User talk:Jitse Niesen/Archive8

Concerning the bot (again)

You might be interested in this. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

LRL vector as FAC

Hi Jitse,

You helped a lot in bringing the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector to its present quality; is it good enough that you could support it at its FAC nomination? Whatever you decide, thanks for your time and effort! :) Willow 14:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It completely slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Determinant calculation

Hi Jitse,

About LAPACK: It's for professional in computational linear algebra and need time to study it. But 95% of readers of article "Determinant" are students, who just need simple independent C-function to get determinant of square matrix (no Fortran please) That link was popular amoung them.

Moreover: For every article about basic concepts of linear algebra whey need similar simple(!) C-programs.

If you think that function in hlevkin.com is too primitive(it was my intention!), write better one please or restore link to it

With respect

hlevkin

Thanks

Thanks for the first person who welcome me. You missed the welcome message Jitse!
Sdudah 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The usual!

Hello Jitse

I don't want to disturb your holiday, so please pass this on to someone else appropriate if you'd rather not get tied up in it at the moment.

The usual conflicts are going on over at Srebrenica Massacre. I have just had posts deleted by someone called Laughing Man who claims at his User page to be a member of something called the Counter -Vandalism Unit on the grounds of them being personal attacks. Laughing Man's interests suggest that he is not a neutral participant.

I'd argue that these weren't personal attacks but comments criticising the actions and motives of the posters concerned, particularly given the usual siege situation. Bosniak is being wound up again, not to mention myself, and we are being threatened with action by people (laughing Man and Jim Douglas) who give the impression of acting with authority but in fact seem to have an agenda of their own.

Your assistance or your involvement of a third party would be appreciated.

--Opbeith 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You can go back to your travels, Jitse, the sword of Damocles has been wielded and the Gordian knot cut by Duja, who has simply wiped the blackboard clean. Hopefully one day we can actually catch up with normal lives enough to get on with cleaning up the article. --Opbeith 23:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for being objective and thank you for respecting the fact that Srebrenica massacre was indeed a genocide. Bosniak 07:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Halley's method

I translated this from the French Wikipedia to English (probably poorly, but I fixed it up afterwards) at the suggestion of some guys on Talk:Root-finding algorithm. Check it out. JRSpriggs 06:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I couldn't resist trying to improve it, though. Have a look at the reference that I added when you have time; the method has an interesting history. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a section deriving the cubic convergence from Taylor's theorem. JRSpriggs 07:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It seems a bit ORish, but what the hell ... -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the problem. If I just copy it from a source, it might be a copyright violation. If I do nothing, then we do not get the information into Wikipedia. So what I usually do is look at the source just long enough to get the general idea of how the proof is done. Then set it aside and work out the details for myself and put that into the article. Since I wrote it myself, it cannot be a copyright violation. JRSpriggs 11:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Today, LutzL (talk · contribs) created a German version which may be better in some respects. It has a worked example, for example. JRSpriggs 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your fear for copyright violations. Did you get the general idea for the proof from one of the references in the article? I think you still have to include it in the references, even if you only used it for inspiration.

The German article is indeed nice, especially the example. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked briefly at the MathWorld external link and also at the other one given in the link section. Both of them are already mentioned. The MathWorld article gave me the idea to use Taylor's theorem and that the difference in the denominator could be handled by Newton's method (which turned into another application of Taylor's theorem). It also confirmed what the French article said about dividing f by the square-root of its derivative. I did not use the other article. Actually, neither one gives a complete proof of cubic convergence which is what I wanted. I tried big O notation, but that did not seem to really fit. Eventually, it became apparent that I needed to keep the Lagrange remainders in the numerator to get it to work. JRSpriggs 08:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Bosniak again?

I'd appreciate a second opinion, as not completely familiar with his editing patterns. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bosniak again? and comment there if you like. Thanks, Asterion^talk 18:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I replied at AN/I. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Change in QR decomposition?

Hi, I just posted on something in the QR decomposition discussions. I was wondering what you thought on the topic, seeing that you have taken over the editing thing. If you like it and want me to give it a shot I can... no guarantee on the quality since I have never contributed before. Thanks! --Jasper 06:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Game

Hello; I tried to visit the page for The Game (game) today after learning of it elsewhere and being pointed here by google, and found it deleted. I viewed the entry for deletion linked to from the page and you stated at the top that the result of the discussion was 'keep' -- how come, then, it is now deleted? 130.111.248.90 23:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. What happened is that the fate of the article was discussed a number of times. The link points to one of the discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game), which took place in December 2005. The result was indeed to keep the article. However, the standards have grown stricter since then. The last time the article was discussed, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (6th nomination) in December 2006, it was decided to delete it. That page also contains links to earlier discussions.

I realize that the message was extremely confusing in this case and I changed the link to point to the last discussion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd number theorem

Thank you for your suggestion. References added. Cheers!

--Flyming 05:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Complexity of matrix inversion

The complexity of matrix inversion is the same as for matrix multiplication; I have corrected the page.

If you are good with differential equations and with computer algebra software, here is an interesting problem: I claim that there is a counterpart of gliders in Conway's Game of Life in a continuous system given by the Einstein vacuum equation (gr-qc/0609054). Understanding whether this is correct, and if so whether these mimic the behavior of photons would be interesting.Hunter Monroe 19:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Monte Carlo method

Why did you revert my disambiguation of Excel? The existing link was to a disambiguation page. I corrected it to point to the right meaning, Microsoft Excel. Colonies Chris 19:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that. I don't quite know what happened, but I never saw your edit. I wanted to revert the edit before you, by the editor from 70.45.97.20 which linked pseudo. Usually, one gets an edit conflict when this happens, but I either never got this because of some subtle and rare software glitch, or I somehow clicked past it without noticing. It happened once to me before.

