User talk:Charles Matthews

• User talk:Charles Matthews/About me
• User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive1
• User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive2

List of publications in mathematics

Hi,

I noticed that you added A Mathematical Theory of Communication to the list of important publications in math. This paper is indeed important but already appears as an important publication in computer science. I think that it is more appropriate to consider information theory as a subfield of cs and not of math. On the other hand, one looking for important publications in math might not be looking in cs too.

I'm not sure what will be better - removing the publication or copying the cs paragraph. What do you think?

Thanks for your help, APH 10:28, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is arguable that computer science didn't really exist at that point. Information theory is anyway probably more accurately classified as a field of statistics, being an aspect of the 'statistical theory of communication'. So, in the end, perhaps neither mathematics nor computer science will have it. Probably it is best to put everything in one place for the moment, and cross-reference to the other (can be done with anchored wikilinks, if you follow me).

Charles Matthews 12:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with wikilinks. I know how to put a reference to the article but I think that it is better to put the information itself and not a link. I know that it will lead to redundancy (what is funny in the context of information theory ;-)). Is it possible to open a "frame" that will show the actual data from another article? APH 14:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not as such. What I meant is a link like this: [[list of important publications in computer science#A mathematical theory of communication]], which allows one to jump straight to the heading in the middle of the page.

Looking at it: the classification problem is not going to go away, here. If information theory is where it is, by analogy with algorithmic information theory, then this isn't quite right.

Charles Matthews 15:06, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sysop

Congratulations! You are now a sysop! I recommend adding your name to the list at Wikipedia:Administrators. Tuf-Kat 22:00, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

From a fan

Charles, the extensive work you have done and attitude you carry is most commendable, most specifically in the mathematics articles, and others. Keep up the good work you do! Dysprosia 10:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh - well - if you put it that way, all I can say is that in cyberspace no one can see you blush!

Charles Matthews 10:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about Anthony, Charles. You would be about the 1729th person to engage in a confrontation with him. Of course, he can read this. I don't care. Revolver 03:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

barnstar

This is for your astounding job on the Mathematics area. Pfortuny 19:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Hello. You requested mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Do you have any prefernece as to mediator? There is a list of current mediators at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. I'm sorry for any delay in responding to your request. Regards -- sannse (talk) 15:24, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

I agreed to mediation - not my initiative. Not Ed Poor, nor Stevertigo, in my preference. Someone with a university background in a science, computing or mathematics area would be better; not essential, though.

Charles Matthews 15:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said "agreed to". I believe Anthere has a background in computing and science, my degree is in biochemistry (I'm very out of practice though). I'm not sure about the others but will look further once Kevin baas has responded. Thanks for the reply -- sannse (talk) 15:45, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello Charles. Kevin has expressed a preference for Angela and she is available. She doesn't have a science/mathematics/computing background (although she does have a degree), but I don't think that this is vital - in particular because she will not be making decisions on article content. Would she be acceptable to you or would you prefer to discuss an alternative mediator? -- sannse (talk) 19:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you say no 'decisions on article content', isn't that prejudging the process? I know Kevin was saying something like that. The first of my mediation points relates to improving the content of a group of articles. And the situation has arisen in relation to a specific VfD discussion. However, I will accept your recommendation of the best mediator, most likely to make progress here. Charles Matthews 20:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't say that no decisions will be made during the process, just that it isn't the mediators role to make those decisions - she is not an arbitrator in other words. But the exact process of mediation would be up to the mediator in question and the participants so I won't comment more here. I will talk to Angela, and hopefully she will contact you all soon. Thanks for the reply -- sannse (talk) 20:35, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've been assigned as the mediator between you and Kevin. Do you have any preference as to how the mediation takes place? I would prefer it be done by email, but you also have the option of using a page on Wikipedia, a page on meta:, the mediation boards or the #mediation.wikipedia IRC channel. The request for mediation has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 6. Before the mediation starts, please can you let me know that you agree to abide by the conditions laid out in Wikipedia:Confidentiality during mediation. Thanks. Angela. 01:08, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

By email please. I will of course treat the mediation as confidential. I'll go and read that page shortly. Charles Matthews 07:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have sent you an email about some of the aims Kevin has for the mediation. Angela. 18:43, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

I have looked at said page, think I understand what is posted there; and don't have any problem with abiding by it. Charles Matthews 18:46, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Lubos Motl

Now at User talk:Charles Matthews/Talk:Lubos Motl.

