CRGreathouse
By the way...
I saw your comment at Talk:Ubykh phonology, you might consider asking User:Thefamouseccles about it, as he seems to be the expert in that area. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 22:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on this AfD
Hi, I noticed that you made these comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Muawiyah I after the AfD was already closed. After the AfD is closed, there should be no more comments to the AfD. As such, I have reverted your edits to remove the comment from this AfD. If you wish to make new comments that may reverse the decision in the AfD, you may do so in WP:DRV, but only if your comments point out how the Deletion process wasn't correctly followed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- No harm done. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (in response to [1])
Greetings from Deathphoenix
Welcome!
Hello, CRGreathouse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
I noticed you haven't gotten a proper welcome yet, and wanted to correct the situation. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Request for edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Perpetual motion machine
Hi, I noticed you removed the "Perpetual Motion Machine" from the "List of Holy Grails". I am extremely unknowledgeable regaring physics so you may be dead right on this one, but could you explain why? I thought the key to "perpetual motion" (unlimited energy) was a kind of mythical quest scientists would love to discover. Lawyer2b 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, your edit summary didn't mention there was any discussion on the talk page. I should've checked there anyway. No further explanation needed. :-) Lawyer2b 22:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am find with it being removed. :-) Lawyer2b 01:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Question for you...
...on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America.
Hi, I'd like you to elaborate on your statement that you could find "only one reputable source" on State terrorism by United States of America. There are dozens of sources cited in the article, which one did you find reputable? (My question is posted on the AfD above) Cheers, Self-Described Seabhcán 09:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's quite moot now; the article is little like it was when I made that comment. I think it was a newspaper to which I referred. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 12:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, perhaps you will reconsider your delete vote. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's too far reaching. There are more references now, but also many more unbacked assumptions. I'm going to try to edit the article to redeem it, but it's still making unfounded claims as the bulk of the article. As for its new referencs -- I'm going to have to look through them to see if they're quality references or not. They may be good, they may be bad, I don't know. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Integer.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Integer.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Schönhage-Strassen algorithm
I have commented on your additions to the Schönhage-Strassen algorithm, please see Talk:Schönhage-Strassen algorithm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfg (talk • contribs)
Hugo Chavez
Please stop removing references: they will need to go back. You might not find them necessary: they are all there for a reason. Thanks, Sandy 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- You left a comment on my talk page about referenes in the Chavez article. I did remove a few references, but as noted in the summary most were simply consolidations. As an example, there was a paragraph with 4 references to the same work; I removed the first three and expanded the page range on the last to accomodate. (All pages were within about 10 of each other, if memory serves.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Specific page numbers to cite statements from books are required, particularly for FAs, which Chavez once was, and may be again someday. It is never good policy to remove references. Within ten pages of each other doesn't help a reader locate the exact cite in a book: exact page numbers for books are the norm, particularly on FAs. It is also a bad idea to begin consolidating/working on the article during a day that Chavez got the attention of the world and the article is being vandalized. Until the news settles down, we'll have to focus on reverting the vandalism: not a good time to decide to rewrite the article. HTH, Sandy 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- PS, I also couldn't understand why you were deviating from WP:MOS on the changes you were making to dates. Sandy 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I would very much like for the real work to be undertaken to really correct the major deficiencies in the article, but losing references is not the way to go. Also, adding content on Economics that isn't referenced, or that refers to another Wiki article for references, won't help. (You can't reference Wiki with Wiki - that's circular reasoning.) We have tried to maintain the article well referenced. Although it has content and POV problems, at least what is there is well-written and well-referenced: we should try to preserve that, while waiting for others editors to agree to work on NPOV - right now, they won't. You are right that the article needs major work: references don't add to prose size, and should never be deleted. Specific page numbers are the norm for books. Perhaps you didn't realize the article would get hit by all the vandals who finally woke up to who Chavez is because of his speech at the UN today, but your edits were sandwiched among some vandalism and unsourced POV that needed to be addressed - just bad timing for making changes. On dates, the changes you made weren't according to manual of style: there is controversy about whether dates should be wiki'd, but when entire mon dd, yyyy dates are wiki'd, you don't unwiki just the year. I know, lots to learn :-) Anyway, yes, I hope other editors will eventually recognize the importance of NPOVing, balancing, and trimming the article size: in the meantime, it's very important to preserve references. Cheers, Sandy 01:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't watch it either. I can just play Standard Chavez Rhetoric Recording (pick a number) in my head - no need to see/hear it again. But it sure hit the news, and we got a lot of activity on the article. "It seems every other (or every third) sentence goes from promoting one POV to another, and the whole is not well put together." OK, well, yes, that is true. The original FA was highly POV, and it's never been fixed. But since the majority of the editors there refuse to NPOV the article, it's not a matter of no one having the skill to fix the article: the majority of the editors there are blatantly biased pro-Chavez, and simply won't allow for the article to be written in an encyclopedic tone, reflecting NPOV. "There are many refs which are to unreliable sources, and I haven't even had time to read through a quarter of them. If you have thoughts on this I'd love to hear them." All of the Chavez articles are based on Venezuelanalaysis.com, which is not a reliable source, and should not be allowed anywhere on Wikipedia.