User talk:CSTAR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• User talk:CSTAR/archive1
• User talk:CSTAR/archive2

Hi CSTAR, in your article of Karhunen-Loève theorem, there are no historical facts at all. When was the theorem formulated? Is that true that motivation for it came from studying stock market as a stochastic process? (There is no historical data in Karhunen-Loève transform article either). Thanks, Alex -- talk 06:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi CSTAR, are you an admin? If you are I'd like to request semi-protection for talk:Afshar experiment. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

May I also request protection for physics? See physics/wip for reasons.--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Image:IMG 0073.JPG listed for deletion 2 Image:IMG 0053.JPG listed for deletion 3 What if you threw an RfC and nobody came? 4 group C*-algebras 5 Probability-based strategy AfD 6 Slippery Slope 7 Thank you for your comments. 8 Questionable Etiquette 9 Vandal Xmaspresent impersonating Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington 10 Your non-block of user Ramdrake after his violating 3RR 11 Image:Circuit-composition.jpg 12 User:Aminz 13 Was 3RR notice defective? 14 3RR warning 15 Re: Mediation 16 Anonymous user 17 3RR 18 33r = 19 Question 20 Request for assistance 21 3RR 22 minor issue 23 Censorship in Portugal 24 Survey Invitation 25 Cayley transform 26 inner product space lead 27 Thanks 28 Archimedes Plutonium 29 Congratulations

[edit] Image:IMG 0073.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG 0073.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IMG 0053.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG 0053.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] What if you threw an RfC and nobody came?

Any suggestions what to do about the V&C dispute on Cole? Nobody has responded to the RfC I posted, and nobody on the V&C page seems to have an opinion other than Armon and myself. It seems like a minor issue that should be easily resolved, but it has brought work on that page to a complete halt. Do you have an opinion on the matter? Is it nuts to think that third hand speculation is not encyclopedic?--csloat 00:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it nuts, but there's a limit to the amount of lawyering I'm willing to engage in. Every sentence seems to require extensive discussions on policy.--CSTAR 01:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem with an article being hijacked by editors who refuse to follow BLP but who have way more free time than the rest of us. Might as well just call the article "Armon's and Isarigs views of Coles Views and controversies" at this point.--csloat 10:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] group C*-algebras

"It would be nice to have a better article on group C*-algebra that relates the dual of a LC group to that of its corresponding group C*-algebra,..."

This stuff is a bit technical, so I'll first have to track down a copy of Dixmier.

"I would help out, but I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with WP."

You could adopt my solution: only edit articles too obscure for vandals/cranks/idiots to have heard of. R.e.b. 22:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, doesn't always work.--CSTAR 00:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Probability-based strategy AfD

Just a note to let you know that I have nominated the article you have edited, or expressed interest in, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probability-based strategy Pete.Hurd 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slippery Slope

Was it so bad? Unenecyclopedic? I think it illustrated the section nicely. - crz crztalk 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use the word "unencyclopedic", (whatever that means). I did say that including a picture of Voloch was not justified by the relation between Eugene Voloch and the slippery slope. If anything maybe a picture of a slippery slope (perhaps a snowy slope on a wintry day) or of a camel's nose inside a tent.--CSTAR 15:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your comments.

In the future to avoid such misunderstandings I'll make a note of the policy I'm following and the wiki page that shows its okay. Cheers.Wowaconia 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable Etiquette

Hey I posted this on the Ellison talk page. Please stop this interweaving practice it seems unfair-

I would like the reader to note that the comments of CSTAR in this thread began to be posted above interweaved with Elzmir comments beginning at 23:14 16 December 2006. My response that were once below Elzmir’s response and are now below this box were posted before that at 23:05, 16 December 2006. So while it may appear that I just ignored the conversation CSTAR and Elzmir had, in actuality those comments were not there when I posted my response and CSTAR post makes no mention of them. While this is perhaps not a violation of the letter of Wikipedia:Etiquette that states:

“Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow.” I do think its a violation of the spirit of that standard.

In response to an old post by Elzmir that said “Also, details about his advocacy work have been taken out the the lead. Why?” The CSTAR “23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)” post said “I agree, it's perfectly legitimate to include this and frankly don't see why this would be a problem.”

