User talk:Michael Hardy: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Robert Tito
imported>John Stephenson
(Returning to Citizendium: an update on the project and how to get involved)
 
(22 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:


==Article upload==
==Article upload==
Hi, please see [CZ:CZ4WP#Citizendium_is_not_a_mirror]] and [[CZ:How to convert Wikipedia articles to Citizendium articles]]. Thanks! —–[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 14:56, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
Hi, please see [[CZ:CZ4WP#Citizendium_is_not_a_mirror]] and [[CZ:How to convert Wikipedia articles to Citizendium articles]]. Thanks! —–[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 14:56, 14 April 2007 (CDT)


== Recently uploaded image(s) ==
== Recently uploaded image(s) ==
Line 46: Line 46:
I replied on [[User talk:Catherine Woodgold#TeX versus non-TeX mathematical notation|my talk page]].  --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 08:34, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
I replied on [[User talk:Catherine Woodgold#TeX versus non-TeX mathematical notation|my talk page]].  --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 08:34, 6 May 2007 (CDT)


== your remark about prime numbers ==
{{nocomplaints}}


Michael, would you mind reading [[CZ:Professionalism]] before you again state and write down the comment you made about something in prime numbers. Your tone is far from professional and can be seen by some as rude and offensive. We do strive for courtesy, not rudeness. Thank you. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:grey">&nbsp;<font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 18:21, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
== Approval of prime number page ==


I see the same rudeness in your comments about factorization. May I remind you this is not a play ground to practise rudeness. Please mind your language. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:grey">&nbsp;<font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 18:24, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
I see that you made an edit to the [[prime number]] page shortly before it was approved, and from your edit summary it seems that you considered it an important edit that should be done before the article would be approved.  However, David Tribe acted correctly, in my opinion, acting as constable, in puttnig the approval template on the version which had actually be selected by an editor as to-be-approved.  For future reference, here are some ideas for things you might be able to do in such a case to prevent an article you consider faulty from being approved.  I'm not sure what the procedures are (and they may not all be determined yet) so I'm not sure which of these things would be proper procedure for you acting as a mathematics editor, but here they are as ideas:
*to delete the "ToApprove" template from the talk page of the article
*to add your name as an approving editor and change the nominated version to point to the version with your edit (maybe only acceptable if you're confident that the other editors would approve the edited version)
*to change the nominated version without adding your name as an approving editor (this seems less likely to be a correct procedure but I don't know)
*to change the nominated version, delete the names of the other nominating editors and put your name as sole nominating editor (if you're not sure whether the others would approve of that version;  maybe in this case you should also set the scheduled approve date six days into the future (or whatever the standard number of days is)
*just to change the scheduled approve date a couple of days into the future, to allow time for discussion of your edit
I hope these ideas are helpful for future reference. I also had an edit reverted, at [[complex number]], during the approval process; but I don't mind because I think it's important that proper procedure be followed so that readers can be confident that the version they're seeing has actually been approved by an editor.  (In this case, mine was a minor edit, anyway.)  --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 07:27, 7 May 2007 (CDT)


: Why is it rude to mention that an article in its present state badly needs work?  I said the first sentence was not even a sentence, and that is certainly true, and is reason to say the article needed improvement.  I also said the article certainly needs work.  Do you consider that rude?  I find it hard to imagine anyone looking at that article without thinking it certainly needs a lot more workDo you really think that maybe whoever wrote it regarded it as a finished product rather than just a start? That would not have occurred to me, and I doubt it's true. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 18:29, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
One more suggestion that I was going to make but forgot:  you can try to get a new approved version of the article put up as soon as possible, with the part you objected to fixedIf you, Greg Martin and Jitse Niesen can all agree on a new version, the three of you can put if up immediately, I believe. (Jitse Niesen was one of the two approving editors for the page, I believe, although that isn't shown properly on the template yet.) You can take the first step by putting a ToApprove template on the talk page.  --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 18:40, 7 May 2007 (CDT)


