President of the European Parliament, Nicole Fontaine. The motto is soon likely to be replaced by the slightly modified "United in diversity", which has been written into the draft Constitution for Europe and now appears on official EU websites. See "www.eurominority.org" [7] for the motto in many languages not listed below.
It was decided to change it to represent the whole of the EU, a group of 25 nations coming to together. It has been formally changed by the European Commission, see http://europa.eu.int/abc/symbols/motto/index_en.htm
Plus it was chosen by the European Commission, which can do a lot of things like change grammer! 159753 11:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It was a decreed that the English translation should be «United in diversity», not «Unity in diversity». The change exists in other languages, like in the French translation «Unité en diversité» became «Unie dans la diversité». The reason is probably due it being the same as the Indonesian motto. 159753 12:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

## Vote #7: Removal of voters with only votes as contributions

There is currently a vote taking place to help set a limit on who can vote. You might want to voice your opinion on the matter. --Steven 22:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

## Wikipedia Cat Lovers' Committee

MarSch/Archive 1, I can see from your userboxes that you love cats.

If you want to join, you can add yourself to the members list and contact the committee founder, me, GeorgeMoney on my talk page.

Thank You. --GeorgeMoneyTalk 22:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I commented on your revert at vector (spatial). Also, may I suggest that you archive some of the stuff on your very long talk page? : ) Fresheneesz 11:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

## Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.This week Mathematics was selected to be improved to featured article status.Hope you can help…

Posted by Pruneau 21:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

## Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

## Double checking

If it's convenient for you, would you mind double checking this edit that I made just recently? --HappyCamper 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen that identity before. I also don't really feel like calculating that determinant. --MarSch 14:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I've seen something like this before. It's certainly not true as written down: if a=e=(1,0,0,0), b=f=(0,1,0,0), c=g=(0,0,1,0) and d=h=(0,0,0,1), then the matrix of inner products is the identity matrix and hence the determinant is one. I reverted it for the moment. There should be some additional conditions (for instance, it's true if all vectors are in R^3). HappyCamper, could you check the article and see what it says? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

## Extensible Firmware Interface

Hey, I saw your comment on the talk page for this article... there does seem to be something weird going on right now with the database; pages are not always appearing correctly. 09:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

## Quack

Certainly incompetent doctors comprise a subset of quack.  ;-) A general description would thus include incompetent doctors, but I also think that it is often used to mean an incompetent doctor. Is it necessary? Probably not.Jance 17:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

## I'm not a sneak

Regarding the sock puppet accusation, I have nothing to hide and I am not a “sneak” as you seem to suggest. Hitting the “minor” edit tab was done out of habit – ie, an accident. User:RaptorRobot is a sock of blocked serial pest User:Jackp. Granted, he is currently only being of minor annoyance, but he and his socks have caused great disruption this year and if he becomes disruptive again to that magnitude I can bring a whole lot of evidence against RaptoRobot that he is indeed a sock and I can also rely on a number of other respected editors to back me up. I'm sure you would be supportive of trying to reign in such disruption.

As for your comments on my Talk page, I’ve got no problem if you disagree with my edits, or if you need to point out if I am breaching protocol guidelines etc – but as a diligent good faith editor, I don’t like being told I am a “sneak” nor do I think it appropriate to leave a short clipped “don’t do that again”. If you were a new user, I would politely remind you of the principles of WP:AGF but I won’t, since such a reminder to an experienced editor would itself be a breach of the AGF.