I fail to understand how it was appropriate to place a comment there instead of after my post that was already on the page at 23:05 that address that subject saying “I specifically remember looking at your [Elzmir’s] edit that said “Since law school, Ellison has been active in advocacy with Islamic groups” and thinking wow that’s total OR there’s no one even claiming he was involved with Islamic groups between 1998 and his 2006 association with CAIR” If CSTAR thinks the inclusion of this is “perfectly legitimate” why not discuss with me why its not Original research instead of ignoring the post.

Again my main point being I didn’t ignore CSTAR and Elzmir’s posting CSTAR ignored mine and Elzmir (who is not at fault) just responded to CSTAR’s questionable placement.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wowaconia (talk • contribs).

Interleaving comments may not be the best practice, I agree, and as a matter of fact, I generally try to avoid it. Nonetheless, despite recommendations to the contrary, it is a very common practice on Wikipedia, and I doubt it will disappear any time soon. I will try more arduously to avoid it myself, in the future--CSTAR 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is a problem with something I did or not. I had rasied three issues with the POV of the Ellison article, CSTAR had replied and I had replied to CSTAR. Please let me know if there is a problem. Elizmr 00:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Wowaconia was objecting to my interleaving responses in your posting.--CSTAR 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Xmaspresent impersonating Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Dick 06:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xmaspresent (talk • contribs).

Thank you for blocking him - it appears to have also been User:Santa06; some sort of IP block or other anti-sockpuppet measures might be necessary. Argyriou (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your non-block of user Ramdrake after his violating 3RR

Frankly, it is very hard for me to see how you find that his reverts "strictly speaking aren't reverts". I have detailed on the noticeboard that they plainly are reverts. I ask you to review your decision, or at least accept that it was a mistake.

David Olivier 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR report that you filed listed four edits and 5 states of the article. (4 states resulting from edits by the user in question and the reverted to "baseline" version).

1. The diff between the reverted to version (18:16 Dec 26) and the version after the 1st revert (18:18 Dec 26) is [1]. Therefore these are not identical versions.
2. The diff between the version (18:18 Dec 26) and the version after the 2ndrevert (18:39 Dec 26) is [2] Therefore these are not identical versions.
3. The diff between the version (18:39 Dec 26) and the version after the 3rd revert (20:01 Dec 26) is [3] Therefore these are not identical versions.
4. The diff between the version (20:01 Dec 26) and the version after the 4th revert (20:11 Dec 26) is [4]. This is plainly a revert.

So in your report , there is 1 action which is plainly a revert and three that are not clearly seen as reports from your original filing. It's possible that these are complex reverts, that is reverts which do not return to the page to the same previous version in all cases. If such is the case, it is not the responsibility of the deciding admin to find it. It is your responsability to state it. --CSTAR 01:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

True, they do not return to the same initial state. The 3RR violation reporting form is rather difficult to understand on this count. Look, I'll give it another way:

Edit 1: Edit by Ramdrake reverts the preceeding edit by olivierd.

Edit 2: Edit by Ramdrake reverts before-last edit by olivierd. It does not revert an intervening edit by olivierd.

Edit 3: Edit by Ramdrake reverts the two preceeding edits by benio76.

Edit 4: You have already recognized it is plainly a revert.

If that is not enough, I really don't see how to spell it out more clearly.

You have juged that they were not reverts, while they in fact were. This is letting one party a free hand in an ongoing edit war. Wikipedia is not supposed to work that way.

David Olivier 01:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK this is a complex revert; the initial3RR report was not stated to make this evident. I will reverse my earlier decision.--CSTAR 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it in detail and with a fresh eye. David Olivier 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Circuit-composition.jpg

Hi CSTAR, I have just been doing some jpeg to svg conversins, and have created a new version of Image:Circuit-composition.jpg which is used in Quantum circuit, the new version being Image:Reversible circuit composition.svg. However I can't work out if the change in colour of the connectors is significant or not, could you help? tooto 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They look the same to me. --CSTAR 07:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aminz

Hi, in the light of our previous discussion regarding this user, I'm drawing your attention to his continuing edit warring on Antisemitism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Beit Or 11:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked this user for 24 hrs.--CSTAR 15:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please check your emails. --Aminz 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I did.--CSTAR 09:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was 3RR notice defective?