I quote: '''deleted nonsense. I'm surprised to find such a comment in an article that someone called "ready for approval" ''' if somebody overlooked something it is no need to flag the person not fit to make that statement. In that I consider it rude. The other remark is in the same line of communicating. It is not professional to implicitely say: that person is not fit to make a remark about readiness. It is however professional to point out what point have omissions and need improvement. But that is another approach, it is an approach reaching out to collaborate. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:grey">&nbsp;<font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 18:33, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
==[[GDP deflator]]==
Dear Dr. Hardy, would you mind taking a look at [[GDP deflator]]. [[User:Soso Mamukelashvili|Soso Mamukelashvili]] 12:23, 13 May 2007 (CDT)


: I don't think I implied anyone was not fit to make such a statement; rather I implied that the statement itself was a mistake in this case. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 18:37, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
== Pythagorean Theorem ==


EDIT CONFLICT There ARE no finished products on the wiki. An approved article is a frozen version only and it is abundantly clear that this article is up for approval and will be approved imminently unless a mathematics editor removes the approval nomination template which has been placed by 2 separate mathematics editors. Michael, "nonesense" is not professional as a criticism, is it? Perhaps to a student, ''perhaps'', never to a peer, not in the context that you used it. This article will be copyedited after approval, by the way. If you think that the article is misleading or inaccurate such that it should not be approved, even so, the two courses open to you are (1) contact the math editors who are named in the nominating template or (2) remove the template. As approvals editor I respect your right (as a mathematic editor) to do so, but this is not an action to be taken on any but very serious grounds. Doing so implies a gross error in judgement on the part of the editors and authors who have been diligently involved in the work. If that is the case,if there are gross errors that have been perpetrated here  then these should be made painstakingly clear in the talk page, and ''in the same fashion'' as a rebuttal would be on the stage of an international meeting at a FORMAL meeting of distinguished mathematicians, not in a perjorative or dismissive manner. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 18:47, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, speaking about the squares OF the sides is the way that it is taught in high school.  As a math major, I was not introduced to the proof by the Ancient Greeks. In addressing a common layman that is reading the article, the explanation was confusing.  The illustration helps greatly in showing the concept you are talking about. However, what you refer to as the "modern trendy" definition of the theorem, is a valid and widely used definition and application of the theorem when using numbers. If you were to ask 10 people what the Pythagorean theorem was, 9 would probably say "A squared plus B squared equals C squared" I think that it has value in the article. [[User:David Martin|David Martin]] 22:34, 15 May 2007 (CDT)


: I think you're confusing two different articles with each otherThe article ([[unique factorization]]) about which I said it certainly needs a lot of work, and that that author could not have considered it anything beyond a bare start, is not in any sense being considered for approval. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 18:57, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
: If you ask a class of thirty students what the Pythagorean theorem says, a chorus in unison will say "A squared plus B squared equals C squared." Then you can ask them this: If someone had no idea what the Pythagorean theorem is about, and you tell them it says "A squared plus B squared equals C squared", will they then understand what it's about?  If you further interrogate the class you might find someone admitting to knowning that it's about ''triangles''.  "''Any'' triangles?", you might then ask them. Eventually someont might say: No: '''right''' triangles.  This article should try to bring the reader beyond that point. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 22:42, 15 May 2007 (CDT)


Apparently, the confusion is not on my part: (diff) (hist) . . ! Prime number‎; 22:57 . . Michael Hardy (Talk | contribs | block) (→There are infinitely many primes - deleted nonsense. I'm surprised to find such a comment in an article that someone called "ready for approval".) [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 19:08, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
:: I agree completely. I don't disagree that the formal definition and proof should be included or that the scope of the article should go beyond the "high school" definition. In fact, I admitted that I was in error due to not having the illustration to back up what you were trying to demonstrate.  However, this article would be incomplete in my eyes, if it did not address the derivation from the proof that, when using real number lengths in a right triangle, the sum of the squares of the legs of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. [[User:David Martin|David Martin]] 22:52, 15 May 2007 (CDT)


