User talk:Lambiam/Archive 9

Archives

Archive 1: January 2006 – March 2006 Archive 2: April 2006 – June 2006 Archive 3: July 2006 – September 2006 Archive 4: October 2006 – December 2006 Archive 5: January 2007 – March 2007 Archive 6: April 2007 – June 2007 Archive 7: July 2007 – September 2007 Archive 8: October 2007 – December 2007 Archive 9: January 2008 – March 2008 Archive 10: April 2008 – June 2008 Archive 11: July 2008 – September 2008 Archive 12: October 2008 – December 2008 Archive 13: January 2009 – December 2009 Archive 14: January 2010 – June 2010 Archive 15: July 2010 – December 2010 Archive 16: January 2011 – March 2011 Archive 17: April 2011 – June 2011 Archive 18: July 2011 – September 2011 Archive 19: October 2011 – December 2011 Archive 20: January 2012 – June 2012 Archive 21: July 2012 – December 2012 Archive 22: January 2013 – December 2015 Archive 23: January 2016 – December 2017 Archive 24: January 2018 – December 2019 Archive 25: January 2020 – December 2021

Reference for Bolzano-Cauchy-Weierstrass definition

Ah! You are right about the continuity references I used. I have taken them out. Evidently I inferred their work on the continuity definition with their work on theproof for limits. Thanks for your vigilance, Rhetth (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Some header issues to fix

• You need to actually specify a <span style="color:blue;"> around the desk names or they go ugly and purple once visited.
• Please put this back in. These containers make it possible for javascript to write to the page and skin themselves based on the header color (those colors were originally template calls) and read information on which desk the script is being called from. Anyway, me and at least a few other people use RD navigation scripts that break without a "jsplaceholder" container to write to.

<span id="jsplaceholder"> 
<span id="spplaceholder" style="display:none;">C</span>
<span id="refcolor0" style="display:none;">#eee</span>
<span id="refcolor1" style="display:none;">#f5f5f5</span>
<span id="refcolor2" style="display:none;">#eee</span>
<span id="refcolor3" style="display:none;">#aaa</span>
<span id="refcolor4" style="display:none;">#aaa</span>
<span id="refcolor5" style="display:none;">#aaa</span>
<span id="refcolor6" style="display:none;">#00f</span>
<span id="refcolor7" style="display:none;">#00f</span>
<span id="refcolor8" style="display:none;">#000</span>
<span id="refcolor9" style="display:none;">#00f</span>
<span id="refcolor10" style="display:none;">computing</span>
<span id="refcolor11" style="display:none;">Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing</span>
<span id="refcolor12" style="display:none;">Computing</span>
<span id="refaltshortcut" style="display:none;">WP:RD/C</span>

• Compare:

Welcome to the computing reference desk.

Welcome to the Computing reference desk.

--ffroth 16:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. The placeholders work- see WP:RD/TOOLS#User_scripts if you want to use them yourself. The "classic nav box" one was made by request, the CSMHLEM one for additional convenience --ffroth 21:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammar minutiae at average

Can you give an example of "...to represent ≠ tp [sic] be representative of..."? E.g., a case where "x represents y" is true (or false) when "x is representative of y" is false (or true). Incidentally, in the case of "...if all the numbers in the list were the same...", I'd prefer either that (the subjunctive), or "...when all the numbers are the same, ..." and would consider either both correct and grammatically consistent. The mix "...if all the numbers are..." is sloppy (but tolerable) to me. Pete St.John (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying at my talk.

1. You make a good point about the subjunctive; "if I were rich then ..." connotes I am not (in common usage), but "if I am rich then..." connotes a case. And yes "when" connotes time, so "in the case that" would be more precise(while wordier). These variations coincide when talking about the future, "if I were to agree with you then..." but we aren't. Common use of the subjunctive has changed some in my lifetime.

2. I'm less clear about the "representative [of]" thing, but there seems something to it; e.g., the tilde negates the operand, "tilde" represents negation, "tilde" is representative of nonalphameric characters. I would say that the average represents the list and the average is representative of the members of the list, but prefer the former because the average is not (necessarily) a member of the list. That is, while a tilde both represents negation and is representative of nonalphameric characters, the average represents a list but is not representative of the members of the list, because it may not be one. In any case, we could say "the average is a scalar that metrizes a quality of an unordered list of scalars" but we want to be simpler for the purpose in this article.