I filed this. There has been no result, and it seems that the admins are working further down the list. Was it just a "no block" situation, or did I do something wrong? Thanks. Jd2718 07:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No.--CSTAR 09:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Please avoid edit warring, that is repeated reverting. Note that WP:3RR doesn't say you are entitled to 3 reverts. Use the talk page to discuss differences. In the end, it's better for your health.--CSTAR 06:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear CSTAR, please advise me what to do instead! As the other party involved has started the revert warring and indeed has a pattern in this behavior. I completely agree with the 3RR rule and its spirit, but what can I do if the reverters do not discuss? I am trying to neutralize an inflammatory POV article, please take a look at the issue at hand Anti-Brahminism and tell me what to do. I have opened an RfC. I am getting ready to jump off Wikipedia, it's not working with people playing the system to push their POV. Gschadow 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly an improvement to ask for advice. However, I have absolutely no understanding of what the issues in this particular case. Administrative actions such as blocking are taken by consideration of broad indicators of behavior and rarely consideration of content issues. The first step is to outline your issues on the talk page. It's might be best to pick one section and point out what you see as flaws rather than address the whole article.--CSTAR 06:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This had been done in the past. You do see that I was discussing my edits, but the person starting the revert-war did not. I realize you have not much time, but if you look you will also see that I have been consulting other senior editors in what to do (BorgQueen). I want to be a good citizen. I hope you pay attention to Rumpelstilsken's personal attacks also. Just because he is quick in accusing others should not relieve him of the same scrutiny. Thank you. Gschadow 06:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I just did. If you post to Administrator's noticeboard, I will send a warning.--CSTAR 06:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am aware of this discussion. This user refused to discuss with me completely. if you will look at the talk page of Talk:Anti-Brahmanism you will clearly see that all he did was vanity-post some statements, then immediately proceed to revert-war without any concrete discussion, all this despite my attempts to explain wikipedia rules like WP:POINT (which he keeps violating) and [[WP:RS}] where he needs to cite sources for his edits, which he has done precisely zero times (he has reverted sourced statements put there by ME,like his second last edit before this post). He needs to post in the Talk page, wait for an answer and then discuss until mutual consensus is achieved. He has engaged in bullying tactics and POV pushing and is now subverting the facts to push HIS POV. Perhaps you should explain this procedure to him, which has been done by thousands of users on wikipedia with productive results. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Rumpelstiltskin223: Consider this comment of yours on the talk page. There are certainly other issues involved in this article, but referring to someone's comments in this way does not conform to WP:CIVIL.--CSTAR 16:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Gschadow: Consider this comment of yours on the talk page. This does not conform to WP:POINT.--CSTAR 16:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer: I apologize to the Wikipedia community and will not do it any more. However, I am still clueless what to do in cases like this. The result is that those who revert without discussion will always prevail, and their aggressive POV pushing thus will always prevail on the fringes of Wikipedia. Should I, then, after the first revert (without the reverter engaging in the discussion) open an RfC case? If you look at this article, there is a lot of reverting and rogue editing going on, but hardly any discussion. And most discussion on these things end up in flame war disasters. Is there a guideline by cool-headed Wikipedians how to deal with extremist POV clashes on political/religious matters? I'm genuinely seeking advice. Thank you. Gschadow 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mediation

No problem - I have not doubt that you were acting in good faith. Martinp23 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous user