Horseshoe map

(William M. Connolley 10:10, 2004 May 14 (UTC)) Charles, could you have a look at this (please) and check that the function as specified is correct. It looks wrong to me to I'm scared of venturing in to Real Maths :-). x > 1/2 means 1-2x < 0 and the point disappears off the unit square (the map *is8 on the unit square isn't it: it doesn't say so in the article).

2x - 1 looks like a better bet. Someone has cut the article right back. I found web links immediately by googling 'horseshoe map Smale'. These have pictures, which show the kind of thing. Yes, this should be on the unit square. Charles Matthews 10:17, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

WMC: OK, I swapped it to 2x-1. I'm not at all sure about the deletions: whoever cut that back seemed to be rather over-sure of themselves.

Nomination

Hi Charles. Yes, I'll accept the nomination if you wish to do so. Thanks for your confidence in me and regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 14:49, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Me (Tosha)

Thank you for support, in fact I realized that I probably do not need to be an administrator, but do not want to remove it, it is fun to see what people think about me.

Tosha 21:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Say hello to Lyonya Vaserstein from me, some time. Charles Matthews 15:43, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

TeX

TeX ain't working, e.g.

$\mu \quad$

gives an error, which is about as simple as it gets. (some executable isn't there). CSTAR 15:31, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Well I guess it's working now.

What's the policy on in-line TeX? It used to be awful, and desirable to avoid, but I notice more use of it now (e.g. in the added stuff on Paley-Wiener) Am I imagining things or is inline TeX better displayed.

CSTAR 21:43, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It might depend on one's browser; it could be that the recent format changes have helped in some way (it used to be that it would display badly because of the vertical spacing). Since I'm very ignorant of TeX, I hardly use it myself.

Charles Matthews 06:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Peano axioms

Charles,

Do you know much about model theory? I'm in a discussion with someone at Talk:Natural number about the Peano axioms, there seems to be some confusion between 2nd- and 1st-order versions of them. If you have any comments...thanks. Revolver 12:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The page isn't the clearest - but what is said about the second order formulation seems to be right: the normal way of thinking about induction is phrased 'any property' (second order), but there is a first order (axiom schema, but that page doesn't yet exist) way of saying it once per property P, that can be 'said' in the first-order language. Then there will be non-standard models of the first-order version.

Charles Matthews 14:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mathematics publications list

Charles

Seeing that there was a fairly new and underpopulated list of publications in mathematics, I was considering adding to it, when I noticed there is also a list of mathematics publications, books etc. in a sub-section in the list of mathematics history topics. I think it would be a good idea to merge the two lists - do you have strong views on where the merged list should reside ? (I am happy to do the work, but I didn't want to just dive in and move things around unilaterally.) Gandalf61 14:45, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

I assume you mean just to merge the publications sublist. It should probably move from the history list to the list of publications, in that there are other such publications lists.

Charles Matthews 14:49, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I just meant I would merge the publications sublist. As you suggested, I have now moved this sublist to the list of publications in mathematics page. Gandalf61 15:30, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've added a forward link from the history page. About time we had some Greek mathematics ... Charles Matthews 15:42, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Miller and Shankland articles

Hi Charles

I noticed today that both the article on Dayton Miller and Robert Shankland include statements like this:

"Computer analysis after Miller's death on the little available data has proven that the shifts were statistically significant. Lately, there has been more of Miller's papers from the possession of R. S. Shankland to surface and they are awaiting future analysis."