I think part of the difficulty is common usage (for the encyclopedia wording) vs conventional usage (in mathematics). But also part of it is me not thinking through the pedagogy thoroughly :-)

"Typify" (as you suggest at my talk) looks good, in fact that may convey more of the sense of "average" than "represent". But I'm happy to defer to your selection, you're plainly thinking this through and you are aware of my issues. And I appreciate the effort you are putting into making an article both comprehensible and correct, mostly thankless work :-) oh and I omitted signing above. Pete St.John (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine successor

I'd appreciate it if in the future you leave a comment before adding in disputed material - my discussion remains unanswered - please see the relevant talk page, if you will. Tourskin (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be seen as hard-headed here; I know it seems like a trivial matter. Tourskin (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Persianate

what is "Persianate" Mr. Lambiam?
what doeas "Persianate" mean?
what is the historical validity of this term?
what is the historical reliability of this term?
what is the historical ethicity of this term?
what is "x-ating" a nation?
how do you define the difference of a nation which is "x-ated" and "not x-ated"?

the existence of people using an "humiliating word" as a historic term does not mean it is legitimate to use it, even if those were so called scholars.

calling some people as "x-ated" is racism. i do not discuss it. how can you dare to say "those Turkish people were 'they are x-ated'"!!?

check out your vocabulary mister.

--Polysynaptic (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See Persianate society and the academic sources given in it. A good start would be: Said Amir Arjomand, Studies on Persianate Societies, (2004), p.6 ISBN 8173046670 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.83.133.161 (talk • contribs) 10:36, January 5, 2008 (UTC) – Please sign your posts!

User:Polysynaptic has nominated the well-sourced article Persianate society for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persianate society. He has also created an alternative article (Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni) to the well-sourced article Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī. This is highly disruptive editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.133.161 (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your languages

11 Eylül Gerçek Hareketi sounds better.

Every time I see you answer a language question I click on your nickname to check your Babel boxes. Alas, the only userbox I can see on your userpage is the weird Brussels sprouts one... Well, I was quite impressed after seeing that you apparently even know Turkish. May I ask how many languages do you know? It's even more impressing if you take into the account that you are a native speaker of English, and you aren't nearly as "obliged" to learn foreign languages as we are. --Taraborn (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass-Energy and De Pretto

It's not vandalism. I found some articles quoting the original paper, and what I said is accurate. It can only be supported by citing the original paper, but I don't read italian, and I don't think it would be of much use. If you can find a translation of DePretto's paper I will cite that, but until that time, your tags seem silly.Likebox (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and Wikipedia policy, but the source I found was very secondary, and the interpretation required was minimal. I rewrote that section citing the secondary source, and explaining in more detail the contents of De Pretto's paper. Unfortunately, I cannot find a print reference to an english translation of the original article.Likebox (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You are performing acts of vandalism with your tagging.Likebox (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I sourced the section properly, including references to all original material and historical discussion of vis-viva vs. kinetic energy. The sentence which you removed as "unsourceable" is indeed unsourcable, and must be included because such statements obvious to all in the field are required in order not to violate WP:Undue_Weight.Likebox (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I clarified and sourced the statement that you objected to, although the clarification and the sourcing seems to me to be redundant.Likebox (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your last message on my talk page had to my ears a patronizing tone, which was probably not intended. I erased it. I mean no offense to you.Likebox (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Boolean algebra task force

I'd like to invite you to participate in the Boolean algebra task force that I am forming. Despite the name, a task force is just an ad hoc subcommittee of a wikiproject to work on a particular issue. In this case, I think that our articles on various aspects of Boolean algebra, propositional logic, and applications would benefit from some big-picture planning of the organization of material into various articles. The task force would not require a great time commitment. The main goal is to work out a proposal for how the material should be arranged. A second goal is for the focus to remain interdisciplinary, including computer science, logic, and mathematics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Archimedes