: It ''did'' appear to be on your part, since you said there are no finished products.  That appeared to be a response to my statement that a certain article did not appear to be a finished product.  I said that article certainly needs a lot of work and the first sentence was not even a sentence.  I was told that that was rude.  I responded that I don't think whoever wrote it could be offended since it looked as if they intended it as a bare start on an article rather than anything like a finished product.  So you responded by telling me there are no finished products, and that the article in question was being considered for approval.  Doesn't that look as if you're confusing two different articles with each other? [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 19:20, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
==Alphabet Soup==
:::The remark was about your style of commenting. That too is part of how we communicate. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:grey">&nbsp;<font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 19:27, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
Great job Michael with the A, B, C index navigation - works really well, and thanks for following through and letting me know.
Robert Tito (who also quoted your "nonesense" statement) and I are both clearly referring to the comment that I copied above. You can take responsibility for it and apologize, or not. Certainly, diversionary arguments do not further this discussion. My interest here is in seeing that articles are approved appropriately and I am satisfied that [[Prime number]] is being approved appropriately. The matter of your comments on several articles, other user's pages, and deflection of criticism by diversionary arguments used here are a reflection of a "style" that is the business of the constabulary, of which I am not a member. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 19:33, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
--[[User:Ian Johnson|Ian Johnson]] 07:43, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


The fact is, the phrase I deleted from the [[prime number]] article appeared to be probably the result of something like momentary absent-mindedness rather than of misunderstanding that would be the occasion for an explanation of what I objected to about it. I'm sorry if I was mistaken in that.  Here is the explanation that I would have included in my edit summary if I hadn't had that impression
==Prime number==
:
Hi Michael. I was wondering whether you would update the url in the ToApprove template on [[Talk:Prime number/Draft]] so that the latest edits will appear in the approved version. I'd like to have the addition of ''positive'' in the first sentence in [[Prime number/Draft]] included; the other changes are not that important. If you do update the url, feel free to add me as an approving editor. Cheers, [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 08:22, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
: Uniqueness of the factorization is not the fact that should be cited here; _existence_ of a factorization is; uniqueness is irrelevant to this point.
:
My arguments are not ''diversionary''.  "Diversionary" would mean I was trying to change the subject rather than sticking to the points raised by the posters above.  I was not.
:
I remain puzzled about something: If you meant my edit summary in the [[prime number]] article, rather than the one in [[unique factorization]], then why did you begin with a comment about "no finished products"?
:
I also don't see why my edit summary in [[unique factorization]] would be considered rude.  I said the first sentence was not even a sentence, and that the article needs a lot more work.  Both comments seem completely reasonable. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 21:32, 6 May 2007 (CDT)


== how to communicate ==
== "which" vs. "that" ==
Nice to see that there is at least one other person in the world who shares my concern about this, hehe! Keep up the good work!  (I just changed one in the lead sentence of [[Boxing]].) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 13:36, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


Even comments are a way of commenting, and if we turn the tables and you were the other person you wouldnt be pleased by your momentary lapse of concentration and the way people respond to that. For that reason conform to [[CZ:Professionalism]]. This is NOT wikipedia. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:grey">&nbsp;<font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 21:44, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
==Euclid's lemma==
Hi Michael, I've just put a proposed update for the proof of Euclid's lemma on its [[Talk:Euclid's lemma|talk page]].  Let me know what you think. [[User:Michael Underwood|Michael Underwood]] 13:58, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 
== 22/7 (umm...) "controversy" ==
 
I thought the elementary proof that 22/7 > <math>\pi</math> was fascinating, and well worthy of an article or place in an article. But that's not why I'm writing here. The almost reflexive comments from people about whether proofs belong in Citizendium articles, often making absurd claims about proof implying bias or "original research" is the sort of thing that has effectively deterred me from even trying to write mathematics articles. Maybe I shouldn't even be saying this, but when I looked at the talk page on your 22/7 article, it reminded me of the problem all over again.
 
A thought: Why not have an article about 22/7 that includes both the elementary proof and the fact that  22/7 is the second(?) approximant of the continued fraction expansion? [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 13:01, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
 
== TeX question ==
 
Dear Michael, I'm new to Citizendium (started yesterday) and ran into a LaTeX problem. Since I saw your name on a LaTeX help page I turn to you. But if there are proper channels to turn to please tell me and I won't bother you again. It seems to me that the CZ LaTeX does not recognize \begin{align} (and maybe other \begin{string}'s neither?). Do I see this correctly? Am I supposed to work around it (which is doable)?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 05:44, 18 August 2007 (CDT)
 
: I'm not sure there is an proper channel, unless you mean for a bug report.  I think at some point I'll report the unavailablity of "align" as a bug.  I think that's something like bugs@citizendium.org or the like.  On Wikipedia I usually worked around it until "align" became avaiable.  Some people use the "matrix" environment, which always used center-alignment where left-alignment was appropriate and smashed fractions into something smaller than they should be.  So getting "align" certainly helped. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 17:46, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
 