The anonymous user in the Salvador Allende article is still vandalizing articles and making personal attacks. See Talk:New Left and Talk:Left-wing politics. He is calling himself Urgel Bogend there. I don't know how this could be stopped when he is constantly changing IP address. Maybe one solution would be to report abuse to his Internet provider? Vints 09:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting very serious. Report it to the incidents page. We should revert and ban on sight.--CSTAR 15:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I reported it to WP:AN/I just now. Vints 18:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I stopped short of reverting 4 times so am clearly not in violation of 3RR. I am in Central America whereas the anon is a London based ip so it couldnt be me. Personally an official warning would probably be better in this case or a very short block as he didnt seem to fully understand my message, not being an English speaker, SqueakBox 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The newbie anon has reverted 4 times but I only warned him after the 4th time, so tricky case, maybe best not to block unless the situation spurts up againa s I appreciate you dont want to take sides, SqueakBox 01:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll take your word for it, although on looking at the record I did count what seemed to me to be reverts by you on Jan 12 at 00:13, 00:16, 00:17 and 00:24 (UT) (these are ahead of your times). --CSTAR 01:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure I didnt, definitely not knowingly. Perhaps semi protection? as it hasnt calmed down yet, SqueakBox 01:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 33r =

Had you read the facts at Argentine Navy history ? Jor70 03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi CSAR, you around? I have a question for you regarding [5] and what to do about continued reverts after his block expired. Would appreciate guidance. Caper13 06:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I did offer to find a different source as you suggested but it would appear that part of his problem is that he feels Saddam was the victim of a brutal demonization campaign and any source which calls Saddam a dictator or repressive, he rejects (and lest you think I am exaggerating, here is the edit he just made [6]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caper13 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Is there much doubt that Saddam was a dictator? I'm sure you can find support for this assertion in just about any publication of the political right, left or center anywhere where there's a reasonably free press. Try some foreign language dailies from South America or Europe as sources.--CSTAR 06:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No of course there is no trouble finding an alternate source. The problem is that he completely rejects the notion that Saddam was a dictator, so if a publication says he was it must be biased and cant be used. I guess my main question here is whether his coming off block and his first edit is to go and revert my comment again before without replying to my offer of compromise I left on this talk page while he was blocked, would that be considered a bad faith revert and a continuation of the edit war he was blocked for, or should I just go and revert back my edit and source. As 3RR policy says, it is not a license to revert three times, it is an electric fence. I have spent the last week debating with the guy to no avail. He wont budge on this and just reverts. Other people have joined in the debate, and he has absolutely no support for his position, but he continues to revert and add pro saddam POV like the link I included above. Can something be done, or should we just revert him and let him hit 3RR again? Caper13 06:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose an RfC. --CSTAR 15:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Caper13 18:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for assistance

Could you possibly help again re: the violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks that have been restored in the page that you examined yesterday? The section that I want deleted again (which apparently citing "as per CSTAR" was deleted yesterday) is in [[7]]. If you click on my link to Wikipedia Etiquette notice that I posted yesterday, you will find my updated complaint at [8]. As I say there, I think that the offending party(ies) need(s) to be warned and/or blocked. They are clearly violating Wikipedia's guidelines on "no personal attacks" anywhere in Wikipedia. Thank you very much. Please reply on my talk page if you can help. --NYScholar 01:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please assist: see the material now archived by the user in his talk page archives at [9]; see updated reply in: [10]. This is not acceptable behavior: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Wikipedia:NPA guidelines allow users to delete such material when they come across it. The user here in question--Morton_devonshire--can delete the material from his own talk page (not archive it for posterity!). Moreover, an administrator can delete all vestiges of the material from the history of his talk page and the history of his talk page archive, so that no links will resolve to it in Wikipedia evermore. Thank you.--NYScholar 04:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I copied your comment on his current talk page to his archived talk page 7 and deleted the offensive personal attack material posted (he says) by the anonymous IP (to which he replied and which he had left in his talk page and then archived to page 7). That is not to be tolerated. I was not going to comment on his talk page again, but, given the guideline allowing people to remove personal attacks when they encounter them, I have done so. Your own warning made clear that that was what you intended him to do. He did not do it. He took "talk page" to refer to his current talk page and archived it to a past talk page to get around your warning. That is pure deceptive behavior and also not to be tolerated. I removed the intolerable material, and I feel that it is right to have done so. If you disagree, please let me know on my talk page. This has been going on now for two days, and that is just too long.--NYScholar 05:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to help; unfortunately, despite your warning about administrative deletion and your request that he delete the offensive material himself, he once again has restored it--see Nope--after first moving it all to his talk page archive 7. I am sorry to bother you again with this, but I do request that you please take appropriate action by deleting the passages entirely from his talk page (as you have asked him to do) and deleting all those passages also and the personal attacks in the editing history summary and editing histories of all his talk pages (current and archived) as well. Thank you.