Anyway, I'm glad you noticed it. I fixed it now. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting does not cause edit conflicts even when it should. According to Help:Reverting#Reverts do not cause edit conflicts, "...if between the moment you begin the revert process, and the moment you click Post (or Save page), someone else edits and saves the page, their edits will be silently overwritten by the reverted version...". JRSpriggs 07:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a pity, but it explains everything. I learn something new everyday here. Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Differential.png

Hello,

I was responsible for the request for deletion of this image due to the copyvio, see my comments on Talk:Differential equation and User talk:Romansanders. I am going to attempt a new image, but im no graphic artist! User A1 07:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is all a very difficult matter. One can argue that the image shows content, and thus is solely copyrighted by the person who had inputted the data. One can also argue that the creation of the screenshot involved no creativity, and that the copyrights thus fully rest by the creator of the program. This problem could be solved by using an open source program to create the screenshot, such as gnuplot. I am however willing to temporarily undelete the image, so that you can upload it to the English wikipedia under the fair use terms. Nobody said that copyrights were easy Bryan 08:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading User A1's explanation on User talk:Romansanders that the image is included as an example in the program, I agree that it was indeed a copyright violation. However, I'm unsure of Bryan's reasoning, and I continuing this on commons:User talk:Bryan. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bisection method

There is a very nice moving picture at de:Bisektion which illustrates the bisection method. Can we get it for our version? JRSpriggs 09:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it would improve our article, though it's a pity that it includes German text. Perhaps we can ask the creator of the picture to translate it in English? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nina Snaith

I was wondering offhand if someone would pick up on that one - she's certainly less obviously notable than the others I did the same evening ;-)

As my understanding goes, she's definitely done nontrivial work with random matrix theory, though the problem is I don't really understand the technical descriptions well enough to be able to describe it competently. There's a couple of references to her work in pop-math books on that region of number theory, though; I've du Sautoy's one on my desk at the moment, which mentions her, and I'll see if I can distill it into something comprehensible. Shimgray | talk | 14:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Her work is indeed in a hot area and the connections with the Riemann hypothesis also makes it interesting to laymen. She seems to be doing very well, clearly better than average, though it's hard for me to tell since I'm not familiar with the field. However, I am supposed to know some maths, so if you need some assistance massaging the material from your books into a suitable form, let me know. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Sorry for getting a little hot headed. It needs a citation - author, book, publication date, ISBN number and page number. Just hope that clarifies. LuciferMorgan 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

References

What I understood from reading is that there is a difference between citing references and listing them. Just because you have listed references doesn't mean you have used them as citations. How are people supposed to know what information goes with which reference?-MsHyde 07:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ive tried your script . . .

. . . but I sat for 2 hours with the please wait sign staring me in the face. Any suggestions on what to do? --Darkest Hour • ¿? 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jitse

If you could please warn Psychonaut (talk · contribs) not to constantly revert pages to "alternative views". This has happened numerous times in the past, and he is not allowing other editors to contribute. He wants it his own way and that's not right; it's not in the spirit of wikipedia. Thanks. Bosniak 01:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Deletedpage

Template:Deletedpage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I get your opinion on this?

Jitse, can you take a look at Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Anonymous user in Sarajevo censoring Osli73? Is there anything to be done about this, aside from constantly watching for the vandalism and reverting/warning the user? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for a couple of days and I hadn't quite noticed what had prompted your comments. Removing comments without a good reason is such a bad thing that in my opinion, the editor should be blocked for it. Unfortunately, the IP address is shifting which makes it hard to target the editor. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PyWikipediaBot: urllib2, cookielib

Hallo Jitse!

I'm one of the PyWikipediaBot developers, my SourceForge username is wikipedian. I have seen your patch [1]. I was inactive when you submitted it, and unfortunatelly nobody applied it.

I have recently done some code cleanup, however the network code is still a mess, especially because of the authentication that's handled differently everywhere. If we used urllib2 instead of httplib everywhere, as you suggested, it would surely be cleaner, but I have been unable to apply your patch, as a lot has changed since your patch, and I don't understand of the topic to adapt it.

If you have time, I would really appreciate it if you could look into it again, and this time commit your changes instead of just creating a patch. --Head 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: CSPRNGs and root-finding algorithms

Hi there. I posted a response to your question about CSPRNGs and root-finding algorithms on my user page. -- Wonderstruck 05:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thiele interpolation

Jitse, I've added an implementation for Thiele's interpolation formula on the corresponding user page. Is is, in effect, a translation of the code from Maple V, version 4, into Algol 68. Any comments? If it passes scrutiny, I'll add it to the main page ... Hair Commodore 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

blocking anonymous IPs used for vandalism and threats

Jitse, as you are aware, my edits on the Srebrenica massacre talk page have been deleted by anonymous user using a number of IPs in Sarajevo. I have also been the target of some direct personal attacks. I have listed a complaint on the Wikipedia admin. noticeboard about this. [2] As the person uses a range of different IPs I have asked whether it is possible to block an entire range. Thatcher131 has responded saying that it is possible but that it would entail blocking a quite large range of IPs and that he would rather that an admin with more experience of the matter take that decision. As you are the admin with the most experience of the Srebrenica massacre article, I would like to take request to you. Regards Osli73 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered asking for semi-protection (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection) of the article and related pages such as its talk page and perhaps your own user and talk pages? Semi-protection would prevent IP users from being able to edit it. So if your tormentor wanted to continue he would have to become a registered user with an e-mail address which could be traced (if appropriate), and he would be subject to being blocked for violating the rules. JRSpriggs 05:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