==Subpage names==
I moved the civil societies subpages back to their original names since the subpage template will not function correctly if the names are not exact. You should discuss the use of capitalised second word (such as "External Links" vs "External links") with [[User talk:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]], since this is a style issue he initiated. It could also be brought up in the forums. It can be changed but there needs to be a discussion about this since if the change is made many other pages need to be moved too. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 01:04, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
 
== Electoral college ==
 
Michael - you added at the top of [[U.S. Electoral College]] that Maryland has adopted the National Majority Vote system, but did not add any discussion in the section on the National Majority Vote, nor did you add a reference for Maryland's adoption of that system. Could you please rectify that? Thanks, [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 11:19, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
 
: That section speaks of a plan that would take effect after adoption by a sufficient number of states. The newspaper article I saw about Maryland says that is how electors will be chosen in Maryland regardless of what other states do.  I'll try to gather some more facts and then edit accordinly. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 16:23, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
 
== [[prime number]] ==
 
I pointed out an error over a day ago. I'd have thought approved articles would be on priority watch, but there's no change in the article, & nobody's responded on the talk page, so I'm notifying you as approving editor. Fermat primes are 2↑2↑n+1, not 2↑n+1. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 11:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 
==Returning to Citizendium: an update on the project and how to get involved==
Hello - some time ago you became part of the Citizendium project, but we haven't seen you around for a while. Perhaps you'd like to update your [[User:Michael Hardy|public biography]] or check on the progress of [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Michael_Hardy any pages you've edited so far].
 
Citizendium now has [[:Category:CZ Live|{{PAGESINCAT:CZ Live}} articles]], with [[:Category:Approved Articles|{{PAGESINCAT:Approved Articles}} approved]] by specialist [[CZ:The Editor Role|Editors]] such as yourself, but our contributor numbers require a boost. We have an initiative called '[[CZ:Eduzendium|Eduzendium]]' that brings in students enrolled on university courses to write articles for credit, but we still need more Editors across the community to write, discuss and approve material. There are some [[:Category:Mathematics_Developed_Articles|developed Mathematics articles]] that could be improved and approved, and some [[CZ:Core Articles/Natural Sciences|high-priority Natural Sciences articles]] that we don't have yet. You can also create new articles via [[CZ:Start_Article|this guide]], and contribute to some Mathematics pages that have been [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&target=Category%3AMathematics_tag recently edited] - or to [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges any others] on Citizendium, since you're a general [[CZ:The Author Role|Author]] as well as a specialist Editor. You may like to contribute to discussions in the [http://forum.citizendium.org forums], and might consider running for an elected position on the [[CZ:Management Council|Management]] and [http://ec.citizendium.org Editorial] Councils that oversee the project.
 
If you have any questions, let me know via my [[User talk:John Stephenson|Talk page]] or by leaving a message below this one. Thank you for signing up and reading this update; I hope that you will [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Special:MyTalk look in] on our community soon. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 16:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:11, 30 October 2011

Welcome!

Citizendium Getting Started
Quick Start | About us | Help system | Start a new article | For Wikipedians  


Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitionsadd metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start, and see Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any user or the editors for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! See CZ:Discipline Workgroups to add yourself to whichever author workgroups you choose. -- David Tribe 06:14, 8 April 2007 (CDT)


Citizendium Editor Policy
The Editor Role | Approval Process | Article Deletion Policy

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started and our help system for other introductory pages. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. Announcements are also available via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon.

Great to see you here, Michael. I've made you an editor. --Larry Sanger 17:43, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Thank you. Michael Hardy 20:34, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


A few words about workgroups

We are indeed happy to have you in the community. We would also like to introduce you to Citizendium's Workgroups and encourage you to--

  1. Join a workgroup if you haven't already
  2. Help us add workgroup category tags to articles, especially any articles you create
  3. Help us spread the word about workgroups within the CZ community

What are workgroups? To answer that question, I'd like to give you a quick tour.

  • Start by checking the various workgroups we have at CZ: List of Workgroups. This link can also be found in the left navigation-bar in the 2nd box (Project Pages), 3rd link in that box (Workgroups). The Workgroup Home(s) can be found in the 2nd column in the List of Workgroups.
  • For the purposes of this tour, please take a look at the Biology Workgroup Home: CZ:Biology_Workgroup.
  • Now let's take a look at the first table on the Biology Workgroup Home (below).