At this point, it appears to me that he deserves to be blocked for a considerable amount of time and perhaps banned from Wikipedia editing. If you don't have time to deal with this problem any further, please refer the violations of W:NPA to another administrator for further assistance. What this user, his possible and his friends and/or their sock-puppets are attempting to do is highly offensive to another user and also to the community of Wikipedia users all over the world. He sets an extremely negative example in purposefully (not unintentionally) violating W:NPA and basic W:Etiquette. --NYScholar 07:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, he has gone even further and deleted your (CSTAR's) multiple warnings from both his current talk page and his archived talk page 7; that is also against Wikipedia talk page guidelines. --NYScholar 07:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, please do the following:

1. Please provide a diff of the original insertions offending passages into the talk page.
2. Please provide a diff of the reinsertion.

--CSTAR 17:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The material was removed by Morton devonshire. Also, I apologize for posting it in the first place. I did try to remove it afterwards ("per CSTAR") but was reverted. I worry a bit about the Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid article though -- NYScholar and Morton Devonshire seem to play off each other in a bad way, it sometimes appears as if it is going to lead to significant problems because there isn't a moderating individual, but maybe that is just the way things are on these types of contentious articles. --70.48.240.99 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hi, I would like you to please block the user Nationalist because he/she violated the 3RR. In his POV, Taiwan is part of the ROC which is true. However, I think putting Taiwan would be more appropriate. 1st of all, the ROC is known as Taiwan, and we should always put the common names in Wikipedia. 2nd, if this user like the ROC that much, in the article Taiwan, it says that it is governed by the ROC anyways. 3rd, Most, more than 55% of the people living in the ROC refer themselves as Taiwanese and not Chinese. 4th, putting ROC would confuse people because they would not know the difference between ROC and PRC. In conclusion I think you should block this user for violating 3RR, and I warned him in advance too. See the history in Guantian, Tainan, please. He/She also edited the other townships too. Thank you.--Jerrypp772000 16:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found out how to do it myself.--Jerrypp772000 03:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] minor issue

Hi CSTAR, I have choosen to not use a formal account. If my offering of opinion and sources on a talk page results in disruption because it draws uncalled for sock accusations I will simply move on. There is no need to defend me, if one is warranted I am quite capable of doing so myself. Best. --70.48.68.62 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not defending "you"; I was defending the principle of WP:AGF.--CSTAR 17:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship in Portugal

Hi there, I noticed you made some changes to the article I have been translating and I thank you for cooperation. However, you changed vetted to rejected in the case of José Saramago and this is incorrect, Souza Lara had the fina say on the applications from Portugal and he used his power of veto to block Saramago's bock, hence, he vetted it. Also, I am aware that the comment on lobbying is not on the original Portuguese version, and I included it for clarity, as many English-speaking readers (Americans) would not understand why are lobbies refered here, since they are perfectly legal in the US. Galf 18:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The portuguese version clearly says "veto" meaning as ypu say to block; it seems to me that the sense of "vet" as ordinarily used in English does not necessarily entail rejection.--CSTAR 18:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I knew there was a good reason for not reverting other people's work. :-) do you think "Vetoed" would be more clear? This is the reason why I asked for native speaker to help, but can we have this discussion on the article's talk instead? Galf 09:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The broadcast of Humor de Predição was suspended by the RTP's managment, against Herman's wishes. Maybe the translation isn't very clear on it, but he was effectively taken off the air. I think your edit doesn't make it any more clear than it was. Galf 15:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I reworded it, I realized that it suffered from "lusocentrism" :-) have a look and let me know if it makes more sense now, or just change it yourself.Galf 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

[edit] Cayley transform

According to the page history, you created Cayley transform, which I needed to revise. The major change is to begin with Cayley's original definition, which is a mapping of matrices. This is the definition I need covered, and still an important use of the term. The seminal paper would seem to be "On some properties of skew determinants"

• Cayley, Arthur (1846), "Sur quelques propriétés des déterminants gauches", Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik (Crelle's Journal), 32: 119–123

(You won't see any explicit matrices, because Cayley was still a decade away from introducing them!) For your convenience, you can find a digitized scan of Cayley's collected works at the Internet Archive; this is entry 52 in volume 1, pages 332–336.