JRSpriggs, thank you for the suggestion. I will try that. Regards Osli73 08:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing mathematics topics

Thank for the notes int he missing topics page - Skysmith 12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on Srebrenica massacre

As a result of persistent edit warring on Srebrenica massacre, I have proposed that a straw poll be taken regarding one of the issues involved—namely, how to title the section currently named "Alternative views". This will help us to determine whether there is a consensus on what to title this section, or at least a consensus on what not to call it. The straw poll can be found at Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Straw poll on "Alternative views" section. I have posted this announcement to each of the 19 users who have made multiple edits to Srebrenica massacre this year. —Psychonaut 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I need an answer

Do you also consider this "alternative view" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Holocaust_denial ? How about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide ? Bosniak 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you two are up to, but I have a feeling that Mr. Bosniak could well be a bit more cool. No need to be so dramatic, "I need an answer", "holocaust", etc. How's that? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as sources?

Jitse, I see that you inquired about the use of blogs as sources when they contain copies of official documents (in this case UN reports not otherwise available). I interpret the answer given by Bluebear to mean that blogs are not acceptable, not as sources and not in External links. Two questions:

1. was this also your interpretation of the answer?
2. assuming you agree with me on how to interpret the answer, will you be removing the blogs in question or should I, given that it was I who raised the issue?

Regards Osli73 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of Blueboar's answer is that he thinks that blogs are not acceptable. Once he convinces me, I will remove the blogs. However, I'm not convinced yet that his answer reflects a consensus within the Wikipedia community and not only his personal opinion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, Ok, that sounds reasonable. I agree that sourcing to a blog which has republished official reports/documents is not clear cut. However...

1. given that the editor of blog is also an editor of the article in what is a very polarized debate I, at least, don't feel certain that the material is properly and fully represented on the blog. It is only text from the document, not the official document itself, which has been republished.
2. there seems to be consensus that blogs of editors of an article are definately out.
3. wouldn't it be better to ask Bosniak where he sourced the documents which he republishes on his blog and then use that as a source?

Regards Osli73 10:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories for Deletion

Hi, Jitse!

Thank you very much for writing and operating the 'bot. I've been reviewing items on the lists you create for about ten days now. Those lists are very valuable.

The recent furor over Category:Erdős_number_1 et al got me to thinking just a little. Your 'bot already screens the AfD page and highlights the math articles that have been tagged for deletion. Would it be too much trouble to scan the CfD page against Oleg's list of mathematics categories? I think this could prove helpful to members of the math project. I would gladly check the CfD page directly if I didn't have a problem with it: a runaway Javascript inside that page sometimes kills my Firefox browser (with Konqueror the page always loads – after warning me that some piece of Javascript is in a loop, and giving me an opportunity to kill it).

Just a suggestion. I know next to nothing about PYTHON – I did spend about 20 years writing assembly language routines on IBM mainframes, though, so I understand how much work an apparently simple request like this one might entail.

Thanks again for all your good efforts! DavidCBryant 17:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. In fact, I think that Linas once asked me the same.

It shouldn't be too much work, so I'll probably give it a try soon. Whether it will work is of course another matter. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason Python was invented was so that what would take David 200 lines of code in assembly could be done by Jitse in two lines of Python code. Right Jitse? Let's show David that his request is no big deal and two lines of code for that is enough even with one of them being a comment. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I might have fit it into 1 line of assembly code too, Oleg. But I would have been forced to put two or three hundred lines into a macro library first! Of course, if I just happened to have the right macro definition lying around already, that might have been easy … DavidCBryant 18:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, a Wikipedia bot written in assembly, that sounds so cool ... Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mathmagician

I've redirected the article, which you prodded, to Mathemagician, which I created. If you want to nominate the latter for deletion, go ahead, but I think it's fine. --N Shar 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your article looks okay, so I'm happy now. Thanks for letting me know. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad we could work everything out. --N Shar 06:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Habilitation

Hi Jitse, sorry for not having replied earlier; I had a busy week. Anyway, I put the cleanup and globlize tags back in the Habilitation article, but this time I did clarify what I think should be rectified on Talk:Habilitation. I hope this helps. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I have to say that I feel a bit embarrassed when I read your explanation on the globalize tag as that should have been obvious to me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Allaire reference

Hi. I am not sure whether you intended for me to reply on your talk page or mine. I guess that's a policy I need to specify on my talk page. Anyhow, I will soon know more about Allaire's proof but right now I only know that it exists and was published independently of the Appel/Haken proof. I sort of agree that the reference is "dangling," in the sense that it doesn't relate to anything in the article, but it looks to me like the References section of the article is actually more a bibliography: It cites relevant documents, but those documents are not necessarily referred to in the body of the article. On this note, I tried yesterday to determine whether Wikipedia has a policy on separating the references section (ie, citations for documents referenced in the article) from the bibliography (ie, citations for documents relevant to the subject but that weren't necessarily cited in the article) but gave up before I found an answer. If it is the case that bibliography can/should be separated from references, then several of the citations should fall into the bibliography category. Aaaanyhow, I am presently writing a paper on the differences between the Appel/Haken proof, the Robertson proof, the Gonthier proof, and the Allaire proof--or at least some subset of of these proofs of size >1 and including Appel/Haken. I hope to add some of this material to the article and with luck, I'll at least know enough about Allaire's proof to say where it fits in historically. —Pqrstuv 19:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian mathematics