[2] But, it will take an Act of God to get the pro-Chavez editors to acknowledge that, and allow the article to be written from neutral, reliable sources. Until the editors there understand that the article has to be NPOV, it won't happen. There are not good sources of Economic data, because Chavez fiddles the numbers. And, other editors use that to their advantage, to insert original research. The best that can be done while we wait for consensus to NPOV the article is to prevent further damage to the article. Sandy 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- GMTA ?? Don't understand why it was added. Sandy 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Great Minds Think Alike. By the way, I doubt that VHeadline is a reliable source. Sandy 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- The whole mess will have to be sorted out after the dust settles: everything was added in two different places, also. The VHeadline quote has no place, either, but I'd rather wait til everything subsides to begin to fix things. Sandy 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Great Minds Think Alike. By the way, I doubt that VHeadline is a reliable source. Sandy 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- GMTA ?? Don't understand why it was added. Sandy 00:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't watch it either. I can just play Standard Chavez Rhetoric Recording (pick a number) in my head - no need to see/hear it again. But it sure hit the news, and we got a lot of activity on the article. "It seems every other (or every third) sentence goes from promoting one POV to another, and the whole is not well put together." OK, well, yes, that is true. The original FA was highly POV, and it's never been fixed. But since the majority of the editors there refuse to NPOV the article, it's not a matter of no one having the skill to fix the article: the majority of the editors there are blatantly biased pro-Chavez, and simply won't allow for the article to be written in an encyclopedic tone, reflecting NPOV. "There are many refs which are to unreliable sources, and I haven't even had time to read through a quarter of them. If you have thoughts on this I'd love to hear them." All of the Chavez articles are based on Venezuelanalaysis.com, which is not a reliable source, and should not be allowed anywhere on Wikipedia.[2] But, it will take an Act of God to get the pro-Chavez editors to acknowledge that, and allow the article to be written from neutral, reliable sources. Until the editors there understand that the article has to be NPOV, it won't happen. There are not good sources of Economic data, because Chavez fiddles the numbers. And, other editors use that to their advantage, to insert original research. The best that can be done while we wait for consensus to NPOV the article is to prevent further damage to the article. Sandy 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I would very much like for the real work to be undertaken to really correct the major deficiencies in the article, but losing references is not the way to go. Also, adding content on Economics that isn't referenced, or that refers to another Wiki article for references, won't help. (You can't reference Wiki with Wiki - that's circular reasoning.) We have tried to maintain the article well referenced. Although it has content and POV problems, at least what is there is well-written and well-referenced: we should try to preserve that, while waiting for others editors to agree to work on NPOV - right now, they won't. You are right that the article needs major work: references don't add to prose size, and should never be deleted. Specific page numbers are the norm for books. Perhaps you didn't realize the article would get hit by all the vandals who finally woke up to who Chavez is because of his speech at the UN today, but your edits were sandwiched among some vandalism and unsourced POV that needed to be addressed - just bad timing for making changes. On dates, the changes you made weren't according to manual of style: there is controversy about whether dates should be wiki'd, but when entire mon dd, yyyy dates are wiki'd, you don't unwiki just the year. I know, lots to learn :-) Anyway, yes, I hope other editors will eventually recognize the importance of NPOVing, balancing, and trimming the article size: in the meantime, it's very important to preserve references. Cheers, Sandy 01:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- PS, I also couldn't understand why you were deviating from WP:MOS on the changes you were making to dates. Sandy 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Specific page numbers to cite statements from books are required, particularly for FAs, which Chavez once was, and may be again someday. It is never good policy to remove references. Within ten pages of each other doesn't help a reader locate the exact cite in a book: exact page numbers for books are the norm, particularly on FAs. It is also a bad idea to begin consolidating/working on the article during a day that Chavez got the attention of the world and the article is being vandalized. Until the news settles down, we'll have to focus on reverting the vandalism: not a good time to decide to rewrite the article. HTH, Sandy 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the POV tag: after vandal-fighting all day, I didn't want to risk another revert. Sandy 01:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- I keep meaning to ask you if you'd be willing to help review the WP:FAC and WP:FAR math articles: we can never get enough reviewers to come to consensus. For example, right now, we have:
- Euler (FAC)
- Ackermann function (FAR)
- You don't have to get involved in working on the articles: you just have to know math, and know the FA criteria, in terms of whether the articles should be promoted (FAC) or demoted (FAR). Sandy 01:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Vinogradov NPOV dispute
I am unsure if you were right to remove the NPOV tag over at the Ivan Matveyevich Vinogradov article. The tag remained there since the math achievements section remains a stub whilst the section on his Soviet system complicity is way longer. While I do despise I.M.V. for his behaviour outlined in the later section, I think that the imbalance mentioned above (and also is discussed on the talk page; b.t.w., I don't see how this has been addressed despite your check-in comment) is worth the tag kept. I suggest you either restore the tag, or, especially if you are good enough at number theory and history of mathematics, expand his math achievements/general bio. --BACbKA 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I did some minor fixes to your edit and posted my opinion on the article talk page; basically, I agree it should no longer be POV-tagged. My only request now is that you incorporate your book by Ball in the list of references as, if I got it right, you've just mentioned on my talk page you had your edit based on its contents. --BACbKA 07:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
OEIS improvements
Wow, you're right. I tried putting in "1, 2, 3, 4" and A27 came up as the first result. That wouldn't've happened as recently as a year ago. I think they've made the search engine give greater weight to sequences with the "core" keyword. Anton Mravcek 15:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)