User talk:Milogardner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello; Here is the boiler-plate welcome message, which includes some useful links:

Welcome!

Hello, Milogardner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, 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! 

Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to post on my talk page, but more people will see it if you use the article talk page. Also, if you want to prepare a draft you can make a subpage in your user space, like User:Milogardner/sandtable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Created a user page for you 2 Egyptian fraction 3 Akhmim Wooden Tablet 4 Copyright issue with Akhmim Wooden Tablet 5 Hekat 6 Archibald Gardner

[edit] Created a user page for you

Hi Milo! I created a very simple user page, at your request. Edit and change it to include some information about you if you want. Look at some other people's user pages for examples. Some people include a link to their personal website. It is generally advised to not include your email address. (There is some official policy on what can go in user pages but I can't find it right now). EdJohnston 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for setting up my talk pape. I'll have to find the the best spot to list my latest blog, a rough set of info - at the present time:

http://liberabaci.blogspot.com

To generally introduce myself, a short bio is found at the end of the following blog:

http://egyptianmath.blogspot.com

For now, back to updating the Liber Abaci, and Sigler's comments.

Milogardner 12:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian fraction

Two encyclopedic sources have been added. Thanks for the heads up. Milogardner 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Akhmim Wooden Tablet

Someone tagged this article for speedy deletion due to lack of context. I fleshed it out a bit based on the MathWorld entry. Two comments:

• To avoid having new articles speedy-tagged and deleted, don't create them in mainspace until they're substantive enough to stand alone. Promising to expand it in the edit summary isn't enough. You can create drafts in your userspace, eg. User:Milogardner/Ahkmim Wooden Tablet, if you want to work on the article before it's ready for mainspace.
• I'm admittedly not knowledgeable about this topic, but having done a quick google search, I wasn't able to find any obvious reference that didn't trace back to you. Quite possibly because people don't post these things on the internet much. It would help if you would provide an academic, scholarly work that discusses this tablet and the interpretation presented at MathWorld.

Thanks! Opabinia regalis 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Milo. Some of the recent material you've posted, eg Akhmim Wooden Tablet, Reisner Papyrus, etc., is largely republication of content you've posted on your blogs. While the material is interesting, it appears to be substantially your original work, as also implied by the message you left me. You have probably seen the Wikipedia:No original research policy, which prevents us from publishing novel content, even if the scholarship itself is sound. In these articles on ancient documents, are the interpretations your own, or are you reporting and summarizing the conclusions of a published source? If the latter, you will need to include the complete biblographical information of the source you are working from. Please read up on Wikipedia formatting - see Help:Editing for basic details, or if you're already aware of this, please start using it when you create new articles.

As a secondary point, new messages are posted on users' talk pages. You posted your message at User:Opabinia regalis, when you wanted User talk:Opabinia regalis. Opabinia regalis 01:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. To answer your question, I don't know anything about this particular subject, so I'm not in a position to be complaining about anyone's inconsistencies relating to it. However, it is not our place to correct 'scholarly inconsistencies', even if we think they're obviously problematic. I'm not sure what you mean by "this linking up of documents"; could you explain? It seems likely that, if it really is "a step others have not attempted", we shouldn't be doing it either.

BTW, it's also fine to reply here rather than on my talk page; it's usually easier for others joining the conversation to catch up if the whole thread is in one place. Opabinia regalis 02:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly inconsistencies are common when almost any subject is allowed, without footnote or justification, to wander back 80- 120 years, at ease, as if no progress had taken place in the interium, as if scholarly books had been randomly picked off a library shelf. This random book situation sadly has existed in several Wikipedia Egyptian mathematics discussions, before linkages began to improve the outdated reporting of the Middle Kingdom math texts. Early scholarly discussions (before 1927) had stressed minimalist additive views. That is, the math texts were almost never read beyond an additive context, even when large segments of texts could not be otherwise deciphered.

A major change took place after the turn of the century. Beginning in 2002 The Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll, the Akhmim Wooden Tablet (Hana Vymazalova), and the medical text hekat subunits (over 2,000 pieces of data) began to be read. The hekat sub-units were read by Tanja Pemmerening without error, correcting 100 years of confusion. The updated AWT and medical text methods and facts were first reported in independent 2002 masters, and then two 2005 PhD thesis (Vymazova, Pemmerening). The same class of major change continues to update the scope and content of Egyptian mathematics, re-connecting the highest hekat weights and measures, from which the medical texts created dja and other subunits were connected, to the parent Akhmim Wooden Tablet and its vivid remainder arithmetic (that had been oddly unreported 1927).