Greetings, I was involved in the RfC in Indian mathematics. My efforts were directed towards creating a version such as this one, as compared to the this, this and this version. My efforts initially began with removing misrepresentation of quotaions and then I tried providing some of the "citations needed" tags with actual citations. The situation resulted into an RfC, timed during my examinations, to which I could admittedly, not work on adequately. Fowler&fowler has asked me to work with him but since I am sitting my examinations and the article has been edited extensively since the RfC by other editors I no longer can keep up the pace. My exams will continue and after that I will be leaving, taking a few days off WP. I have reviewed my future with the Indian mathematics article, and have come to the conclusion that since I am under time constraints and am under such pressure in real life that adequate responses or editing actions on "Indian mathematics" are just not possible for me right now. I can't contribute to it in the manner that I usually would; it would be unethical to the extreme to ask the other editors, who have wished me well during my examination, to wait. The article is under the watch of many good editors and I see and hope that it's quality benefits from the present situation. Many regards, _{Freedom skies| talk}  02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. It is important to know when other issues take precedence over Wikipedia. In fact, I often think that that's a piece of wisdom that I sorely lack. Good luck with the exams! -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Corresponding conditional (logic)

Hi, Jitse! I'm just curious about something.

Corresponding conditional (logic) keeps disappearing from, then reappearing on the list of "new" math articles on the page your 'bot maintains. On today's version I see it as "new" on 1 March and also on 25 February, and crossed out on 26 February.

The odd thing is, there hasn't been any activity on the article itself since 12 February. And on Oleg's list, it shows up just twice, on 13 February and on 6 February. Not that it's a big deal, or anything – I just can't figure out why it's happening. Thanks! DavidCBryant 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue. There seems to be a mistake in my program somewhere. But as you say, it's not a big deal, and to be honest, I'm not motivated at the moment to spend time looking for what went wrong. But I'll keep it in mind. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, I probably wouldn't have mentioned it at all, except that I don't like the article very much. I'd like to keep it confined to philosophy, and out of mathematics. Mainly I was just curious. And I wouldn't be too quick to blame your program … maybe something else happened that we haven't noticed. DavidCBryant 11:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The author blanked the article and was then reverted. This caused it to leave the category of articles with math-stubs and then return. I presume that that is why it appears twice on Oleg's list. JRSpriggs 13:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is a clue. There are two versions, spelled almost exactly alike: Corresponding conditional (logic) and Corresponding conditional (Logic). I'm probably not competent to judge which of these two should be retained, because I don't much like either one. DavidCBryant 12:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Something similar is happening with line-plane intersection (with a hyphen) and line–plane intersection (with an en dash). Actually, I believe I've seen this before and I blamed it on Mathbot at the time. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ragsdale conjecture

Thanks for the notification! I'll userfy it, and improve it until it can be placed in the mainspace again. Sr13 (T|C) 04:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dumb question

(...and then some say there's no such thing as...) Hi, Jitse. So I just added an <<Expert-subject|Mathematics>> tag to the article Artin reciprocity. Then I noticed on the Current Activity page that your bot updates that it catches the <<expert>> tag. Since it didn't mention the <<Expert-subject|Mathematics>>, I wondered if my tag would be caught. Should I be using the <<expert>> tag exclusively? Thanks in advance. VectorPosse 11:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You should always do what's best for Wikipedia, which is in this case to use the expert-subject tag. If that doesn't fit well with the bot, the bot should adapt.

In this case, the text on the Current Activity page is perhaps confusing. The bot doesn't catch tags, it looks in categories. In this case, it looks in Category:Pages needing expert attention and its subcategories. Your tag places the article in Category:Pages needing expert attention from Mathematics experts, which is (indirectly) a subcategory of Category:Pages needing expert attention. So, everything is fine and the bot should catch the article eventually (the next update of that section is due on 6 March). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks again. VectorPosse 12:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Euler-Cromer algorithm

Hi Jitse,

Hopefully my answers below, combined with the details I have added to the article will answer your questions. I haven't used this algorithm extensively, but feel free to ask if you have any further questions.

• I originally found this algorithm in Computational Physics, by Giordano, which stated without explanation that it works better than the Euler method for oscillatory solutions; this University of Delaware webpage [3] gives more details.

• I chose x, v and a because they are quite intuitive, I have added a (very) simple example which illustrates how the method can be used. a_n refers to acceleration at timestep n.

• I have added references. Euler-Cromer differs from Verlet integration in that it still uses the velocity to calculate position (velocity at the current timestep).