Workgroups are no longer used for group communications, but they still are used to group articles into fields of interest. Each article is assigned to 1-3 Workgroups via the article's Metadata.

Biology banner.png
Biology article All articles (1,621) To Approve (0) Editors: active (1) / inactive (46)
and
Authors: active (441) / inactive (0)
Workgroup Discussion
Recent changes Citable Articles (25)
Subgroups (12.5)
Checklist-generated categories:

Subpage categories:

Missing subpage categories:

Article statuses:

  • In the 2nd column, find the link that says, "all articles," which lists all articles that users have placed [[Category:Biology Workgroup]] at the bottom of their articles.
  • Now click on the "recent changes" link underneath the "all articles" in the 2nd column in the top table. This lists all recent changes in articles that have been tagged [[Category:Biology Workgroup]]. In one glance, you can view all the changes that happened while you were away! Feel free to click on all the links to get an idea how the information for your workgroup is organized. All these lists are populated by articles that have the categories properly placed at the bottom of their pages.

This completes your virtual-tour of CZ workgroups. I hope you can see the usefulness of having all articles in Citizendium tagged properly with your Workgroup categories. Make sure to add the Workgroup category labels to your new articles. This is an important part of the Approval process.

Be sure to join a workgroup and take part in this opportunity to collaborate with others who have similar interests as you. You can see what others are working on in the Workgroup recent changes and join in! Remember, we want you to be bold in your contributions at Citizendium.

To add yourself to a workgroup, use the form [[Category:Education Authors|Smith, Bob]], etc., and add it to your user page. Substitute the proper work group for "Education" in the example, and your name-Last, First for the names in the example.

Do not add yourself to the Editors list, only CZ staff add "Editors" to user pages after proper review of applications is completed. To apply to become an editor, please see Editor Application Review Procedure.

To add a workgroup category tag to an article, use the form [[Category:Education Workgroup]] at the bottom of the article. Substitute in the proper workgroup for "Education" in the example.

If you are from Wikipedia originally, you may want to check out this article:

Article upload

Hi, please see CZ:CZ4WP#Citizendium_is_not_a_mirror and CZ:How to convert Wikipedia articles to Citizendium articles. Thanks! —–Stephen Ewen 14:56, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Recently uploaded image(s)

Hi. Thanks for contributing to CZ! I hate to have to tell you this but one or more images you recently uploaded are lacking clear copyright data. Please carefully review the image(s) you uploaded while referencing Images Help—Copyrights. Please fix the problem rapidly, as the image(s) will otherwise have to be deleted. Thanks! — Stephen Ewen 18:56, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

See particularly Help:Images#Images_from_Wikipedia.2C_Wikimedia_Commons.2C_Flickr.2C_etc.. Stephen Ewen 19:40, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

page move

Hi Michael, I saw you were asking about page moves. I can do that for you. Do you need one moved? --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:47, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

I think Earth Sciences, with the capital initial "S", should be moved either to earth sciences, with a lower-case initial, or earth science (which term, I seem to recall, was used in the article).
So is it impossible for most authors and editors to move pages? Michael Hardy 20:16, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

I changed it to earth science for you.

We are discussing the issue of allowing users to make moves currently. We had to prevent page changes due to vandalism early on, but that doesn't seem to be such a high priority anymore, so keep an eye out for any change in that policy. --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:28, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Complex analysis

I notice you have deleted essentially everything I wrote about complex analysis in the complex number article. That's fine, as I really think it belongs in another article, and put it in there at the request of someone else, anyway. I do wonder, though, if you are still making modifications, or should I just remove the section "What about calculus?" It really serves no purpose there, anyway. Greg Woodhouse 15:12, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

I had not realized I'd done that; I'm now wondering if it's a software glitch. I was attempting to do only the things I mentioned in my edit summary. I'll go back and take another look. Michael Hardy 15:29, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

Ekhem, I noticed that my modest reworking of complex number was reverted too (see talk).. While I am fully open to change (and begging every native speaker for copy editing), I'd like to discuss substantial "logical" changes you propose before application. CZ has 0 unexplained revert rule :-) (but I'm taking into account what you've stated above)--AlekStos 17:30, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