Did you really remove my edit because I clicked the “minor” box as you stated? In future if you think I have done something inappropriate, please don't speak to me like I am a child and instead maybe offer some constructive solution/guidance. Kind regards --Merbabu 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again it was not "offensive and sneaky". It was an accident. Your apparent continued inability to acceept that that after my explanation clearly demonstrates you actually do have a problem with assuming good faith. I have no motive to be sneaky (the opposite in fact) and secondly as any idiot can attest, even if i wanted to be sneaky it is not possible (as you yourself proved - that is the funniest bit actually). As I said, I inadvertently hit "m". As you are no doubt aware this and the edit summary is one thing in wikipedia that cannot be re-edited. As for my "offence" perhaps if you learnt some common courtesy and gave people the benefit of the doubt, you wouldn't cause offence in the first place. having been courteous to you, my own "blunt" words now - learn some manners and visit WP:AGF and maybe check WP:CIVIL. --Merbabu 10:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have just noticed that you have also removed the original sock puppet tag from User:Jackp's page. next time please do some checks before making such a significant change (filling in the edit summary doesn't allieviate the need for checking) So, if my accidental clicking "minor" is distasteful, offensive and makes me spineless (apart from your apparent ignorance of the term's meaning I notice you don't have the spine yourself to actually say it), what would you call removing a tag highlighting the sock farm of a notorious serial pest? --Merbabu 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
--Merbabu 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I've seen your posts on Sarah's page. I've already acknowledged an error that it would have been better had I not clicked "minor". How do you then suggest I am running short in "taking responsbility"? Is there some sort of online whipping process?? lol. --Merbabu 02:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jackp is an on-going, long term serial pest on Australian articles. He is currently under an indefinite block and, in violation of the policy, he uses multiple sockpuppets to evade the block. Merbabu and Cyberjunkie are good faith, highly respected editors who have wasted a good amount of time dealing with Jack. I find your comments to them condescending and inappropriate in tone. Please don't remove tags from pages simply because someone hasn't used an edit summary or have ticked the "minor edit" box in error, doing so comes close to point violation. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, they don't have to be right because they are long-standing and respected editors. That was not my point. My point is that long-standing well-respected editors deserve to be addressed appropiately and respectfully and with the assumption of good faith. They aren't trolls, vandals or trouble makers. They are good-faith editors who have contributed a lot to Wiki. When cleaning up after sock-puppets, vandals, trolls and banned users, it can be easy to make mistakes and I think you need to assume good faith when Merbabu tells you that he made an error. It is entirely appropriate for you to bring your concerns to them and let them know that those sorts of edits should have an edit summary and not be marked as minor. My issue is with the way you are addressing them and the tone of your notes, not your complaint (which I actually happen to agree with). Sarah Ewart 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

## The Design and Evolution of C++

I have proposed this article for deletion. --Brianyoumans 06:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I can see that this is probably a significant book in the C++ community, but is there anything to say about it other than what the stub says already? If you think that there might be, I will defer to you. If there isn't, wouldn't this be better handled with a redirect to the author? --Brianyoumans 16:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I will leave it be, then. --Brianyoumans 16:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

## Conway's soldiers

With all your obvious math skills, I'm surprised that you seem not to be familiar with John Conway. Like almost all math games, this is more a problem than it is a game. I've added a little bit to the article, and also provided a link to a longer description of the game, which you may be interested in following. Cheers, Denni talk 01:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

## ECPP programs

Why do you want to remove Primo from Elliptic curve primality proving ? Everybody is allowed to download and run it without paying. That's free enough for me (and I only said "free" in the edit summary). Earlier Primo was disallowed to use in USA, Canada and Japan, but not anymore. Morain's latest ECPP version (the other available version is apparently from 1997) says "The binaries can be used for research purposes as well as private use, but not in any commercial product (including cryptographic libraries -- of course -- actually, I have slowed down my program for small numbers)." [8] Is Morain's program open source? The site speaks of "data files" and "binaries" without mentioning source, but I haven't downloaded and unpacked the files. Far more people use Primo than Morain's program (judged by Internet searches and announcements of results). PrimeHunter 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

## scheme implementations

Hi Chairboy, you deleted my stub about the Larceny scheme implementation. Of course technically your reason for deletion is valid, but this is not a bogus article. Please reconsider. Thank you. --MarSch 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is not correct. Though there is little content, there is enough context I think. --MarSch 18:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"""Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub."""--MarSch 18:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The entire article was "Larceny is a Scheme implementation." I understand your frustration, but the article needs more than that to stay, otherwise it may as well just be an entry on a list. Expand it, describe what makes it different from other programming schemes, etc. The one sentence above, however, meets the criteria I applied when deleting it. - CHAIRBOY () 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on that. --MarSch 18:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! Then we don't seem to have any remaining disagreement. Best regards, CHAIRBOY () 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the entire article per your request:

'''Larceny''' is a [[Scheme (programming language)|Scheme]] implementation.

*[http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Larceny/ offical site]

{{software-stub}}

Apologies for any offence I may have caused by over-zealous speedying of various articles you created on Scheme implementations. In retrospect, prod may have been a more sensitive method. (IMHO, wikipedia is not the place to give every implementation of scheme a page, but that's neither here nore there.) MikeMorley 13:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

## Content of SCM (Scheme implementation)

'''SCM''' is a [[free software]] [[Scheme (programming language)|Scheme]] implementation written in [[C (programming language)|C]] running on many different architectures from the same author as the [[HOBBIT]] R4RS Scheme to C compiler. SCM is supported by [[SLIB]].