In short, the articles imply that Einstein's theory of Special Relativity has no basis in experimental evidence. This is a common claim of crackpots on the internet and the real world, and definitely completely contrary to the deeply rooted convictions of everyone in mainstream physics (whose beliefs were probably once based experiments much more accurate than attempts to measure "aether wind" from particle physics or atomic physics, but are these days probably more akin to religious beliefs taught to them in their academic cradles)

anyway, i have half a mind to just delete the offending comments, but well, that seems contrary to wikipedia policy. I was also slightly put off by the long list of references to publications by Shankland. How do i know that one of those references doesn't actually point to supporting evidence of what the articles claim? I do know that it was Shankland who first rebutted Millers results, so i think it unlikely that any of Shankland's publications will be making those claims. It would, of course, be an embarrassing situation if a statistically significant signal for aether drift has ever been measured.

To recap: it is a commonly held crackpot belief that Miller measured aether, and a commonly held scientist's belief that Shankland proved that Miller did no such thing. I think a physics article should present first and foremost the scientific view (although a presentation of the controversy would be good. Maybe that could have its own article though?)

advice appreciated Lethe 02:25, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

PS: I don't know if you are the right guy to talk to about this? or whether it would be better to just make an edit and post my complaints on the talk pages?

You're probably best moving the offending statements onto the talk pages, and give your reasons for contesting them there. You may still stir up a hornet's nest ... Charles Matthews 08:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of go topics

Charles, I've renamed the article "List of go topics" to "List of Go topics"—Go is a proper noun. Your "New pages" wikipage links to the old name, and I'd rather not edit your personal pages directly. Cluster 04:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why, really. Do you intend to make it list of Chess topics?

Charles Matthews 08:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

War poets

Don't know whether your new article indicates an abiding interest. If so, you are probably aware of our SSF page at www.sassoonery.demon.co.uk/sassoonsocy. Deb 16:32, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - Sassoon isn't actually a favourite of mine. I felt I should put something there, and a bit more than a placeholder, as I'd created a war poet link on another page. Charles Matthews 16:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay - but there's other interesting literary stuff on the main site - [www.sassoonery.demon.co.uk]. Deb 16:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What I actually do with poetry, currently, is to go through (too) many anthologies to see who gets included at any one period. This means I get sidetracked into 'collecting' minor poets, mostly. Anyway, that is supposed to be a hobby - my previous hobby became a bit serious! Charles Matthews 16:46, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Calculus

Currently that is quite a horrid article and I would like your help in improving it. See that talk page for more. Thanks, - Taxman 02:30, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've restructured the article, moving out the large chunk of PD encyclopedia text that was dominating it, and replacing the intrusive calculs topic box by a category tag. I've also cut down the intro section by shifting parts of it lower down the page. This should have opened things up for someone else to go into the text and improve it. The notation section should at least link to some of the articles on Newton's notation, etc.

Charles Matthews 07:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Undeletion request

It's been a long time since we have talked. That article a long time ago called "Real definition of a Republic" has been changed to "Classic definition of republic". It is now a professional clean article, complete and thorough.

I need your help.

Need support on an undelete. Talk:Nazism/Seperate-National Socialism I would like your support to undelete this and restore as a proper standing article. Some content was moved to the Nazism article and has been made a redirect. The Nazi article is too long. *National Socialism* was not created by either Mussolini nor Hitler and the history of its development needs to have a seperate article upon it. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.WHEELER 18:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've glanced at the article. I see evidence of serious research there; I also see plenty with which I'd want to take issue. So, let me urge you to do something with this material, to add to WP's coverage of the issues involved. I don't spend time here on twentieth-century history articles, so I don't feel well-informed on what exactly the coverage is. I'm not at all sure that an undelete would serve best. By the way, 'separate'. Charles Matthews 18:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