In conclusion, it is time for Wikipedia Egyptian fraction and other ancient Egyptian math topics to be fairly recognized, by their post-2001 scholary papers. Yes, I see the past confusion of Wikipedia topics being corrected by being directed to the a wider range of Middle Kingdom texts.

The RMP is an excellent case in point. At least four texts 200-350 years older, and each was used to draft identifiable RMP problems, possibly 50 of Ahmes' 84 problems. The 2/nth table can now be read as many had hoped to read in 1927 (Chace et al), if only by linking EMLR, AWT, MMP and the Reisner Papyri and dryly reporting each text's contents, and so forth. Milogardner 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If these articles reflect recent scholarship, that's great (assuming these PhD theses were done under the supervision of other reliable people), and it's great that you're updating and adding to a little-edited area. But in order for readers to get anything out of them, you really should wikify them, add internal links, and add formatted references in a separate references section. Just at first glance at the current state of the AWT article, I have no idea what a 'hekat' is, besides 'an Egyptian unit of measure', or who 'Peet' is at first mention, and the comments about Daressy 'getting confused' sound POV without clearer citation. Opabinia regalis 02:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. Wikifying the various Egyptian math links is important. Easy to read reviews of confusing topic is a proper complaint. For example, the hekat volume unit is found by the squaring the circle, defined in the MMP, but not clearly defined elsewhere. Mentioning the hekat as a volume unit elsewhere is a great idea as well. This type of clear Wikifying definition, and your other linking suggestions will be followed. Thanks. Milogardner 14:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue with Akhmim Wooden Tablet

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Akhmim Wooden Tablet, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://akhmimwoodentablet.blogspot.com/. As a copyright violation, Akhmim Wooden Tablet appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Akhmim Wooden Tablet has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Akhmim Wooden Tablet. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Akhmim Wooden Tablet, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Philippe Beaudette 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This topic began as a copy of the blog, owned by myself, hence the Wikipedia information has recieved proper approval. In any case, a Wikifying of the info is taking place, introducing links and other text changes that are quickly diverging from the original blos. In a few weeks I may not even recognize my own blog writing appearing in this Wikipedia topic. Thanks for the 'heads up'. Milogardner 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the pain with that article - I know that one's been trouble for you. I'm sure you understand that Wikipedia is, perhaps, over-cautious about copyright and intellectual property. As long as you carefully credit the original author (even when it's yourself) and show how it's fair use of the information, you're usually okay. You might check out WP:Copyright for more information. Thanks for your willingness to work through this, and for the great information you're adding! Philippe Beaudette 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hekat

Hey Milo. I had wiki-linked hekat (go ahead, click it), you'll see that the "Hekat" article has nothing to do with the hekat you're talking about. So I removed the "[[ ]]" and said "wrong kind of hekat". Since there is no article about the unit of measurement "hekat", I had suggested that you consider creating one. I would help, but i'm math-retarded. -Taco325i 15:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

hey did you read this yet? we are talking about different things. you're talking about something substantive, i'm talking about the formatting of the article. -Taco325i

I see what you mean. I'll look into the subject. Thanks, Milogardner 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You can click on this, and begin editing: hekat (volume unit). Is that what it is? a volume unit? I have no idea. But you get the idea... -Taco325i 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

you're becoming a wikipro. Ok, when you make a link for [[hekat (volume unit)]], try doing this [[hekat (volume unit)|hekat]]. the first part is the name of the article, and the second part is what shows when you're reading it. -Taco325i 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ok i fixed the hekat article. -Taco325i 21:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archibald Gardner

FYI, if I'm not mistaken, the anon editor who has been working on this article is also a member of the LDS project group here. When he was here some months ago, he worked frequently with me and several other LDS editors. So, I recognize his editing pattern and style. He is working anonymously, I believe, because the last time he worked heavily on a series of LDS articles he ran into several rabid editors who reverted him constantly, abused him personally, and generally made his life miserable. So........ now that he is back, I would hope we would all encourage him to edit. He is a responsible editor, well versed in some aspects of Wiki protocol, and has particular skills in lists, reference materials and formatting. His edits on this article may not be entirely to your liking, but I believe they have value. Please do not discount them or ignore them. I would encourage you to review the edits carefully and incorporate some suggestions or structural ideas. I will look over his work as well and perhaps do the same. By the way, I lived less than 3 miles from one of Archibald's mills for several years. Best wishes. WBardwin 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. My aunt Zella left Spanish Fork in 1906, for Orange County, California, after the second manifesto. Archibald's son, Cy, my grandfather Rea, my father, left Spanish Fork in the early 1920's tO clear land for growing Orange tress, as Robert, William and Archibald had cleared land by hand for farming 100 years earlier.