--DJIndica 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your edit, I think we are converging on something useful. Whatever the shortcomings of the article on Verlet integration (and I don't see any major problems), I believe it gives the correct algorithm and it differs significantly from Euler-Cromer.--DJIndica 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued at Talk:Euler–Cromer algorithm. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added comments to Talk:Euler–Cromer algorithm, I would appreciate your comments before I update the article.--DJIndica 21:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sr13

I hope it's better now. :) Sr13 (T|C) 06:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

QR Decomposition

My text is Numerical Computing with MATLAB, by Cleve B. Moler. I sure hope it's same sign, because one of my homework questions is to explain why! —AySz88\^-^ 14:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I think I see where the discrepancy lies; the article uses $\mathbf {u} =\mathbf {x} -\alpha \mathbf {e} _{1},$ while my text uses $\mathbf {u} =\mathbf {x} +\sigma \mathbf {e} _{1},$. Fixed now. Thanks for double-checking. :) —AySz88\^-^ 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

re:Template:Unclear

Thanks for alerting me to this, I didn't notice. I've reverted it back to a previos version and created Template:Vague to do what I needed. I may also try to replace all instances of unclear in articles with vague (as I am apparantly not the only one to not notice). Thanks again! Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

inquiry

Jitse, quick question. When a user is blocked, is their IP address blocked also? Fairview360 13:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Usually, yes. When an account is blocked, the IP address most recently used by the account, and any IP addresses that the account subsequently attempts to edit from will be automatically blocked. However, the person which applies the block may choose to turn off these automatic blocks. To see whether this is the case, look at the block log and find the entry for the block which you are interested in. If it contains the word "noautoblock", then the automatic blocks are turned off; otherwise, the IP address used by the account is also blocked. You can find some more information on m:Help:Block and unblock. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, thank you. I appreciate the feedback. Fairview360 05:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Theory Of Everything, Synchronicity and Pauli effect

You changed my edits on the "Theory Of Everything"
(cur) (last) 10:35, 24 February 2007 Jitse Niesen (Talk | contribs) (revert almost all of Maurice's edits - a nonstandard abbreviation being almost an anagram is not important enough to be noticed here, remove synchronicity (as before) and Pauli effect (huh?))
So you think that there is no connection at all? HUH?
Whatever, you are the administrator... :O)
But please think about it.. not just typing "Huh?"
. Maurice Carbonaro 12:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

AKS primality test undead link?

Hi, I notice that some time ago you restored the The "PRIMES is in P" FAQ link in AKS primality test. Since then it has been marked dead again, and subsequently the mark was removed again (this time by an anonyuser).

When I try to follow the link I get: "Forbidden You don't have permission to access /~stiglic/PRIMES_P_FAQ.html on this server.", and trying just the directory gives a similar error, so my assumption is that the relevant person is no longer associated with that institution. Do you see something different? And if so, is it possible that your browser is giving you a cached copy?

It'd be good to get this resolved. Hv 18:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The link is also dead for me now. I don't remember what happened last October, when I restored the link. It may well be the case that my browser served up a cached copy.

The FAQ is still accessible via web.archive.org [4]. However, this may be a good time to consider whether it's worthwhile to have the FAQ as an external link (it was last updated in 2004). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. It seems like a useful synopsis, so I've replaced the link with the archive.org reference for now. Hv 16:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LMI

Ah, thanks regarding the LMI. You're right Johngcarlsson 06:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Licorne sock puppet

The Licorne sock puppet you blocked about a week ago, 72.184.143.196, is at it again. Please block for a longer time. darkskyz 13:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Finite difference

Hi Jitse. You are an expert on finite differences, so, if you have time, I wonder what you think of the recent changes to Finite difference and the comment at Talk:Finite difference. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12

Jitse, on what grounds do you consider the speculation about Djma12 ridiculous? If it turned out that Djma12 is a sock/occasional meatpuppet of Osli's, would you apologise for calling my speculation ridiculous? Is there something that makes the thought that Djma12 may be Osli73's sockpuppet inherently absurd? Since when is such speculation such a sensitive topic? If people want to speculate the same about me, that is perfectly OK. People are entitled to their opinions.

The door is still open to Djma12 to proceed. I am still giving him/her the benefit of the doubt, but, given past experience, I am not going to withhold my opinion when it comes to my skepticism.

Again, please tell me what you know or see that makes my concerns "ridiculous". Fairview360 00:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, you know from your own experience that I am perfectly willing to work with people. You may remember, we came up with a good solution -- choosing our words very carefully -- for describing the role of the 400 Dutch soldiers at Srebrenica. But, do you know how much time and energy, how many heartfelt overtures I have, it turns out, completely wasted on sockpuppets? It has a way of making a person skeptical to say the least. Fairview360 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Jitse, I know this may seem odd, but I would implore you to uphold Fairview360's request on investigating whether I am a sock-puppet of Osli. Perhaps then I can go on with editing the article instead of being mired in the controversy of my identity. Best regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 03:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure that this WP:RFCU request would be refused with this response:  CheckUser is not for fishing -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, I know you're capable to work with people here, which is why I'm so disappointed in your accusation. You said that you looked at the edit histories of Djma12 and Osli73 and concluded they were the same person. However, Osli73 edits articles on ex-Yugoslavia and occasionally on Swedish topics, while Djma12's interests are wider (I saw a lot of edits to the Andijan massacre, for instance). I really can't see how somebody from looking at the edit histories could conclude that they are the same person. If I look at Djma12's edit history, I see somebody who enjoys working on all kinds of controversial articles and trying to improve them, and to me, his/her edits to the Srebrenica massacre article indicate somebody who does not have intimate knowledge of the details surrounding the Srebrenica massacre or the history surrounding the Srebrenica massacre article on Wikipedia, but who noticed that the article is not very good and is trying to improve it.