Was Archimedes an ancient Greek figure? He is described in this way in Britannica [1]. It is true that Archimedes could not have met Plato or Aristotle for lunch, but the term "ancient Greek" was used to show that he was a figure from the period usually known as classical antiquity. We may be splitting hairs here, what do you think? --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my math question about Top Ten Lists! More specifically, for explaining in such great detail! Ye Olde Luke 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually put here at 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC).[2]

Oops. That's what cuttting and pasting will do for you. My bad. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken link for Vanished user

Fixed -- made absolute. Thanks for noticing -- I didn't think about how transclusion would affect it. One would think there'd be a way around that... Ral315 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

npov issue

Hi, I am writing because I stumbled upon a comment in support for Striver's work and thought you might be interested in a npov issue which I have been involved in for several weeks. Best wishes  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken_links_and_references

Lambiam, thanks for your comment, please see my reply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barefact#Broken_links_and_references.

I fixed one link you pointed out, how can I do it for others? Locate them... They have the same typo in there. Barefact (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you are most helpful, I will fix them tomorrow. Is Firefox a shareware? Barefact (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am most greatful for advice and the link, thank you. Could you educate me on what happened to my talk page? All previous discussions visually disappeared, but the history is all there. I accumulated a number of good advices there, and am using them for guidance when I need, much like your advices. Is it archived? Barefact (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Lambiam,

Thank you for the cookies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyale (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello mello

ayem sori, it vont heppın agen.i ll help im help fikirpedia, forever sait faik. Hacii (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Stroke Order

Thanks; where do the strokes start?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sinoxenic

Sorry, I meant sinoxenic and Sinoxenic. Does that change your response?68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ha ha!

"They are taking math as a compulsory subject". EXACTLY! COMPULSORY! they take because they NEED to! they don't have to like it for that to happen!

And I didn't threaten to continue adding "Many people hate math", I PROMISED to. A threat would constitute this: Me harassing or otherwise hurting YOU or Wikipedia in general, if the edit was removed.

So just so we're all clear, I PROMISE I will continue to add "Many people hate math" to Mathematics. thank you.

and I don't really give a shit if no one cares what my opinion is, because you were apparently the only one who did.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 5150pacer (talk • contribs) 19:58, February 29, 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Physics and Human Language

"To clearly discuss quantum theory, learn to speak the language of quantum mechanics."

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610131 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeganumber (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lost Forever vs. Permanently won - Byzantine-Seljuk Wars

Hey

You might think I'm here for an argument, but is there really a difference between saying that something is forever lost or permanently won? No, winning and losing are different sides of the same coin of war, permanent and forever are also the same meaning!

Concluding, the edit made was unnecessary, and to show how unecessary it is, I have left it with your edit intact since I do not wish to argue one wording over another.

Respectfully,

Tourskin (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your answer contains more detail than the average reader would care to notice, thus confirming my point. Tourskin (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol sorry for being a bit of a prick, but still I stand by what I said. Tourskin (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. I think that the meaning conveyed by both words is the same.

But assuming your definitions to be correct, I still have the point:

The Byzantine Empire is dead, it will never regain the provinces in Anatolia. Therefore, by your definitions, the prvinces are lost forever, eternity, because its gone. Now there is the highly unlikely possibility that Greece could declare itself an empire and being a nation 3 times smaller in people than Turkey, regain the lands, but thats not Byzantium. Byzantium is lost forever dude, and so her lands gone forever. Forever, as far as the forseable future allows. If you're arguing that forever means an absolute eternity that no one can forsee, then when can we ever use the term forever? Tourskin (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lost forever, perhaps (although there is a lot of future in which a lot can happen). But lost forever to the Islamic Turks, as you would have it? Will the Turks remain forever, will they remain forever there, in Anatolia, and will they forever be Islamic? I think not.  --Lambiam 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on dude. Your position is untenable. As far as we can see, its lost forever to the Islamic Turks. Yes times can change but thats speculating upon speculatoin that there will somehow be a chance for this to occur. You'll notice that the Greek Christian community in Turkey has been nearly eliminated, and the Constantinople church struggles to find suitable candidates that are Turkish citizens are Orthodox Bishops of high enough standing. Tourskin (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, my position is simply about the meaning and use of the word forever in English. Here are some examples of appropriate use of that word on Wikipedia articles:

• Fantastic Voyage (Kurzweil): The basic premise of the book is that if middle aged people can live long enough, until approximately 120, they will be able to live forever ...
• Immortality: In this physical theory, one could hypothetically live forever ...
• Judaism: Traditional Judaism maintains that a Jew, whether by birth or conversion, is a Jew forever.
• Ultimate fate of the universe: However, if the universe has a large amount of dark energy (as suggested by recent findings), then the expansion of the universe can continue forever – even if Ω > 1.

