User talk:Lambiam/Archive 11

; 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;

Meijer G-function disagreement[edit]

Changed your renaming of the integration variable in the second integral from z to y back to z: the variable is unchanged from the z in the first integral, just the function G(z) is here replaced by an equivalent G(1/z). In the third integral, however, the substitution z = 1/x has been made, hence a new variable name is needed. How about inserting a stub article on C.S. Meijer? Suitable Reference: B.L.J. Braaksma, In Memoriam C.S. Meijer, Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde (3), Vol. XXIII (1975), pp. 95-104. Martin (62.180.184.56 (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

What's your problem?[edit]

Hi Lambian,

regarding the Hilbert's problems wikipedia entry, I wonder what could be YOUR problem with the following edits you have made.

(cur) (last) 08:36, 28 June 2008 Lambiam (Talk | contribs) m (21,028 bytes) (rm irrelevant See also) (undo)
(cur) (last) 08:34, 28 June 2008 Lambiam (Talk | contribs) (21,061 bytes) (reduce overlinking) (undo)

"Irrelevant"? "Overlinking"?
FYI the entry "Hilbert's problems" is mentioned in "23 (number) [1] so I don't see how this could be considered "Overlinking[2]".
I don't understand as well why a "See also" in "Hilbert space" could be considered "irrelevant"... could you please give a reason for it? The notion of Hilbert space is one of the foundations of functional analysis so why not mention it in the page of "Hilbert problems"?
If not satisfied with your answer I will discuss the edits you made in the discussion page.
Thanks for your time.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intransitivity [edit]

I'm not happy with your latest edit. Your comment says the removed text was "confused" or "confusing" but to me (who wrote it) that text is essential to eliminate confusion. You've replaced it with repetitions of what is already explained elsewhere. If you don't understand my text, don't remove it but make sure it is clarified instead. Rp (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS after reading your comments, I'm happy now. You are 100% right as far as I can see. Thanks for the corrections! Rp (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DawkinsTYsmall.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:DawkinsTYsmall.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever is interested: it was removed from the article The God Delusion by a vandal and restored the same minute by ClueBot: [3]. So BJBot must have looked at this just in that less-than-60-seconds slot. --Lambiam 06:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Actually the page at Image:DawkinsTYsmall.jpg still states: "No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file", which is false. I assume that will eventually be automatically corrected. --Lambiam 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul guideline[edit]

Hello - you may be interested in commenting here. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

undo at Positive-definite matrix[edit]

In a recent edit at Positive-definite matrix you undid my changing the article to focus on the real case first and then move on to the complex case. Can you please explain this edit on the talk page. What I find odd is that the edit/undo doesn't change the organization but it is the only complaint about the article you make in the edit summary. Pdbailey (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Tagging[edit]

I consider it hugely improper that you didn't tag an RFC for discussion of an economic theory article with the RFCecon tag. I'm going to attribute that to thoughtlessness, rather than to malice, but either way it was out-of-line. —SlamDiego_←T 04:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jump Point[edit]

A proposed deletion template has b een added to the article Jump Point, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Terrorist[edit]

Template:Infobox Terrorist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Rogerb67 (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need a break[edit]

You edit summary for your recent change to the Manual of Style is uncivil and cannot be defended by reference to WP:SPADE, because the position was never a lame excuse. Few people would propose to punctuation block displays of graphics or of tables, even when these participate in sentences, and there is nothing particularly logical or obvious in the notion that formulæ should be punctuated.

Your handling of this disagreement has repeatedly been egregious. You could have encouraged participation in the discussion on the talk page of the MoS when I began it; you could have posted a fair summary when you began the RfC (which, in and of itself, was a good idea); you could have properly posted the notice for the RfC in its native class. —SlamDiego_←T 12:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]