Imaginary number

Hi Michael. It's good to see you here. However, this isn't only a social call. I got a bit confused when reading imaginary number, and it seems that your edit has something to do with it. Could you please reply at talk:imaginary number. Cheers, Jitse Niesen 05:36, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

TeX versus non-TeX mathematical notation

I replied on my talk page. --Catherine Woodgold 08:34, 6 May 2007 (CDT)


A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Approval of prime number page

I see that you made an edit to the prime number page shortly before it was approved, and from your edit summary it seems that you considered it an important edit that should be done before the article would be approved. However, David Tribe acted correctly, in my opinion, acting as constable, in puttnig the approval template on the version which had actually be selected by an editor as to-be-approved. For future reference, here are some ideas for things you might be able to do in such a case to prevent an article you consider faulty from being approved. I'm not sure what the procedures are (and they may not all be determined yet) so I'm not sure which of these things would be proper procedure for you acting as a mathematics editor, but here they are as ideas:

  • to delete the "ToApprove" template from the talk page of the article
  • to add your name as an approving editor and change the nominated version to point to the version with your edit (maybe only acceptable if you're confident that the other editors would approve the edited version)
  • to change the nominated version without adding your name as an approving editor (this seems less likely to be a correct procedure but I don't know)
  • to change the nominated version, delete the names of the other nominating editors and put your name as sole nominating editor (if you're not sure whether the others would approve of that version; maybe in this case you should also set the scheduled approve date six days into the future (or whatever the standard number of days is)
  • just to change the scheduled approve date a couple of days into the future, to allow time for discussion of your edit

I hope these ideas are helpful for future reference. I also had an edit reverted, at complex number, during the approval process; but I don't mind because I think it's important that proper procedure be followed so that readers can be confident that the version they're seeing has actually been approved by an editor. (In this case, mine was a minor edit, anyway.) --Catherine Woodgold 07:27, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

One more suggestion that I was going to make but forgot: you can try to get a new approved version of the article put up as soon as possible, with the part you objected to fixed. If you, Greg Martin and Jitse Niesen can all agree on a new version, the three of you can put if up immediately, I believe. (Jitse Niesen was one of the two approving editors for the page, I believe, although that isn't shown properly on the template yet.) You can take the first step by putting a ToApprove template on the talk page. --Catherine Woodgold 18:40, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

GDP deflator

Dear Dr. Hardy, would you mind taking a look at GDP deflator. Soso Mamukelashvili 12:23, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Pythagorean Theorem

Yes, speaking about the squares OF the sides is the way that it is taught in high school. As a math major, I was not introduced to the proof by the Ancient Greeks. In addressing a common layman that is reading the article, the explanation was confusing. The illustration helps greatly in showing the concept you are talking about. However, what you refer to as the "modern trendy" definition of the theorem, is a valid and widely used definition and application of the theorem when using numbers. If you were to ask 10 people what the Pythagorean theorem was, 9 would probably say "A squared plus B squared equals C squared" I think that it has value in the article. David Martin 22:34, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

If you ask a class of thirty students what the Pythagorean theorem says, a chorus in unison will say "A squared plus B squared equals C squared." Then you can ask them this: If someone had no idea what the Pythagorean theorem is about, and you tell them it says "A squared plus B squared equals C squared", will they then understand what it's about? If you further interrogate the class you might find someone admitting to knowning that it's about triangles. "Any triangles?", you might then ask them. Eventually someont might say: No: right triangles. This article should try to bring the reader beyond that point. Michael Hardy 22:42, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
I agree completely. I don't disagree that the formal definition and proof should be included or that the scope of the article should go beyond the "high school" definition. In fact, I admitted that I was in error due to not having the illustration to back up what you were trying to demonstrate. However, this article would be incomplete in my eyes, if it did not address the derivation from the proof that, when using real number lengths in a right triangle, the sum of the squares of the legs of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. David Martin 22:52, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Alphabet Soup

Great job Michael with the A, B, C index navigation - works really well, and thanks for following through and letting me know. --Ian Johnson 07:43, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Prime number

Hi Michael. I was wondering whether you would update the url in the ToApprove template on Talk:Prime number/Draft so that the latest edits will appear in the approved version. I'd like to have the addition of positive in the first sentence in Prime number/Draft included; the other changes are not that important. If you do update the url, feel free to add me as an approving editor. Cheers, Jitse Niesen 08:22, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

"which" vs. "that"

Nice to see that there is at least one other person in the world who shares my concern about this, hehe! Keep up the good work! (I just changed one in the lead sentence of Boxing.) Hayford Peirce 13:36, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Euclid's lemma

Hi Michael, I've just put a proposed update for the proof of Euclid's lemma on its talk page. Let me know what you think. Michael Underwood 13:58, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

22/7 (umm...) "controversy"

I thought the elementary proof that 22/7 > was fascinating, and well worthy of an article or place in an article. But that's not why I'm writing here. The almost reflexive comments from people about whether proofs belong in Citizendium articles, often making absurd claims about proof implying bias or "original research" is the sort of thing that has effectively deterred me from even trying to write mathematics articles. Maybe I shouldn't even be saying this, but when I looked at the talk page on your 22/7 article, it reminded me of the problem all over again.

A thought: Why not have an article about 22/7 that includes both the elementary proof and the fact that 22/7 is the second(?) approximant of the continued fraction expansion? Greg Woodhouse 13:01, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

TeX question

Dear Michael, I'm new to Citizendium (started yesterday) and ran into a LaTeX problem. Since I saw your name on a LaTeX help page I turn to you. But if there are proper channels to turn to please tell me and I won't bother you again. It seems to me that the CZ LaTeX does not recognize \begin{align} (and maybe other \begin{string}'s neither?). Do I see this correctly? Am I supposed to work around it (which is doable)?--Paul Wormer 05:44, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure there is an proper channel, unless you mean for a bug report. I think at some point I'll report the unavailablity of "align" as a bug. I think that's something like bugs@citizendium.org or the like. On Wikipedia I usually worked around it until "align" became avaiable. Some people use the "matrix" environment, which always used center-alignment where left-alignment was appropriate and smashed fractions into something smaller than they should be. So getting "align" certainly helped. Michael Hardy 17:46, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Subpage names

I moved the civil societies subpages back to their original names since the subpage template will not function correctly if the names are not exact. You should discuss the use of capitalised second word (such as "External Links" vs "External links") with Larry Sanger, since this is a style issue he initiated. It could also be brought up in the forums. It can be changed but there needs to be a discussion about this since if the change is made many other pages need to be moved too. Chris Day (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Electoral college

Michael - you added at the top of U.S. Electoral College that Maryland has adopted the National Majority Vote system, but did not add any discussion in the section on the National Majority Vote, nor did you add a reference for Maryland's adoption of that system. Could you please rectify that? Thanks, Anthony Argyriou 11:19, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

That section speaks of a plan that would take effect after adoption by a sufficient number of states. The newspaper article I saw about Maryland says that is how electors will be chosen in Maryland regardless of what other states do. I'll try to gather some more facts and then edit accordinly. Michael Hardy 16:23, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

prime number

I pointed out an error over a day ago. I'd have thought approved articles would be on priority watch, but there's no change in the article, & nobody's responded on the talk page, so I'm notifying you as approving editor. Fermat primes are 2↑2↑n+1, not 2↑n+1. Peter Jackson 11:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Returning to Citizendium: an update on the project and how to get involved

Hello - some time ago you became part of the Citizendium project, but we haven't seen you around for a while. Perhaps you'd like to update your public biography or check on the progress of any pages you've edited so far.

Citizendium now has 16,417 articles, with 0 approved by specialist Editors such as yourself, but our contributor numbers require a boost. We have an initiative called 'Eduzendium' that brings in students enrolled on university courses to write articles for credit, but we still need more Editors across the community to write, discuss and approve material. There are some developed Mathematics articles that could be improved and approved, and some high-priority Natural Sciences articles that we don't have yet. You can also create new articles via this guide, and contribute to some Mathematics pages that have been recently edited - or to any others on Citizendium, since you're a general Author as well as a specialist Editor. You may like to contribute to discussions in the forums, and might consider running for an elected position on the Management and Editorial Councils that oversee the project.

If you have any questions, let me know via my Talk page or by leaving a message below this one. Thank you for signing up and reading this update; I hope that you will look in on our community soon. John Stephenson 16:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)