Your group's anonymous editor is too sensitive. Thin skinned Wikipedia editors needd to get over it, and allow everyone their say! Even though I have two brothers that live in Utah, Bountriful and Logan, four other brothers lived their lives in California. Utah LDS history takes a different slant, myopic to my analysis, than do California historians. My great uncle William founded Odgen and Cache Valley, and is not fully recognizee since he only stayed a few years in each location.

That is, Archibald traveled widely, Canada, Utah, Wyoming and other places, and should not be thought of as only a Utah LDS pioneer. Your anonymous editor seems not to see beyond Utah's borders, a common fault seen in every Deseret Book store - with its shelves filled with Utah Pioneer history, and bare for other states, especially California, reached and settled before Brigham Young reached Utah. Milogardner

Well! I can see why the anon editor thought you were defending your turf! Your group's anonymous editor is too sensitive.....Thin skinned ....get over it, and allow everyone their say! I'm glad that you ...will continue to accept anyone's editorial comments and additions to Archibald's life. Please, remember that the Wiki article is not yours. All interested parties, including our anon editor (who, if I am not mistaken, shares your last name), are free to work on the article as they wish. Rejecting and reverting honorable edits, yes, even anon's, submitted with good intentions, is generally perceived as aggressive and territorial. As time permits, I will look over the article, edit and add my bit, as appropriate. Others will as well. I would encourage you to take all honest edits in good faith. Please. Best........... WBardwin 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the content of the article, you might take a look at related established Wiki policies - Wikipedia:List of policies. My concerns about the article, including those personality details, are probably covered in Wikipedia:No original research which is a firm Wiki policy. Material without some published source, somewhere, is simply considered inapproriate for the Wiki. So, unless your family material has been formally published, you should trim those personal details.

Best to you. WBardwin 04:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Archibald's story lines are well documented, published in Deliah's book, and other places. That is, you seem to be taking Johnathn's side before any evidence is provided - that he had acted improperlly - destroying vital information without cause, which I have humbly requested that he return. Milogardner

Archibald could very well be all that you wrote on my talk page and still not be a proper encyclopedia topic. "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,⁶ and independent of the subject." Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Primary criterion

The references on the page do not appear to be intellectually independent or indpendent of the subject. But even more harmful, IMHO, is your apparent conflict of interest and behavior. You resist edits from other authors and show a propensity to "own" the article.

Frankly, your behaviour and the inability to provide some independent sources are doing much more to convince me that we don't need an article on Archibald than any argument that WBardwin has made. --Trödel 00:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I suggest you review an article like Frances Oldham Kelsey, which is another person who does not have a "book" written about her. But for which there are significant secondary sources that provide the basis for her article. Here is a quick analysis of the sources provided for Archibald Gardner: Talk:Archibald Gardner#Sources.

In my opinion by relying on the sources you have you are doing your ancestor a disservice, especially since a quick search on Google Books reveals sources that could meet the criteria:

• Hughes, Delia G. Life of Archibald Gardner. American Fork, Alpine Publishing Company, 1939.
• Carter, Kate B. and Daughters of Utah Pioneers. Treasures of Pioneer History. Daughters of Utah Pioneers, 1952. (this may just be a reprint of primary sources.
• Warrum, Noble; Morse, Charles W.; and Ewing, W. Brown Utah Since Statehood: Historical and Biographical. The S. J. Clarke publishing company, 1920.

The key is some kind of process between writing and publishing. The more the reference has a process by which the writing is reviewed the better. Or as the policy says, "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions." See WP:ATT#Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources.

Additionally, the tone of the article should be encylopedic as described by a disinterested 3rd party, it has gotten better over time. This doesn't mean that it has to be bland writing but it should be be in a formal, understandable tone. See WP:TONE --Trödel 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)