Such speculation has always been a sensitive topic, because it poisons the atmosphere. Accusations create animosity, which makes it much harder to work together and improve the article (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). I think you are wrong in harboring this speculation, but voicing it is what really worries me. If you make an accusation, you should have more evidence than only it being "a little strange that someone allegedly entirely new to the article would be so bold in making wholesale edits without any attempt to create consensus first." There is a guideline here urging editors to be bold, which works well in most articles, but in some articles it's not such a good idea.

Djma12, I'm not sure what you mean with "upholding" the request. I can't act on the request myself since I don't have the powers to check this; there are only a couple of people who can do this. I'm not intimately aware with the relevant policies (see WP:RfCU and Wikimedia:Privacy policy for a start), but from what I know, I consider it likely that the request will be declined as there is not enough evidence. I seem to remember that it doesn't make any difference that you want the request to be granted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, I have a more positive way of looking at this. The fact is that the atmosphere at the Srebrenica article is already poisoned and the way to overcome that is with honesty. I am being honest. Opbeith is being honest. I would like to think that Djma12 is being honest. And with that, there is a chance to clear the air and create a stable core of editors at the Srebrenica article. If you look at the recent comments by Opbeith, myself, and Djma12, the door is open to progress and small steps are being made.

Some clarification of the facts. I did not make a conclusive accusation that Djma12 is a sockpuppet. I said it is possible that Osli73, KarlXII, and Djma12 are the same person. Unfortunately, Djma12's initial behavior matches Osli73/KarlXII rather closely. What I did was look at the timing of their edits. The timing of their edits did not coincide until after I raised the concern (which means now that the only way Djma12 could be a sockpuppet is if there is also a meatpuppet involved). If you look at the timing of just KarlXII and Osli73, you can see that this person is rather obsessive... sometimes sleeping only a few hours. Osli apparently has plenty of time. Furthermore, Osli73 is not limited by intelligence. So I do not put this past him. It is possible, but I now hold the opinion that further speculation does not serve any constructive purpose.

So, as you can see, I continue to hold to the opinion that there is nothing inherently ridiculous about the speculation and I do not consider it a "serious mistake" to have voiced these concerns, but rather see it as a way of clearing the air. What I like about this is that you and I have an honest difference of opinion. That is what the Srebrenica article needs. Honest good faith discussion, honest disagreements, which then upholds the possibility of finding common ground.

Lastly, Jim Douglas pointed out that according to wiki policy, check user can not be used to simply establish innocence. I see no problem in this. Djma12, Opbeith, and myself will (or will not) build trust through actual discussion and editing. That is fine with me. Fairview360 15:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairview360, since you mention me here I would like to reply:

1. if you wanted to make the atmosphere at the Srebrenica massacre article less "poisonous" you might consider ceasing with your own personal attacks and other uncivil behavior to begin with.
2. You mention that you are "perfectly willing to work with people". However, that only seems to include people who do not challenge you.

Regards Osli73 23:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Time-consuming, tiring, annoying? Yes. Challenging? Not really. Fairview360 18:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, btw...

Not that you really need another barnstar, but I really appreciated your comments. Thanks for sticking up for me. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For going out of his way to defend the integrity of fellow wikipedians. Djma12 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Numerical integration

Hi Jitse,

You reverted my edits to Numerical integration which I guess is OK, except that I really don't feel that the explanation at the top of the page makes the distinction clear between numerical solution of differential equations and numerical integration. Perhaps you could work on clarifying that?

Jdpipe 09:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the explanation at the top is fairly clear. At least, I don't immediately see a way to improve it. However, if you do see a way to improve it, please do so. As it was apparently unclear to you, perhaps you're in a better position to correct it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well actually I don't *see* the distinction, and I don't think it's actually stated on the page: it's just saying that they are different. AFAICT the only difference is in mathematical symbols: I'm sure I'm missing something though. It seems that numerical integration is a subset of solving ODES (equivalent to solving *explicit* 1st order ODEs)? Jdpipe 11:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I misunderstood you. I thought the problem was that the article doesn't state clearly that its topic is numerical quadrature (evaluation of integrals). However, the issue is more fundamental: the connection between evaluating integrals and solving ODEs is not clear. I'll see what I can do about that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, that would be good. I would make the changes myself but I don't quite feel I can make the distinction. Thanks! Jdpipe 03:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a go at it. As always, feel free to improve / criticize / whatever. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reaction-diffusion

Hi Jitse. I heard you are an expert in reaction-diffusion equations. Our Reaction-diffusion kind of sucks. Any chance you may add something to it? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of rumours are doing the rounds about me, but I'm in no way an expert on reaction-diffusion. Be careful; if the BLP gang discovers that you're accusing me of expertise, you'll suffer a most excruciating death by templates. ;)

However, our article is abysmal. I'll see whether I can find some time to add one or two things. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jitse's user page says that

Jitse is particularly interested in the stability of travelling wave solutions for systems of reaction–diffusion equations,

so I thought you may know something about those things. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, how those things come back to haunt you. How do they say that in your (adopted) country? Anything you say can and will be used against you. At least, that's what the telly teaches me, and what's on the telly must be true.

However, Euler's formula says that e^πi = −1 (note the beauty of the roman e, far superior over the italics e). A well-known theorem published in the forties in Dokl. Akad. Nauk UzSSR (what, we have no article on that, not even a stub? What a shame!) says that eπ is irrational, hence i^eπ is not real. It follows that e ≠ i, or in full, expertise is not interest. This proves that you were wrong in calling me an expert. Sprinkle smilies throughout.