My question for you is about the Rudin reference. I don't have a copy handy to see if there is a problem in continuing to cite it, and I thought you might also wish to check to see if the definition really appears there (I find it in neither the contents nor index pages I can see at Amazon.com). If so, a page or section number might be helpful; if not, perhaps you would be willing to supply another reference. Although I can find plenty of examples of this use online, none seem like ideal references. I had hoped Ahlfors might oblige, but alas, no. --KSmrq^T 21:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're right it doesn't appear there; I put Rudin in there becuase is a thorough discussion of linear fractional transformations of which the (planar) Cayley transform is a special case. I'll look for a reference in the library in the next day or so.--CSTAR 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten....--CSTAR 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think so. This section mysteriously disappeared in an edit with my name on it, along with a remark I added. That wasn't my idea, nor apparently yours.

If I recall, what I said was: There is a reference on MathWorld that I don't have to check, negates everyone else (or is misused), and seems unreliable. I made disparaging remarks about the idiots who go around slapping {{fact}} tags into articles with no experience in the hard work of researching an article and finding good (authoritative, appealing, available) references. And I concluded that my reward in this research was reading Cayley; especially, I was stunned to see how much was included in his paper that introduced the algebra of matrices, including the Cayley–Hamilton theorem! --KSmrq^T 06:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The following is a reference in which Cayley mapping and Cayley transform are used to denote the linear fractional transformation

• Reinholdt Remmert, Theory of Complex Functions, Springer, 1991.
• P 82 (where most of the discussion occurs) it is referred to as Cayley mapping
• p 275 the same mapping is called Cayley transform.

--CSTAR 01:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged; I have updated the article accordingly. --KSmrq^T 15:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] inner product space lead

Hi there, while I appreciate and support your efforts to make the lead to inner product space more readable, "normalized angle" that you have inserted does not make sense either mathematically or intuitively. Can you think of a different wording? Arcfrk 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it's meaningless. I deleted it. Thanks for pointing it out. I had meant to say angle between normalized vectors, but even that is superfluous.--CSTAR 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the best formulation would be to say that for "vectors of length 1, the inner product is a measure of the angles." --CSTAR 01:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Guettarda 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archimedes Plutonium

• Archimedes Plutonium (AfD discussion)

Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 10:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the request. I note that many individuals have changed their vote, making the AfD almost certain to fail. It may be indeed the case that he is notable. See my comment here on the talk page last week. However, I disagree with what seems to be the Wikipedia policy on this; Archimedes Plutonium may be notable, but the article about him is not encyclopedic. Nothing of what Plutonium says has been seriously suggested as science nor have his opinions on other scientists been taken seriously. Who gets to make the determination of encyclopedicity? That's an excellent question, and traditionally, for reference works such as an encyclopedia, it has been a small group of editors. This is not a wholly democratic process, but certainly a process which seemed to work well in the past.

In the case of Plutonium, there is the added element that it seems to me there is a tone of mockery in this. More significantly, living individuals who have displayed symptoms of severe disabilities, and as far as I can tell, have committed no crime, should be shown some consideration by works which reference them. Plutonium merits perhaps a brief reference in the Usenet article.

If you like, you can add this to the discussion page, or if you think it is worthwhile I can post it there myself.

--CSTAR 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

That's the last straw. I'm done with the Hilbert Space article. Congratulations; you have out-endured me.

Enjoy.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

man, CSTAR done did it again, :-). to be more serious, i saw you comment on talk page of Hilbert space and am sorry you feel that way. seems pretty clear that CSTAR was acting out of good faith, as were you and the other folks there. if i may say so, while i understand the motivation, IMVHO, your attempts to improve the accessibility of that article were perhaps slightly misguided. nevertheless the input and the discussion generated were valuable. again, i am sorry you felt the receptions were not as positive as could be. Mct mht 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I expect you're watching the page, but I have tried my hand at the intro. Will count my fingers in a day or two. ;-) --KSmrq^T 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)