User talk:Sadads/Archive 2009 October

Maths article

(I'll follow your lead and put all of this discussion under a new category - I guess that does make more sense!)

Hey, I do have a question for you now on something I'm a little puzzled about. I edited a mathematics article (Multiplier (Fourier analysis), but the technical content isn't important) to insert an "Unreferenced" tag. However, I also have issue with the content in that the definition differs from the one that I'm familiar with (and use frequently). The definition given does seem reasonable, and it's conceivable that it is correct according to other people's conventions, but without a reference, this can't be verified. I posted a comment to this effect on the talk page, but I'm wondering what happens next as it seems quite possible that nobody will read it. I don't want to change the article without some kind of consensus (even with, actually, as it would be a substantial rewrite). Any thoughts? Cheers... Tcnuk (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll try and follow up on them in the next couple of days. All the references I looked at so far do use the same definition as I do, but then I haven't really cast my net much wider than the bookshelf in my office, so I could probably try a little harder! Are people generally amenable to just being contacted out of the blue about random articles? Thanks again for helping me getting "settled in". Tcnuk (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to update you, I sent a message to the admin you suggested about the article, but haven't yet received a reply (I guess it's only been a few days). I've decided I probably won't bring it up on the portal discussion page, as the article is quite specialised, even amongst mathematicians, so the chances of pulling in someone with the right kind of knowledge seems slim. Tcnuk (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(By the way, I just looked at the page-view statistics for that article and they say it all really. Not surprising that the article isn't getting much attention... - ignore that comment, I was looking at the talk-page statistics by mistake Tcnuk (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Sub-Roman Britain

Thank you for the thumbs up in regards to the Sub-Roman Britain article. It was filled with errors such as contradictions and misunderstandings of quoted texts. I hope that my revision will help to ratify the errors therein. The Mummy (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)