For your comments just now at RFA -- I agree with you entirely, and worry that mediation is fast becoming merely a tool used in argument to get the upper hand. Well, we'll do what we can. As long as I'm here, I should mention two other things. One is a thank you for your hard work -- you spend time in a corner of the WP I don't get to much, but when I see what you're doing, I marvel at the amount of time and meticulous care it requires. I doubt I can ever be of much help to you, but if I can, please do let me know. Secondly, as I've mentioned to dozens of people here (it seems) I will be in Rutland on my honeymoon in July, and I don't know much about it, so I'm taking advice about nice places to see, etc. I notice from your user page you're from Cambridge (well, you are often there, at least) and I know that's somewhat close. Perhaps you'd be willing to take a moment and offer some thoughts for what might be nice to look into in the area? We will be without a car, so purely dependent on public transit (buses and trains, perhaps taxis in a pinch, I suppose). Thanks for the advice in advance, and for your work here in general -- Jwrosenzweig 21:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Honeymoon in Rutland - great choice! Cambridge is a nice one-day visit, from London or elsewhere. Everything vital is walking distance from the centre, but you can also pick up an open-top tourist bus that takes a loop out into the countryside if you want. My preferred route is The Backs: Queens'-Kings'-Clare-Trinity Colleges, through Trinity Great Court coming from the Wren Library side, into St. Johns and then Magdalene. Trouble is, colleges often charge for entry, so you might just want to walk along Queens' Road starting from the bridge over Silver Street. That takes you near Kettles' Yard, house/museum (well worth seeing, afternoons, also a gallery).

Charles Matthews 21:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Paradoxism and Neutrosophy on vfd/old

Hello Charles. I wonder if you would take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old under the heading "Paradoxism and Neutrosophy" and perhaps either vote or process the item as you see fit. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 21:18, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hah! Well worth ignoring, I'm sure. Self-promotion, without a doubt. I'd imagine it's pretty well content-free - is your proposal to push this stuff off WP entirely? Actually, don't answer that; correct thing at VfD is just to post articles one by one, and have a case-by-case, agenda-free process if at all possible. Charles Matthews 21:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Biographies

I'd prefer it if you didn't delete the done sections, it is best to keep them for archiving purposes.--[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 10:02, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What it says at Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics is

If Wikipedia articles exist on some of the topics, create redirects to them and remove them from the list.

The entire list is of course available in the page history; I prefer to cut out anything done, since otherwise scrolling down the page takes no less time, even when there is little left to do.

If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you start a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics, to clarify what others think should be policy.

Charles Matthews 10:10, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Infinite Loops

Well done for spotting that it could be redirected. I just deleted the bugger... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:56, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Children of Albion

Hi

I've been working on a longer article on this anthology since I noticed you'd wikified it in British Poetry Revival. I'll stick it in my namespace soon and invite your comments before editing your article, if that's OK.

Bmills 10:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I mentioned in what I wrote there that Horovitz got some stick for it; but I'm sure you'll have a more informed view. Actually I bought a copy of it when it came out; but didn't get much out of it then, except some appreciation of Lee Harwood. (Well, I was about 15 ... ) Charles Matthews 10:34, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's here: User:Bmills/Children of Albion, if you care to have a look. Bmills 11:09, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fine - I've linked the Alvarez book, which I'd already done. I might well do the Donald Allen book, as it's on my shelves somewhere (double-stacked, like much else). I've suggested a few bits of punctuation. Golliard/Goliard?

Charles Matthews 11:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Goliard, of course. Thanks for the improvements. Just back from a weekend in Cork with Tom Raworth, only to find an e-mail telling me Carl Rakosi was dead, so I feel like doing things. Bmills 11:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I've created a poetry anthology category, as I seem fated to type more of this in. Cork - it's even longer ago, but I remember visiting cousins there, Sean Lucy's children. Charles Matthews 11:26, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed your anthologies: useful to have. Cork has a more or less yearly 'alternative poetry' festival and this year Tom, Trevor Joyse Maggie O'Sullivan, Alan Halsey, Geraldine Monk, Maurice Scully, Stephen Rodefer and others were there. A good weekend, but the city is one big roadwork in preperation for being European Capital of Culture next year. Bmills 11:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Have you done, or are you planning to do, The Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry ? Bmills 08:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's already at Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry. You can track what I've done at User:Charles Matthews/New pages#Poetry, by the way. I may add some more Faber anthologies (e.g. the Auden Modern American Verse) and maybe a few more American books. I don't know what is really 'encyclopedic' - for example Penguin have many, of which the Lucie-Smith 'Poetry since 1945' might be worth it. Charles Matthews 08:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it would, as would their Poetry of the 30s and Poetry of the 40s anthologies. These did a lot to keep Barker, Gascoyne, Sykes Davis and others visible to my generation. Bmills 08:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about a List of poetry anthologies? Bmills 10:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It wouldn't be much work; at present I add the category 'Poetry anthology'. In a sense, I wanted to avoid having to discuss whether there is a worthwhile distinction from the list of poetry collections! One way would be to have just that one page, but segregate it into sections - after all Four Quartets is rather different from the Faber Book of Modern Verse. Charles Matthews 10:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did it. I tend to think that the list of poetry collections should be reserved for original works like Four Quartets, Lyrical Ballads or the Pisan Cantos. Anthologies are a different beast. If anyone disagrees, they can argue their case. Bmills 10:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How does one create a category? I'm thinking of creating Irish literature. Bmills 12:32, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just edit in [[Category:Irish literature]], say at the top or bottom of a page. It will come up as a category tag, but in red rather than blue. Then click on that, to edit the category page. If you add, say, [[Category:Literature]], to that page, Irish literature will be added as a subcategory of Literature; it is possible to make it a subcategory of several things (e.g. also Irish culture). Once it exists as a subcategory, Irish literature will then be a 'blue link' category in good standing. Charles Matthews 12:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Bmills 12:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Categories: Linear Algebra vs. Matrix Theory vs. Numerical Analysis

Hi. I am currently working on matrix stuff LU decomposition, Triangular matrix etc. My current angle is numerical analysis. I am now a bit confused as to which Category those pages belong to and how to write the introduction for a page.

For example the Triangular matrix page. Should the introduction be

1. In linear algebra, triangular matrices are
2. In matrix theory, triangular matrices are
3. In numerical analysis, triangular matrices are

In the same vein what category should the page be in

1. Categories:Linear Algebra
2. Categories:Linear Algebra:Matrix Theory
3. Categories:Numerical analysis

Should the Category be mentioned in the introduction ? Perhaps you can shed some light. MathMartin 13:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

For the categories, all three, certainly - no need to penny-pinch. For the intro: linear algebra is uncontestable, and includes implicitly matrix theory and numerical linear algebra, I suppose. Charles Matthews 14:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks and a request.

Charles, thanks for adding to the Fundamental Theoerem of Projective Geometry page - only nine minutes after it was created! Could you briefly look at projective frame as I'm not as hot on this stuff as I once was, nor as good at wiking as I hope I will be. Rich Farmbrough.

Hello, Rich. On projective frame, the phrasing of where the points are isn't so clear. The Rⁿ⁺¹, if we are working over R, will have a basis like e_i, for 1 ≤ i ≤ n+1; and then you want to have the final e_i defined as the sum of all these. However I suppose the point of the definition is to take the (n+2)-tuple of images of these in the projective space. One can say that in a few ways; one would be that we take [e_i] = equivalence class of all non-zero scalar multiples of e_i, and the frame is the tuple of those. Charles Matthews 15:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes that looks better now. I was using two sources which took different approaches, so I was worried that I was confused. Rich Farmbrough 16:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Doubts on topology

Hi,

I am a regular contributor to wikipedia and I am aware that you are a prominent contributor in mathematics. I just want to clarify some points with you and react as a reader on a specific subject, hope you don't mind. Right now, while searching for information on mathematics, geometry and topology, I found it quite difficult to understand the concept of topology. As I had understood it earlier, it had something to do with the properties of surfaces (something like the 'development concept' which can be used for model making wherein a surface can be folded to form different forms). However when I read many topology related topics in wikipedia, I could only see some abstract terminologies and was not able to understand much. Is there any way of explaining this concept in a more physical and spatial manner an then introduce the mathematical qualities? Or is my understanding of the topic wrong? BTW, the pages on Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries were very clear and spatially explained and were the best in terms of my internet search on the subject. Thanks KRS 10:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Topology was one of the biggest growth areas in 20th century mathematics; so it is not surprising that it is now hard to survey. We now have some good pictorial material, e.g. Klein bottle. Abstractly, this is just a unit square with its sides glued up in a certain way; do that in other ways and you might get a torus or a projective plane (and those three spaces are the possibilities). Right then, the torus is in a simple way 'spatial', but the other two are not; they live outside 3-space in the abstract, and we can only see them immersed. They are also not orientable. Topology has to handle these questions indirectly, through machinery built up starting from the fundamental group, and developed ... into blue-sky research. If you could intuit why the fundamental group of the Klein bottle is a cyclic group of order two, that would be a good first step. Charles Matthews 10:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, From the Klein bottle link I could manage to conclude that what I had thought was right, will follow the links and delve deeper. Still, I feel that some amount of dumbing down is required in the main intro to the subject:-)(even your explanation is a bit too much for me as a general reader:-)) KRS 10:43, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, we have to write this as an encyclopedia; the wikibooks project does textbooks. There's a constant effort to improve access and get the top-down view right. In the end we need good authors. The topology page is old in WP terms, and overdue for a rewrite, I'd agree. Charles Matthews 10:49, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sort → Sorting request