Anyway, I added some stuff and I made a list of things that should be mentioned there. The list needs a bit of pruning though …

You should also write some articles. It's a nice change from wikignoming around and arguably more fun. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree that wikignoming is not that much fun. I did write three articles so far this year, however. Writing articles takes time though. It is much simpler to just check your watchlist and talk smartly on talk pages. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

positive movement at the Srebrenica article?

"reaction-diffusion"... is that when a person calms down? :)

Jitse, if you look at the recent contribs of Djma12, Gardenfli, and myself, it is looking promising. Thank you for your intervention earlier. I think it helped Djma12 decide to stick with it. Best Regards, Fairview360 03:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

proposed edit to Section 2.4 of the Srebrenica Massacre article

Jitse,

I just posted the following on the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page and am now, as a courtesy, posting this on the talk pages of frequent editors of the article. Best Regards, Fairview360 02:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors,

Please visit this version of the Srebrenica Massacre article to see the proposed changes to section 2.4: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=117151359

Please visit this site to see the proposed sub-article which the proposed section 2.4 text will be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_executions_in_the_Srebrenica_massacre

If there is no major objection, we would like to introduce this major edit to the article this Sunday March 25. This ought to give each editor the time they need to review the proposed changes before they are fully introduced.

The objective here is to make the article more concise while continuing to clearly state what happened and in no way obscure actual events.

A full review of the proposed changes to section 2.4 and the sub-article will show that all information regarding the executions has been preserved and presented in a clear manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fairview360 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

New article on Steve Omohundro

I found some new information on Steve Omohundro that was not brough up in the original AFD discussion - 17 publications and a US patent - and thought this significant enough to warrant restoring the article. After restoring it, I made enough edits that I feel it's a new article rather than a restoration (it would have been easier to start from scratch than to restore), so I have removed the CFD tag. However, I wanted to invite you to take a look at the article as you participated in the original AFD discussion. --Zippy 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Content-Control Software Edit and How to Stop IP Address Vandalism

Thanks for the content-control software edit you made at ArXiv. (And you are not the only one [5]) I had changed the word "censorware" to the "content-control software" because of numerous reasons. 1) it's less biased, as you point out in the history comment ("revert - "content-control software" is the more unbiased term", 2) censorware redirects to the content-control software page, 3) the content-control software page specifically addresses that censorware is a more biased term ("terminology battle" etc.), and 4) the Talk page discusses the topic extensively where editors agree content-control software is the better term to use.

Now I have a following of people who log in as IP addresses and make few or no other edits other than reversing anything I do for any reason whatsoever. And such people, even while having different IP addresses, originate from 2 different locations. One source is even from the American Library Association's web space at the Illinois Century Network, and the ALA views me as a person whose edits must be removed at almost any turn. Indeed many ALA-related articles would be mere advertising pages for the ALA were it not for my involvement in trying to follow wiki policy to make the pages factual, not puff pieces. One page was even word-for-word from a page on the ALA's own site. Examples of a few IP addresses whose sole goal is to reverse my edits without regard for wiki policy:

• Special:Contributions/68.21.160.32
• Special:Contributions/66.72.101.17

Since you seem to have serious wiki experience, please let me ask a question. How does one go about tracking down and isolating this behavior? In the past I would reverse these edits and once that resulted into being reported for a 3RR violation. I don't want to go through that again, hence I'm asking what can be done? Thank you very much. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another: Special:Contributions/68.21.168.169, only this brand new IP address is also changing the redirect page I never touched. On two pages, however, I did leave in the edits. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no easy solution for this. The canonical help for this is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Here are some hints that helped me:

1. Most importantly: Relax. Wait a day. It's not the end of the world.
2. Try to involve other editors. You mention a discussion on Talk:Content-control software; ask the people that commented there for support.
3. Going on to harsher measures: If editors flaunt the policies, their IP address can be blocked. Make sure you are familiar with the blocking policy and request a block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for clear cases). This is of limited value if the IP addresses change.
4. There's a feature called semi-protection which prohibits IP and new accounts from editing certain articles. If there are persistent problems at a certain article, you can ask for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Again, read the protection policy first.

Whatever you do, do stick to the policies yourself. That will help a lot when you attempt options 2, 3 and 4 of the list. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am getting help from other editors. Indeed quite a few on varying pages. Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts/User-script manager

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts/User-script manager —dgies^t_c 04:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, your script is fine, someone else just used it to import a bad one. —dgies^t_c 04:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Melbourne meetup

The fifth meetup of Melbourne Wikipedians is being planned as a breakfast meeting in the city with Jimbo Wales (at a venue to be arranged) on Friday, 27 April 2007.

Jimbo has proposed breakfast as the one real window of opportunity during his tightly scheduled stay in Melbourne. Tbe precise time has to be sorted out with Jimbo, but the arrangements for the equivalent Adelaide meetup a few days before may give a good idea.

Feel free to edit the relevant page in any way that might be helpful. I feel like a bit of an interloper, not having attended previous meetups. If there's anything you can do to help, I'll be grateful. Please think about whether you'll be able to make it, assuming the arrangements are similar to those Adelaide is adopting (i.e. a block of time with people being fairly free to arrive when it suits them). Some indication on the page of your possible participation would be really helpful. Metamagician3000 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Thanks - hope I haven't been messing up the page too much - I thought some limited feedback was useful on the page, but now I see it's not done like that. I'll go back and read the guidelines again :), regards, sbandrews (t) 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Feedback can be useful, and I didn't want to give the impression that I reverted you for that reason. However, your accusation of legal threats has graver than you perhaps realized. Per Wikipedia:No legal threats, they are ground for an indefinite block. Any mention of one-off legal threats will make the RfC listing unbalanced. Persistent threats need to be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where we will act on them. So, it was only the particular kind of feedback which prompted my reaction. Sorry for not being clearer. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, well I very much appreciate your timely intervention, and reading the guidelines was good for me, regards sbandrews (t) 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to "Percent Difference"

I know it sounds a bit odd to place this article in the Category: Numerical Analysis. But I do know for sure that this article must be in the same Category as Approximation error. If you read my article, you will see that Percent difference and Percent Error work hand in hand when comparing values in a lab environment. The only way I will succumb to your opinion is if you can convince the editors of the article Approximation error to move to another Category and then I will send my article to that respective Category. I will wait one week before changing it back to Category: Numerical Analysis to see if you have any reply.

Thanks for your input. Gilawson 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered proposing that the two articles be merged together into one? If you think that the subject matter is that intimately connected, then that would seem to be the way to go. JRSpriggs 07:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gilawson, you make a good point about both articles needing to be in the same category. What do you think of JRSpriggs' suggestion? Alternatively, we could add approximation error to Category:Measurement (or whatever category percent difference ends up in). An article can be in multiple categories. Yet another possibility is to create a new category, say Category:Quantitative error, put approximation error, percent difference, and similar articles in that category, and then put the category in both Category:Numerical analysis and Category:Measurement. All these seem better to me than putting percent difference in Category:Numerical analysis, and they reach your goal of having both articles in the same category. What do you consider to be the best way forward? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I started to think about doing that ever since I wrote to you about the category matter of combining my article with that of Approximation error. I wouldn't mind merging the topic of finding the percent difference between two measured values in with the article that discusses finding the percent error between a measured value and an accepted value. But along with doing such, I would urge that we also then have the article linked to the term "percent difference" so that if someone were to type the phrase, they would be sent to this article. Second point to make is questioning the title of that article. The equation I wrote out and the equation given in that article are called "percent difference" and "percent error" respectively, I am note sure the title "Approximation Error" describes the two correctly. The last point I need to make is the category. Percent Difference and Error are equations that study measured and theoretical values, therefore does that mean these equations belong in "Measurement"? These equations interpret the meaning of a pair of numbers, explains to the user what they are saying and gives a conclusion, this is why I thought it was appropriate to place them in "Numerical Analysis". Because these two equations are essentially analyzing two numerical values. But to be honest, I was not all that comfortable with assigning it to this category, so I am open to any suggestions. Maybe assigning these two topics to Measurement and Numerical Analysis is the right idea. Maybe we should look into the category "Data Analysis" if it exists. Gilawson 05:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If your article were merged into the other one, the normal procedure would be to leave a redirect behind where your article was. So, anyone who typed in "Percent difference" would be sent to "Percent error". JRSpriggs 07:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Peano axioms up for A-class rating

Hi Jitse. I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 17:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And again. Paul August ☎ 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Carl Runge et al.

Thanks for your kind advice. The next time, I will use the move button.

Anyway, I would have preferred to discuss the Carl/Carle mistake with other competent Wikipedians before taking action.

Secondly, and I asked this question somewhere else already, but I think it is one that should be tackled in the near future: we all know that there already is the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. A large number of (but not all) important mathematicians already have substantial, albeit sometimes anecdotal articles there. In fact the article on Felix Klein in Wikipedia is very, very, very similiar to the MacTutor one. Thus the big question is, if there really is the need for another collection of biographies in W.!

What do you think?

Finally: there was a direct link to Paschen's obituary of Runge, which you changed into a reference to this obit. Isn't the first alternative preferable?

E. H.-A. Gerbracht 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Every article has a discussion page (click on the discussion button at the top of the page), which you can you to communicate with other editors. It may happen that you get no response, especially on the more obscure topics. In that case, another possibility is to contact a so-called WikiProject. WikiProjects are groups of Wikipedians which are interested in a certain topics, and they can be very useful if you want to discuss something. The relevant projects here are WikiProject History of Science, WikiProject Mathematics and WikiProject Physics. If you like, you can join one or more of them. There is no formal process; joining basically means that you're interested in working on the topic.

The MacTutor site is very good. This reduces the need for a similar collection of biographies on Wikipedia. The reason that there are still people working on it (I suppose, I don't do much myself) is that we can do better. We have more manpower, and we can link to other articles. In fact, one criticism of MacTutor is that they don't talk that much on the actual work done by mathematicians (that's a conscious choice of their, I believe).

Regarding Paschen's obituary, thanks for correcting my misspelling. The DOI at the end of the reference leads you to the article. However, a direct link is preferable, so I added it. I removed it by mistake. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Perelman

Yes, it's pretty strange as a whole :) thanks for the notice. But I see a few rational grains there. We indeed have relatively few inf. on his study at the university in the article so far. For example, I recall reading some Russian sources where his university group mates said something like: "Grisha solved problems for a whole group during inter-university problem solving competitions" :) Maybe I'll search the web on this part of his biography some time in the future. Cmapm 17:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)