And here are some examples of use of the word "permanently":

• Dartmouth College Greek organizations: The College derecognized Beta Theta Pi permanently on December 6, 1996.
• European Champion Clubs' Cup: This trophy was awarded permanently to Real Madrid in March 1967.
• Mobile home: While these houses are usually placed in one location, often a rented lot, and left there permanently, they do retain the ability to be moved, ...
• TWOC: Since the taking need not involve an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the car, it is easier to prove than theft (...).

For each of these examples, replacing permanently by forever results in a sentence that sounds strange to me, for whatever reason, just like forever sounded strange to me in the sentence I changed in Byzantine-Seljuk Wars. I have tried to explain that I replaced a sentence that sounded strange to me by one that did not have that problem. I have also tried to anayze why it sounded strange, but that is a secondary issue. I don't understand the fuss you make over this, and least of all the hostile tone.  --Lambiam 10:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Apoliges for the harsh tone. Its still subjective in my opinion what is permanent and what is forever. Yes people who reach 120 could live forever in this book, but then again some twist in the plot of the book could change that. Tourskin (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My point is this: Permanent and Forever are the same in this context, because we don't know whats gonna happen in the future, so there is no difference. Immortals like Zeus and Hera in Greek mythology could have lived forever, but of course if you ever watched the TV series Hercules you'll know that even they have their weaknessess and deaths. Tourskin (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I missed that TV series – too busy editing Wikipedia :). Yes, they are (almost) synonyms, but they nevertheless have different dictionary definitions and can in general not be used interchangeably, as (I think) the above examples show. Determining which is appropriate in which context indeed requires, ultimately some form of subjective judgement.  --Lambiam 21:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that we have reached a conclusion that we can both agree on. It does require some subjective judgement, which I will leave to you, as I did when you last editted it. Lol, this may have seem like a pointless argument but I enjoyed it. Tourskin (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

Hi - I hope you don't really mean this edit and I'm truly sorry if I've driven you away. I do appreciate your input, and have created a draft new version including many of your suggestions (including a reference to Barbeau - great find!). I really am interested in your help crafting a new version. Perhaps collaborating on a draft rather than repeating the same points over and over on the talk page might be a more productive approach. Please rejoin the discussion. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Language Help Desk

Hi. I noticed your comment on the Language Help Desk. I wanted you to see my comment to your comment. I've cut-and-pasted the thread (below). Please respond at the Language Help Desk or on my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Latin phrase: "in cauda venenum"

Source and meaning of Latin phrase "in cauda venenum."? Related to Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.152.170.240 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. This phrase ("in cauda venenum") literally translates to "In the tail (is) the poison". Meaning ... the poison is always at the end. That is, "to save the worst for last." By the way ... the following thread appeared on the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk on August 22, 2006 (see below). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Per Wikipedia's List of Latin phrases (F–O): Using the metaphor of a scorpion, this can be said of an account that proceeds gently, but turns vicious towards the end — or more generally waits till the end to reveal an intention or statement that is undesirable in the speaker's eyes. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

That ought to be: "in the listener's eyes". (Or should that be "ears"?). I've corrected it in the article.  --Lambiam 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say "listener"? I think "speaker" is correct ... no? The speaker thinks that this is "bad news" and so deliberately waits strategically till the end to spill it --- independent of what the listener may (or may not) think of the revelation. In other words, before the speaker spills the beans, the speaker probably assumes that the listener will be rattled or unnerved by this revelation (because -- in the speaker's own eyes -- it is indeed rattling or unnerving information). After the speaker spills the beans, the listener perhaps may -- or perhaps may not -- be rattled and unnerved ... who knows? But -- in the speaker's eye's (from his perception) -- the listener should have been rattled and unnerved ... because the speaker himself found it rattling and unnerving. What do you think? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Occurrence

Oops ! I typed myself too quickly. I hope it won't occur again. Elagatis (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Trailing zero

Thanks for rearranging my speech. --Octra Bond (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Constant

An article that you have been involved in editing, Constant, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constant. Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomblue (talk • contribs) 22:37, March 7, 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MagnificentVisions.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:MagnificentVisions.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the indications on my talk page.