I'd like to move Sort algorithm to Sorting algorithm as the latter is the more common term and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs) says to use the gerund form of verbs. Unfortunately, the latter already exists as a redirect page, so I need an administrator to carry out the move. Can you help? Gdr 14:25, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

Done quick-and-dirty (I'm no expert) - I have 'sorted' the double redirects. Charles Matthews 15:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you (I would have been happy to fix the double redirects). Gdr 15:29, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

Reeh-Schlieder Theorem et. al.

Thanks for cleaning up after me! I hope I can improve my writing in the future, to minimize the need of this. Pjacobi 12:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem - it's much better, and what WP is particularly good at, if people with insights just write them when they feel inspired to. Charles Matthews 13:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dedekind cut

(William M. Connolley 14:03, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)) Hi Charles. If you can face the pain, take a look at Fw's recent edit (and the comment tag) to Dedekind cut. I doubt he is right, but haven't waded through it yet. I used to know this stuff you know...

It's a bit of a slow day for me, ISP-to-WP wise, and probably brain-wise too. Yes, a somewhat odd claim which if true should be phrased in some other way, if at all. Just now I'm worrying about who Windus of Chatto & Windus was, when he was at home. Charles Matthews 14:58, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

HSD

Thanks for spotting the original spelling error and for recovering the content. A mystery indeed. Bmills 13:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe the page history is just gone. If you mind about the author's credit, why don't you paste it all back in again?

Charles Matthews 14:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. I'm going to look at expanding this, as per your comments on the talk page.Bmills 14:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I came across some web page alluding to his 'debunking' of the Lucy poems of Wordsworth - as the kind of thing he did in the 1960s. Not that I believe everything I read on the Web, I hasten to add. Charles Matthews

editable page ratings

I have also been giving this idea alot of thought. I think there should be a hierarchy of quality not unlike the current wikipedia:featured articles but multi tiered. Something like a series of 5 steps, 1 being vfd candidates / extreme POV articles in need of a rewrite/cleanup etc.., and 5 being "worthy of 1.0" articles which are indefinitely protected, w edits only made after consensus in the talk. These could be the sorts of articles capable of things like the disks and maybe even paper copy encyclopedias Jimbo keeps talking about. Each page could have its rank (maybe a number of stars or whatnot?) placed conspicuously upon it, along w a small link to where the voting on raising or reducing its status could take place. The exact mechanism of all this isn't my forte, but I am quite certain it is generally a rather good idea to have some notice of level of quality placed upon the articles. Comments if you will, Sam [Spade] 17:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually anyone, right now, could invent a 'Five-star article' category, and so on. No one will do this, I suppose, if it's just going to irritate people. And if the 'system' that emerged was just used for petty point-scoring, then it would get a bad reputation. But it does look as if it could all just happen, given social action behind it. Charles Matthews 17:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

k1

Thanks! Refdoc 12:17, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have raised it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/--K1 Refdoc 15:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizmi text

I'm trying to clean up the confusing of edit histories i & others did, by merging those that redirect to Al-Khwarizmi.

Your contribs offers no hint of what the

...page redirected here... of your talk edit was, and where the text came from.

Perhaps not even worth the time i've already given it, and i think i've double-checked all the redirs to Al-K, finding only 3 with meaningful text in their histories, and that it is not in the history of any of them. Do you remember what page this was about?

Thanks in any case!
--Jerzy(t) 02:21, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)