User talk:Silly rabbit/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Pasting removed content into talk page

In the future, when deleting content from a page (case in point was Einstein) where the deletion could be controversial, could you be sure to move it to the Talk page? On a related but separate note, I read about your thread-mode style of discussion. I'd occasionally wondered about using an approach like that, but hadn't seen it formally described or used in practice. This will be my first time entering into a discussion under that framework, and I'm looking forward to trying it and learning from you as we look into the question at hand. --Ed Brey (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Method section

Ok. I know about the need for consensus.

There was no discussion, however, about the empirically false claim that scientists "never" claim absolute knowledge. Nor was there discussion when my first edit was reverted.Jncc0 (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Projective linear group references

Thanks for pointing that one out. It actually had an old error from Alternating group reproduced on it. For just PGL and PSL over finite fields, the book "Finite Groups" by Daniel Gorenstein is very good (near the beginning). Over general fields, the best reference I have right now is Grove (cited in article now). For a really elementary (and so not enough to reference the article) and very interesting (so worth checking out), is Alperin and Bell's group theory text (Groups and Representations, I think). Huppert's Endliche Gruppen, Kap 2. §6 is good if you read german, but it's just a more direct version of what is in Grove. I've found it quite surprising how hard it is to find good references for classical groups. Some simple thing like counting conjugacy classes are only in the literature for some cases (even Carter's giant book gives only a sentence or two and a reference to the papers). JackSchmidt (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

homeopathy

Hi there. Sorry about my silly edit of the homeopathy page. I read and re-read that quote several times and I could have sworn it said that there were no medical conditions for which homeopathy was not effective! I must have been really tired when I read that. Anyway, just thought I'd explain that (understandably confusing) edit of mine. Stuart.allie (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Grunbaum

A tag has been placed on Template:Grunbaum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning for Jane Fonda deletions

Hi SR, Thank you for tackling this. This article needs a thorough clean-up (and reorg of the structure to boot in my opinion with more attention paid to WP:MOS). In my view, this article was an egregious violation of WP:BLP, and deletion is the first resort not the last per that policy.

I didn't attempt to improve the text because I don't have ready access to any of the sources from which the text has apparently been quoted, and there were no in-line cites with page numbers for me to check. Again quoting WP:BLP, "[t]he burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."

Futher quoting BLP policy (with reasoning for my edits emphasized in bold), "[u]nsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles" - so I technically violated BLP myself by not removing the majority of the article in one edit and by giving notice on the talk page. Given the event with Ms. Fonda earlier this week, I thought a slower approach would be best as the page was probably more heavily visited.

When no one responded to my note about BLP on the talk page, I started deleting portions and sections that seemed most in violation of WP:BLP (rather than delete everything immediately as per BLP policy) with hopes someone would attempt to cite more info from the bibliography section. As it appears you are cleaning the article up I'll leave it alone for the time being. However, there are still a few troublesome areas IMHO.

1. The lead under the "Political activism" section and the "Opposition to the Vietnam War" and "Hanoi Jane" sub-sections need to be cited.
2. http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm doesn't appear to be a reliable source - it's apparently someone's self-published personal website (this is currently reference #11 - Jane Fonda, AKA Hanoi Jane).
3. References to the books in the bibliography really need page numbers as it will help editors verify the quoted sources when checking facts and references. This will help prevent another editor from coming through and doing the same thing I have done.

Regards --Roswell native (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your help. I have made a report regarding 3RR violations with the help of sockpuppetry and repeated personal attacks by this user.Ultramarine (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird edit

Not sure if this was a software fluke or something else, but this edit broke the interwiki link. Just letting you know in case you were running some sort automation or something. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Black–Scholes correction

See entry titled Elementary derivation in the discussion section for Black–Scholes.

Bahman Engheta 76.214.15.237 (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem.

Bahman Engheta 76.214.15.237 (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Gauss's lemma (Riemannian geometry)

Evidently you were watching the page. Good. I was about to drop you a note to say that although your comments were discouraging I thought it on the whole best to put the translation into the main article, adding your and other comments on the talk page, in the hope that someone (you?) might be provoked or inspired to write the more concise article that's really needed. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IPA

Hi,

I seriously don't think we need to cite pronunciations for words like 'Mars'. However, if you do, please don't change the transcription to something that contradicts the Wikipedia help key. Also, we don't need separate UK and US transcriptions, unless the difference cannot be predicted by speakers of those dialects. (RP speakers drop the /r/ in Mars, and US speakers drop the /j/ in Neptune, but a single transcription will work for either.) kwami (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unpleasantries at vector

Hi SR, it seems that not much can be done, just ignore him. Judging by the list of his "contributions", a typical troll with nothing to offer by the way of improving wikipedia. Arcfrk (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of support. I wish I could have just not fed the troll, but I was ankle-deep in it before I realized what was happening. I'm just going to stay away from it for awhile. Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Images of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Hey Silly Rabbit, Hope you are well. I have tried to delete the messages as muslims consider any images of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)to be against the faith. I have seen a few petitions on facebook and other sites to remove these pictures on wikipedia. Please try to understand the sensitivity of the Muslims about the issue and be kind enough to remove these images. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanvirchowdhury (talk • contribs) 13:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In-universe tag

Silly rabbit, Scientology is fiction !  :) (Hence the tag ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

About Muhammad Images

I'm sorry, but in my religion that is FORBIDDEN to show images of my Prophet (Muhammad).

except his face was hidden by something. like a cloth or "Muhammad letter in Arabic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indraemc (talk • contribs) 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)