As you can see I did some serious rewriting of the Polynomial article, only to see that 24.96.130.30 had other ideas, reverted to her version and started adding to that, not unlike what I had done. I now know how to undo all her edits at once, but fear that this is not going to be so productive. Actually I think it is a good faith effort, but one that does not make the article much better (but I did learn what a hectic polynomial is, if only I could factor them...) Being a novice at Wikipedia, I am not going to mess with this anymore for now, I have better things to do. I just hope people will look at the old version, my modifications and those of 24.96.130.30 and try to keep whatever they consider best. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

These numbers seem to very suspicions [3], 2.5 millions Turks in Iraq? The source seems to be a non-academic unreliable website.--07fan (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Logical

I saw mention of this game over @ SharkD's Talk page. Should you be inclined to search for it, the only such title I can think of would be Logical for the Game Boy Color (readily spotted by means of Google, e.g. MobyGames). MG lists a slew of platforms for which it was released apart from the GBC, though I can't personally verify this is the actual case or that they all represent the "same" game. I'm somewhat surprised no one has stubbed an article for the GBC release, though. D. Brodale (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is he

Regarding the 'old acquaintance' ([4]), yes—it absolutely is the same individual. Tiscali DSL customers now also use IPs in the 79.76.0.0/16 range. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Magalithic geometry AfD

Hi, Lambian. I just read your very cogent objections to the keep closure of the Magalithic geometry AfD. Well done. Wish I'd known enough to have said that. Tim Ross (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mestee fix

Thank you so much for organizing and cleaning up Mestee. Lovely job. Mike Nassau (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi. The image that you removed from History of Nagorno-Karabakh is that of Azerbaijani girl. Azerbaijanis were called Azerbaijani Tatars in the Russian empire, the ethnonym "Azerbaijani/Azeri" became widely accepted later. So people refered as Tatars in Shusha have nothing to do with Tatar peoples of Russia. Please see Azerbaijani people for more info and restore the image. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no final opinion on copyright status yet, but the picture was taken more than 100 years ago, back in the Russian empire. So it fits the PD description. Grandmaster (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The image was explained to be a copyright violation (61 not 70 yrs for author and also uploaded from a site that holds copyright of the image) and our interpretation of the caption is considered original research. As for reverting the Shushavian noble, all I am asking is for a proper place I can check what Armenian and Azerbaijani users claim, and as you can see the "Azeri Girl" picture represents their lies and copyright violations. As an administrator who is supposed to fairly arbitrate, I call the matter to your attention.70.21.139.214 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The image of a girl from Shusha was taken in 1898. User:Kober kindly provided a translation from the Georgian version, which states the date of the image. Please see the discussion page at the commons. Also, I have a strong suspicion that the IPs targeting Azerbaijan related images belong to a certain indef banned user. I'm trying to get that investigated. Take care. Grandmaster (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Floozie?

That's wonderful. I haven't heard anyone say it aloud since my grandmother used it to refer to the neighbours' eldest daughter, who smoked cigarettes on the street, was seen on the front porch with her hair in curlers, talking to a boy, wore lipstick and said "youse guys", all without any noticeable shame whatsoever. The date - sometime in the late 1950s. Thank you for the chuckle. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for correcting me in the Persecution of Muslims article! AdrianCo (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction

An editor has nominated Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

x+2=x+2

Quoting [[5]]:

The domain of 'absolutely everything' is a moving target, leading to Russell's paradox. Bo Jacoby (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC).

Unless you use New Foundations, which avoids the paradox of having a universal set. --Lambiam 00:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lambian. It it not clear to me from the article on New Foundations what type the universal set is supposed to have. Bo Jacoby (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC).