User talk:JRSpriggs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pointers:
Category:Ordinal numbers, Category:Cardinal numbers, Category:Set theory, Category:Root-finding algorithms, Category:Proof theory, Category:Mathematical logic, Category:General relativity, Category:Hyperbolic geometry,

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, User talk:MathPhys/WikiProject Relativity, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

User_talk:Oleg Alexandrov, User_talk:Jitse Niesen, User_talk:Trovatore, User_talk:Arthur Rubin, User_talk:CMummert,

ordinal number, ordinal arithmetic, large countable ordinal, ordinal notation, Constructible universe, implicational propositional calculus, harmonic coordinate condition, Peace of Westphalia, InuYasha, List of InuYasha chapters,

Resources:

• Category:Wikipedia help, control-shift-R reloads,
• Werdnabot (talk · contribs), User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto, Shadowbot3 (talk • contribs),User:Werdnabot/Archiver/PageCount,
  

http://wiki.epstone.net/werdnabot/

• Help:Displaying a formula,
• How to edit a page, Help pages, How to write a great article, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page,
• Special:Uncategorizedpages, Wikipedia:Subpages#Listing_subpages,
• Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
• edit summary, WP:LEAD, WP:MOS, Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Introductory material, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages
• Wikipedia:Missing science topics which may inspire you to create new articles
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics if you like to do clean up work.
• Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics#Logic, Category:Mathematical logic stubs
• http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/
• Python Wikipediabot Framework
• Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism,Template:TestTemplates, Help:Reverting, Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, /V, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Requests for investigation, Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

Archives:

• User talk:JRSpriggs/Archive 1

Contents 1 re Please re-semi-protect Black hole 2 Collateral damage 3 Section index code 4 Kinetic Energy 5 Sections 6 Archiving daily 7 Vandalism 8 Talk page warnings. 9 Liénard–Wiechert potential 10 About your recent messages 11 WikiProject Mathematics 12 Begriffslogik 13 response 14 Adding Categories

[edit] re Please re-semi-protect Black hole

You removed semi-protection from Black hole and now the IP vandals are attacking it again. Please restore the protection immediately. Thank you. JRSpriggs 08:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. JRSpriggs 11:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collateral damage

The collateral damage was two minor edits. Gora removed and replaced by a minimal Four War Gods entry and a pointless "Name means detection" somewhere. I'd rather have uniform spelling of a silly phallic sword, but that's just me. Why use the same unscrupulous reversal when you could just have fixed those two bits instead?--Boffob 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because YOU could have just edited those instances of the name of the sword (or perhaps undone the edit which put them in), but instead you chose to make extra work for other people to pursue your vendetta. You reap what you sow. JRSpriggs 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So much anger for so little. I'm not too familiar with undoing particular edits from way back when. I'll have to look it up. Plus it's not a vendetta, it's an obsessive compulsion for uniformity.--Boffob 05:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely the fact that you consider the work of others to be "so little" which makes me angry. Look at the upper right when you do a difference to find the "undo" button. I used it to undo your revert. JRSpriggs 06:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I did check what was getting reverted along before actually doing it because there had been a lot of edits in between, but most of them were vandalism and reverts. Out of the entire article the new material (and removed entry) really wasn't that much, so I thought this one time laziness wouldn't be a big deal (because I do avoid collateral damage almost all the time). Much later EDIT: Thanks for the undo info.--Boffob 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section index code

• Thanks for adding the "section index code" to the bot archiver on my talk page. Do I have to do anything else now, or is it pretty much automatic from here on out? Smee 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually, this is the first time that I have tried setting up a section index, so I am not sure what will happen. However, I think that the only additional action you (or I) might have to take is to manually add the section information for sections already archived before this time. Let us wait and see whether that is necessary. JRSpriggs 05:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess the best way to find out is to wait for the next archival period.. Smee 05:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, it appears that Werdnabot aborted very early in its run on 22 February 2007. So it did not get to the point of processing your talk page. We will have to wait another day. JRSpriggs 05:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kinetic Energy

Quite so, thanks for the heads up. Diagonalfish 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

I know - I don't think there is a way to tell it to start a new section above someting... so I had to decide what to chose. I think the current layout is more functional (and the bots would ignore the buttons anway, most likely). Tnx for the archival code, its useful to know.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving daily

Regarding your comment that daily archiving is undesirable because it is "wasting files". I note the guideline of Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. More importantly (since I agree with you regarding my own user talk page), the reason I was doing what I was is that I'm testing the automating of archiving of Wikipedia:Help desk, which currently has one archive per day. If you think that there should be one archive per week or month, you're welcome to comment at Wikipedia talk:Help desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I did not realize that you were experimenting for another talk page. JRSpriggs 06:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I apologize for my ignorance in the use of Wiki. --Layman1 13:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues. One is that the material you added violates WP:OR which bans original research. The other is that, even if it was permissible to put it into the encyclopedia, you put it into the wrong articles and parts of articles. JRSpriggs 08:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page warnings.

The purpose of a vandalism warning is not just to warn the vandal, but also to inform other people who are fighting against vandalism that the vandal is at a certain level of warning so that they can issue the appropriate warnings or ask to have him blocked. Removing the warnings interferes with the process of fighting vandalism and thus IS vandalism. This is absolutely, utterly wrong, and if you at some point decide to edit-war by replacing warnings on another user's talk page, you'll end up warned or blocked. Please do not do this. Warn once; if the user removes the warning, it is an acknowledgment that the warning was received, and will always remain in the page's history. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment on my talk page. IMHO, Darcy is stepping out of line. Adminship does not mean automatic respect, nor does it give one the right to arbitrarily enforce personal policies. That's what RfA is for. ;-) — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If either of you can cite a policy that justifies what you're doing, go ahead. Since you can't - because there is no such policy - if you persist in vandalizing another user's talk page, you'll be blocked. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Reverting removal of vandalism warnings by the vandal -- is it vandalism?, in order to try to get a definitive ruling from them. JRSpriggs 08:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liénard–Wiechert potential

Thanks for your minor contribution to the newly created Liénard–Wiechert potential article. I would definitely appreciate any other suggestions or comments on the content of that article. Thanks! Nimur 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About your recent messages

You are correct on the edit messages: I shall try to use better ones in the future. Thanks for the tip. However, my userbar is harmless and exists in my userspace. {Slash-|-Talk} 06:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Mathematics

As you may have noticed, your complaint rubbed me very much the wrong way. If you check my talk page, you will see that (to my knowledge) the "vanishing" bug bites rarely and unpredictably, and the first notice I get is an indignant post on my user page. Sheer joy. I can understand the reaction of someone whose post disappeared, and who assumes I deliberately censored them. But I assume you know better, and in this case it wasn't even your post. I'm baffled and disappointed that you would attack me. I'm a victim of this bug just as much as those whose posts disappear (or more so!). Furthermore, Lambiam correctly pointed out that any issues should have been raised with me privately. Do you really think I'm a sloppy, thoughtless idiot who would deliberately do such a thing or take no precautions to avoid it? I'm accustomed to responsibility where my mistakes could impact many other people, and so probably am more careful, not less, than the average editor. Were you just having a bad day and encountered one irritation too many? --KSmrq^T 20:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to remark that I agree with KSmrq that JRSpriggs's note was not stated in the right way and not at the right place. Errors resulting in text disappearing do happen (I've seen it before, with a different user). So it was right for KSmrq to get upset. Nevertheless, KSmrq's reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and especially the one above does nothing to help the situation, and actually may transform one contributor's well meaning but not-well thought out comment (which caused offense) into an outright hostile argument. Perhaps you two could just admit that you did not act in the best possible way and then stop here. How's that? :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I had justification for being upset, which is not quite the same as saying I was right. In any event, I wanted to speak more privately in case there were deeper issues, so this doesn't carry over. My post here is intended to help us move forward peacefully, not stimulate more hostility. But perhaps I did not make myself clear. --KSmrq^T 02:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make a practice (as I already do) of checking the revision history after you do an edit (or series of related edits) and correcting any adverse side effects (regardless of how or why they happen). Thank you. JRSpriggs 10:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, and apparently it works for you. You also suggested working offline. Given the way I work and what I am trying to achieve, neither of these suggestions are appealing for me. What I have been doing is this: when editing a heavily trafficked page with substantial time between initiation and commit, I bring up a fresh copy of the page to be sure the section I am editing has not changed in the interim.

What I still do not understand is, why the personalization, and why the publicity? If you care to say. --KSmrq^T 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Begriffslogik

Hello, I am from the german wikipedia and I am interested in the article deduction theorem and its application in Peirce's law (the proof in the shape of a tree), because I intend to write in the German wikipedia an article about a kind of Schroderlike term logic. Unfortunately my facilities are the weakest and I just wanted to ask if you are interested in this topic here too. There is only one German source (probably you can check it because its an a boolean lattice order (Algebra) which was added a deduction theorem): Begriffslogik. It is further specified by some other rules (individuals), most important the judgment rule ( A=(A=1) ) which allows comparison with predicate logic. If you are not interested, do you know here someone who is interested in writing such an article here too? Unfortunately, User:Jon Awbrey is banned (I think finally for a good reason) who contributed a lot (nonsense too?). The discussions here (de) are somewhat strange too. But I read the English articles and appreciate them. Cheers -- de:Benutzer:Roomsixhu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.187.47.123 (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, my knowledge of German is too weak to allow me to make sense of your source "Begriffslogik". I have not worked with logics which use diagrams as proofs. If you want to see the kind of logic I personally use, see implicational propositional calculus which I created. Other than Jon Awbrey, I do not know anyone else here who is especially interested in propositional calculus. You could look at Talk:Propositional calculus and contact the people who left messages there. JRSpriggs 06:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you I, will look up there. The Venndiagramms and the so called Freytag Line-calculus are only two expressions of the calculus. Also there is an Schroder like algebraic modern form with these axioms you probaly know already and a deduction theorem (in the middle of the page) and for other purpuses some other rules. This calculus uses as term logic, to put it in a nutshell, less conditions (asumptions for the calculus, prerequesites, presuposes less, I do not know how to translate german "Voraussetzung") than predicate logic. Cheers! --de:Benutzer:Roomsixhu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.187.55.111 (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] response

Dear JRSpriggs,

Sorry about that. For some reason my Firefox browser doesn't render the entire body of text when i click "edit this page" -- i almost accidentally deleted some of your profile too. Ie7 works though. i am new on wikipedia and didn't realize there are so many rules and technicalities.

Thanks, Trvce

[edit] Adding Categories

I haven't been vandalizing articles, I've only been adding categories that seem appropriate for them. The reason why I put the category "Centipedes" for Mistress Centipede is because there aren't any categories for "Fictional centipedes" otherwise I would have put it under there. I did something similar for Myoga's article since there weren't any for "fictional fleas", and I went back and fixed that article too. If I've deleted any categories from the Inuyasha-related articles it's either because the category is dead or that the article itself already falls into a category WITHIN that category. If there is any trouble, please calmly inform me of the matter at hand and I will try to fix it. Unknown Dragon 11:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)